[noemon]

Did I say that Muslim-Jewish relations are the same as Jewish-Christian relations, Noemon? Did I imply it?

Your tautologies are boring. Learn to face history for what it is and not for what you want it to be. I not only said that I also said that animosity between them is a modern phenomenon [and I rephrase since you play with the years] after the Jewish colonisation of Palestine. The only pogrom you found was after that date and was during the colonial regime of Iraq, which means that my statement is true. But that is not my main point either. So do you agree with my French/German-Muslim/Jewish comparison or not?

[Lightman]

Nope. I cited an example from Muhammad's time in Medina, for God's sake. And again, nope, said pogrom didn't happen under the colonial regime; the Kingdom of Iraq was independent, though the British had just (as in, a day prior) defeated the government in the Anglo-Iraq War. The pogrom was not carried out at the behest of the British.

As to the point of this entire argument: I don't think it's impossible for Jews and Arabs to live together in a single state. I do think that it's going to be really quite difficult to make a binational Israel-Palestine work, given the deep animosity that exists between the two peoples. Best case scenario, you get a state that looks something like Lebanon, and has the same threat of instability. That's why I think a two-state solution is more workable.

Anyway, I'm going to not bang my head against the wall arguing this shit.

[noemon]

You did not cite anything, you said that something happened, but never said what that was.

At the end of the day it does not matter, the French and the Germans are holding hands in peace despite the millions of dead, the Greeks & the Turks are trying to hold hands despite the millions of dead, yet you are stuck in a loop trying to manufacture historical hatred to justify ongoing hatred. History will not be kind.

[wat0n]

For this case before Aliyah.

Since the First Aliyah began on 1882, then one could consider instances of violence before 1881.

If so, one could include:

1. The attack on Hebron of 1517
2. The attack on Safed of 1517
3. The Safed massacre of 1660
4. The destruction of Tiberias of 1660
5. The looting of Safed of 1834
6. The Hebron massacre of 1834
7. The attack on Safed of 1838
8. The forced conversion of Jews in Mashhad (Iran) of 1839
9. The blood libel of Damascus of 1840

...Just to name a few

[noemon]

Hebron 1517, Safed 1517 can be seen as one single event.
Safed 1660 and Tiberius 1660 also a single event
Safed 1834, Hebron 1834 another single event.

On top of that in all these events, the Jews were not particularly targeted, but everybody was, even the Muslims and all these took place in the backdrop of war between Muslim factions(Ibrahim Pasha vs Ottomans or affiliates or Ottomans vs Mamluks), the victorious Muslim factions proceeded to plunder the properties of the losers indiscriminately including the properties of their fellow Muslims, so these events do not count as being religious hatred between the Muslims and the Jews. Plundering the properties of the losers was standard practice back then in the world.

Tiberias is also an example that does not really make your point because the Tiberias Jewish colony was founded, financed & created by the Sultan himself and its destruction has been attributed to an earthquake. The entire city was destroyed either way including the Muslims of the city.

Safed 1660:

Gershom Scholem writes that the reports of the "utter destruction" of the Jewish community in Safed in this time period "seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false." He points out that Sabbatai Sevi's mystical movement was active in Safed in 1665. Scholem also attributes to the "French trader d'Arvieux who visited Safed in 1660" an understanding of "the religious factor which enabled the community to survive," a belief "'that the Messiah who will be born in Galilee, will make Safed the capital of his new kingdom on earth'"[8] Scholem wrote that there was definitely a Jewish community in Safed in 1664–1667.[15]

This event might also be understood in larger Jewish-Persian relations. Many Jews of Mashhad, including chief of the local Jewish community, Mullah Mahdi Aqajan, served as British agents. This fact in addition to recent withdrawal of Iran from Herat in 1838 under British pressure, created an increasingly hostile atmosphere towards the Jews in Mashhad. [6]

British colonialism playing people against each-other...sounds quite familiar.

The Damascus Affair was when Jews were accused by the French of killing a French christian monk and some Muslims destroyed a synagogue in response, no victims in this affair.

Besides you have not considered the fact that if life were bad by the standards of the time under the Ottomans, then the Jews would not have picked up and settled there in the first place en mass in the 15th-16th centuries. Last but not least the Sultan or Pasha reacted to these events

For perspective, see what Ibrahim Pasha and his son did to the Peloponnese or what the Sultan did to Chios, where no-one was left alive.

[wat0n]

Hebron 1517, Safed 1517 can be seen as one single event.
Safed 1660 and Tiberius 1660 also a single event
Safed 1834, Hebron 1834 another single event.

On top of that in all these events, the Jews were not particularly targeted, but everybody was, even the Muslims and all these took place in the backdrop of war between Muslim factions(Ibrahim Pasha vs Ottomans or affiliates or Ottomans vs Mamluks), the victorious Muslim factions proceeded to plunder the properties of the losers indiscriminately including the properties of their fellow Muslims, so these events do not count as being religious hatred between the Muslims and the Jews. Plundering the properties of the losers was standard practice back then in the world.

The Jews didn't participate in the hostilities however, and indeed in some cases they were attacked by factions of both sides (e.g. in the case of the attacks in 1834). It seems Jewish lives and property were quite cheap.

The fact that Muslims were also attacked is not really surprising as these attacks usually took place when law and order broke down. Denying however the anti-Jewish nature of these attacks is like saying that the Crusaders were not particularly anti-Muslim because they attacked Jews from time to time too.

Tiberias is also an example that does not really make your point because the Tiberias Jewish colony was founded, financed & created by the Sultan himself and its destruction has been attributed to an earthquake. The entire city was destroyed either way including the Muslims of the city.

Yes, the Sultan himself lent support to the community yet some among the locals quote clearly didn't.

Safed 1660:

Not even Sholem denies that an attack took place, but only said that the casualties weren't as great as others said. I don't see why it doesn't fit your standard.

British colonialism playing people against each-other...sounds quite familiar.

How does this negate the antisemitic nature of forcily converting Jews to Islam?

The Damascus Affair was when Jews were accused by the French of killing a French christian monk and some Muslims destroyed a synagogue in response, no victims in this affair.

Besides those who were wrongly accused and tortured, you mean?

Seriously, what the hell? You cry of anti-Christian persecution when the recognition of a Greek Patriarch is delayed by two years because of accusations of criminal behavior by factions opposed to the newly elected Patriarchs, but shrug the above off? Please.

Besides you have not considered the fact that if life were bad by the standards of the time under the Ottomans, then the Jews would not have picked up and settled there in the first place en mass in the 15th-16th centuries. Last but not least the Sultan or Pasha reacted to these events

For perspective, see what Ibrahim Pasha and his son did to the Peloponnese or what the Sultan did to Chios, where no-one was left alive.

Oh sure, I don't think anyone has said Europe was better in this regard at the time, particularly the 15th and 16th centuries. It was way worse, indeed.

But Lightman does have a valid point, the relations between Jews and Muslims were not always good and, indeed, it got violent at times. The Muslims were still more tolerant (in general, not only with regards to Jews) than Christian Europe back then, however.

The Ottoman Turks were more tolerant towards Jews than Muslim Arabs during Ottoman rule, for a whole lot of reasons (including the fact that they weren't as insular as Arabs were, and that they exercised their domination over the Arabs, which naturally made the latter to resent Ottoman rulers and those they treated well - like the Jews - when they performed poorly). And indeed, the examples of violence against Jewish communities within the Ottoman Empire I posted all occurred in times of upheaval (for instance, they were still conquering the Levant from the Mamluks in 1517, in 1660 there was an ongoing Druze revolt in the Syrian Elayet, in the 1830s and 1840s they were dealing with the challenge posited by Ibrahim Pasha to their rule in the Syrian Elayet), and there was intra-Muslim violence, Muslim-Christian violence, intra-Druze violence, Druze-Muslim violence, Druze-Christian violence (this one was particularly lethal in 1860 and led to an European intervention led by the French in what is currently Lebanon). What that shows however is that the Ottomans were simply making sure that the Arab powder keg did not explode and threaten their regional order, something they could not do when the Ottoman Empire entered in decadence from the late 18th century onwards (and which became more evident as the 19th century progressed - with the Empire becoming more unstable and violence flaring closer and closer to Istanbul over time).

[noemon]

The Jews didn't participate in the hostilities however, and indeed in some cases they were attacked by factions of both sides (e.g. in the case of the attacks in 1834). It seems Jewish lives and property were quite cheap.

The fact that Muslims were also attacked is not really surprising as these attacks usually took place when law and order broke down. Denying however the anti-Jewish nature of these attacks is like saying that the Crusaders were not particularly anti-Muslim because they attacked Jews from time to time too.

Lives were pretty cheap, not just Jewish lives, everybody's lives were cheap including Muslims lives. And no these were not particularly anti-Jewish events as the Muslims were killed and their properties plundered, the Jewish victims were collateral in an intra-Muslim feud which resulted to the Muslim civilians suffering as much.

Yes, the Sultan himself lent support to the community yet some among the locals quote clearly didn't.

The Sultan did not lend support to the community, he established the Jewish community himself, yet you claim that Muslims hate the Jews by citing an example when the Muslim Sultan created the community himself.

I don't see why it doesn't fit your standard.

Because it does not fit the 'anti-semitic" conclusion for the Jewish historian either:

Gershom Scholem writes that the reports of the "utter destruction" of the Jewish community in Safed in this time period "seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false." He points out that Sabbatai Sevi's mystical movement was active in Safed in 1665. Scholem also attributes to the "French trader d'Arvieux who visited Safed in 1660" an understanding of "the religious factor which enabled the community to survive," a belief "'that the Messiah who will be born in Galilee, will make Safed the capital of his new kingdom on earth'"[8] Scholem wrote that there was definitely a Jewish community in Safed in 1664–1667.[15]

How does this negate the antisemitic nature of forcily converting Jews to Islam?

It doesn't but it was not an event that took place because of anti-semitism, it took place because the British played the Jews against the Iranians and the Iranian Jews actively and factually participated in this political game by actually serving as British spies. As I told you before in another thread, a lot of people have suffered before the modern era(the UN and all the humans rights conventions) by finding themselves in the wrong/losing side of history.

Seriously, what the hell? You cry of anti-Christian persecution when the recognition of a Greek Patriarch is delayed by two years because of accusations of criminal behavior by factions opposed to the newly elected Patriarchs, but shrug the above off? Please.

Please indeed, Israel was persecuting European Greek patriarchs in 2002-2007 to remove property from the Patriarchate as it has been reported by Haaretz(you can't pull off shit like that in this day and age and you can't expect from me being Greek and all to justify them), this Damascus Affair took place in the 1840's and you bring it here as evidence of Muslim hatred against Jews when in fact it was the French who accused the Jews of killing their monks and the Muslims destroyed a synagogue. Ok...and?

Oh sure, I don't think anyone has said Europe was better in this regard at the time, particularly the 15th and 16th centuries. It was way worse, indeed.
But Lightman does have a valid point, the relations between Jews and Muslims were not always good and, indeed, it got violent at times. The Muslims were still more tolerant (in general, not only with regards to Jews) than Christian Europe back then, however.
The Ottoman Turks were more tolerant towards Jews than Muslim Arabs during Ottoman rule, for a whole lot of reasons (including the fact that they weren't as insular as Arabs were, and that they exercised their domination over the Arabs, which naturally made the latter to resent Ottoman rulers and those they treated well - like the Jews - when they performed poorly). And indeed, the examples of violence against Jewish communities within the Ottoman Empire I posted all occurred in times of upheaval (for instance, they were still conquering the Levant from the Mamluks in 1517, in 1660 there was an ongoing Druze revolt in the Syrian Elayet, in the 1830s and 1840s they were dealing with the challenge posited by Ibrahim Pasha to their rule in the Syrian Elayet), and there was intra-Muslim violence, Muslim-Christian violence, intra-Druze violence, Druze-Muslim violence, Druze-Christian violence (this one was particularly lethal in 1860 and led to an European intervention led by the French in what is currently Lebanon). What that shows however is that the Ottomans were simply making sure that the Arab powder keg did not explode and threaten their regional order, something they could not do when the Ottoman Empire entered in decadence from the late 18th century onwards (and which became more evident as the 19th century progressed - with the Empire becoming more unstable and violence flaring closer and closer to Istanbul over time).

Yes I agree with this, this is a good summary. Lightman does not have a point though if he believes that Muslim/Jewish historical animosity has been the same or worse than French/German animosity or between Christians/Jews or Christians/Muslims.

And if all these people can get over their spats, then I do not see why Jews and Palestinian Muslims cannot get over theirs.

Let me add another example here, the spat between Bulgarians and Greeks, that's a bloody one, in this case we have ritual animosity, of impaling, blinding hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle-Ages and then moving on to the modern era we have 3 major wars, at least 10 skirmishes and yet now...EU brotherhood and even before the EU these 2 countries overcame very deep-seated hatred. The kind of hatred that never existed among Jews and Palestinians, so no the argument that "hate runs deep" and hence a solution is far away into the event horizon is non-sense, because a lot deeper hatreds have been overcome.

[wat0n]

Lives were pretty cheap, not just Jewish lives, everybody's lives were cheap including Muslims lives.

Not really. Attacking a Muslims would often lead to a retaliation, attacking Jews would lead to nothing because the Jews were unarmed and had no militias to dispose of (unlike Muslims) and had to wait until the Ottomans restored law and order, thus relying on others for providing security to them.

And no these were not particularly anti-Jewish events as the Muslims were killed and their properties plundered, the Jewish victims were collateral in an intra-Muslim feud which resulted to the Muslim civilians suffering as much.

It doesn't seem to me that the Jews were so thoroughly mixed with Muslims as to disallow distinction. On the contrary, the chronicles of the time actually show that they got their properties plundered and that the attackers aimed to attack the Jews.

The Sultan did not lend support to the community, he established the Jewish community himself, yet you claim that Muslims hate the Jews by citing an example when the Muslim Sultan created the community himself.

God forbid that I don't treat the Muslims as an über tolerant hive-mind but that I actually recognize that there were and still are different stances among them.

Denying the hateful elements among Muslims (both now and historically) is as silly as only looking at them like some do nowadays.

Because it does not fit the 'anti-semitic" conclusion for the Jewish historian either:

He simply says that the community wasn't destroyed. He doesn't deny that an attack took place however.

It doesn't but it was not an event that took place because of anti-semitism, it took place because the British played the Jews against the Iranians and the Iranian Jews actively and factually participated in this political game by actually serving as British spies. As I told you before in another thread, a lot of people have suffered before the modern era(the UN and all the humans rights conventions) by finding themselves in the wrong/losing side of history.

And so this suddenly means that it was okay for all the Jews in the area to be forcibly converted or that it isn't antisemitic to declare all Jews of a region as enemies because some cooperate with them.

Please indeed, Israel was persecuting European Greek patriarchs in 2002-2007 to remove property from the Patriarchate as it has been reported by Haaretz(you can't pull off shit like that in this day and age and you can't expect from me being Greek and all to justify them), this Damascus Affair took place in the 1840's and you bring it here as evidence of Muslim hatred against Jews when in fact it was the French who accused the Jews of killing their monks and the Muslims destroyed a synagogue. Ok...and?

Some Muslims seem to have decided to join the Christians in their scheme and actually attacked and plundered a synagogue yet you choose to just shrug it off (in stark contrast with the whole thing dealing with the delayed recognition of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs, which is not even remotely comparable).

Yes I agree with this, this is a good summary. Lightman does not have a point though if he believes that Muslim/Jewish historical animosity has been the same or worse than French/German animosity or between Christians/Jews or Christians/Muslims.

And if all these people can get over their spats, then I do not see why Jews and Palestinian Muslims cannot get over theirs.

Let me add another example here, the spat between Bulgarians and Greeks, that's a bloody one, in this case we have ritual animosity, of impaling, blinding hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle-Ages and then moving on to the modern era we have 3 major wars, at least 10 skirmishes and yet now...EU brotherhood and even before the EU these 2 countries overcame very deep-seated hatred. The kind of hatred that never existed among Jews and Palestinians, so no the argument that "hate runs deep" and hence a solution is far away into the event horizon is non-sense, because a lot deeper hatreds have been overcome.

Oh, of course the current feud between Israel and the Arabs can be put behind if both put their effort on it. I don't think Lightman was arguing otherwise but simply took issue with the idea that antisemitism is something new to the Muslim world. It isn't, and in the glory days of the Islamic world they treated Jews much better than Christian Europeans did.

Something I do note from your examples, however, is that in all cases (Germany and France, Greece and Bulgaria, also Greece and Turkey) both sides were ultimately divided and allowed to rule themselves rather than live in an unified state. What they do suggest is that maybe Israelis (Jews in particular) and Arabs (and Palestinians in particular) should each live in independent states, manage their own affairs and reach some arrangement that reduces tensions to allow time for wounds to heal.

As such, ultimately the most likely solution is for two independent states to emerge, and depending on how things go from there maybe a federation or alliance could be formed between them as relations improve. Of course, this requires compromise from both Israelis and Palestinians to accept and acknowledge each other's independence, and also requires that the moderates who are willing to compromise do not allow extremists to derail these efforts, by force if necessary. For all the strength of the Israeli right, I think Israel is still much closer to this ideal than the Palestinians simply because the Israeli right lacks the means to derail a treaty if it is signed, whereas the extreme elements among Palestinians do have the ability to do so (they can and would simply refuse to recognize any deal and would keep attacking Israel - just as they refused to recognize the Oslo process and launched suicide bombings against Israelis in the '90s), which makes progress basically impossible.

Israel can always leave settlements unilaterally (as it has done and should keep doing in the West Bank as it would improve things even if the IDF remains there and the occupation doesn't end, as the settlers are a source of resentment among Palestinians and, in the case of more ideological settlers or those who are close enough to Palestinians to be attacked by the extremists among them, violence), but it hasn't been able to disarm Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and the other armed groups - let alone the PA and Fatah.

Any progress beyond unilateral Israeli withdrawals from settlements that they do not intend to keep anyway is essentially impossible if the PA isn't the strongest Palestinian actor from a military perspective, unless Hamas and other groups change their position of non-recognition of Israel (which might happen at some point in the long run, but not now).

[noemon]

Not really. Attacking a Muslims would often lead to a retaliation, attacking Jews would lead to nothing because the Jews were unarmed and had no militias to dispose of (unlike Muslims) and had to wait until the Ottomans restored law and order, thus relying on others for providing security to them.
It doesn't seem to me that the Jews were so thoroughly mixed with Muslims as to disallow distinction. On the contrary, the chronicles of the time actually show that they got their properties plundered and that the attackers aimed to attack the Jews.

In the instance you provided, in the historical record it says that the Muslims of the city suffered and that the Jews were simply collateral of an intra-Muslim war, the loser Muslims had their properties plundered by the victorious Muslims and they were put to the sword all the same.

No distinction is made anywhere. The only distinction exists within your own brain, not in the historical record.

Denying the hateful elements among Muslims (both now and historically) is as silly as only looking at them like some do nowadays.

You cited Tiberias as an example of Muslim hatred against Jews when Tiberias the Jewish colony was built by the Muslim Sultan for the Jews.
And this is your response when this was pointed out to you.

He simply says that the community wasn't destroyed. He doesn't deny that an attack took place however.

He says the event has been exaggerated, that the conclusions drawn have been false and that the community was very much alive and well as has been reported by third-observers.

And so this suddenly means that it was okay for all the Jews in the area to be forcibly converted or that it isn't antisemitic to declare all Jews of a region as enemies because some cooperate with them.

No it doesn't make it ok, but it does not make it a special kind of hatred either as you are trying to pass it off, it makes it one of the millions examples of pre-modern history where a community through its leadership sided with the wrong side and ended up paying the price for it, it's happened a million times to the Greeks and other people and in many of these cases where a foreign community actively tried to work against their hosts by siding with a colonial power in the 1800's, the foreign community did not usually have the luck to stay alive and pay the price of conversion as for example the Chios people who were all put to the sword and were not given the option to convert. And what is even worse is that the Chios people were not even conspiring against anybody like the Jews of Iran whose leadership was actually British spies.

Some Muslims seem to have decided to join the Christians in their scheme and actually attacked and plundered a synagogue yet you choose to just shrug it off (in stark contrast with the whole thing dealing with the delayed recognition of Greek Orthodox Patriarchs, which is not even remotely comparable).

What Israel did to the Greek Patriarchs in the year 2002-2007 is far worse by comparison due to the moral standards of this time as opposed to the moral standards of the 1840's. The Greeks in the 1840's would be killed on the spot if they were accused by a Muslim so do not really see what makes your Damascus affair any special, the Jewish Rabbis in the 2000's do not have their bank accounts frozen in Europe to extract property out of them like Israel did.

Oh, of course the current feud between Israel and the Arabs can be put behind if both put their effort on it. I don't think Lightman was arguing otherwise but simply took issue with the idea that antisemitism is something new to the Muslim world. It isn't, and in the glory days of the Islamic world they treated Jews much better than Christian Europeans did.

You have not provided any example of antisemitism in the Muslim world, all the example your attempted to throw were all shown that they were not caused by antisemitism, the majority of your examples were not even attacks against Jews but of Muslims against Muslims with Jews simply being collateral.

Something I do note from your examples, however, is that in all cases (Germany and France, Greece and Bulgaria, also Greece and Turkey) both sides were ultimately divided and allowed to rule themselves rather than live in an unified state. What they do suggest is that maybe Israelis (Jews in particular) and Arabs (and Palestinians in particular) should each live in independent states, manage their own affairs and reach some arrangement that reduces tensions to allow time for wounds to heal.

None of these examples were countries divided after World War 2(with the exception of Cyprus which is moving towards a Single State, not 2-states) though when the world decided that it is moving forward in amity. And none of these examples continue ethnic-cleansing people as we speak like Israel is doing in the West Bank, none of these example involve politicians saying that x people need to be removed like Israeli politicians are saying about Palestinians, in none of these examples are people being treated as second-class citizens like non-Jewish Israelis are being treated in Israel. These are on Israel, not on Hamas or the PA and these are things that are maintaining and feeding on the hatred. Also never have any of these countries occupied people for such prolonged periods of time and not extended the occupied the right to citizenship, not even the Turks, only Israel has committed and is still committing such an injustice, yet complaining about a Jewish person being killed in Damascus in the 1840's because he was accused by a Frenchman. For real..?

International law says that Israel must go back to its 1967 borders. Once Israel does that, then conversation between the Jews and Muslims can actually take place. I do not see how or why any rational person/government would even discuss to someone that does not abide by International Law. You cannot haggle with something that does not legally belong to you. And besides the OP is not even putting forward a 2-state, but 1 purely Jewish state.

[Harmattan]

Noemon, if you were an Israeli, given that about every Muslim around the world wants to kill you, that Muslims around the world blame Zionists for everything from 9/11 to the oil crisis, and that western Jews are fleeing their countries to Israel because of the Muslims targeting them, would you risk your kids' lives by becoming a minority in a common state? Would you bet that suddenly everything is going to change and that your kids will be safe?

For me the perspective of a new Shoah is almost certain in a one-state configuration.

I long opposed Israel, I have no sympathy for this country, I think the current situation is like the Apartheid and a non-lethal ethnic cleansing. But in my opinion those who reject the two-states solution are either ignorant or antisemites paving the way for the massacre of millions.

[pugsville]

Since the First Aliyah began on 1882, then one could consider instances of violence before 1881.

If so, one could include:

1. The attack on Hebron of 1517
2. The attack on Safed of 1517
3. The Safed massacre of 1660
4. The destruction of Tiberias of 1660
5. The looting of Safed of 1834
6. The Hebron massacre of 1834
7. The attack on Safed of 1838
8. The forced conversion of Jews in Mashhad (Iran) of 1839
9. The blood libel of Damascus of 1840

...Just to name a few

some people are creating their own little version of history. fragmentary and unreliable accounts , polished with a view of todays politics. 9 attacks over 400 years. mostly the looting of wealthy homes during times of unrest, often by groups other than the majority Arab population. these articles exist on wikipedia soles to provide evidence for debates like this.

'..just to name a few'
is dishonest it implies there are many others that wat0n could name which is false.

[wat0n]

You have not provided any example of antisemitism in the Muslim world, all the example your attempted to throw were all shown that they were not caused by antisemitism, the majority of your examples were not even attacks against Jews but of Muslims against Muslims with Jews simply being collateral.

That's like saying that the Nazis weren't antisemitic, homophobic or antiziganist simply because they didn't only sent Jews to concentration camps, they didn't send only homosexuals to concentration camps and they didn't send only Romanis to concentration camps.

That's a thoroughly stupid argument, so was the stupid comparison between a blood libel which ended with a person killed and property plundered with the opening of an inquiry because members of the same community lodged the accusations and which ended with no measures taken as a result because no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Just because you dishonestly choose to refuse to read the primary sources as a way to justify your hatred is not my problem but it was nice to expose your intellectual dishonesty for what it is.

Also, limiting the right of cultural and religious freedom of the whole community because of the actions of some is hateful by itself even if it was what often occurred (yes, the world was a worse place then, no one has stated otherwise), the fact that these standards were lower doesn't change this fact either but simply shows how naturalized hatred and repression were in general. And no, no one said that Jews were treated worse than other ethnorreligious groups in the Muslim world either, but simply that this discrimination did take place.

None of these examples were countries divided after World War 2(with the exception of Cyprus which is moving towards a Single State, not 2-states) though when the world decided that it is moving forward in amity.

Since when did the world decide that? Unless the "world" refers to the West and the rest of humanity doesn't exist. Makes sense from those who believe in European superiority like yourself.

And none of these examples continue ethnic-cleansing people as we speak like Israel is doing in the West Bank, none of these example involve politicians saying that x people need to be removed like Israeli politicians are saying about Palestinians, in none of these examples are people being treated as second-class citizens like non-Jewish Israelis are being treated in Israel. These are on Israel, not on Hamas or the PA and these are things that are maintaining and feeding on the hatred. Also never have any of these countries occupied people for such prolonged periods of time and not extended the occupied the right to citizenship, not even the Turks, only Israel has committed and is still committing such an injustice, yet complaining about a Jewish person being killed in Damascus in the 1840's because he was accused by a Frenchman. For real..?

International law says that Israel must go back to its 1967 borders. Once Israel does that, then conversation between the Jews and Muslims can actually take place. I do not see how or why any rational person/government would even discuss to someone that does not abide by International Law. You cannot haggle with something that does not legally belong to you. And besides the OP is not even putting forward a 2-state, but 1 purely Jewish state.

Nonsense, discrimination was rather widespread in all those cases (hence the mutual hatred after all). And it was often much, much worse with attempts to limit the expression of their culture, religious freedom and use of their languages to name a few.

That you choose to deny this only speaks badly of you, just as the attempt to deny historical antisemitism does.

some people are creating their own little version of history. fragmentary and unreliable accounts , polished with a view of todays politics.

Noemon specifically asked for events prior to the First Aliyah, whose documentation is of course poorer than those which occurred more recently and which haven't been as thoroughly analyzed as those which occurred in the West simply because most historians on the matter are Western and thus it is natural for them to show more interest on events that occurred in Europe.

I'd also say that your (and noemon's) attempt to shrug these attacks off is most certainly motivated by contemporary politics, to the point that there is no debate on the antisemitic nature of similar attacks which took place at the same timeframe but which occurred in Christian Europe rather than the Islamic Middle East.

9 attacks over 400 years. mostly the looting of wealthy homes during times of unrest, often by groups other than the majority Arab population. these articles exist on wikipedia soles to provide evidence for debates like this.

Generally, antisemitic violence takes place in time of unrest and economic decline, be it in Europe or elsewhere. That isn't new or particularly surprising.

Also, the articles state that the attacks consisted in more than simply looting of property.

'..just to name a few'
is dishonest it implies there are many others that wat0n could name which is false.

No, it implies there are most likely other incidents which have not been analyzed like those ones I mentioned, partly because these incidents would usually be analyzed as part of something bigger (such as the broader political development of the region).

And indeed, the chances is that this was effectively the case. For instance, the Mellahs in Morocco were initially built so Jewish communities would feel and be secure from attacks by outsiders, before eventually becoming ghettoes.

[noemon]

I long opposed Israel, I have no sympathy for this country, I think the current situation is like the Apartheid and a non-lethal ethnic cleansing. But in my opinion those who reject the two-states solution are either ignorant or antisemites paving the way for the massacre of millions.

I wrote:

International law says that Israel must go back to its 1967 borders. Once Israel does that, then conversation between the Jews and Muslims can actually take place. I do not see how or why any rational person/government would even discuss to someone that does not abide by International Law. You cannot haggle with something that does not legally belong to you. And besides the OP is not even putting forward a 2-state, but 1 purely Jewish state.

Nonsense, discrimination was rather widespread in all those cases (hence the mutual hatred after all). And it was often much, much worse with attempts to limit the expression of their culture, religious freedom and use of their languages to name a few.

If you disagree with something from here....provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise your statements remain as usual...non-sense.

And none of these examples continue ethnic-cleansing people as we speak like Israel is doing in the West Bank, none of these example involve politicians saying that x people need to be removed like Israeli politicians are saying about Palestinians, in none of these examples are people being treated as second-class citizens like non-Jewish Israelis are being treated in Israel. These are on Israel, not on Hamas or the PA and these are things that are maintaining and feeding on the hatred. Also never have any of these countries occupied people for such prolonged periods of time and not extended the occupied the right to citizenship, not even the Turks, only Israel has committed and is still committing such an injustice, yet complaining about a Jewish person being killed in Damascus in the 1840's because he was accused by a Frenchman.

[wat0n]

Are you really going to claim that what I mention did not happen when the conflicts were still raging, before being solved?

Please

Also, I forgot: You said that nowadays single, unified states are being regarded as the way to solve these conflicts. This is manifestly false as the example of the dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia show.

And indeed it is telling that the very example of a single state solution that is being attempted (Cyprus) has not led to an agreement, with stability being held simply by mutual deterrence.

[noemon]

If you can provide evidence to something to the contrary from what I wrote you are welcome to, your straws and inability to distinguish between present tense and past tense is noted.

I have not suggested any solution as ideal but I have stated the obvious that for any deal to move forward Israel must return to the 1967 borders and seize its West Bank ethnic-cleansing.

[wat0n]

If you can provide evidence to something to the contrary from what I wrote you are welcome to, your straws and inability to distinguish between present tense and past tense is noted.

Nice attempt to cop out, too bad it doesn't really address what I wrote there.

At least it seems we put the claim that antisemitism did not exist in the Islamic World before the First Aliyah to rest.

I have not suggested any solution as ideal but I have stated the obvious that for any deal to move forward Israel must return to the 1967 borders and seize its West Bank ethnic-cleansing.

Israel needs to stop building settlements and begin repatriating settlers (at least in the areas that it doesn't even want anyway), but a withdrawal of the IDF from the West Bank will only be a result of a peace treaty. The experience of how its unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon (as recognized by the international community) did not lead to peace, it didn't even lead to the start of peace talks, shows that just leaving the West Bank doesn't guarantee anything at all. And the example of the Sinai, which was given back to Egypt and its settlements removed only after both countries signed the 1979 Peace Treaty, suggests that this is perfectly possible to negotiate while the occupation continues.

Indeed, the difference between Lebanon and Egypt is that the latter had an unified, militarily strong leadership that was willing to make a deal with Israel, while the former doesn't have a strong leadership, it doesn't have an unified leadership and those who want to make a deal with Israel are weak and have little power and influence in Lebanon. Palestine currently looks more like Lebanon than Egypt, unfortunately.

[noemon]

Nice attempt to cop out, too bad it doesn't really address what I wrote there.
At least it seems we put the claim that antisemitism did not exist in the Islamic World before the First Aliyah to rest.

For once again you have been caught misrepresenting the historical record for the nth time, all your examples were trashed and shown to be misrepresenting the actions of Muslims towards Jews, you even cited the example of Tiberias as an example of anti-semitism when in fact Tiberias was created by the Muslim Sultan for the Jews. Which is quite cringe-worthy. Last but not least, you are quite keen on calling people anti-semites when those same people(Muslims) applied equal or harsher maltreatment to their own people as well as Christians on the instances you provided, showing that these people were not particularising the Jews in any way, yet you take very little issue with the particularisation of Israeli actions against Muslims today.

Yes we can put this to rest indeed.

Then you also misrepresented what I said by insisting that the present tense that I used is in fact past tense, which was a cute attempt to a straw but like usual it failed. If there is something more particular you would like to discuss you can bring it forward by quoting the whole thing verbatim.

[wat0n]

For once again you have been caught misrepresenting the historical record for the nth time, all your examples were trashed and shown to be misrepresenting the actions of Muslims towards Jews, you even cited the example of Tiberias as an example of anti-semitism when in fact Tiberias was created by the Muslim Sultan for the Jews. Which is quite cringe-worthy. Last but not least, you are quite keen on calling people anti-semites when those same people(Muslims) applied equal or harsher maltreatment to their own people as well as Christians on the instances you provided, showing that these people were not particularising the Jews in any way, yet you take very little issue with the particularisation of Israeli actions against Muslims today.

Then you also misrepresented what I said by insisting that the present tense that I used is in fact past tense, which was a cute attempt to a straw but like usual it failed. If there is something more particular you would like to discuss you can bring it forward by quoting the whole thing verbatim.

I think I addressed all of these arguments (even your attempt of disregarding the case of Tiberias is pretty silly, even more so since the event I am talking about is its destruction in 1660. Likewise I did not misrepresent you as I stated quite clearly I was comparing the behavior of the respective parties only while a conflict was actually in place), will you add something new I wonder?

And again, that's like saying that the Nazis weren't antiziganist or anti-slav because they saw the Jews as the worst of the bunch and devoted special efforts to their destruction while devoting not as much effort in the physical destruction of Romanis and Slavs.

Or it is like saying that the Catholic Kings were not Islamophobic because they forced both Jews and Muslims to face conversion or expulsion after taking control of all of Spain in 1492.

That's just nonsense.

[noemon]

I do not see you addressing anything, the example of Tiberias does not show any Muslim antisemitism because the historical record says that it was destroyed by an earthquake and that all people inside it(including the Muslims) were relocated within the Muslim world. On top of that Tiberias was built by the Muslim Sultan at the request of the Jews.

The Nazis did not relocate people within Germany(they rather killed them), Nazi leaders did not react to anti-something events by sending their troops to protect the grievances. Nazi troops did not kill their own people like the Muslims did in the examples you provided. You brought here pogroms of Muslims against Muslims and pretended that these massacres were particularly targeted against the Jews.

Your attempts are non-sense indeed.

And it does not matter how you clarified your past tense to address my present tense. The fact is that you excused the present by comparing them with events from the past. No dear, we compare like for like, present with the present and the past with the past, to make appropriate statements.

[wat0n]

I do not see you addressing anything, the example of Tiberias does not show any Muslim antisemitism because the historical record says that it was destroyed by an earthquake and that all people inside it(including the Muslims) were relocated within the Muslim world.

The 1660 destruction of Tiberias[1] occurred during the Druze power struggle in the Galilee, in the same year as the destruction of Safed. The destruction of Tiberias by the Druze resulted in abandonment of the city by its Jewish community,[2][3] until it was rebuilt by Zahir al-Umar in early eighteenth century. Altshuler however attributes the destruction of Tiberias in 1660 to an earthquake.[4] The destruction could have also been a combination of both events.

The source states quite clearly that there was an attack on Tiberias and maybe the city was destroyed by the combination of both.

The Nazis did not relocate people within Germany, Nazi leaders did not react to anti-something events by sending their troops to protect the grievances. Nazi troops did not kill their own people like the Muslims did in the examples you provided. You brought here pogroms of Muslims against Muslims and pretended that these massacres were particularly targeted against the Jews.

You've got to be kidding, right?

The Nazis also persecuted Germans who opposed the regime (including those who were deemed as Aryans by them), and sent them to concentration camps as well, such as communists and priests. They repressed their own population, and indeed, did not hesitate to imprison or kill anyone who stood in their way, be they regarded as Aryans or not.