[noemon]

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

Nope, Rappel's general account of crediting the Druze with all the Galilee settlements has been discredited by Scholem. And on top of that whatever happened to those cities happened to both Jews and Muslims. Check the citations.

You've got to be kidding, right?

The Jews in all those instances complained to the authorities and the Muslim authorities sent troops to protect them, in all those instances Muslims plundered the properties of fellow Muslims following a victory without distinguishing between Muslims and Jews. Are you seriously claiming that the Nazis did not distinguish among the people that they persecuted? Are you saying that during the Kristalnacht, German-Aryan businesses were targeted?

When the Kristalnacht happened in those cities you put forward it happened by Muslims against Muslims with the Jewish houses suffering in the process.

What the heck are you comparing?

[wat0n]

Nope, Rappel's general account of crediting the Druze with all the Galilee settlements has been discredited by Scholem. And on top of that whatever happened to those cities happened to both Jews and Muslims. Check the citations.

Scholem is referring to Safed:

Gershom Gerhard Scholem (1976-01-01). Sabbatai Sevi: the Mystical Messiah, 1626-1676. Princeton University Press. p. 368. ISBN 978-0-691-01809-6. In Safed, too, the [Sabbatai] movement gathered strength during the autumn of 1665. The reports about the utter destruction, in 1662 [sic], of the Jewish settlement there seem greatly exaggerated, and the conclusions based on them are false. ... Rosanes' account of the destruction of the Safed community is based on a misunderstanding of his sources; the community declined in numbers but continued to exist ... A very lively account of the Jewish community is given by French trader d'Arvieux who visited Safed in 1660.

Even then, he doesn't deny that Safed was in fact attacked - it just wasn't only destroyed.

The Jews in all those instances complained to the authorities and the Muslim authorities sent troops to protect them, in all those instances Muslims plundered the properties of fellow Muslims following a victory without distinguishing between Muslims and Jews.

The authorities did try to act, yes, but these events occurred in times of upheaval, in which there was a rebellion against the authorities going on, and during a time in which the cities were beyond their reach.

Likewise, the attacks in those cases occurred in the context of a rebellion during which the Jewish communities were not even armed, let alone fighting either side. The Muslims could and did defend themselves as they had the means to do so, so no they are not really the same.

At least, the cities of Safed and Tiberias were predominantly Jewish so it's not like the attackers weren't aware of who they were attacking, anyway.

And please let's not pretend that the only hatred that matters is that professed by the authorities. Brutality is often exercised by those who lack authority to begin with.

Are you seriously claiming that the Nazis did not distinguish among the people that they persecuted? Are you saying that during the Kristalnacht, German-Aryan businesses were targeted?

When the Kristalnacht happened in those cities you put forward it happened by Muslims against Muslims with the Jewish houses suffering in the process.

What the heck are you comparing?

The cities of Tiberias, Safed and Hebron were predominantly Jewish at the time of the attacks. They were not attacked because the population was mainly Muslim with some Jews living there, but because unarmed Jews lived there and were an easy target in the absence of the authorities.

As for the comparison, I was simply pointing out that the Nazis did not persecute Jews only, in fact they did not persecute non-Aryans only but Aryan dissidents too. Of course, they were the harshest against the Jews, but that doesn't mean that non-Jews and even certain Aryans/ethnic Germans were not persecuted as well, just like the fact that Muslims were much harsher against many non-Jews doesn't mean that Jews did not face attacks from time to time.

[noemon]

Scholem is referring to Safed:

Even then, he doesn't deny that Safed was in fact attacked - it just wasn't only destroyed.

And Rappel is claiming the Druze for all Galilean settlements which discredits him and on top of that the the Barnay citation in the Tiberias article states very clearly that the Jews were collateral within a Muslim war('were caught in the middle'), not that the Jews were particularly targeted as you claim.

And please let's not pretend that the only hatred that matters is that professed by the authorities. Brutality is often exercised by those who lack authority to begin with.

No we should not pretend about anything and as such we cannot pretend that the Jews suffered because they were Jews, they suffered because they were caught in the middle of a Muslim war where Muslims suffered as much if not more. This is not comparable to the Kristalnacht in any meaningful sense and by pretending that it is you are only reducing the Kristalnacht not elevating Tiberias or Safed.

[wat0n]

And Rappel is claiming the Druze for all Galilean settlements which discredits him and on top of that the the Barnay citation in the Tiberias article states very clearly that the Jews were collateral within a Muslim war('were caught in the middle'), not that the Jews were particularly targeted as you claim.

Care to source the Barney citation? The Wikipedia article simply states:

Barnay, Y. The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine (University of Alabama Press 1992) ISBN 978-0-8173-0572-7 p. 149

Searching the word 'Tiberias' in the book, the closest I could find to the 1660 destruction of Tiberias is that the city was destroyed as a result of incessant wars (page 14).

Also your source seems to be a different book

No we should not pretend about anything and as such we cannot pretend that the Jews suffered because they were Jews, they suffered because they were caught in the middle of a Muslim war where Muslims suffered as much if not more. This is not comparable to the Kristalnacht in any meaningful sense and by pretending that it is you are only reducing the Kristalnacht not elevating Tiberias or Safed.

Well, of course Kristallnacht was different - it was sponsored by the Nazis to begin with, while the examples I posted occurred in the context of a rebellion and a loss of control of the territory in question by the authorities. The latter doesn't mean that they were not an instance of persecution - but it wasn't an officially sanctioned one, which is an important difference indeed.

[noemon]

Barnay, Y. The Jews in Palestine in the eighteenth century: under the patronage of the Istanbul Committee of Officials for Palestine (University of Alabama Press 1992) ISBN 978-0-8173-0572-7 p. 149
Searching the word 'Tiberias' in the book, the closest I could find to the 1660 destruction of Tiberias is that the city was destroyed as a result of incessant wars (page 14).

Also your source seems to be a different book :?:

I followed the citations from the article but both citations from Barnay confirm my point anyway.

The latter doesn't mean that they were not an instance of persecution - but it wasn't an officially sanctioned one, which is an important difference indeed.

The instances in Safed and Tiberias did not target the Jews because they were Jews, they targeted the Muslims first and foremost and it were Muslim wars where Jews were caught in the middle. That is also an important difference as well. These examples were pogroms of Muslims against Muslims and cannot be appropriated to pretend that they took place because of muslim antisemitism.

[wat0n]

I followed the citations from the article but both citations from Barnay confirm my point anyway.

Oh come on, that's rather vague. Incessant wars between whom, for instance? Why was the city attacked at that particular point in time? Etc etc.

Of course the book dealt with the support Jews in the Old Yishuv got from the Diaspora (as they were seemingly poor) so it is not surprising it does not dwelve with the details.

The instances in Safed and Tiberias did not target the Jews because they were Jews, they targeted the Muslims first and foremost and it were Muslim wars where Jews were caught in the middle. That is also an important difference as well. These examples were pogroms of Muslims against Muslims.

I have yet to see any academic work treating them as such.

[noemon]

Oh come on, that's rather vague. Incessant wars between whom, for instance? Why was the city attacked at that particular point in time? Etc etc.

It is not vague at all. The author clearly states that "the Bedouins, Druze and Maronites rose up and rebelled against the Ottoman authorities, the Jews were caught in the middle..."

Verbatim this is and not vague at all.

I have yet to see any academic work treating them as such.

You claim that these events took place because of antisemitism and the onus is on you to prove it as such, you personally claimed them as such without any historical support and yet the historians do not agree with you at all like the one above. As such you have no leg to stand on to support your claim.

[wat0n]

It is not vague at all. The author clearly states that "the Bedouins, Druze and Maronites rose up and rebelled against the Ottoman authorities, the Jews were caught in the middle..."

Verbatim this is and not vague at all.

This is what I see when I click your link:





Would you post an screenshot? That would make things much easier. I most certainly did not arrive to the same quote when searching Barney's reference on my own, but a screenshot would allow me to see what are you talking about.

[noemon]

Would you post an screenshot?

Certainly:




If you clicked on page 14 from the link, you would see it straight away, linking on google books sometimes is tricky.

[wat0n]

It is tricky indeed. Thank you.

But, that paragraph is neither here nor there. Sure, the Jews were caught in the middle of conflicts they did not really want to fight - but that doesn't mean that in each of the instances of attacks of predominantly Jewish cities they weren't deliberately targeted to attack the Jewish population there.

[noemon]

Your assumptions are cute, but they are just that.

You claimed that that these events happened because of anti-semitism, the historical record does not agree with your assumption, but if you have any academic evidence to the contrary you can bring it forward and we shall have a look at it.

[Lightman]

Noemon, five minutes ago you claimed that literally no pogroms had happened in the Middle East's history, now you're claiming to be an expert on what the sources say. Pick one.

Neither wat0n nor I are arguing that anti-Semitism was as bad under Islam as it was in Europe. Neither of us are arguing that Jews and Muslims cannot possibly get along. Neither of us are arguing that the primary historical basis of the relationship between Jews and Muslims was violence. But stop pretending to have great historical knowledge when you don't even know basic details about these things. For example, you continue to insist that the Farhud occurred in Mandatory Iraq; it did not. I don't even feel the need to cite that: you could simply google "Mandatory Iraq", and find the wikipedia article that tells you when Iraq became independent.

[noemon]

The sources are quite explicit themselves, and require no further interpretation by zionist apologists. If you have any examples of anti-semitism you are welcome to put them forward, appropriating Muslim atrocities against Muslims and passing them off as particularly anti-Jewish events is quite ridiculous and you should not do that because you are liable in getting caught misrepresenting historical data for once more just like in this case. Also it is historically unjust to the Muslim victims as well who suffered atrocities.

For example, you continue to insist that the Farhud occurred in Mandatory Iraq; it did not.

You can bang your head and your fists against the wall as much as you like but the Farhud incident happened after Iraq was colonised by Europeans and within the power struggle of German-aligned Iraq vs British aligned Iraq. It took place within the European narratives that were exported to the Middle-East since World War 1 and the incident itself happened during World War 2 and while project Israel was in full swing.

Your narrative that the Muslims hate you just because you are Jews and that all these colonial political events are completely unrelated is as ridiculous as it gets. It does not fly. Pure and simple.

If you agree with my statements regarding Jews/Muslims, French/Germans, Christians/Muslims then you can simply agree with me and get over with it, but you insist on trying to antagonise this notion with imaginary assumptions and ahistorical victimisation whining.

[Lightman]

Your narrative that the Muslims hate you just because you are Jews and that all these colonial political events are completely unrelated is as ridiculous as it gets. It does not fly. Pure and simple.

Stop putting words in my mouth. It's intolerable. I am one of the minority on this forum who consistently defends Muslims on this board. I do not bear ill will towards Islam in general, or towards Arabs or Palestinians in particular. I am making a very limited historical point, which is that pogroms and whatnot were not totally unknown throughout Islamic history - which is what you explicitly claimed. That does not mean all Muslims are anti-Semites, or that Islam is an inherently anti-Semitic religion, or anything like that. I mostly laud the history of Islamic tolerance towards other faiths (though, of course, pagan religions were not so well-treated).

I know you want to paint me as some rabid Zionist, but I am not, and never really have been. I am Zionist in the weakest sense possible, in that I think a two-state solution, one a secular republic primarily for the Jews, another a secular republic primarily for the Palestinians, is the best solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I condemn the occupation of the West Bank. I am even open to the idea of a binational solution to the conflict - which is an anti-Zionist solution! - but I am not really convinced that a binational state would be stable, either short- or long-term. I still hope for a future where the Jews and Palestinians will live in peace as neighbors, though I think the actions of both side's leaderships makes that increasingly unlikely.

[noemon]

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Listen, things are quite simple, you claimed that Muslims have historically been antisemitic, I told you that the Jewish experience in the Muslim lands has been a lot better than it has been in Europe, then wat0n brought in here historical examples of Muslims allegedly being anti-semitic, hoping that no-one will read their content I presume or simply pulling them out of a zionist handbook, unfortunately for you and wat0n I actually read the examples and the examples were not examples of antisemitism, they were in the large part atrocities committed by Muslims to Muslims during a war and the Jews unfortunately finding themselves in the cross-fire, events like that have happened to numerous people and numerous times in history but none of these people as far as I know appropriate such events to posture as victims in the modern era. Now you took issue with the fact that this was pointed out and the rest are simply self-explanatory.

I do not care how you market yourself or what you think I should believe about you, I believe whatever you lead me to believe but even I a Greek nationalist does not do things like that like appropriating foreign events and passing them off as anti-Greek, so if you believe that I am a Greek nationalist then consider what does that make you? It's a simple and fair rhetorical question for you to consider in your own time. Now unless you have anything else to suggest please do so, but neither I nor anybody else actually cares about your self-marketing here.

The OP is putting forward a 1-Jewish state solution and a European came here to suggest that "hate runs deep", I corrected that European, who happens to be French and whose country has created rivers of blood in Europe yet he is now pretending to be some humanitarian who knows about the "deep-hate" of others. Sorry but these crap do not fly and especially to someone like myself who knows Ottoman history inside out and around and telling a Greek person that the Jews had it exceptionally bad under the Ottomans is non-sense of the highest order.

You should read some books before you make any more, with Salonica City of Ghosts by Mark Mazower being one of them. It will hopefully change your mentality even if it is not a book that takes any one side and that is its beauty. Greek nationalists for example have been vexed by the book.

[Lightman]

It's not particularly surprising that you chose the one line to quote and ignored the rest, since your post is mostly a non sequitur given my post. You keep insisting I've made claims that I haven't made. Did I say anything about the Jews being worse off than the Greeks under the Ottomans? Did I say anything about the Ottomans?

You made a claim, that there had never been a pogrom in the middle east against Jews before the creation of the state of Israel. This is clearly factually false. Even if you think the people attacking Jews weren't motivated by explicitly anti-Jewish sentiment, the fact remains that non-combatant Jewish communities were at times massacred in the middle East. I am sure there are examples of Jews doing the same to Muslims - I know there were ethnic massacres on both sides during the establishment of Israel, and they are utterly deplorable. I don't see why recognition of history is incompatible with criticism of the Israeli government, support of Palestinian self-determination, and condemnation of the occupation. I resent you continuing to insinuate that I took positions that I explicitly have not.

[noemon]

You explicitly disagreed with my comparison of Muslim/Jews, French/Germans, by saying no and then ranting about events out of your own head, you explicitly supported wat0n's arguments who explicitly argued that these events were particularly antisemitic when in fact they were shown to not be and you took issue with that, so do not see why you are denying the obvious? And of course you are also intentionally misrepresenting my argument by nit-picking it which is dishonest at best malicious at worst.

At the end of the day if you agree with my assessment why are you still talking? The reason I chose that one line is because only that one line was particularly relevant, the way that you promote yourself in here is not really relevant and stating the obvious tautologically does not make you something special or praise-worthy.

My point has been clearly made numerous times and if you agree with my point that Jews/Muslims have had a historically better experience of coexistence than say the French/Germans or the Christians/Muslims or the Christians/Jews then I do not see why are you still arguing with me? Do you?

As for "pogrom" since you insist:

Abramson wrote that "in mainstream usage the word has come to imply an act of antisemitism", since whilst "Jews have not been the only group to suffer under this phenomenon ... historically Jews have been frequent victims of such violence".[9]

These events cited here were not acts caused by anti-semitism they were largely Muslim atrocities against Muslims with the Jews getting caught in the middle. So my argument stands as it were.

[pugsville]

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).

you are assuming that there are many other incidents of which you have no knowledge of what so ever. your statement .. just to name a few, pretty much implies you have knowledge of many others which you could name, you cant . you are unaware of many other attacks.

what is the proof that these attacks were motivated by some racial feeling. the jews could just have been a visible relatively wealthy minority with no protectors. that could have been targeted because they were vulnerable targets. the documentation is extremely fragmentary. that have been presented as a narrative which is not supported by the documentation.

you claim there 'must have been' or something similar. this is you believe in a long history of anti semitic attacks in the middle east and were cutting the facts to fit your belief.


the idea that dislike of modern Israel and jews in the middle east is in very large part a product of the history of Israel and the interactions between the colonisers and the native people.

this argument that the arabs have always hated the jews and the arabs were always had an always will have unreasonable hatred is rubbish.

[wat0n]

you are assuming that there are many other incidents of which you have no knowledge of what so ever. your statement .. just to name a few, pretty much implies you have knowledge of many others which you could name, you cant . you are unaware of many other attacks.

On the contrary, it is most certainly true that there were others. As I mentioned, the Jews of Morocco initially built the Mellahs as a way to protect themselves (firstly in Fez then elsewhere too). And, yes, the Jews of Morocco did face violence by Muslims before 1882 (an example)

what is the proof that these attacks were motivated by some racial feeling. the jews could just have been a visible relatively wealthy minority with no protectors. that could have been targeted because they were vulnerable targets. the documentation is extremely fragmentary. that have been presented as a narrative which is not supported by the documentation.

Have you ever thought that they were vulnerable precisely because they were Jews and, as such, weren't allowed to arm themselves? Have you considered the possibility that their Jewishness left them isolated whenever ethniantisemiticous violence flared in the region?

you claim there 'must have been' or something similar. this is you believe in a long history of anti semitic attacks in the middle east and were cutting the facts to fit your belief.

No, I claimed there have indeed been attacks against Jews by Muslims before 1882 and that these were antisemitic because they would have not happened to Muslims.

That said, and which I mentioned too, there were also plenty of times of good relations between Jews and Muslims and the latter treated the Jews much better than European Christians, overall. Violence would generally flare in the context of generalized instability and warfare, when the ability of the Ottomans to govern the region was diminished.

the idea that dislike of modern Israel and jews in the middle east is in very large part a product of the history of Israel and the interactions between the colonisers and the native people.

this argument that the arabs have always hated the jews and the arabs were always had an always will have unreasonable hatred is rubbish.

It is indeed, thankfully I did not claim that. I have claimed elsewhere however that the past violence, and the fact that Jews were generally not in a position to defend themselves or extract a cost on the attackers (along with their second class status as dhimmis), most certainly helped to shape the modern relations between Jews and Muslims and that this kost certainly plays a role in the antisemitism among some Muslims (who are of course the more extreme ones and have plenty of hatred to share), though of course it is not the only factor.

And no, it is most certainly possible for Jews and Muslims to be in good relations eventually, at least the vast majority of both.

@noemon: Honestly, insisting in your nonsense at this point is sad and ridiculous. Lightman is right, you are just answering to a straw man you set up.

[noemon]

On the contrary, it is most certainly true that there were others. As I mentioned, the Jews of Morocco initially built the Mellahs as a way to protect themselves (firstly in Fez then elsewhere too). And, yes, the Jews of Morocco did face violence by Muslims before 1882 (an example)

The 1465 Moroccan revolt refers to a popular revolt by local Sharifs in Fes who overthrew the last Marinid sultan.[1] The revolt marked the end of a 215-year reign. The sharifs formed a jihad, against the last Marinid leader, a Jewish vizir, Aaron ben Batash, appointed by Abu Muhammad Abd Al-Haqq. They subsequently put him to death, cutting his throat. Almost all the Jewish community of Fes were also slaughtered in the revolt.[2] As a result of the troubles in Fes, the Portuguese king Afonso V finally managed to take Tangier.

Let me guess then that all the conquests in the world that have taken place in history had anti-something hatred written all over them, or does it apply only when the conquered happen to be Jews acting on the name of Muslims and appointed by Muslims?

Have you ever thought that they were vulnerable precisely because they were Jews and, as such, weren't allowed to arm themselves? Have you considered the possibility that their Jewishness left them isolated whenever ethniantisemiticous violence flared in the region?

Straw, none of the dhimmies in the Muslim world were allowed to arm themselves not just the Jews, but also the Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, etcetera. And the example you provided above refers to a revolt against a Jewish leader who had arms and the entire force of the Marinid Sultanate at his disposal.
The real mackoy here is that the Jews voluntarily accepted these terms and settled en mass in the Ottoman Empire after their own request, they were not subjected to these terms by force like the rest, which makes your "antisemitic" claims all the more cringeworthy.

No, I claimed there have indeed been attacks against Jews by Muslims before 1882 and that these were antisemitic because they would have not happened to Muslims.

You have yet to provide a single incident where something happened because of anti-semitism. If you ever come up with something, we can examine it.

It is indeed, thankfully I did not claim that.

You claimed that these incidents were motivated by anti-semitism:

They were not attacked because the population was mainly Muslim with some Jews living there, but because unarmed Jews lived there

No, these cities were attacked because they belonged to the Muslim faction that lost the war by the victorious Muslim faction and the victorious ones proceeded to slaughter and plunder the Muslims, Jews happened to find themselves in the middle of the cross-fire and none of that was motivated by anti-semitism but by standard plunder procedure applied indiscriminately as was the case before the Human Rights Conventions which you so flagrantly have tried time and again to diminish. At some point you even went as far as to deny due process altogether in order to enable Israelis to detain Palestinians without due process and that would be an upgrade to their actual status because now they are simply shot on sight without even applying "administrative process".