http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8418990.stm
In recent months US officials and Jewish organisations have been flying Jews out of Yemen because, they say, it is too dangerous for them to remain.
Last year a Jewish man was murdered outside his home; many others have been threatened.
Rabbi Yusuf Mose Salem came to the Yemeni capital Sanaa after fleeing his home in North Yemen.
He looks completely broken. Whenever he speaks, he weeps.
"They gave us a warning to leave in seven days or they would kill us," he told the BBC World Service, referring to militant Shia rebels in the north of the country.
"They destroyed the house, they levelled it to the ground. They left nothing for us, we fled with what we were wearing."
But despite the tears, the rabbi is determined to hang onto and to keep alive a tradition that goes back thousands of the years.
"The Jews of Yemen go back to at least the sixth Century AD," says historian Tim Mackintosh Smith.
"We know this because there was actually a Jewish king here, Dhu Nuwas."
Mr Mackintosh Smith says the creation of Israel effectively broke the back of the Jewish community in Yemen.
etc.
(subheading omitted)
And, this, of course, is hardly a unique circumstance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands
So, while Shav and Scherzo and some of the others can whine about Palestinians who were driven from their homes 50 or 60 years ago and demand that every scrap of land be given back to them and their self-autonomy, who is going to get up an argue for a "right of return" for all the Jews that have been driven from their homes of many centuries in Arab lands? While Israel and its 7,000 square miles is hacked up at the negotiating table to determine how much of that 7,000 square miles has to be sacrificed to achieve peace, who is going to determine how much of the Arab countries, and their millions upon millions of square miles, should be "returned"?
Nobody?
Yeah; that's what I thought.
Originally posted by sh76[/i]Israel itself should be doing more to make this a central issue. It would definitely give the Palestinian side something to think about if they decide to play the refugee card at the next round of peace talks (when they finally open in 2023).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8418990.stm
[i]In recent months US officials and Jewish organisations have been flying Jews out of Yemen because, they say, it is too dangerous for them to remain.
Last year a Jewish man was murdered outside his home; many others have been threatened.
Rabbi Yusuf Mose Salem came to the Yemeni capital Sanaa after f s of square miles, should be "returned"?
Nobody?
Yeah; that's what I thought.
Originally posted by sh76When you put it like that - people 'whining' about the expropriation of land (suggesting it is only a historical phenomenon and not one that still happens) and the 'hacking up' of, ahem, Greater Israel, you do precious little to elicit sympathy. But that, of course, wasn't your point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8418990.stm
In recent months US officials and Jewish organisations have been flying Jews out of Yemen because, they say, it is too dangerous for them to remain.
Last year a Jewish man was murdered outside his home; many others have been threatened.
Rabbi Yusuf Mose Salem came to the Yemeni capital Sanaa after f s of square miles, should be "returned"?
Nobody?
Yeah; that's what I thought.
For what it's worth, though, I think the type of incidents described are entirely deplorable and that amends ought to be made to those Jews who have suffered the fate described. Without hesitation or caveat.
Since you seem to be suggesting an equivalence, what do you make of Israel's actions in the exproprriation of land, which is still on-going?
"Thought not"
*mimics sneer that was evident in the above*
Anyone who is removed from their home by force should have the right to return to that home. (and be protected from being removed in the 1st place)
An exceptions would, I guess, be where that home has been gained through warfare - so, nobody would argue that the Axis occupying forces in Europe somehow had the right to stay in France and Belguim because it was now their home.
Originally posted by sh76But what we are witnessing is NOT anti-semitism, rather, it is anti-zionism, thus, politically correct and understandable. In addition, what about all the killing the zionists have done in the past, hmmm?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8418990.stm
[i]In recent months US officials and Jewish organisations have been flying Jews out of Yemen because, they say, it is too dangerous for them to remain.
Last year a Jewish man was murdered outside his home; many others have been threatened.
Rabbi Yusuf Mose Salem came to the Yemeni capital Sanaa after f s of square miles, should be "returned"?
Nobody?
Yeah; that's what I thought.
Edit: I'm just anticipating the dribble that is sure to come. Scherzo, have you found that AK 47 yet? I'm sure its around here somewheres. 😛
Oh yea, I almost forgot FMF. Hey FMF, would Hitler do such a thing. Now if Hitler, Ghandi, Obama, and Christ all walk into a bar, who whose granny would be first on a death panel? I just don't like to dissapoint is all. 😀
Originally posted by whodeyNonsense. What has happened in those instances is almost certainly rooted in anti-Semitism, and it is deplorable.
But what we are witnessing is NOT anti-semitism, rather, it is anti-zionism, thus, politically correct and understandable. In addition, what about all the killing the zionists have done in the past, hmmm?
Edit: I'm just anticipating the dribble that is sure to come. Scherzo, have you found that AK 47 yet? I'm sure its around here somewheres. 😛
Oh ...[text shortened]... hose granny would be first on a death panel? I just don't like to dissapoint is all. 😀[/i]
As, of course, is the expropriation of Palestinian land.
Originally posted by DrKFI have no trouble answering that question; mimiced sneer notwithstanding.
Since you seem to be suggesting an equivalence, what do you make of Israel's actions in the exproprriation of land, which is still on-going?
"Thought not"
*mimics sneer that was evident in the above*
Expropriation of land from people already living there is wrong. When Israel has done it, it has been wrong. Israel has done things that are wrong in its history. I will not gainsay that.
I do not equate developing on previously empty land with forcing people out of their current homes. As such, I do not see how it is still on-going. Whether developing on the previously empty land is right is another can of worms that I don't really want to go into again. A couple of months ago, we had a loooong thread about this, for which I was duly awarded the title of a "creepy Stepford wife" by FMF, which I actually took as a compliment 😉 (and which I think he even meant as a kinda sorta backhanded compliment in a sense). So, I will say only that I don't see the equivalency rather than assert the justice or lack thereof of building on previously empty land in the WB.
Originally posted by sh76Can you see the equivalency in East Jerusalem?
I have no trouble answering that question; mimiced sneer notwithstanding.
Expropriation of land from people already living there is wrong. When Israel has done it, it has been wrong. Israel has done things that are wrong in its history. I will not gainsay that.
I do not equate developing on previously empty land with forcing people out of their current ho ther than assert the justice or lack thereof of building on previously empty land in the WB.
Originally posted by RedmikeHow far back does this rule of "warfare based housing doesn't count"? Almost every culture has taken land via warfare.
Anyone who is removed from their home by force should have the right to return to that home. (and be protected from being removed in the 1st place)
An exceptions would, I guess, be where that home has been gained through warfare - so, nobody would argue that the Axis occupying forces in Europe somehow had the right to stay in France and Belguim because it was now their home.
Originally posted by sh76http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131985.html
Are people being forced out of their homes there?
I'm asking, not challenging.
If so, then yes, I see the equivalency.
I don't accept your point about 'empty land', but I do agree that it is a different debate.
But the situation in E Jerusalem seems clear to me.