|
Vast majority of Muslim-majority countries do not recognize Israel as a sovereign state. Some of the countries that do including Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan have tense relationship with Israel while the overwhelming majority of their respective citizens openly hate Israel. This unique situation would make much more sense if it were only the Arab world but countries like Indonesia and Malaysia also have held the same anti-Israel positions ever since the very beginning even though Jews never had much of a presence in them. Interestingly, many of these countries have expressed support for China's Xinjiang re-education camp in one way or another. On the other hand, Azerbaijan and Central Asia do not have this problem with Israel. Is this just pure anti-semitic bigotry? Is there an explanation to this peculiar situation? StellarHalo (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All members of a religion tend to display solidarity when some of their number are "oppressed" by members of another religion - this is a natural human trait. Most if not all Muslim-majority countries, Arab or not, have a very small Jewish presence. I'm surprised that any country can support China's repression of its Muslim minority. 2A00:23C5:C70B:500:71AC:5E8B:9BE1:A27E (talk) 17:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Why Muslim nations remain silent as China sends ethnic minorities to re-education camps". --Lambiam 21:07, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As the victims of Israeli actions are Muslims and Arabs it makes sense that those who identify as such pay more attention and wish for the horrors to end. It is important to note that other groups also pay more attention due to their greater ability to identify with victims of Israeli aggression, these groups include the Irish due to their suffering with the British, non-white South Africans due to their history of apartheid, and to some extent African Americans and the LGBT community due to discrimination against them. Apart from Eastern Europeans who have shifted to the far-right like Israel, groups that suffered injustice themselves want to see Israel leave their neighbours in peace. As for the anti-semitic claim, that's just something the pro-occupation lobby says to silence critics. Of 19 (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hamas' charter openly says it seeks the destruction/extermination of Israel. It launches warheads at cities. Palestinian Authority acts moderate on one side of the mouth and on the other side of the mouth names streets after anyone who kills random civilian Jews and pays the bombers' families many times the average wage. They won't leave Israel in peace. They have suffered tens of 9/11s per captita. If the median MP of Eastern European countries (what happened to judging individuals by character like the great MLK instead of using the evil and bad of an ethnicity to view them all?) is right-wing to far-right being under Soviet occupation and the people who remember the Nazi terror dieing off has something to do with it. If the Soviets had left them alone perhaps for assurances of not joining either bloc and they followed Sweden's model then the evil Eastern Europeans would have fewer rightists. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of Palestinians just want to live a peaceful normal live, like most people everywhere else. They are not seeking anyone's destruction. People in Gaza are as much prisoners of Hamas as of Israeli hawks (who need each other to remain in power). --Lambiam 22:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did Fatah lose the Gaza election then? Why did
~80(?) 84 percent of respondents in a survey by Palestinians support that war crime where the dude mass shot a Jewish school including kids and killed many civilians and all the little Jews huddled in complete terror pushing the door the terrorist was pushing? I'll look up a source cause the exact number was so high it surprised even me. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 84 percent. Holy mother fuck, I wanted to say ~82 percent but thought, nah it can't be. Nope, 84 percent. 8 students shot dead by the way, 11 wounded, AK-47. Mercaz HaRav massacre. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- People were fed up with the ineffectiveness and incompetence of Fatah, which was made worse by continued widespread corruption of the Palestinian National Authority controlled by Fatah. Hamas promised to drain the swamp and the voters fell for it. Once in power, they soon proved not to be any better. --Lambiam 03:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede of Hamas Charter: The Hamas Covenant or Hamas Charter, formally known in English as the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, was originally issued on 18 August 1988 [...] A new charter was issued by Hamas leader Khaled Mashal on 1 May 2017 in Doha.[2] [...] The charter states that "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[3] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[4][5] It emphasizes the importance of jihad, stating in article 13, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." [etc.]. What happened to voting for fascists for any reason makes you a fascist? Also why'd 84% support AK-47ing teenagers in a yeshiva? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This has no longer anything to do with the original question. The Reference Desk is not a high-school debating club. For the issue you raise, see this (archived) article: Angela Stephens (March 2, 2006). "Most Palestinians Believe Hamas Should Change its Position on Eliminating Israel". WorldPublicOpinion.org, and note this paragraph, "However, new polling following the election indicates that two-thirds of Palestinians believe Hamas should change its policy of rejecting Israel's right to exist. Most also support a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Post-election polls indicate that Hamas' victory is due largely to Palestinians' desire to end corruption in government rather than support for the organization's political platform.". --Lambiam 22:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the best you can find from on or after the 84% poll date? A million Palestinians live in Gaza remember and the others' "hearts and minds" were probably more influenced by Hamas propaganda after they won, or Fatah polarizing to not become less popular than Hamas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also quite ironic that since Ashkenazi Jews are Eastern European and Semitic then characterizing Israelis and E. Europeans as one circle of a Venn diagram of the world's evils would be a Hitler-approved message. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Like many of these things, the tangled roots of this are in the history. You might start with the Balfour Declaration and then move on to 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, 1947-1948 civil war in Mandatory Palestine, 1948 Arab-Israeli War and Six-Day War etc, etc. Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relatively young age of the average Middle Easterner, official government-sponsored hate campaigns deserve a mention. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but Palestinian refugees discusses some unresolved issues. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No one talks about the Jewish refugees pogromed out of Arabian countries when the Brits left Israel. It was a long time ago but so were the Palestinians who mostly left Israel expecting quick destruction (not forced out of). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Whataboutism and Moral equivalence. --Lambiam 12:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So let the Jewish refugees move back to the countries they were pogromed out of at almost exactly the same time and the Palestinians move back to Israel. Not desired by either Jewish refugees' pre-'47 neighbors or the ex-refugees themselves? Well too bad, karma's a bitch. If right before Jew immigration (except not occupied by Constantinople this time, nor being serfs of Ottoman Empire landlords who live in Damascus) is the Make Palestine Great Again time then wouldn't that mean the planet's countries need to become whatever 1800s people (don't know decade) would've voted for in free elections? So German refugees can move back to Prussia and end the occupation, Polish refugees can end the Ukrainian occupation, like this for hundreds of peoples and unless Hamas' Make Everything Great Again time coincides with their own irredentists will want a different "this was the only when everything was good era, anything younger is occupation, anything more is before occupation became wrong and should be reversed, bOrDeRs ChAnGe AlL tHe TiMe" hundreds of new countries will form and borders will squiggle everywhere which will totally be respected and not lead to many new wars. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See further Straw man and Non sequitur. --Lambiam 22:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Will Jewish refugees' former countrymen accept them back? Why should one of history's most persecuted minorities let themselves be outvoted from their only country by those who haven't lived there in 72 years when even the small part of the million Jews who want to go back are too disgusting to accept? How is that a straw man? If you want to destroy the Jewish sanctuary with numerical superiority at least accept a few Jewish refugees back, it's only fair. All these new voters would probably be smart enough to boil the Jewish frog too, it looks much better than forcing all Jews to leave ASAP or in a year. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What SMW doesn't want to see is how the creation of a settler state in Paletine is intimately linked to the latter stage of European colonialism. Most border disputes between European countries have either been settled (like Germany-Poland) or been reduced to a historical anecdote (like Olivenza or Gibraltar). And most of the territories outside of the European spheres were de-colonized, giving way to new republics in Africa and Asia. But where European colonialism installed permanent settler regimes (Palestine and South Africa), this caused a conflict that intertwined anti-colonial nationalism and the Cold War politics, becoming a creed of unity (South Africa in the case of the OAU, Palestine in the case of the Arab States), closely enmeshed with the identities of Third World republican nationalism. --Soman (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't tell me Jews have white privilege when half of them were genocided by Europeans 3 years before Israel and anyone else they could catch were enslaved on rations calculated to cause extermination through work in 1 year, that's ridiculous. Some of them aren't even white, they're Black or Chinese, Israeli Jews come in all colors. In fact lots of them today are genetically indistinguishable from Arabs as they're both Semites and some Israelis have lived with Arabs for a hundred generations and there were times when relations weren't bad. South Africans literally enslaved people, trekked into uncolonized land to avoid British slavery bans (this is why border points away from Cape Town) and apartheided them despite a lack of a severe or even minor terrorism problem, not morally equivalent. They were far-right in other ways Israel is not too, like being paranoidly afraid of communism, which in the end never hurt them, ludicrous expansionism not needed for defensible borders, trying to overthrow Angola which was not needed for defense, their TV etc. Israelis only expand when the borders are indefensible, when Egypt demilitarized Sinai Israel left. When peacekeepers demilitarized South Lebanon Israel left. Their country was almost destroyed on minute 1 remember, and '67. Europeans and non-Europeans have bullied the shit out of Jews for thousands of years, they're our worst modern genocide, one of the most persecuted peoples in recent memory, just let them have their tiny little ceasefire line and tiny little settlements (which are only on hills and distances good to kill Israelis proper from) and leave them the fuck alone. Why is antisemitism suddenly good when non-Europeans do it? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt whether Muslims outside the Arab world were widely mobilized against Israel until after the 6-day war of 1967, and especially the Dome of the Rock pulpit-burning incident of 1969. The OIC was basically founded for the specific purpose of telling lies about the pulpit-burning incident (member states claiming relentlessly that the Israeli government was involved, though the Israeli government was not involved), and has continued this inglorious tradition of bias down to the present, refusing to condemn Darfur atrocities and Xinjiang Uighur camps. Israel wasn't kicked out of the Asian Football Confederation until 1974... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this discussion on track and respectful. This started out as a legitimate question, with some thoughtful answers, but due to the controversial topic area, it has the potential to go off the rails, and there are some hints of it starting on that path. Although some guidelines that deal primarily with article Talk pages may not apply here, nevertheless there are guidelines and policy about user behavior (such as WP:CIVIL) that apply everywhere, and probably especially so in sanctionable, contentious topic areas like the Arab-Israeli conflict.. The Wikipedia policy WP:NOTADVOCACY does apply imho, and WP:NOTFORUM could be used to collapse or remove this discussion. Please remain respectful, direct your comments towards answering the user's original question or contributing positively to the discussion, resist the temptation to get involved in a general debate about the topic, and please do not use this discussion as a soapbox for a particular point of view. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'discussion' should be hatted, since it is based on a question that assumes a falsehood, or a misdirected query. Some readers might look in the meantime at Arab Peace Initiative, which Israel for two decades has refused to formally respond to.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nishidani -- the Arab Peace Initiative never went much of anywhere because 1) The attitude of the Saudis was that they deserved great credit and lavish high praise for no longer calling for kicking the Jews out of the middle east (which had basically been the Saudi position from the 1940s to just a few years before). However, in 2002 the Israeli people and government were not in a mood such that they were inclined to give them any such great credit and lavish high praise. 2) If you examine the details of the Arab Peace Initiative, it's actually a recycled generic 1980s-style peace plan, which had little relevance to the specific situation and issues which existed in 2002. In short, the Arab Peace Initiative is only impressive if the alternative is calling for the Jews to be thrown into the sea. In other contexts, in which that's not the main alternative, it's not too impressive. AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Let's go back to the original question. I'd StellarHalo's post can be divided into a few statements and 2 questions (my commentary added in [brackets]);
- Most contemporary Muslim-majority states do not have diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. Some do. - [The quick answer, I'd say, is that religious affiliation of population shouldn't be overemphasized in world politics. That said, I think it is possible to say that the Palestine question occupies a central function in contemporary Islamic political identity, and the Muslim-majority states in Central Asia are also states that generally do not align with an Islamic political project. The question why Palestine, and not Kashmir, Xinjiang or Northern Cyprus, occupies this central function is a separate question, see below]
- In Muslim-majority states the 'overwhelming majority of their respective citizens openly hate Israel' - [I'd say that the factual accuracy of the statement is questionable, unless 'hate' is construed in an extremely broad sense. But in any case, and this is also implied by StellarHalo's post, the situation isn't uniform across all Muslim-majority states]
- Some countries have taken 'anti-Israel stance' from 'beginning' in spite not having a history of significant Jewish population - [I'd say this point leads to two points - 1) Yes, there is no causality between the stance of Muslim-majority countries on the Palestine question and domestic antisemitism in the individual countries. 2) Whilst we can talk of an OIC position on Palestine or an Arab League position on Palestine, there are also national, regional and local dynamics at play. The Palestine question have very different dynamics even in the two South East Asian countries mentioned. In Malaysia, the Palestine question plays a key role in Malay national identity. Malay nationalists (or chauvinists) draw a parallel between Malaya and Palestine under British colonial rule, and argues that the British sought to change the demographics by Jewish immigration to Palestine and Chinese immigration to Malaya. Palestine is used as a cautionary tale of what will happen if non-Malays become the demographic majority and is used as a rallying cry to preserve Malay dominance of the state. In Indonesia, in sharp contrast to neighbouring Malaysia, a new state was built by leftist-nationalist coalition, who had a recent past of militant confrontation with Dutch colonialism (unlike the Malay elites who came to rule Malaysia) and espoused a progressive, secular and modernist outlook. Clearly the new Indonesian Republic wanted to do away with Arabic cultural influence (like the script) and create a new national identity. But on the Palestine question Indonesia (and other many other states at the time) were strongly concerned over the plan for Partition of Palestine by UN, fearing that their own nation-building projects could be subject to the same treatment in the future. As the Cold War took shape, Indonesia was one of the key organizers of the Non-Aligned Movement, in which they aligned with the Arab republics. Now, what happened on Indonesian-Palestinian relations after the 1965 coup is a bit outside of my area of knowledge, but a speculation would be that Suharto had little interest to anger the Islamic hardliners who he had used to attack the Communist Party. In brief, there are a lot of complexities in how positions have developed, but antisemitism is hardly the explanation.]
- Some Muslim-majority countries have even expressed support for Chinese policy in Xinjiang - [Yes, many governments of Muslim-majority states have publicly voiced support for Chinese policies on Xinjiang. Islamic solidarity, as a political project clearly has its limits and for the most part governments act on their own interests rather on basis of religious affiliation. The position that the Islamic polity should take the side of Muslims in conflict with non-Muslims regardless of context is only upheld by fringe elements and extremists. Two points can be made: 1) Palestine occupies a central function in contemporary Arab and Muslim imagination, in a way no other disputed territory does. We can debate in depth on the causes, but I think it's safe to say that antisemitism isn't a factor. On the contrary, chauvinism towards Chinese people is probably more prominent in many Muslim-majority countries, but such prejudices doesn't translate into foreign policy. 2) That's not to say that feeling of Islamic solidarity are non-existent. During the Bosnia war, the plight of Bosnian Muslims evoked support across the Muslim world. The Rohingya situation has had strong repercussions on public opinion in countries like Pakistan, etc, etc.]
- [In regards to the two questions to the end of StellarHalo's question - is antisemitism the explanation? and is there an explanation?, I think it can be safely argued that antisemitism cannot be used as explanation. I'd also say that no, there isn't a single straightforward answer to all of the question, there are many different processes in play. I think that the dynamics of anti-colonialism, combined with the deep-rooted feeling of betrayal against the Arabs by the Western powers, provide a good starting point to study the issue, but its not the whole story.]
- [Talking about colonialism and anti-colonialism here isn't only about pointing the the historical roots of why states developed their foreign policy positions and alliance building projects. On a people-to-people basis, there appears to be a link between indignation and perceptions on correlation of forces. In a conflict between two equal parties, a bystander may feel that the two are equally responsible and accountable. But if there is a clear discrepancy in power, the violence used by the stronger party is perceived as unjust. My Lai is often used as a reference point, disproportionate use of violence by the strongest military superpower in the world against a peasant population in the Third World, captured in harrowing photos brought immediate world-wide condemnation. Another more recent point would be to ask why the killing of George Floyd evoked worldwide protests, including from the African Union, whilst the killings of hundreds of demonstrators in an African country few weeks later passed unnoticed. In regards to Palestine, the disproportional nature of the conflict is glaring: the State of Israel possesses one of most advanced military forces in the world, the Palestinians resist with light weaponry, rockets without guiding systems (most of them home-made), rocks, graffiti and flags. I'd say that in terms of people-to-people solidarity with Palestine, kinship factors, the idea that the people of Palestine are part of a Arab or Muslim brethren may be important, but the indignation over the violence against the Palestinian people clearly transcends religious and ethnic lines. To feel indignation over children being imprisoned, the plight of children suffering weeks of constant bombardment, the pain of young amputees having been shot when throwing rocks, etc, etc, is essentially a human reaction.] --Soman (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Launching well over a thousand dozen unguided bombs at cities is not resistance, it is a crime against humanity, an antisemitic one at that. Don't make excuses for war criminals and racist fascists. Why do you people always just say X Palestinian children being imprisoned now and nothing else and draw a tiny little kawaii girl silhouette holding balloons, do you realize that is propaganda? Only those who already sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis would be influenced by such low-quality "arguments". Are you seriously implying that little girls well under 10 is an important demographic in Jew thug prison? I don't want to know how many children are imprisoned, I want to know what they did and if their sentence seems proportionate. When you say children you probably mean "minor" and almost completely males heavily skewed to old stoning soldiers. Heck, if I believed I'd get 72 virgins for suicide bombing a Jew or even seriously trying and couldn't get girls horny teen me might've done that too. I doubt the high school guys shot for slinging rocks at Israeli defenders were shot by anyone observing their rules of engagement, maybe they were bad apples (we all know how every military has atrocity personalities), maybe they were drafted pussies who don't belong there, maybe enablers let it slide cause baseballs and cricket balls have killed people and sling rocks are much heavier, harder and denser and probably faster, do you have any evidence there are shoot at slinger orders? And you ignore the normal human reaction to little kids amputated by rockets of course, you never talk about the Jews killed and maimed by terrorists who couldn't possibly have judged if they "deserve it" (not that they would be unbiased if they could) or the kids suffering so many rocket raid sirens which unlike IDF bombs actually are intended for kids, or Jews in general. The nearest town to Gaza has huge percents of kids with PTSD. If they stop doing that shit then trying to proportionately harm terrorists through their human shields will stop. You are aware that Hamas tries to get civilians to die on the terrorists' roofs with propaganda or coercion right? The terrorists would die too but everyone gets 72 virgins (and a straight male-like sex drive if you're gay or female and a patience for 72 virgin men I guess) and civilian deaths make Hamas nut in their pants for the propaganda value so it's all good. They try to fire a small missile at an empty corner just outside shrapnel range of people to get them to leave, I don't know if that always works though. While IDF warns apartments before bombing terrorists Hamas lies saying don't flee cause you're just as unsafe in the street. Bullshit. They tell them they make lots of fake warning calls. Fake news. Hamas openly builds rockets in hospitals and schools and launches them from random strangers' places and run without warning them instead of hiding on farms. They hope some computer calculates the trajectory from radar and bombs the source so they can claim Jews are killing civilians in cold blood. Or you could've just lived with the Jews in peace like Switzerland. You prefer conflict till the Jews can't trust you anymore I guess. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
