No Israel or what happens to Jewish people in Arab land

Incognito

Banned
In Before Lock!

amphibulous, I know you've been kicked, but when your back can you either post some explanations here or PM them to me? Much obliged.
People slaughtered and oppressed each other left, right and centre for all of history. Jews were victims in that - but they were also oppressors. They sold slaves,
Can you provide a citation proving that Jews played a large role in the slave trade?
acted as intermediaries for absolutely aristocrats in Eastern Europe,
OK
and took part in starving the Ukranians to death.
Are you referring to the Holodomor? How were Jews responsible for it?
In short, the Jews were "horrible, murderous fucks" of the first water - until you reach the new standards set by Nazi Germany, were everyone else fell short. (Ummm, than the Communists, who did include quite a few enthusiastic Jewish members. Well, not the Maoists...)
You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a family member. When I was discussing with my grandmother her love for a far-right nationalist party, my grandmother insisted that the party were not biggeted, did not discriminate against anyone, etc., etc, etc. I than brought up an article where the leader of said party comes out and says that the nation is run by a “Jewish mafia” clique. In hindsight it was rather amusing to see my grandmother (who is nationalistic but not anti-Semitic) try to explain away this. First she says “well he didn’t mean it in a bad way” :rolleyes: and then promptly switched to “you know, there are a lot of Jews in ex-USSR and Russia and not all of them are good…”. I wonder if she would have brought up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion had we continued the conversation? :rolleyes:
 
OK Are you referring to the Holodomor?

I think he's referring to how, especially in Austrian Ruthenia, the general social status breakdown by ethnicity was "Ukrainian peasants, Polish aristocrats, and Jewish bourgeois," a category which included white-collar workers, including bureaucrats enforcing the rule of the aristocrats.
 
I don't recall any massacres, is this part of palestinian propaganda?

Pallywood never stops working....

As to the question in the title:

As other posters have pointed out, Jews would not be faring much better in Arab countries TTL than OTL. The cause is, as has also been mentioned, the rise of nationalism. This caused problems for minorities whereever it happened - Europe as well as the Middle East.
The "everyone lived happily with oneanother with no problems until Israel came along"-narrative is not very convincing at all.

Yes, Israeli governments have made lots of mistakes, and criticizing those mistakes is not in and of itself anti-semitic (heck, plenty of Jewish Israelis have problems with their governments too), but the "As long as you don't say "I hate Jews!" you're not anti-semitic"-narrative isn't serious either.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Something that hasn't really come up in this thread yet is that there's still a major radicalizing force in the Islamic world that won't have vanished just because Israel never existed ITTL: the House of Saud.

You're still going to have Saudi oil money being spent on spreading Salafism far and wide; in fact, you might have even more of it, because the Saudis aren't going to have the Arab-Israeli conflict as an alternative method to distract their population from the oppression and hypocritical impiety.

And given that the Saudi brand of Islam seems to be nightmarish for everyone and everything that it rules over who doesn't subscribe to it, including other Muslims, I don't see the position of Jews as much improved anywhere except (maybe) Iran.
 
Something that hasn't really come up in this thread yet is that there's still a major radicalizing force in the Islamic world that won't have vanished just because Israel never existed ITTL: the House of Saud.

You're still going to have Saudi oil money being spent on spreading Salafism far and wide; in fact, you might have even more of it, because the Saudis aren't going to have the Arab-Israeli conflict as an alternative method to distract their population from the oppression and hypocritical impiety.

And given that the Saudi brand of Islam seems to be nightmarish for everyone and everything that it rules over who doesn't subscribe to it, including other Muslims, I don't see the position of Jews as much improved anywhere except (maybe) Iran.

The United States ITTL will be against Saudi Arabia instead of being allied with Saudi Arabia.
 
Pallywood never stops working....

As to the question in the title:

As other posters have pointed out, Jews would not be faring much better in Arab countries TTL than OTL. The cause is, as has also been mentioned, the rise of nationalism. This caused problems for minorities whereever it happened - Europe as well as the Middle East.

Especially insofar as that nationalism represented a lashing out, a resentment stemming from the perception that Arab societies had been left behind by the march of time. For centuries, they had been subjugated by a series of Turkic tribes (Seljuks, Mamelukes, Ottomans, etc.). And then Turks were gradually supplanted by Europeans. And the willingness to blame minorities for these failures had already been manifested long before the Balfour Declaration - the anti-Jewish riots in Algiers (1815, 1830) and Damascus (1840), the later playing off the blood libel, are the more notable examples. The Ottoman Empire had once been a fairly tolerant place (with exceptions) for Jews; as it decayed, it was less and less so.

And even without a Jewish homeland, that would largely stay the same. Jews would face growing persecution along with Christians; and unfortunately for them, there are harsher passages in the Q'uran against Jews for the zealots to latch onto. The Jews make too easy of a target, I'm afraid.

And yes, the rise of Wahhabism at the behest of the House of Saud would only exacerbate that.

Things might not be quite as severe as they are today for Jews, but I do expect that, even in the absence of Israel, virtually all of the Middle East would have left or been forced out by now, mainly to the U.S. and Europe. There might be the rare exception, however.
 

Incognito

Banned
Something that hasn't really come up in this thread yet is that there's still a major radicalizing force in the Islamic world that won't have vanished just because Israel never existed ITTL: the House of Saud.

You're still going to have Saudi oil money being spent on spreading Salafism far and wide; in fact, you might have even more of it, because the Saudis aren't going to have the Arab-Israeli conflict as an alternative method to distract their population from the oppression and hypocritical impiety.
And yes, the rise of Wahhabism at the behest of the House of Saud would only exacerbate that.
I don't know enough on the topic to say for sure, but it seems overly simplistic to say that Saudi's are the sole responsibility for rise of radical Islam. That being said, depending on what POD results in "no Israel", the Saudi's may not come to power due to resulting butterflies.
The United States ITTL will be against Saudi Arabia instead of being allied with Saudi Arabia.
Er, not that USA allying with Saudi Arabia is an inevitability, but why do you say with such certainty that "United States ITTL will be against Saudi Arabia" :confused:? If Middle East ends up to be a region of competition between USA and a rival power like in OTL Cold War and if USA and Western world needs oil like OTL, then the only reason why USA would not try to ally with the Saudi Arabia is if Saudi's are already allied with the rival power.
 
Incognito,

I don't know enough on the topic to say for sure, but it seems overly simplistic to say that Saudi's are the sole responsibility for rise of radical Islam. That being said, depending on what POD results in "no Israel", the Saudi's may not come to power due to resulting butterflies.

Possible. Not likely, but possible.

But Wahabbism predates the Balfour Declaration, and it seems hard to imagine a dynasty - Saudis or Hashemites, etc. - or regime taking power and maintaining it in Arabia (especially the Hijaz) without accommodating Wahabbism in some way.

Er, not that USA allying with Saudi Arabia is an inevitability, but why do you say with such certainty that "United States ITTL will be against Saudi Arabia" :confused:? If Middle East ends up to be a region of competition between USA and a rival power like in OTL Cold War and if USA and Western world needs oil like OTL, then the only reason why USA would not try to ally with the Saudi Arabia is if Saudi's are already allied with the rival power.

Especially since Saudi Arabia was a British client, more or less...and increasingly, America, not least because it had so much oil. And Saudi Arabia was weak enough to feel a much greater need for a great power protector in way that (say) Iraq and Egypt did not.
 
But Wahabbism predates the Balfour Declaration, and it seems hard to imagine a dynasty - Saudis or Hashemites, etc. - or regime taking power and maintaining it in Arabia (especially the Hijaz) without accommodating Wahabbism in some way.

Wahhabism was referred to as "the trouble out of Nejd" - the area around Riyadh, in north central Arabia, well to the east of Hejaz.

The Ottomans and Hashemites ruled Hejaz without any accomodation with Wahhabism, except to fight them when they made trouble.

After the Saudi/Wahhabi conquest of Hejaz, they destroyed certain Moslem relics in the area, including the tombs of Mohammed's companions, as "idolatrous". (Wahhabism parallels extreme Calvinism in this: during the Wars of Religion, Huguenots and Puritans destroyed relics, icons, stained glass windows, and regalia.)

Note that these relics had survived for 1300 years untouched.
 
Somehow I wish that all the jews went to America. That would have solved lots of problems except for americas hypocritical immigration policies
 
Top