[Bullshit. Before the advent of Zionism the position of Jews in Palestine was no different to that in other provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The status of Dhimmi to which they were subjected differed in no way from that of Christians, and if anything the Ottomans favoured Jews over Christians as less likely to be sympathetic to the Ottomans’ Christian enemies.]
That may have been true in the Crusader period. It wasn’t true in 19th century Jerusalem, and hadn’t been for some time. According to the well known account related by Karl Marx, for instance, Jerusalem Jews were routinely abused by Christians, as well as Muslims, the former thinking themselves yet superior, and more possessed, than Jews, even yet. In fact the equalizing of Jews in legal status by the Capitulations brought the gripe that, for Christians, it was a leveling down.
But Ashkenazim were expelled from Jerusalem in the 18th century, and a ban remained in force for about a century. Their return in the 19th century ensured abuse from the locals which, as I said, even Karl Marx relates, with some sympathy.
[There was never anything to stop the Jews of Bagdad, Istanbul, Izmir, Salonica, Damascus or Cairo from moving to Palestine if they wanted.]
In the 17th century, when the Sultan heard that Jews in his realm dared hope that Shabtai Tzvi might even miraculously restore them to the land, he contemplated executing every adult Jewish male for their audacity. His hand was stayed. But a large scale Jewish return to the land, in other than dribs and drabs, was to reverse a dispossession which Islam held to be Jews’ lot, even as did Christianity.
[They didn’t want to because while it was a praiseworthy deed for an individual Jew to spend his days in study and prayer in the Holy Land, a collective return was regarded as a miraculous event to be brought about by the Messiah and to hasten it by human action was expressly forbidden.]
Well, asides the physical difficulty of uprooting and travel, Ketuboth 111a, to which I think you refer, simply states that Jews should not ‘scale the wall’, which is almost surely a motif relating to siege warfare.
Otherwise, all it says is that the gentiles should not oppress Jews too much (i.e. that they are compelled to leave their lands), while Jews should not rebel against the gentiles (i.e. the imperial gentile powers that be).
Well, Israel/Jews did not rebel against the nations. As a rule they were model citizens, and assimilated strongly. They were oppressed, by and large, either to leave their homes, or this world.
So, that part of the deal could be argued have been broken by the gentiles, in Old World Christendom and Islam.
[Conchovor [under his various pseudonyms]]
Grandpoint your birth name, is it? As to ‘various’, whereas you recognise my cognomen (and it is a family name), I do not recognise yours, though I think I have an idea:)
[has been making a speciality for some time of spreading this ingeniously confected version of history to function as a parallel to the Palestinian Nakba narrative – the Jews also, he can argue were ‘ethnically cleansed’ from their homeland by the Christian and Muslim ancestors of the Palestinians. So they are no better than the Zionist Jews, and they started it.]
Well, I think it only fair to observe that, from the beginning, and for most, of Christian and Islamic history, that the Jews are a people exiled or dispossessed for rejecting Jesus and the prophets has been an absolute assumption or given.
[In fact no serious historian any longer supports the myth of an ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Jews from Palestine after AD70, and the majority of Jews were already living in the Diaspora before the destruction of the temple.]
Perhaps so (and the matter is a good deal more complicated than you allow).
Nevertheless, from the beginning, and for most, of Christian and Islamic history, that the Jews are a people exiled or dispossessed for rejecting Jesus and the prophets has been an absolute assumption or given.
If you read the earliest Palestinian Arab Muslim and Christian nationalist literature, that Jews are a people dispossessed for their sins, and conversely Palestinian Arab Muslims and Christians possessed, of the land, for their superior virtue, is a commonplace.
And while Palestinian Arab Christians have been more sophisticated in the later 20th in putting their case to western audiences, foregoing some of their more traditional ideas of Jews, and their proper status wrt to the land, Islamist, Arabic discourse is often much less restrained. Indeed it leaks even into English discourse, whereby you will have such as Azzam Tamimi giving a lecture in 2004 or so, where he will state that no Jew resided in Palestine at the time of the Islamic conquest.
Or you will have such as Yassir Arafat saying no Jewish temple ever stood on the site of the Haram. And that is a view by no means uncommon, its having started, in fact, in the late 19th century, when the Mufti found it necessary to say that the attachment of the growing numbers of Jews in Jerusalem to the western wall was a wholly invented thing.
In any case, I thing, Mr Point, you will find it hard to represent the life of Jews in Jerusalem or Palestine as anything other than one of discrimination, by modern standards often pretty wretched.
And the modern record of treating minorities in Arab lands, Jewish, Christian or other, does not bode well either.
So Bekah Wolf may look forward to things going back to how they were, before the Zionist serpent allegedly entered the imperial Islamic Eden. Those Israeli Jews descended from most of the (non- or anti-Zionist) Arab Jews effectively driven out in the 20th century will feel differently.