Did someone hit a mute button?

Originally posted by torch71
Dhimmis ( Jews and Christians) were allowed to "practice their religion, subject to certain conditions, and to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy" and guaranteed their personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim supremacy.

Right. That was quite an enlightened measure for those ancient times--better than chucking Jews out wholesale, as happened in England in the 11th century, forcing them to convert (Spain), indulging in pogroms, and so on. Not to mention that in those days everybody paid tribute to some overlord or other--considering it was the feudal era. Still, perhaps you think it's a relevant issue, so feel free to explain.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The wikipedia article you referred to focuses on demographic changes since 1948, so that is how far back I was going.

Prior to that, we have the Ottoman Empire. If you go back to 1200 you are in the time of the Crusading Kingdoms. There is a lot of history there, but not all that relevant to the current conflict.

I mean, should the French suddenly ...[text shortened]... scend on the Holy Land and claim it back because Godfrey of Boullion was once King of Jerusalem?

What I am really trying to get at is there has been a long standing difference with the Arabs and the Jews and Christians. We can point out different time periods all day but don't blame it ALL on Isreal getting declared a nation and all the poor refugees that left, because just about as many jews fled to Isreal.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Right. That was quite an enlightened measure for those ancient times--better than chucking Jews out wholesale, as happened in England in the 11th century, forcing them to convert (Spain), indulging in pogroms, and so on. Not to mention that in those days everybody paid tribute to some overlord or other--considering it was the feudal era. Still, perhaps you think it's a relevant issue, so feel free to explain.

You need not point out more things in the past. I understand that WORLD WIDE there were many things that happened that many people are not happy about. You asked what I meant by pigeon holding and I replied.🙂

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yes. Attempting to turn it into some age-old Ishmael-Abraham (or whatever) issue is futile.

I'm not sure we can ignore that completely either. After all, for the first time in the history of the world, a people (Jews) have gotten their homeland back. For this reason alone, there is no way the Jews are going anywhere. The Paleos see it as the same thing. It's their homeland.

For this reason, both parties feel they have "rights" to the land. I think everybody knows that as long as the issue is about rights, it will never be settled. People tend to ignore everything else when rights are involved. Mutually benificial be damned, they have rights.

Originally posted by torch71
You need not point out more things in the past. I understand that WORLD WIDE there were many things that happened that many people are not happy about. You asked what I meant by pigeon holding and I replied.🙂

All right 😠

Originally posted by torch71
What I am really trying to get at is there has been a long standing difference with the Arabs and the Jews and Christians. We can point out different time periods all day but don't blame it ALL on Isreal getting declared a nation and all the poor refugees that left, because just about as many jews fled to Isreal.

I always thought the Jews should have been given Long Island as a homeland after the war.

But they didn't want it.

Besides, they already had it.

There's nothing wrong in principle with a Jewish homeland -- or an Armenian or a Kurdish or an Arab Palestinian homeland. But a lot goes into to who you displace to establish it and what you offer them.

My opinion is that when it became obvious that the Arab world was incensed, a more conciliatory approach should have been taken.

Originally posted by spruce112358
I always thought the Jews should have been given Long Island as a homeland after the war.

But they didn't want it.

Besides, they already had it.

There's nothing wrong in principle with a Jewish homeland -- or an Armenian or a Kurdish or an Arab Palestinian homeland. But a lot goes into to who you displace to establish it and what you off ...[text shortened]... obvious that the Arab world was incensed, a more conciliatory approach should have been taken.

In some way I agree but I beleive that niether side would really agree to anything. It seems to me it was all or nothing situation for both parties.