All these things went through conquest at the time. The Spanish lands were invaded by Muslims about 1500 years or so ago. Later on another kingdom got it back by conquest. It's silly to think Spain somehow was taken from the Muslims and they got a right to it.
The Ottomans got their empire through conquest. They were not nice guys, no empire is. They oppressed people just as much as any other empire if they got in their heads they wanted their own land.
I am speaking about muslim perspective, since we were talking about legitimacy of power in they eyes of the arabs between Britain and Ottoman Empire. Of course muslim territory came mainly by conquests.
I don't believe all Empire are equally bad or oppressive though. You have qualitative difference between being ruled by the Spanish Empire or by the Ancient Persian for instance. You have a qualitative difference between a rule who maintained free exercice of one faith and a rule who impose only one faith or ideology upon the people.
We're going in circles here. All I'm contesting is your declaration that anti-semitism in the Arab world is 100% (as in there's NO other reasons) due to Israel. There's no "different kind" of anti-semitism that is somehow not anti-semitism. That's deflection (and maybe even justification). The Allahdad was anti-semitism, the Mawza Exile was anti-semitism, incidents of ethnic cleansing in Medieval North Africa like Morroco/Algeria/Libya which saw Jews living in ghettos was anti-semitism, being forced to convert to Islam or face death in medieval Yemen/Morroco/Baghdad was anti-semitism. And the list goes on and on.
The Palestinian armed groups that are firing rockets indiscriminately at Israel are committing war crimes. You think you would partake in that? Would you go so far as to say that Israel's actions excuse the rocket attacks, that they are justified?
You seem to don't even understand the concept of legitimacy of power in islamic political thought. It's not like you have to present "stability" and that it. You're power must be in relation with the power of the Prophet through the Caliphate institution. So saying that between British and Ottoman rule there is only a difference of degree and not of nature is not understanding at all the issue.
Another crucial issue is obviously the rule of Shari'a. Any political power who don't rule by Shari'a lack legitimacy in the best case.
I was referring about the Catholic Church when it have a political power over every ruler of Europe. It would be like saying that the Vatican was an imperialist force against France and Spain.
And yes Spain invaded muslims land and they try to take over North Africa as well.
Just to be clear here, do mean the Iberian Peninsula or something else? If you do mean the Iberian Peninsula, keep in mind that those lands were never muslim to begin with. They were conquered by muslims, for a time, and then retaken by the kingdoms Portugal first and later Spain.
And yes, both Portugal and Spain tried to conquer the North of Africa. Portugal even managed to get Ceuta (in terms of actually meaningful conquests) for a while, but due to lack of population + army & need of money they eventually decided to focus solely on finding a maritime path to India, thus kickstarting the so called Age of Discovery (from an European perspective, of course). As for what Spain did there, not 100% sure so I won't really comment.
Or maybe people can stop pushing the agenda that Israel existence is somehow linked to evil?
I don't really bother with these threads because their purpose always boils down to the same stuff: demonize Israel. But what gets alarming is when the comments become more unhinged.
Genocide, apartheid and now the OP literally supporting terror attacks. Everything about it just reads as unhealthy.
Fighting back against what? The country that repelled 3 large scale invasions from its neighbors is going to capitulate to a rocket? And these attacks are never meant against military, they only target where Israelis live. So it is terrorism.
This is the kind of judgement and irrationality I speak of when I say Israelis are just being demonized.
It's the same sort of sentiment people express when they try and see why someone would support Trump, or have a racist ideology, etc. Of course, those examples portray the sentiment as inherently flawed, but I'm making a comparison here. Exploring why a population or group would, under a certain environment, likely be prone to wanting to fight doesn't mean advocating violence. It just means that you're being realistic about the situation and why it is the way it is.
I think you've misunderstood him. I read that as saying something like: Israel's morally unacceptable crimes against the people of Gaza give Israel a terrible image, something which fosters antisemitism when the intellectually lazy blur the line between the Israeli state and the Jewish people; with the implicit conclusion that antisemitic sentiment might be reduced if Israel did otherwise.
Israel didn't existed at the time. It's the declaration of the colonial state that triggered regional reaction.
We all tend to forget when zionist were actually using terrorist methods to establish its colonial state.
The same group who is now considered funding father of the zionist state were condemned as terrorist by the UN and USA.
The irony.
Arguing over the events regarding Israel in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, is exactly the thing that will never let this situation end.
Israel is established. Done. The situation today is that Palestinians either deserves their own state with 1967 borders, to be an enfranchised part of an irreligious democratic country, or to have some form of two nations within one nation solution similar to Bosnia and Herzegovinia. Some sort of compromise needs to occur on the right of return. That's what needs to be worked on.
The Palestinian armed groups that are firing rockets indiscriminately at Israel are committing war crimes. You think you would partake in that? Would you go so far as to say that Israel's actions excuse the rocket attacks, that they are justified?
I think indiscriminate fire upon civilians is a gross violation of international law.
I can't guarantee I wouldn't at least have a strong temptation towards it if I grew up and lived in Gaza.
The Ottoman Empire have their Caliphate credential directly by what was left of the Abbasi Caliphate. They had all authority over muslims lands. English had non.
A muslim land cannot be ruled by a foreign non-muslim ruler. And Palestine is a muslim land since Umar conquest. Most palestinians totally identified themselves with the Ottoman caliphate and didn't perceived it as a foreign force.
That the old view about the "old man of Europe", now we know that Ottoman Empire was much more strong than we used to think. Many people until today consider themselves Ottomans. Many Arabs sided with the Ottomans against the english.
Asides from the odd exclusion of Muslim lands the Ottoman Empire didn't own at the time, and the large period between the Abbasid caliphate being relevant in any way compared to the other Muslim states that governed the ME (Mamluk sultanate, Black and White Sheep Turkomans, Ayubbid dynasty, etc.), Palestinians didn't really identify as Ottoman so much as Ottomanism was the official policy of the Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottomanism).
When? Certainly not in the period we are talking about. The Arabs fought the Ottoman Empire with the British. Part of the issue in Palestine stems from the Arab Revolt in the first place.
Well, if the the Ottoman Empire wouldn't haven't collapsed in WWI, the world would have been a very different place, that for sure and a far better one. No Saudi Arabia, no partition of the middle east, and no zionist state. We wouldn't see thing as ISIS as the Ottoman Empire was very well organized at a religious level. You barely see any salafism in Turkey or the Balkans.
But they have their part of responsibility for the dreadful fiscal reform they imposed on the arabs countries in the 19th century. They basically, from european advices, imposed feudalism when early Ottoman empire was decentralized and more like a commonwealth.
European nations played with arabs ressentiment against the turks but it was already there. And i say that as a strong opponent of arab nationalism against Ottoman Empire. The early revolt of the arabs against the colonial attacks in the muslim world was made in the name of the Ottoman Empire like the revolt of the great mystic Emir Abdel Qader al Jaizari from Argelia in the early 19th century.
Let's not somehow rewrite what the Ottoman Empire around the turn of the century. While the whole "Sick Man of Europe" moniker is a gross generalization, this was still the regime behind tragedies like the Armenian Genocide.
By the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire had effectively been in the process of modernizing/catching up at a solid pace to other major powers.
Well, yes. But if you join the losing side in a World War (and as an aggressor) then you don't have too many legs to stand on during the peace negotiations.
The dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire is largely a result of their failed military campaigns against Austria in the 17th and 18th century. Technologically they couldn't keep up with Western Europe anymore, corruption (janissaries, extravagancy) was rampant and lead to a lot of internal problems including dissent among minorities in the empire. I wouldn't really attribute their downfall to direct invasions from Western nations but more to their own inability to adapt and evolve.
Countries don't actually function that way, history isn't that nice and simple, sorry. If modern politics can distinguish the differences in policy between the terms of presidents (a period of 4 years), or less, than you should take a second to realize how silly the idea of multi century long decline is.
I don't even know what "extravagance" is supposed to mean, that's such a catch all term...
Internal dissent from minorities, such a major issue for the Ottomans after the 16th and 17th centuries that until the Greek and Serbian Wars of Independence in the 19th century, it never faced a successful internal revolt. Although yes, the Balkan Wars and rise of Arab nationalism in the 20th century are definitely great examples of this.
Sorry, it just gets really tiring to see ridiculously over-generalized notions of history being spread and accepted. Chances are, if you see someone try and say xyz event or condition is the one reason something is the way it is (Sykes-Picot was a mistake, it isn't the progenitor of all conflict in the ME today), or tries to generalize a period under one label (rise and decline of Safavids, Mughals, Ottomans, Austria-Hungary, etc. Like Rome's century long collapse and how the Byzantines basically were only significant under Justinian)
In the Western world, anti semitism have deep historical and theological roots, but in the arab world, it's 100 % fueled by Israel policies.
So yes, without Israel's actions antisemitism in the West would still exist but not in the arab world. The jewish people was an integral part of the islamic/arab civilization.
It's what i said earlier, the western nation only fueled what was already there. However, i think that the main responsible for arabs revolt was the tanzimat of the 19th century, the westernization of the Empire especially the lands reforms. I don't think that the problem was the lack of adaptability, but the centralization and "modernization" of the Empire taking Europe as a model without going through what Europe have paid to attain the hegemonization that allowed them to form coherent modern-state.
I won't say that the Central Forces was the aggressor, they felt compelled to attack. Germany was sure that England will invade them and it's very difficult to know what would have happened if Germany won't have invaded Belgium. I tend to see history more as the result of contradicting interests than the result of a personal leadership.
WW1 is a mess to definitely declare a definite aggressor/bad guy for, although Germany's blank check and invasion of Belgium certainly doesn't help their case.
It's worth noting the Ottomans tried to play neutral and stall the declaration of war, until Germany forced them to decisively choose a side.
In any case, why are the Ottomans, who haven't existed for a century now, the main topic of discussion regarding Israel-Palestine? How is contemplating alternative history or the foolish of mistakes of statemen in their graves in any way relevant?
Just to be clear here, do mean the Iberian Peninsula or something else? If you do mean the Iberian Peninsula, keep in mind that those lands were never muslim to begin with. They were conquered by muslims, for a time, and then retaken by the kingdoms Portugal first and later Spain.
And yes, both Portugal and Spain tried to conquer the North of Africa. Portugal even managed to get Ceuta (in terms of actually meaningful conquests) for a while, but due to lack of population + army & need of money they eventually decided to focus solely on finding a maritime path to India, thus kickstarting the so called Age of Discovery (from an European perspective, of course). As for what Spain did there, not 100% sure so I won't really comment.
I meant North Africa primarily, and Spain still control a part of Marrueco.
Anyway no lands was muslim to begin with And Spain before the Arab invasion was controlled by a foreign dynasty.
I never said such a thing. No antisemitism =/ Perfection and tolerance for all.
In any case, why are the Ottomans, who haven't existed for a century now, the main topic of discussion regarding Israel-Palestine? How is contemplating alternative history or the foolish of mistakes of statemen in their graves in any way relevant?
Topic was derived when we spoke about Balfour Declaration and somebody said that Palestine was stolen from Ottoman Empire.
Let's not somehow rewrite what the Ottoman Empire around the turn of the century. While the whole "Sick Man of Europe" moniker is a gross generalization, this was still the regime behind tragedies like the Armenian Genocide.
The various genocides that occurred in that time period, and against muslims as well in the Balkans, were the product of the homogenization of the differents nation-state to meet the modern criteria. The armenian genocide was made by the Young Turk, the Ottoman Empire condemned the three architects of the genocide as traitor to the nation and to be hanged.
They were rehabilitated after the kemalist revolution.
Israel is established. Done. The situation today is that Palestinians either deserves their own state with 1967 borders, to be an enfranchised part of an irreligious democratic country, or to have some form of two nations within one nation solution similar to Bosnia and Herzegovinia. Some sort of compromise needs to occur on the right of return. That's what needs to be worked on.
Algeria being a province of France was a fact of life as well.
But i am a pragmatic as well so i understand your point, but i let the Palestinian people decide on that issue. They have all right over their land. If for a twist of history, very unlikely in the present situation, they would have the upper hand in the conflict, they would have every right to establishing a state in their own way. I think however that the most realistic and feasible situation would involve a non-ethnical and non-religious state.
Algeria being a province of France was a fact of life as well.
But i am a pragmatic as well so i understand your point, but i let the Palestinian people decide on that issue. They have all right over their land. If for a twist of history, very unlikely in the present situation, they would have the upper hand in the conflict, they would have every right to establishing a state in their own way. I think however that the most realistic and feasible situation would involve a non-ethnical and non-religious state.
Even if the Palestinian people collectively decide that no, they don't want an Israel, it doesn't hold up. Generations of Israelis have now been born in Israel, there's now a population there, population exchanges and transferals tend to be nasty, messy, and oftentimes bloody affairs, etc. I don't care if anyone thinks the British didn't have the proper ownership or right to offer the land in the first place, it's been more than a half a century since then, Israel is there and its existence isn't up for debate (unless a future non-ethnic or religious state makes it an entirely different country for you). Drop the "I let the Palestinian people decide" rhetoric, it only gives reason for critique
Worst part about the whole situation is how the Israeli government seems to just be happy with the status quo. Neither taking the steps to annex the territories and be forced to give the people enfranchisement nor letting Palestinian statehood progress. In the meantime, the people in Gaza and the West Bank have severely constricted movement, just stuck in this limbo that occasionally flares up in violence every few years.
More and more, I find myself drawn to the idea of a one state solution.
Who cares ? This situation won't be resolved by an international court and by UN resolutions. You're speaking like our opinions actually matters and would have incidence on the reality of what would occur if Palestinians get the possibility to choose. You cannot force a people to forgive, you can only hope that they will.
I meant North Africa primarily, and Spain still control a part of Marrueco.
Anyway no lands was muslim to begin with And Spain before the Arab invasion was controlled by a foreign dynasty.
Ehhh... was it? Spain only came to be in 1469 after several kingdoms joined together.
Basically both Portugal and Spain came to be either from the joining or separation of several other kingdoms that were only born after the muslim conquests (Castille, Toledo, Galicia, Navarra, Aragon, Asturias, Leon).
And before the whole muslim conquest process, it really was just Visigoths, Suebis and Germanic Vandals. Go before that and you have Rome. And there are even more different kingdoms/populations before the Romans arrived. To say Spain was ruled by foreign dynasties pre-muslim invasions is a bit vague as the Iberian Peninsual changed hands (in who controlled it) many, many times over the centuries. It only stabilized after the Reconquista process, really.
That said, I think at some point the Byzantines did conquer part of southern Iberia for a while (500-ish AD I think).
Unbelievably inhumane treatment of innocent civilians, yet it's ok because they're Palestinians. The world turning a blind eye to Isralie atrocities to these people is one of the most hypocritical and upsetting events of this and last century. Pulverise them, strip them of thier basic human rights then tell the world they're not looking to make peace with you. Horrible.
Ehhh... was it? Spain only came to be in 1469 after several kingdoms joined together.
Basically both Portugal and Spain came to be either from the joining or separation of several other kingdoms that were only born after the muslim conquests (Castille, Toledo, Galicia, Navarra, Aragon, Asturias, Leon).
And before the whole muslim conquest process, it really was just Visigoths, Suebis and Germanic Vandals. Go before that and you have Rome. And there are even more different kingdoms/populations before the Romans arrived. To say Spain was ruled by foreign dynasties pre-muslim invasions is a bit vague as the Iberian Peninsual changed hands (in who controlled it) many, many times over the centuries. It only stabilized after the Reconquista process, really.
That said, I think at some point the Byzantines did conquer part of southern Iberia for a while (500-ish AD I think).
Yes of course, i speak of Spain only as an abstract concept so people can relate to it, but it didn't exist at the time. Nor France, nor Italy.
But until today, spain national discourse is that it was invaded by muslims and then "reconquered" (reconquista) by the "spanish". It truly don't make any sense as you said since all the known world was just under that or this empire.
Countries don't actually function that way, history isn't that nice and simple, sorry. If modern politics can distinguish the differences in policy between the terms of presidents (a period of 4 years), or less, than you should take a second to realize how silly the idea of multi century long decline is.
I don't even know what "extravagance" is supposed to mean, that's such a catch all term...
Internal dissent from minorities, such a major issue for the Ottomans after the 16th and 17th centuries that until the Greek and Serbian Wars of Independence in the 19th century, it never faced a successful internal revolt. Although yes, the Balkan Wars and rise of Arab nationalism in the 20th century are definitely great examples of this.
From a territorial point of view it's quite clear that the Ottoman Empire started stagnating after the Battle of Vienna at the end of the 17th century and consistently started losing territory from the 19th century onwards. They no longer were the great threat knocking at the doors of central Europe. That's certainly a decline in power and prestige in my book.
Yes of course, i speak of Spain only as an abstract concept so people can relate to it, but it didn't exist at the time. Nor France, nor Italy.
But until today, spain national discourse is that it was invaded by muslims and then "reconquered" (reconquista) by the "spanish". It truly don't make any sense as you said since all the known world was just under that or this empire.
Palestinians already have long term resentment to Israel, we are way past that. I would wager a lot of Gazans have built up resentment to Hamas for worsening their situation. I don't understand why nobody wants to face the truth that as bad as the current Israeli government is, it has no partner for peace on Gaza.
Well that's what happens when you oppress a population over multiple generations. That doesn't mean you should continue to oppress them.
Give them the 1967 borders and financial compensation for the decades of progress Israel has stolen from them. But ofcourse Israel being run by extremist nuts means that this won't happen.
From a territorial point of view it's quite clear that the Ottoman Empire started stagnating after the Battle of Vienna at the end of the 17th century and consistently started losing territory from the 19th century onwards. They no longer were the great threat knocking at the doors of central Europe. That's certainly a decline in power and prestige in my book.
And Spain before the Arab invasion was controlled by a foreign dynasty.