Monday, August 31, 2015

Why is Antisemitism so prevalent in Arab countries?

This is a common question asked in the Western world, however this seems to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding on what antisemitism actually means.

There is no antisemitism in Arab countries since Arabs are Semites
You can't be anti-yourself (unless you hate yourself?).

If you don't believe me look up the definition of the word Semite, and you might be surprised.

am a Semite because I am of Arab decent. It would be ignorant of me to call a Jewish person "antisemitic" if he or she disagreed with Arab culture or the belief systems that most Arabs adhere to, but there you have the logic that we are dealing with here.

The reason as to why the word Semite has been hijacked by Zionism in order to be associated solely to the Jewish people, is to constantly remind the world of the despicable treatment towards Jews inflicted in Europe in the early 1900's.
It is another fear campaign to scare people into avoiding being labelled with the same negative connotation attributed to the European movements against the Jewish people during that time. 

Today, it is an invented concept that is not relevant in Islamic countries because their reasons to stand against Zionism are very different to the European movement against Jews. The truth is the word gets thrown around too easily and almost gets used in the same context as "racist" or "bigot", however most of the cases involve people being labelled "antisemitic" simply because they condemn the Israeli government from war-crimes against humanity, or the illegal settlement activities built on another person's home or farm. 

That argument is almost like saying "condemning Nazism is like being anti-Aryan", which in itself would be racist, because being against the entire Aryan race is very different to condemning Nazism. 

"Antisemitism" in the context of this question suggests a hatred for Jews at a discriminatory baseless level, yet the reason for condemnations against Zionism is quite evident and clear, and has nothing to do with being anti-Jewish.

As an example, if I lived in a small home with my whole family, and made a friendship with my neighbors, and then some little orphan girl comes into my home protected by big bodyguards, then she takes my whole house and pushes all my family into one small room, that gives me cause to try to take back my home regardless of how strong those body guards are, and regardless of how innocent that little orphan girl seems to the rest of the world.
It would be ignorant for someone to think that my neighbors and I hate all little orphan girls, without understanding the real reason as to why I am opposing her actions.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Had the Jews lost the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, would Palestine have been established?

It most likely would have been. The word "Mandate" would simply have been removed from Mandate-Palestine. 

There would not have been any Armistice Green lines in 1949 for Egypt and Jordan to "fall back" to in order to protect the remaining land for the Palestinians. That would have meant that Palestine would have been unbroken.That would have meant that the Jews would have remained a minority and would have continued to live as they had lived for 1000's of years amongst the Arabs.
That would have meant that the bitterness of the Arabs being the majority ruled by the minority would never have existed.
The foreigners that came from Europe under the banner of Zionism would probably have been bitter that their dream didn't come true.
That would have meant that the Haganah would not have been able to establish itself officially, which meant that radicals like Irgun and Lehi would have strengthened and would have festered in the land.

Egypt would not have lost their monarchy because the pretext of the military coup in 1952 was that the King was incapable of protecting his neighboring Arabs. That would have meant that the nationalization of the country by a zealous Army General would never have transpired, and Egypt would never have gone into the severe poverty it faces now under military rule.

That would have meant that Egypt would have remained a thriving country with open trade, and would have still had its alliance with Britain instead of the Soviet Union.That would have meant that Britain would have had a conflict of interest between the Balfour Declaration and one of its wealthy commonwealth nations, Egypt, which probably meant that complete and full support of the Zionist movement would never have come from Britain because of its support for Egypt as well.That probably would have meant that Britain would still be the superpower today since the 1956 nationalization of the Suez Canal would never have undermined Britain's world authority with the U.S.'s intervention.

That would have meant that Palestine would have probably followed Egypt's political structure and framework as a thriving country with open trade, most likely under its own established monarchy. Such a young country would probably have required the protection of Egypt, which most likely would have meant that although it would no longer be a British Mandate, it would have strong influences from the commonwealth.

More importantly the question of land would never have been an issue because the majority ruling over minority is a common situation around the entire world.

Jews would have been able to trade freely, as they were in Egypt. They would have been able to establish their own religious laws within sub-communities for minorities, as it existed in Egypt. Egypt's Jewish population had entries at the royal court and were able to contribute to the nation's public transport, cotton industry, sugar refinery, banking, department stores, real-estate developments, agriculture, as well as having jobs as accountants, shopkeepers, teachers, and merchants. Palestine would have had a similar framework for the minority.Jews in Egypt were equal under the laws of property, contract and obligation, and were given rights to maintain their own religious rites and freedoms. Palestine would have had a similar framework for the minority.

If only the Jews simply asked to live amongst the Arabs as they did in Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco, rather than threaten to take the land instead.

In hindsight, the Jews are still at a loss even today, but not because of the Arabs... because of Zionism.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Why don't the Palestinian refugees get Syrian citizenship?

It is an interesting question to pose as some may question Syria's moral stance with accepting the current status of these refugees on their land for the last 70 years. But the problem itself lies not with the temporary status of refugees and where they currently live, but rather why they were refugees in the first place.

It would be the same as asking why the 1000's of Syrian Refugees today that have fled to Turkey because of the Syrian regime's brutality against civilians were not given Turkish citizenship.

The problem isn't to solve the refugee status by accepting a brutal regime's existence and have the open-handed neighboring nations take on the population into their own society.

The real problem is to root out these regimes that created the refugees in the first place, not to encourage them to remain in power so long as someone else takes care of their issues.

Similarly, the Palestinian refugee problem isn't something that needs to be solved by those who were willing to give them refuge from oppression, but those oppressive regimes that created the refugee problem in the first place.
In this case, it is Israel that needs to deal with putting those who they displaced back where they belong. If Israel thinks that it cannot support such a massive influx of people into their nation, then they should have thought of that before creating a state at their expense in the first place.

The land belongs to two peoples. If Zionism only really cares to cater for only one, then they are unfit to rule the land that is shared by both.