Ask a Jew! What the Heck, why not....?

You're welcome. I enjoy discussions regarding Jews and Judaism. It is my impression that most of humanity really doesn't know all that much about the religion of Judaism.

I also enjoy discussing history and Israel but, those tend towards more rancorous dialectic where I find that people look through the lens of history at what they want to believe...
However, that does lead to Marlowe's myopic statement: "but inevitably - such is their god's will - once again in their history - the Jews made the worse possible choice, which may be truer than he knows.
It certainly does appear to be G-d's Will to put Jews, currently an infinitesimal portion of the population of Earth; so small as to be statistically nonexistent - in the center of History.
It is quite amazing if one were to actually contemplate this fact!

 

One would have to be a bias bigot or a fool who refused to accept the genetic evidence that the Jews whom the Europeans took out of their homeland in 70AD are the same peoples who the same Europeans have now put back into their Israeli homeland.





NOTE:

Armageddon (or Har-Megiddon), a symbolical name:
a mountain or range of hills

megiddon megidd
meg-id-done, meg-id-do'
From H1413 ; rendezvous; Megiddon or Megiddo, a place in Palestine: Megiddo, Megiddon.

The Battle of Megiddo (less commonly known as the Battle of Armageddon and sometimes called Battle of the Nablus Plain by the Turks) of 19 September - 21 September 1918, and its subsequent exploitation, was the culminating victory in British General Edmund Allenby's conquest of Palestine during World War I.

British Empire forces made a massive push into the Jezreel Valley from the west, through the Carmel Ridge, then engulfed the Ottoman forces in the valley (mentioned as the site where the Beast's armies gather prior to the Battle of Armageddon in the Book of Revelation) and on the River Jordan.

When he was made a viscount, Allenby took the name of this battle as his title, becoming the First Viscount Allenby of Megiddo.


For religious people, the fulfillment of the prophecy of Armageddon could not be more clear than the Last and Final battle against the False Prophet ended in 1919 with the defeat of the same Ottoman Empire which lost the Promised Land in the Valley of Megiddo, no less than exactly the triangular piece of land where that battle was to take place.

 

Dont you ever run out of BS ? or question n youir sources ?

Has'nt it ever occured to you to question the so-called "genetic evidence " ? Who funded the "genetic study + its final report " ???

Have you forgotten - that he who pays the piper - call the tune ?

Gertcha .
Let me know when you come across / able to produce some credible evidence from an impartial(preferably -non-Jewish) source .

byeeeeee

 

Is it wrong to "blame" the Right for not only taking an Lord's name in vain, but carrying a Lord's name in vain for around a generation regarding our War on Drugs. Not only does the Right deny and disparage Intelligent Design "theory" by claiming a seed bearing plant is "bad", but only "original sinners" are the one's claiming it.

 

I agree. I didn't know much about it until fairly recently. I had always assumed it would be similar to Christianity and Islam. One thing I'm particularly impressed with is that Judaism seems more concerned with thinking for oneself, and considering different possibilities, while Christianity and Islam are traditionally more about following a literal interpretation of their respective scriptures.

What I think is that people believe what they have reason to believe.

For example, in the days of the British empire, British people genuinely believed that nobody else was as great as them, to the extent that they named the country ''Great.'' After all, it stands to reason that the most advanced group of people would have started the industrial revolution before anyone else, and as the British empire was the biggest and the latest, must have meant that they were the best.

Similarly, when Europeans first colonised Africa, they would have had reason to believe that white people were more intelligent than black people. After all, it stands to reason that more intelligent people would be able to develop their societies faster than less intelligent people, and the differences in society would have been obvious.

When you said ''Jews rule the world'' in the context of a volcano erupting being a divine message/punishment for Jews not doing as God wants them to do - or words to that effect, earlier in the thread, that tells me two things:

1) That some Jews believe that Jews rule the world.

2) That they have reason to do so.

This is also consistent with the logic of some Jews in Israel who believe that Israel's failure to conquer Lebanon was a divine punishment for Israel having handed the Sinai back to Egypt.

So if God sends messages/punishes Jews for not ruling the world as they are supposed to, that tells them to try harder next time, in doing whatever they believe the divine message/punishment relates to. And it's obvious that on the whole, Jews do generally try hard in whatever it is they do - which of course is an admirable quality for anyone to have. The harder anyone tries at being successful in whatever they choose to do, they more likely they are to succeed. Britain and Germany prospered more than France and Spain after the reformation, because the latter two were predominantly catholic, and so the protestant work ethic wasn't predominant. Any group of people who try harder than other groups of people is more likely to succeed.

So it perhaps shouldn't be surprising that in most walks of life, there are a disproportionate number of successful Jews. But what I see is people acting on what they believe, and thus giving themselves and others reason to believe it.

The same goes for the creation of Israel. The British government was made up of mostly Christians at the time of the Balfour Declaration, for whom Jews ''returning to'' Israel/Palestine would have been consistent with their religious beliefs.

It also shouldn't be surprising that Israel is the center of attention, even though it's a tiny little country. Just think of what is going on there - and I mean just the obvious.

It has long been unacceptable for white people to colonise African land, forcing the indigenous populations from their land and homes to make way for white settlers, taking the lion's share of the local resources for their settlements. And the middle east is far more advanced and developed that Africa is, yet that is exactly what Israel is doing in Palestine to this day.

So of course there's uproar in the middle east, and has been ever since Jews began doing the same in Palestine before Israel was created. Wouldn't you also expect uproar in Africa, if European countries decided to move more white settlers into Africa, and expel more indigenous Africans from their land and homes? However much uproar you might expect in Africa were that to happen, it's reasonable to expect considerably more uproar, in the more advanced middle east, as Israel continues to do the same.

Just as the British and other Europeans were hated by the indigenous populations wherever they colonised land, so too are Jews hated where they do the same.

The difference is that Europeans were under no delusion as to why they were hated, while many Jews seem to believe that they are hated simply because they are Jews, which is consistent with the belief that Jews have always been persecuted. By colonising land, they make themselves hated, and the hatred is reason for them to believe that Jews are hated because they are Jews.

So while I accept that you have reason to believe what you believe, I also accept that all the other peoples I mentioned had reason to believe what they believe. But like I said, all I see is people acting on their beliefs, and so giving themselves and others in their group, reason to believe what they believe.

Dusty

 

As you have taken the time and effort to explain your reasoning, I am going to parse out your post and try and refute some of the points you are making.

The way this reads, it appears as if Great Britain were unique at this period of time.
It wasn't. There were many countries that used the word "Great" to describe their expansion in garnering new territories. And, there were many nations that considered themselves the "greatest" nation at the same time as did Great Britain.
Great Britain may have had the largest empire in terms of sheer land mass but - Russia was a close second and, unlike Great Britain, Russia has successfully retained and colonized it's empire to this day. It's called Russia or, by some, Greater Russia.

You are correct, except that Europeans were neither the first to colonize Africa nor were they the first to turn Africa into a slave producing continent. The Arabs and Muslims own that particular honor and many of them were indistinguishable in terms of "color" from those they repressed and enslaved.
So, it wasn't a matter of "white people" and "black people," it was, as you point out, a matter of those of a higher technological civilization being able to conquer and rule over those of a lower technological civilization.
And that has been true through all of history up until this day.
Religion; ethnicity; or race have very little to do with it.
High tech always defeats low tech.

If you are referring to the last war with Lebanon/Hezbollah, that would be "divine punishment" for handing Gaza back to the Hamastanis.
If you are actually referring to giving back the Sinai in 1979 and the 1982 Lebanon War, I believe you are mixing your metaphors. Israel "won" the 1982 Lebanon War as its main goal was to oust the PLO from Beirut, which it did; and to secure the border with Lebanon, which it also did by supporting the South Lebanon Army (while Syria then invaded Lebanon and occupied the rest of it).
Israel did not withdraw its support from the South Lebanon Army and completely withdraw from Lebanon until 2000 (at which point it was attacked and has been ever since).

However, I believe you are misunderstanding my "natural disasters" explanation.
Jews most definitely do NOT rule the world - G-d rules the world.
However, Jews are responsible to do what G-d commands of them and therefore, according to my previous post regarding natural disasters, Jews are responsible for things that go wrong in This World if they are not performing their Duty to G-d as we are commanded to do...
Jews most definitely do NOT "rule the world," nor are they commanded to do so unless....
They are put in that position because they are truly doing what G-d Commands of them in His Torah.

Again, historically, this is not true.
For most of history, Jews have been conquered; oppressed; enslaved; murdered; ostracized; and forced to "convert" to whatever the mores of the land in which they were living.
Jews have more likely assimilated into more cultures and peoples, renouncing their Judaism and Jewishness, than any other people's on Earth.
It may appear as if Jews, as a whole people, work harder and are therefore successful but, this is not actually the case. What is astounding, of course, is how successful some Jews have been in spite of being persecuted and oppressed for most of history.

I don't know. I'd have to think on that.
Ostensibly, both Britain and the German provinces suffered far, far, far more than any other peoples or countries because of the Reformation. Northern Europe (Germany) was depopulated and destroyed, with millions murdered, while Great Britain killed its king and underwent a massive revolution that also wiped out a million or so, if one includes the Scottish and the Irish.
France and Spain were not similarly affected.
So - perhaps the destruction of Britain and Germany were responsible for their new rise to power?

But only in relation to the actual number of Jews in the world.
Far, far, far more Jews are unsuccessful to the point that they were wiped out or ran away from Judaism altogether.

No. The would have been the Americans at the time, and before, the Balfour Declaration. The English pretty much despised the Jews and saw them as a meddling, intransigent people who were pretty much to blame for the world's problems.
For a more pertinent study of this idea, I would suggest reading David Fromkin's book "A Peace to End All Peace," which is how the Allies created the Middle East during and after WWI.
The overall English attitude towards Jews and the official government attitude towards Jews, while it is not the major part of this book, is quite revealing.

I'm not sure what you mean here. What is "obvious" to me may be completely oblivious to you and others, and vice-versa.

I would suggest that your view of the above is based on what is called "media" and not on real history.
First of all, as I noted above, it was the Muslims and Arabs who colonized and conquered large portions of Africa and, based on your statement above, it is most peculiar that no one seems particularly upset that it does, indeed, appear to be acceptable for them to continue their murderous colonization, "forcing indigenous populations from their land and homes to make way for Muslim settlers, taking the lion's share of local resources for their settlements."
However, white European domination of Africa for 500 years or so and, the creation of white South Africa and Rhodesia is not comparable to a tiny population of Jews buying land in the Ottoman Empire and subsequently being denied the right to continue to do so by the British Empire, especially while 1/2 of the entire Jewish population of Planet Earth is being massacred.
Your simile would be more accurate if you were to claim that Europeans bought their land from Africans and then, let's say the former Muslim landowners decided to bar any more European settlement while wiping out the white population of Europe. And then, encouraged the Africans to kill those white Europeans who had settled in Africa and drive them into the sea.

As noted above, your similes are inaccurate to the extreme.
If you disagree, then you would need to demonstrate how the Jews were causing an "uproar" in the Middle East even "before Israel was created." That makes no sense. Jews expelled no one from "their homes" before Israel was created. They couldn't. They had no power and, no country.

As you appear to be sincere in your beliefs, I would ask that you actually read and study the history of the area of the Middle East now containing Syria; Lebanon; Israel; and Jordan up until World War II.
Your comparisons are inaccurate. Jews most definitely did not "colonize" the Middle East prior to the creation of the State of Israel in any way resembling the European empires and colonization.
You are buying into some kind of myth for which there is no basis in fact.

And, unless you can explain your "colonization" theory, why else do you think the Jews were "hated?"
You are basing your opinion of Jew hatred on a false premise.

However, historically and intellectually, I do not accept your beliefs in this matter. I do not think that you can support your theories on this based on actual history and facts.
But, I'd be happy to discuss it further.
Thank you.

 

"Jews are responsible to do what G-d commands of them and therefore, according to my previous post regarding natural disasters, Jews are responsible for things that go wrong in This World if they are not performing their Duty to G-d as we are commanded to do..."
What exactly God command Jews to do or not to do that affect the world? What duty is it?

"Jews most definitely do NOT "rule the world," nor are they commanded to do so unless...."
unless about......what?

"They are put in that position because they are truly doing what G-d Commands of them in His Torah"

What position? And why can't you spell out GOD?

 

I never agreed with anything what Marlowe said. And before you tell me now something about the importance of tolerance and the beautiful world we are living in: I also do not agree in any argument of any marathon bomber of Boston. Because I know the terror of some Palestians in Munich in the 1970ies I'm very shocked. I am a citizen of the world - and in my feelings I am a tearful citizen of Boston in the moment. My heart is with everyone there who suffers.

The internet is a good civilisatoric way to speak with people who are very agressive. The USA is a nation with a very high civilisation and culture - everyone should respect this nation.

I like the jewish religion - specially because Jews are never tired to explain that the rules of their religion are made for human beings. It's for everyone always good to be oriented in rules like "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYq3iON8KQ

 

Doesn't it seem that since we don't have wartime Tax rates on the wealthiest even for a War on Drugs, that we should still confide in the sincerity of Jesus the Christ regarding His views on the wealthiest, especially in modern, electoral times?

 

The point is that the British believed they were better than anyone else at that time.

Russia did not industrialise until around 100 years after Britain.

That is irrelevant to the fact that Europeans did colonise Africa, and they did come from more advanced societies and found far more primitive societies in Africa.

Name one country except Israel, where people from a higher technological civilisation are actively conquering land and moving civilian settlers onto that land, while expelling the indigenous population, today.

The point is that some Jews believe that God hands out divine punishments because of the actions of Jews.

Let's not argue semantics. This is what you said that I was referring to:

Therefore, some Jews believe that in the sense you have described, Jews run the world.

Is Rabbi Chaim Miller is telling the truth about what the Talmud says, or not?

Jews lived as a privileged class throughout feudal Europe, and had a monopoly on money-lending. They were persecuted and oppressed in the same ways that nobles and kings were persecuted and oppressed during popular uprisings against oppressive rulers. Jews lived under Royal protection, and were considered to be direct subjects/property of the monarch, unlike serfs who were the property of nobles. Here are a couple of examples.

Now for you to refute this, you would have to present sourced information which does so.

You seem to be conflating periods of history. Which king are you referring to?

Well of course it is.That doesn't refute the fact that in most walks of life, there are a disproportionate number of successful Jews.

That's besides the point.

I've read it, and I recall the chapter on the Balfour Declaration is brief and there isn't much about the British attitude to Jews. It is quite clear that the British considered European Jews to be a ''higher grade race'' compared to Arabs, on account of the Balfour Declaration alone. This is what Churchill said in 1937:

Now for you to support your claims, you would have to provide some sourced information which supports the notion that the British ''despised the Jews,'' and did not consider European Jews to be a ''higher grade race'' than Arabs, and other indigenous peoples with darker skin in parts of the world.

Well I'm primarily referring to the settlements in the West Bank. Do you accept that Jews are building settlements in the West Bank, and are forcing the indigenous population from their homes and the land that they live on?

It's basic history, and very real. You would have to provide sourced information, from non-''media'' sources, to refute what I have said. Just as I have provided non-media sources to refute what you have said.

Here is some info on the settlements.

Aside from the fact that Muslims were welcomed into many of the countries they invaded, this is the point that I was making. It DID used to be considered acceptable in the developed world for people from more advanced civilisations to conquer and rule over indigenous populations, moving settlers onto the land while expelling the indigenous population from their homes and the land that they lived on - but this is NO LONGER the case - except in Israel.

Jews bought only a tiny proportion of land prior to Israel being created. In any case, the point is not the land they did buy, but the land they didn't buy. And more to the point is that Jews continue to expel Arabs from their homes and the land that they live on, to this day. That land is in the state of Palestine, which was officially established in 1988, and is recognised by a majority of countries in the world.

Do you accept these facts?

For a start, here's a list of attacks committed mostly against Arabs, by just one Jewish organisation, which took place before Israel was created.

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

Here are some more sourced facts which refute your claims.

Now for your claims to have any credibility, you would have to also support them with sourced facts.

I have already read it. Which specifics do you believe support your claims?

I have demonstrated that Jews are currently colonising land in the state of Palestine.

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

According to the definition above, do you accept that Jews are currently colonising Palestine?

I believe what has actually happened, and what is actually happening.

Can you refute any of the facts I have presented, with anything other than your opinion/beliefs?

Dusty

 

It's not a matter of ''agreeing with'' the facts, you either accept them, or you don't.

 

The facts are simple.

The British won back the same land from the Ottoman Empire, in a fair, Winner-take-all-War, which the Roman Europeans had taken away from the same genetically confirmed Jews in 70AD, before they realized Jesus was God.
In 1919, the Bible prophesied Armeggeddon in the exact Valley of Mediggo as predicted the Europeans defeated the False Prophet Mohammed.
They fairly possessed the spoils of war, and they gave Israel a State to which they could claim the people of God ought have back.


WHo are these other people who have anything to say to the conqueror in 1919?

 

The British did not own the land, they occupied the land and administered the indigenous population.

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

No, if you do not own something, then it is not yours to give. The British did not ''give'' Israel any land.

They are the people who lived there, and who owned homes and land there. Just as US citizens live in the US, and some own homes and land there.

There's not much point in trying to refute documented facts with your unsourced beliefs and opinions.

Dusty

 

Fact? What do you call a fact? "Israel is real" is for example a fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pWnZFrdQFE

 

Those who were delegated that social Power in 1947.

 

Do YOU agree with the CATS that the Jews coming from Europe are directly related to those same Jews who were forced out of Israel by the same European??


Further study published in 2009 found new markers and better defined variant J1e* (now J1c3, also called J-P58*).
Thomas, et al. dated the origin of the shared DNA to approximately 3,000 years ago (with variance arising from different generation lengths).

This research demonstrates that 46.1% of Kohanim carry Y chromosomes belonging to a single paternal lineage (J-P58*) that likely originated in the Near East well before the dispersal of Jewish groups in the Diaspora.

Support for a Near Eastern origin of this lineage comes from its high frequency in our sample of Bedouins, Yemenis (67%), and Jordanians (55%) and its precipitous drop in frequency as one moves away from Saudi Arabia and the Near East (Fig. 4).

Moreover, there is a striking contrast between the relatively high frequency of J-58* in Jewish populations (»20%) and Kohanim (Jewish priests) (»46%) and its vanishingly low frequency in our sample of non- Jewish populations that hosted Jewish diaspora communities outside of the Near East.[6]

 

Absolutely...
Those SAME Europeans who had forced the Jews out agreed to send them back, after fighting against Islam which had conquered Constantinople and captured Israel by force in 666AD.

That same beast was defeated in the prophesied Armeggeddon right on the exact site of Har Megiddo in 1919.

The Palestinians who supported Hitler in WWI and attacked the new State of Israel, in 1948, lost their own lands fair and square when they chanced against the Jews in a gamble with the possible loss of Israel.

Cry babies, poor sports, liars, and the people who started what the jews finished.
Now they bomb in a extortion of the whole world to get the Jews out of their god given lands.

 

To be mostly honest with you; i really do believe modern conflict in this region has more to do with our US, warfare-state on a for-profit basis and would not exist if the wealthiest had to pay wartime Tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

This is pathetic.

 

Perhaps so or perhaps NOT. It depends on your definition of who those who call themselves "Jews" are -

Rev . 2:9 "those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan."

No perhaps they dont "rule the world " directly , however , they do excercise - enormous - disproportionate influence on the world's major powers - via various behind the screens activities.

They're supposed to be a "light unto nation" - hehehe - but have chosen a course to use trickery + fool the Goyim while they enrich themselves + continue worshipping their "Golden Calf ".

,,

 

Dusty -
You posted a rather lengthy explanation of what you think people believe and what they should believe regarding the Jews and Israel.
I addressed your piece based on what you wrote.
The main point I was addressing was your belief that the Jews colonized what was the British Mandate and the previous Ottoman Empire in the same fashion as other peoples such as the Europeans and the Arabs colonized other parts of the world - because that is what you stated.
I was refuting that argument, not that the Jews and Arabs went to war at the end of WWII.
Your entire response was what you believe the Israelis are doing today (and have been doing since the creation of Israel? I'm not sure.) to the Arabs called Palestinians.

I try and avoid addressing the current Israeli-Arab conflict as those who are opposed to Israel are rather passionate in their opposition and I have no answer that they care to listen to regarding their passion. For some reason they (you?) view the Jewish State of Israel as unique in its actions as opposed to viewing the entire planet and the actions of each people or country towards its own people or the people it is currently in conflict with and comparing that with Israel and the Arabs.
I have no answer other than comparative history and, I find that people who find Israel's behavior more deplorable than any other people or country on this planet don't care much for comparative history.
So, I have no refutation for your opinions on the current Israeli Arab conflicts. I find those discussions pointless.

 

Yes, but the facts refute your opinions/beliefs, as I demonstrated.

Nope, I didn't state that Jews colonised Palestine ''in the same fashion'' as the other people you mention. No two situations are exactly the same, so differences can always be found. However, it is evident that Jews today, are colonising land in the state of Palestine today, by expelling families from their homes and the land they live on to make way for homes for Jewish settlers. Just as for example, the British did in South Africa, WRT British settlers.

Yes, I explained what Jews called Israelis are doing to Arabs called Palestinians. I believe you had previously mentioned or implied that the reasons for anti-semitism among Muslims today is motivated by factors other than Israel's actions. So I explained, using sourced facts, why it is perfectly logical that such anti-semitism would be mostly, to say the least, motivated by Israel's actions. Just as hatred by any indigenous population against those who colonise their land, is motivated by the action of colonising land. You must surely concede the action of colonising land must account for at least some of the anti-semitism against Jews called Israelis, by those who's land they are colonising.

I mean, if someone came along and told you his god says your land belongs to him, and booted you out of your home and land, you would have at least some marginal feeling of hostility towards him, no?

Well yes, Israel is unique in that it's the only country in the world today that is colonising land for it's own civilian settlers, and expelling the indigenous population from their homes and the land they live on.

Comparative history doesn't justify anything. Just because some people did something at some point in our barbaric history, doesn't mean the same is acceptable now.

There are numerous countries which behave deplorably, in many different respects. Equally, some countries which behave deplorably in some respects, behave admirably in others.

I'm not sure why you think I'm ''opposed to Israel.'' If we were discussing the invasion of Iraq for example, and I was criticising my country's part in it, would you say I am ''opposed to'' my own country?

I'm not sure how you can honestly discuss the reasons for anti-semitism by the people who's land Israel is colonising and their allies, without considering the colonising of the land as a factor.

 

Why is any of this relevant? I mean, if you have similar DNA to say white French people, should that entitle you to go and expel a black French family from their home and claim it as yours?

 

I don't think you understood what I was trying to explain.
In answering your first post, regarding Israel and the Jews, I was referring to the historical points you were making such as:
"The same goes for the creation of Israel. The British government was made up of mostly Christians at the time of the Balfour Declaration, for whom Jews ''returning to'' Israel/Palestine would have been consistent with their religious beliefs"
"So of course there's uproar in the middle east, and has been ever since Jews began doing the same in Palestine before Israel was created."
"Just as the British and other Europeans were hated by the indigenous populations wherever they colonised land, so too are Jews hated where they do the same."
"The difference is that Europeans were under no delusion as to why they were hated, while many Jews seem to believe that they are hated simply because they are Jews, which is consistent with the belief that Jews have always been persecuted. By colonising land, they make themselves hated, and the hatred is reason for them to believe that Jews are hated because they are Jews."

I was not addressing the Arab Israeli conflict which, as both you and I note, began after WWII. It did not begin when religious Jews tried to make settlements in the "Holy Land" (of the former Ottoman Empire) during the late 1700's and early 1800's; nor when Yemeni Jews or mostly secular Jews began the Aliyah Movement in the late 1800's.
There is no resemblance to European conquest and colonization and Jews buying land in what is now Israel from the late 1700's (or for the other resettlement movements prior to the 1700's) up until WWII.
Your entire response to Jews and Israel is based on the war that began between Arabs and Jews after WWII; the establishment of Israel; and whatever has gone on between Israelis and Arabs since that time.

I was trying to understand why you think that the Arabs were justified in being "antisemitic" or hating the Jews or why you were accusing the Jews of "colonizing" and pushing "indigenous" people off of "their" land prior to the Jews and Arabs fighting and prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.
The Jews did not have the power or ability to colonize or push anyone off of anybody's land prior to the fighting that began after WWII.
Prior to that - from the late 1800's to around 1945, why are the Arabs justified in hating the Jews for the crimes that you name, which they could not and did not, commit?
I am not discussing the events after WWII or after the establishment of the State of Israel.
I am referencing your above points which seem to indicate some kind of justification for antisemitism prior to WWII.

Now, I disagree with you on this point as you can tell. However, as I noted above, I was not referring to TODAY, which you now are, I was referring to the antisemitism and hatred towards JEWS, not Israelis, prior to WWII.
The point is this - you are stating that hatred of Arabs towards Jews is as a result of Jews colonizing land and expelling Arabs.
So, my question is, if your belief is accurate - Why did Arabs start killing Jews and hating them BEFORE the Jews theoretically "colonized" Israel and "expelled" Arabs from their land?
What is the historical precedent for your beliefs?

Actually, I don't think I did. As a matter of fact, I believe I noted that the Arabs and Muslims are not inherently antisemitic at all.
What I did write that the attacks and hatreds against Israel are tools by various Arabist or Islamist factions to gain credibility and followers in their war against other Arabist and Islamist factions.
In Islam, this is called attacking the Far Enemy (any non Muslim people) in order to gain influence to attack the Near Enemy (which all "heretic" Muslims that you are opposed to).

Again, I don't think the Arabs or Muslims are antisemitic in the same fashion as were the Germans or Russians or Dutch or other European derived peoples.
The current Arab and Muslim hatreds against Jews are irrational and without cause.
The current Arab and Muslim hatreds against Israel are motivated mostly by politics and self aggrandizement by various Arab and Muslim leaders.
If hatred of Jews or "antisemitism" were the result of Jews colonizing Arab lands - why are there several million Arab Israelis in Israel? Why were both Iran and Turkey allies of Israel until they were taken over by Islamist extremism?
You are stating the historical root causes of Arab hatreds of Jews is that the Jews colonized their land.
I am suggesting that attacks and Arab hatred of Jews began long before Jews "colonized" Israel.

Of course.
However, from your objective vantage point, if my family were poor peasants who had been told by their leaders to hate Jews; and had been attacking these same Jews for the last 100 years; and had been murdering Jews, totally at random, in the most horrific manner possible, for the last 50 years - would you think that these Jews might want to remove those trying to murder them from being able to do so?
Or, do you believe that my family of peasants are blameless and should be allowed to continue their murderous ways?

Again, I disagree with your premise and your historical justifications.

Comparative history means a great deal.
It is useful to compare, in the same time period, from century to century; from decade to decade; from year to year, what one people are doing to themselves and others as compared to what another people (in this case, Israelis) are doing to themselves and others.
I'm not quite sure why you disagree with this.
I am not comparing "Now" to "Then," I am comparing Then to Then or Now to Now.

Because I disagree with your premise vis a vis "colonization" as I have stated above.

 

Dusty, you appear to be a reasonable person so I am going to again restate what I believe as opposed to simply answering my interpretation of your various points on Israel and the Jews.

Again, your original post that I responded to was about people's beliefs and why you think it is reasonable that Palestinians might be "antisemitic" (again, I wouldn't use that term but, you did) because Jews colonized their land and expelled them.

I was referencing History in my response because I believe in historical precedents.

My belief in the history of the area of the Ottoman Empire now called Israel and its relation to the Jews, goes something like this:

Jews had a more or less continuous presence in Jerusalem and other parts of Israel, since the Roman Diaspora. The only time Jerusalem was Judenrein was during the Crusader Kingdoms.
There were many attempts by Jews to resettle in Israel but, mainly because of the lack of civil law and poor farming conditions, they failed.
In the 1700's, religious Jews managed to establish several settlements in Israel, mainly in Sfas, Jerusalem, Tiberius, and Hevron.
With what is called the Emancipation in Europe, where Jews had more freedom and were accepted as citizens by some countries, mostly secular European Jews began to try and create new settlements in that portion of the Ottoman Empire (along with religious Yemenite Jews).
As the Jews increased in number and bought land, with the full approval of the Ottoman Empire, the Arabs began to perceive this new "tribe" as a threat to their established tribal way of life.
And THAT is where the conflict between Arabs and Jews begins.

The Arabs living in the various districts of the Empire - Jerusalem; Syria; Beirut; etc. were mostly relatively poor tenant farmers in villages or older fashioned nomadic families and tribes.
They were in constant conflict with each other; within their families; against other tribes and clans; against other Arabs; and against the Empire. It was a way of life - nothing extraordinary about that. However, when these new Jews; this new "tribe", started appearing and making waves, they were naturally fair game for these petty conflicts and tribal wars and rivalries. Raiding and killing another tribe or village was a way of life. That's how it went.
When the Ottomans lost WWI and the British took over that part of the Empire, they tried to "civilize" the various peoples of the region. The Jews didn't like it because, as you noted, they already thought they were more "civilized" than the Arabs and they felt that the British owed them, both as Europeans and as allies in WWI. The Arabs didn't like foreigner's try to impose their "civilization" on their way of life.
So, a resistance movement grew up against British rule by both Arabs and Jews.
The Arabs, in their efforts to influence Britain against the every increasing Jews, began attacking more vehemently and began using incendiary rhetoric against the Jews - which they borrowed from the British and other Europeans.

That's the setting.
Fast forward past the riots and massacres to WWII and the Holocaust.
Jews are now at War with the entire continent of Europe and the entire Middle East - both of whom claim to want to eradicate the Jews. The Europeans succeed. The Arabs do not.

The bottom line is that the Jews were, indeed, wiped out in Europe and, the Arabs did, indeed, lose their battles to wipe out the Jews in the Middle East.
The Jewish State of Israel was created.
And, the Palestinian State was Not created. What was to have been an Arab State was conquered by Israel; Egypt and Jordan.

And, this conflict has been ongoing for the last 65 years. One reason was that, until 1979, the Arab States, including the Arabs called Palestinians, refused to recognize Israel or accede that they did, indeed, lose every single war against Israel.
Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel and Fatach gives it lip service only.
Egypt may yet repudiate its peace treaty.

I would suggest that the historical precedents for the Israeli Arab conflict are embedded in the Arab culture and its constant warfare with itself.

Israel cannot be "colonizing" and "expelling" a people that are at war with Israel and have been at war with the Jews for over 75 years.