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

I 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, or even to condemn a group of Arabs who have been involved in a criminal act.

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 Arab 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 for war-crimes, 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", and that simply doesn't make sense. 

"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.

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.

UN Resolutions that suggest Israel undergoes Ethnic Cleansing

UN Security Council Resolution 607 (1988)

The Council was informed of the decision of Israel to continue deportations of Palestinians in the occupied territories, the Council reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.
The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and abide by its obligations arising from the Geneva Conventions

UN Security Council Resolution 608 (1988)

The Council expressed regret at Israel's decision to deport Palestinians in the occupied territories in defiance of the previous resolution on the topic.

The resolution called upon Israel to cease the deportations and ensure the safe repatriation of Palestinians back to the Palestinian territories.

UN Security Council Resolution 636 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 8 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 641 (1989)

The Council condemned the deportation of 5 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories, reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution also called upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported and to cease further deportations of civilians, which were usually expelled to Lebanon.

For: 14 Abstention: 1 Against: 0

UN Security Council Resolution 694 (1991)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 4 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

UN Security Council Resolution 726 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 12 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Israel did not comply with the resolution, and continued to deport Palestinians.

UN Security Council Resolution 799 (1992)

The Council strongly condemned the deportation of 413 Palestinians by Israel in the occupied territories on December 17, 1992. They were in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention referring to the protection of civilians in times of war.

The resolution deplored the action and reiterated that Israel should refrain from deporting any more Palestinians and ensure the safe and immediate return of those deported.

Do Jews have "more right" to the land in dispute?

Prior to Israel as we see it today, the region of Jerusalem and its surrounding territory (which adopted many names in its history) has had only one moment where the Hebrews actually ruled the land.

For many centuries, they were either a minority scattered throughout the world or otherwise ruled by another entity in the land in question.

Even since the beginning of their lineage with the father of the Hebrews, Jacob, along with his children they didn't settle there. They migrated to live in Egypt and many generations passed with the Hebrews living in Ancient Egypt before their emigration under Moses.

Their most notable period was approximately 1000 BC, when David defeated Goliath and ruled as king of his newly conquered land. His successor and son, king Solomon claimed the throne thereafter, and then after his death civil war struck and split the kingdom into Judea and Samaria.
The divided kingdom became weak and fell prey to the Empire's around them (namely the Assyrian Empire), until Nebuchadnezzar conquered the land and the Hebrews were exiled to Babylon.


That was all they had, three or four generations to add to the 70 years of their colonization today. 

They weren't the first people there either. People lived there before them when it was called the land of Canaan.

The most important fact to take from this is that Jews don't have "more right" on the land simply because they ruled for three or four generations. The concept that people lived before them, and people lived after them means their rule was just a passing moment in history. In fact the Arabs under the Caliphate ruled for almost 1000 years, so the concept of "more right" on the land has very little context.

Jews through Zionism have conquered the land today with the help of Britain, but for how long, especially considering they are constantly under international pressure.

Conquering lands and colonizing people doesn't really work the same way it did centuries ago, and the Zionist movement has found it extremely difficult to maintain so far.

One-State or Two-State, that is the Question.

The initial proposal of the Partition Plan drafted by the UN in the form of Resolution 181 in 1947 was the first notion of a two-state solution, following the mass migration of Jews that caused clashes between those seeking refuge from the antisemitic movement in Europe and the native Arabs that were being displaced by the thousands because of this migration.

The proposal was based on separating the region based on ethnicity, however the Arabs immediately rejected the draft as it was unbalanced, providing the Jews with 56% of the land when they only comprised approximately 15% of the population. The Jews were initially unhappy with the UN Resolution because Britain promised them the entire region, but decided to accept it as their first opportunity to establish a homeland.

The Jewish decision was heavily influenced by the strong Zionist movement within their ranks. Arabs always considered Zionism a threat to the demographics of the region, especially following Jabotinsky's original account of the colonial plan of the region in his 1923 essay "The Iron Wall".

In the essay, Jabotinsky describes the behaviour of a native people towards the prospect of being colonized, which lead to the blunt realization that it would be impossible to expect a "voluntary agreement" with the Arabs. He realized the only way to achieve a state where the Jews were the masters of the land rather than a people absorbed within the population as a minority, was to use force.

Jabotinsky questioned it himself; why would the Arabs want to concede an area they inhabit for a colonial entity that wants to enforce a majority of its own? Why would any native throughout history ever want that? The only real solution to achieve colonization as he saw it, would require a "transfer" of Arabs in order to make the migrants the majority of the region. Even under British occupation and before that under the Ottoman Empire, Arabs were ruled by the respective authority's security forces, but the demographics were never threatened.

When conflict ensued following the proposal, the Arabs were not able to hold their position and maintain their territories only to concede it, which resulted in redrawing armistice lines and demilitarized zones. While some Arabs even now refuse to acknowledge the defeats they faced and stubbornly mention a non-negotiable one-state solution, those who do, feel they can only approach the conflict with one compromise based on the last known legitimate truce regarding borders; the Armistice "green line" Agreement of 1949, or popularly known as the pre-67 borders.

The one-state solution isn't ideal for Israel since the Arabs outnumber the Jews. It would mean a pure democratic process where all people who have a claim on the land, displaced or otherwise, have equal rights to vote and that would result in Arab leadership. Israel would face the same fate as the South African democratic process which ended white minority rule.

Ironically Israel claim it is the "only democracy" in the Middle East, yet a pure democratic process inclusive of all its people would deny Israel's entire existence. Democracy and Zionism therefore are mutually exclusive.

Fortunately for the Zionist movement, the Arabs are divided and do not possess the unifying strength to overpower Israel with its powerful backing of the United States, and therefore cannot force a hand in making such a bold claim for the one-state solution. Arabs have no other option but to approach the negotiation table with the two-state concept.

However, just as the Palestinian Papers have revealed, neither the issues surrounding the Right of Return, nor the ever-changing "land swaps" seem acceptable for Israel to agree to any terms that would make the two-state solution viable, regardless of the extreme concessions made by the Palestinian Authority (PA) even on key issues surrounding Jerusalem.

That's because the two-state solution doesn't really work for Israel either, even if the PA agree to all of Israel's preconditions. Zionism, as Jabotinsky puts it, is the colonization of the region, and any final agreement for a two-state solution would put an abrupt halt on the ongoing growth of the "Jewishness" of the land.

The real answer for Zionism is to maintain the status-quo. As long as they are in a state of conflict and the Palestinians don't have an official state, the Israeli government believe that the occupied territory can be annexed by Jewish-only settlements since there is no "official claim" to the land, regardless of what could potentially be part of a future Palestinian state.

The key question that arise from this dilemma is how Israel can get away with building settlements that encroach on a potential future state of Palestine. Even the United States government - Israel's only ally - has admitted that the core issue preventing peace negotiations from resuming is the ongoing settlement activities. These settlements have been deemed illegal by International Law as per the 4th Geneva Convention which was drafted for the protection of civilians, stating that an occupying entity must maintain the identiy and integrity of the occupied people on the land it occupies.

"Might is right" is the unfortunate reality. While the United Nations was established never to allow such atrocities to repeat itself as witnessed during WWII, it is ironically the very mechanism Israel is using to maintain this current state of conflict. That is because the US have in fact been guilty of being Israel's "lawyer", rather than their "honest broker" due to the Israel lobby in the US.

While rest of the world acknowledges the illegal settlements, the US with Israel have been able to stop UN Resolutions being passed in order to avoid halting the settlement activities. The UN Security Council voted to "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory", but the US have been able to prevent it using a very powerful weapon given to them by the UN; the veto.

It is the very contradiction of democracy on the international stage. The ability to cancel any vote made by the nations of the world with a single trump card that can be used at the discretion of any of the five permanent member nations to control the world's decision-making by playing their political games for strategic advantages. Incidentally, the concept of permanent members only exists because the five members were part of an alliance that were the victors of WWII, which is clearly a sign that the very foundation of the UN is already outdated.

Ultimately, the veto is the true power behind world decisions, not the voices on the UN Security Council.

The best way to rectify such a deadlock in the Arab-Israeli conflict, is to have a "majority" vote in the UN rather than a concept of a veto, where the definition of "majority" could be determined based on the weighting of a nation's contribution to the UN Security Council.

That would end Israeli occupation in a heartbeat and the building blocks of a viable solution could finally transpire, whether it is to establish one state or two.