Quote:
Originally Posted by Lackluster
I believe you make two critical errors here. The first of which is that you consider people's perceptions as having the ultimate validity, even when those perceptions are misguided. This is not a dogmatic position I am taking, since Jews never left the region in question and were tied to the land through culture and blood. Just because some arabs SAW them as Europeans, this does not justify the hatred.
|
I strongly believe people's perceptions are of primary importance here. There is no doubt that the Jewish people have always been present on that soil, but in saying that, it's rare to hear a muslim consider the Palestinian [region] Jewish peoples as an issue. There was always a religious separation, due to the very nature of religion, but much less a cultural one. The european influx was done on a grand scale and by appearance these people were very different to those jewish who lived in Palestine. The mistake in making it a primarily religious argument I believe, is that it wasn't a concept of judaism that scared Muslims, but the vast nature of the change by the people coming in. It wouldn't have mattered if they were all christian, because the primary fear is the demographic upheaval, not the details it brought with it.
Muslims may describe their battles with the 'jew', but this is a catch all phrase to describe a battle against 'outsiders' and nothing less.
The religious angle doesn't explain why Muslims get on so well with iranian and iraqi Jews but had such big conflicts with ashkenasim. There are alway individual cases but the overall pattern is profound.
Quote:
The second error you make is by not really following through on your analogy. THis is one that I was actually thinking of submitting, myself, since it is actually quite apt. Those Americans who are most prejudiced against people from Mexico, you would probably consider bigoted, no? If so, then why justify the bigotry? The onus should be placed upon the racists and bigots for their own attitudes and not the targets of their hatred.
|
I didn't follow through because bigotry as a result is a given and needs not be expressed. the fundamental of the argument is that demographic change, especially in the percentages we're talking, results in extreme reactions. In the analogy I would expect many parallels; for example extreme bigotry in some corners, acceptance in other depending on the circumstances. some people here are trying to justify their reaction to the scenario, but I'm merely trying to illustrate my belief of what lies at the heart of it.
I accept religion as a facet, but not as the engine of what makes people so reactionary. That's far more basic and animal in nature; foreign, vast cultural change, outright fear.
Quote:
I think we do agree to at least the extent that we see cause and effect here, but I see the agitprop provided by the Nazis as much more the cause here rather than the effect. There simply wasn't the level of Judenhass UNTIL the the Mufti imported the nazi ideology, and as that ideology gradually won out over a more cooperative ideology, it grew to contaminate more and more ofthe population. I often bring up the "enemy of my enemy" fallacy, myself, but that doesn't quite get at why peopel are enemies in the first place. Since the Palestinian mandate area shifted from one that was generally welcoming or indifferent to Zionism (between the 1880s and 1920s) to one increasingly hostile (Muslim Brotherhood originated in the 20s) to acutely hostile (mid to late late thirties when Nazis thoroughly consolidated power and exerted influence outside Germany), I don't see the influx of a "different" acting people to be the sole cause. If it were, there would have been greater hostility further back in time than there was.
The Muslim Briotherhood and the Nazis provided the catalyst for this change, and I don't think it is reactionary to say so, but merely the acknowleging of the truth.
|
The Mufti was not the great figure many portray him as but i accept that he cultivated very fertile ground. That ground is made by a situation and I don't believe in an inherent Arab nature to admire facists. It came at a time when the demographic was washing away at its fastest rate and fear was at its height. It's sad that that ideology was able to get a root there, but it's also important not to overstate its prominence. He and his movement did not become fulcrums of the situation.
The Muslim brotherhood on the other hand is a curious entity. Even arab nations keep them in check where possible but it was Israel herself who funded them in the 70's as a counterweight to the secular, marxist PLO, and they became hamas there. It was an error they realised in the early 80's and they stopped funding, but Israel was trying to be too clever in that circumstance.
Anthony cordesman said, paraphrase; "the israelis try to put out a fire in the hair with a hammer", indicating he considered they were over complicated in dealing with an issue. I digress, sorry. i think I was trying to express the complexity of politics there.