This may sound somewhat racist, and for that I apologize; I most certainly do not mean it in that way, and this is a genuine question I am asking.
I have always been taught that the Arabs are the ones antagonizing the Jews, so it was an interesting surprise to me the other day when I read a quote by an Arab statesman. He said that the Arabs were not anti-Semitic, but we westerners are. We were the ones who pushed Jews out of our countries or did not allow them in, killed them (during WWII), and acted hatefully toward them. Then, we pushed them over into Palestine to get them out of our hair, proclaimed Arab soil as Jewish soil and made Arabs refugees in their own countries and then had the "audacity" to call them anti-Semitic.
He was right in his history, but I just never thought about the Arabs not being anti-Semitic as much as anti being displaced from their homes. What do you think? Was he right or wrong? Am I missing a piece of history/politics?
2006-09-19
20:07:55
·
8 answers
·
asked by
mountain_laurel1183
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Tech-you call me gullible, yet you offer no proof or any kind of statement to contradict what I asked. I received this information from a book written by a reputable author, not just off the street. And then I questioned it. I dont' see how reading valid information and then questioning the accuracy of it is being gullible.
2006-09-20
02:38:48 ·
update #1
Hi there i am an Arab by the way
we actually dont hate Jews , Judaism is a religion we respect that
but the fact that Jews always support the Israeli country we do hate those .
Israel was founded by immigrating most of the Jews in the world to Palestine the founded a country on a one which was already there , they have occupied our lands and we simply want it back any means necessary they killed our people committed most awful crimes
we are not Nazi people , the Nazi hated every one not just the Jews they thought they were superiors to rule the world , its just Hitler had a personal issue with Jews , and by the way we were forced to join The Nazi part in WW2 because we were occupied by turkey , but if you recall we revolted in the great Arab revolution and joined Britain in their war .
2006-09-19 21:14:08
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Actually he is partially wrong. Yes it is true that Christianity in the west was not kind to the Jews in the past. But, Arabs are anti-semitic.
1) You will not find a official map in Arab/Muslim countries that has Israel on it.
2) The Arabs sided with the Nazis in WWII.
3) The Mufti of Palestine, who took Yasser under is wing, belong to the Nazi Party.
4) Jews have always lived in the Israel Area. They did not just one day show up.
But remember, Muslims are not just Anti-semetic they are also anti-other religions. This is just due to the nature of Islam. Islam has always been spread by the sword. They are stuck in the military jihad and have not move into the spiritual jihad. This is unfortunate, but true. Maybe after the Muslim Reformation, things will get better.
Just have to add. Muslims were not forced to join the Nazis. Ottoman Empire fell in WWI. Turkey? Turkey was in control of turkey. The rest of the Middle East was control mainly by British.
The Main reason why Arabs joined the Nazis was due to the fact that Germany was fighting the British -also France. Throught this relationship many prominent Arabs joined the Nazi Party. Even the Baath party was derived from the Nazi party.
There are two types of Jewish people that live in Israel. 1) those that were immigrated there from Europe. 2) Jews that can trace that their heritage has always lived there ever since recorded history. Even Muhammed himself did not deny that the Jews left Egypt to the promise land. So the Jews were always there.
mountain_laurel1183 = always remember to be critical of authors. You are just reading their interpretation. One clue to see if an author is creditable is to look for sources. How many endnotes does the author have? What are the sources they used? These are some of the questions to ask yourself. If you see that the author used many newspaper and magazine sources than this author is not really that creditable. But if you see that the author used declassified government documents, official letters, and other archive material , than this author is creditable. You still have to be critical.
2006-09-19 20:44:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Kountry 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A very large part. The history of the area in Israel has been the same for 3000 years. Wars and more wars but the one thing that was constint was there was always Jewish people there. The Muslims came in 600 or so A.D. and have been trying to kill any one who did not convert to Islam. This is in most history books prior to the 1990. When the British in 1914 decided to give the land back to the Jewish people the Arabs told the Palestian nomads to settle there so they could have their own country because none of the Arab countries wanted them in their country and this way they hoped to stop Israel from becoming a Jewish country again.
In over 4500 years of recorded history, this is from Egyptian records, there has never been a country called Palestine. So the person that stated what you have is either a revisionist or just very saddly mistaken.
2006-09-19 20:17:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by fatboysdaddy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
placing the jewish people in that region was a religious idea based on biblical beliefs that it was the jewish people's land long ago. it just goes to show why mixing religion and politics leads to war. don't expect many others to agree with the arabs though. it would have made more sense to relocate them somewhere that needed immigrants. at the time australia or the u.s. would have been better fits for them.i say let the arabs have the so called "holy land".
2006-09-19 20:29:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I even have mixed emotions relating to the Israeli government. i do no longer take any of the religious stuff into attention simply by fact i do no longer believe that faith has a place interior the geopolitical section. We shouldn't perform as a theocracy simply by fact...properly...that may not what we are. in any case, i like having Israel as an best pal, and that i help their rights to exist and safeguard themselves against any u . s . that seeks to break them. on a similar time, i do no longer help a number of their regulations, exceptionally their persisted enlargement of settlements that many specialists believe are in violation of international regulation. i think of the Israeli government could desire to deal with the Palestinian human beings extra constructive than they do. That stated, component to me desires that we'd purely stay out of that conflict completely. inspite of each and every thing, peace can in no way be carried out if the two Israelis or Palestinians are not prepared to artwork for it.
2016-10-17 07:51:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
they both.. the son'of prophet abraham through hagar and sarah...but unluckily the son's of sarah abandoned the land which was supposed belong to him...so as a cousin , the son's of hagar took safe the land until his cousin brothers return...but the long lost brother not recognize him anymore..he brought with him all the hatred which he gained from the foreign land... i think it is the right time for them to sit and talk as a cousin....
2006-09-19 20:59:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by joe5997 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bravo,bravo to your arab stateman in the ulitimate in double standards and rationalzation. And to you....did you know that the word gullible isn't in the dictionary???<<
2006-09-19 20:12:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
all countries are racist at the basic but i think most racist ones are jews and than westerners
2006-09-19 20:17:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by sub-zero ide 2
·
0⤊
0⤋