[noemon]

I also did, there is an account that a radical imam incited the attack.

Which is actually an anecdote if you bothered to check the citation in wiki, not an account. But even if it is taken to be correct, there is no evidence that this radical person was a Palestinian Sunni, in fact the Rabbi of the area is quite clear and explicit that the attackers were Druze.

I'm sure they'll be able to get justice I'm sure they'll be able to get justice as part of a durable peace agreement

So what you 're saying is that Israel will keep on destroying homes, crops, livelihoods and no justice will ever be provided because unlike the Palestinian Muslims in Safed 2 centuries ago Israel is incapable of delivering justice and of terminating the injustices. So according to you Israel is worse than people in the area 2 centuries ago. People like Ibrahim who was dubbed the "butcher of Greece" and even that guy gave justice to the Jews against fellow Muslims. But Israel is incapable of delivering basic UN justice in 2016, let alone have Palestinians point at Jews and seize their own properties back which is the justice given to Jews by Muslims in Palestine.

if the moderates can rein the extremists in so there can actually be a peace process that can end in an effective and just peace

So you blame the Palestinians for their own ethnic-cleansing & persecution in the occupied territories.

Safed's governor was among the people who were punished by Ibrahim Pasha's men

Are you implying that Safed's governor was punished for "anti-semitism"? Bring evidence either way, because I do not trust anything you say.

[wat0n]

Which is actually an anecdote if you bothered to check the citation in wiki, not an account. But even if it is taken to be correct, there is no evidence that this radical person was a Palestinian Sunni, in fact the Rabbi of the area is quite clear and explicit that the attackers were Druze.

Imams are not Muslim now? In any event, it is explicitly mentioned he was a Muslim cleric, i.e. an Imam.

So what you 're saying is that Israel will keep on destroying homes, crops, livelihoods and no justice will ever be provided because unlike the Palestinian Muslims in Safed 2 centuries ago Israel is incapable of delivering justice and of terminating the injustices. So according to you Israel is worse than people in the area 2 centuries ago. People like Ibrahim who was dubbed the "butcher of Greece" and even that guy gave justice to the Jews against fellow Muslims. But Israel is incapable of delivering basic UN justice in 2016, let alone have Palestinians point at Jews and seize their own properties back which is the justice given to Jews by Muslims in Palestine.

I don't think I said or implied any of the sort. What I said is quite clear: The Palestinians do have the possibility of getting to a peace deal with Israel, unfortunately, they are divided and so far those who don't want to negotiate with Israel are strong enough to crush moderates.

So you blame the Palestinians for their own ethnic-cleansing & persecution in the occupied territories.

Did I say that? No, I did not (leaving aside that I don't even agree with your characterization of what's going on in the territories). I said there are things they can do to end the conflict and that Israel will most likely fall in line just like it did when Egypt and Jordan took the issue of signing a peace treaty with Israel seriously.

Israel also has things it can do to end the conflict with the Palestinians that go beyond negotiations. It can end the settlement project for good, which will also end many of the restrictions Palestinians face.

Not that you will quote the above just like you didn't quote me when I said the same.

Are you implying that Safed's governor was punished for "anti-semitism"? Bring evidence either way, because I do not trust anything you say.

He was hanged for the attacks against the Jewish community in the city. It's in the Wikipedia article you quote obviously refuse to read with even a little of objectivity, as:

1) You claimed only Druze participated in the attacks, when the article says otherwise and indeed mentions the incitement of a radical Muslims cleric.

2) You claimed there are no historians providing that account when the article explicitly mentions some.

3) You claimed the governor administered justice over the attacks when they were only stopped and justice served (to an extent, most of the stolen goods were never recovered) when Ibrahim Pasha sent his men to pacify Safed.

Given you have such a poor understanding of the article due to your selective reading of it, I don't find it surprising you can't even understand my arguments since you are not reading my posts anyway and prefer to engage in constant straw man fallacies instead - and then you have the gall to lecture me about morality when you don't even represent my claims correctly.

[noemon]

Imams are not Muslim now? In any event, it is explicitly mentioned he was a Muslim cleric, i.e. an Imam.

Which is actually an anecdote if you bothered to check the citation in wiki, not an account. But even if it is taken to be correct, there is no evidence that this radical person was a Palestinian Sunni, in fact the Rabbi of the area is quite clear and explicit that the attackers were Druze.

Are you starting to lose your marbles again?

So what you 're saying is that Israel will keep on destroying homes, crops, livelihoods and no justice will ever be provided because unlike the Palestinian Muslims in Safed 2 centuries ago Israel is incapable of delivering justice and of terminating the injustices. So according to you Israel is worse than people in the area 2 centuries ago. People like Ibrahim who was dubbed the "butcher of Greece" and even that guy gave justice to the Jews against fellow Muslims. But Israel is incapable of delivering basic UN justice in 2016, let alone have Palestinians point at Jews and seize their own properties back which is the justice given to Jews by Muslims in Palestine.

I don't think I said or implied any of the sort. What I said is quite clear: The Palestinians do have the possibility of getting to a peace deal with Israel, unfortunately, they are divided and so far those who don't want to negotiate with Israel are strong enough to crush moderates. Did I say that? No, I did not (leaving aside that I don't even agree with your characterization of what's going on in the territories). I said there are things they can do to end the conflict and that Israel will most likely fall in line just like it did when Egypt and Jordan took the issue of signing a peace treaty with Israel seriously.

Israel also has things it can do to end the conflict with the Palestinians that go beyond negotiations. It can end the settlement project for good, which will also end many of the restrictions Palestinians face.

We are not talking about a peace deal between 2 governments but about justice of basic UN human rights to property, and free of discrimination. The Jews in Safed did not get a State, but justice. Justice, have you lost the meaning of the words? You equated basic justice of basic human rights as being contingent with a peace deal and you blamed the lack of peace to the Palestinians themselves. As pathetic as one can go. Not even Ibrahim Pasha, the butcher was as bad as that.
So where does that place Israel?

He was hanged for the attacks against the Jewish community in the city. It's in the Wikipedia article you quote obviously refuse to read with even a little of objectivity, as:

The district governor tried to quell the violent outbreak, but failed to do so and fled.[5]

Most of the rebels fled, but thirteen ringleaders along with the town's governor were captured, tried and publicly hanged in Acre.[3][36]

Nowhere is it stated that he was hanged for "antisemitism". Ibrahim pasha hanged several people for failing on their duties and for failing to impose his authority.
You are confused but I doubt it, you are not confused you are intentionally and laughably trying to find something that may justify your whining. But you fail and miserably so and the more you continue the larger hole you dig like always.

1) You claimed only Druze participated in the attacks, when the article says otherwise

The Jewish rabbi of the area only mentions the Druze. And the Jewish historian mentions the Druze, Maronites and Metoualis.

and indeed mentions the incitement of a radical Muslims cleric.

Which is an anecdote and no evidence that the cleric was a Palestinian Sunni, if he was the local Rabbi would have mentioned it but he did not.

2) You claimed there are no historians providing that account when the article explicitly mentions some.

The anecdote of the Muslim cleric is only provided by a British traveller did not witness it but was later told the anecdote by some local Jews.

3) You claimed the governor administered justice over the attacks when they were only stopped and justice served (to an extent, most of the stolen goods were never recovered) when Ibrahim Pasha sent his men to pacify Safed.

As both governors were installed by Ibrahim Pasha, it is a fact that the Governor of Palestine gave the Jews the right to point towards any Muslim, have him beaten until he confessed and return the goods. Can you even fathom Israel doing that today? Allowing the Palestinians to point to their homes, properties and get them back wherever possible? Even the Muslim butcher Ibrahim gave the Jews this right 2 centuries ago, and today not only properties are not being given back in the year 2016, not only no compensation is being given back but more properties are being stolen by Israelis as we speak and you are here crying about that 2 centuries ago.

[wat0n]

Are you starting to lose your marbles again?

You most certainly have since it's explicit in the article.

We are not talking about a peace deal between 2 governments but about justice of basic UN human rights to property, and free of discrimination. The Jews in Safed did not get a State, but justice. Justice, have you lost the meaning of the words? You equated basic justice of basic human rights as being contingent with a peace deal and you blamed the lack of peace to the Palestinians themselves. As pathetic as one can go. Not even Ibrahim Pasha, the butcher was as bad as that.
So where does that place Israel?

I don't think I did, on the contrary, I said Israel can and should in fact do things to improve the situation (including the lives of the Palestinians) that don't depend on negotiations - which are themselves a precondition to a peace treaty. Chiefly among them, ending the settlement project, which includes and goes well beyond of what you mentioned.

Nowhere is it stated that he was hanged for "antisemitism".

Nowhere did I say he was hanged for antisemitism, that's just your misrepresentation of what I said - as usual.

Ibrahim pasha hanged several people for failing on their duties and for failing to impose his authority.
You are confused but I doubt it, you are not confused you are intentionally and laughably trying to find something that may justify your whining. But you fail and miserably so and the more you continue the larger hole you dig like always.

Indeed, the governor failed to impose their authority and was hanged, so how exactly did he administer justice if he was dead?

The Jewish rabbi of the area only mentions the Druze. And the Jewish historian mentions the Druze, Maronites and Metoualis.

A different historian mentions the Muslims, it's part of the section I quoted. Other references of the article says the same.

And the Rabbi says that Muslims also were punished for attacking Jews, which means they took part in the attacks - as stated in the paragraph you quoted yourself.

Which is an anecdote and no evidence that the cleric was a Palestinian Sunni, if he was the local Rabbi would have mentioned it but he did not.

Since when was there a single account of what happened? And how is incitement just a meaningless anecdote?

The anecdote of the Muslim cleric is only provided by a British traveller did not witness it but was later told the anecdote by some local Jews.

Still not mentioning the historian who wrote an article for Ha'aretz providing an account of the attack in 1934. Pathetic.

As both governors were installed by Ibrahim Pasha, it is a fact that the Governor of Palestine gave the Jews the right to point towards any Muslim, have him beaten until he confessed and return the goods. Can you even fathom Israel doing that today? Allowing the Palestinians to point to their homes, properties and get them back wherever possible? Even the Muslim butcher Ibrahim gave the Jews this right 2 centuries ago, and today not only properties are not being given back in the year 2016, not only no compensation is being given back but more properties are being stolen by Israelis as we speak and you are here crying about that 2 centuries ago.

Actually I can, Israel provided Israeli Palestinian citizens with compensation in 1973 and I see no reason of why the same cannot be offered to non-Israeli Palestinians when the security situation allows for it - just like Ibrahim Pasha's men were able to stabilize the security situation in Safed.

And no, the governor of the city did not stop the revolt, this only happened after Ibrahim Pasha's men took control of the city.

Not that it changes much, it doesn't change the fact that the attack took place as described by the historians included in my quote, and it doesn't change the fact that you are still pretending this isn't the case, just like it also doesn't change the fact you are tearing your straw men down rather than address my arguments as they are.

[noemon]

You most certainly have since it's explicit in the article.

You accuse me of claiming that a Muslim Cleric is not Muslim, because I asked for evidence that he was a Palestinian Sunni as you claim? And no you are being dishonest, no such thing is in the article, but you can quote it and prove that you are not being dishonest.

Nowhere did I say he was hanged for antisemitism, that's just your misrepresentation of what I said - as usual.

As long as you backpedal it's fine with me either way.

Indeed, the governor failed to impose their authority and was hanged, so how exactly did he administer justice if he was dead? And the Rabbi says that Muslims also were punished for attacking Jews, which means they took part in the attacks - as stated in the paragraph you quoted yourself.

That is simple, the new Palestinian Governor administered Justice to the Jews by letting them point towards any Muslim they feel like, have him beaten, have him confess and have him return the goods. People like me are not even asking for the Jews in Israel to be so just towards the Muslims but the least Israel can do is stop stealing more of their properties and throwing them on the street. And the least zionist apologists like yourself can do is stop blaming the victims, accusing the Palestinians for events 2 centuries ago when 2 centuries ago the Palestinian Muslims delivered justice to the Jews and yet in the year 2016, Israel is ethnic-cleansing them and stealing their land, crops and homes. That does not mean that Palestinian Sunnis were involved in the attacks and it is quite pathetic blaming them without evidence and while 2 centuries later you are trying to justify the lack of justice towards them.

A different historian mentions the Muslims, it's part of the section I quoted. Other references of the article says the same.

You never quoted anything of Palestinian Sunnis and the Druzes are Muslims.

Since when was there a single account of what happened? And how is incitement just a meaningless anecdote?Still not mentioning the historian who wrote an article for Ha'aretz providing an account of the attack in 1934. Pathetic.

a) You are not making any sense about some article in Haaretz about 1934?. What? I think you have lost it.

b) The anecdote of the Muslim cleric allegedly inciting people is only provided by a British traveller who did not witness it but was later told the anecdote by some local Jews. The very same Jews who had followed the Shabatai Zevi "prophet" that is and who were quite keen on making up "prophesies".

Actually I can, Israel provided Israeli Palestinian citizens with compensation in 1973 and I see no reason of why the same cannot be offered to non-Israeli Palestinians when the security situation allows for it - just like Ibrahim Pasha's men were able to stabilize the security situation in Safed.

Fyi, the rebel situation happened again 4 years later(this also trashes that Lebanon argument you laughably tried to make before), and are you saying that Israel is incapable of keeping itself secure?

As both governors were installed by Ibrahim Pasha, it is a fact that the Governor of Palestine gave the Jews the right to point towards any Muslim, have him beaten until he confessed and return the goods. Can you even fathom Israel doing that today? Allowing the Palestinians to point to their homes, properties and get them back wherever possible? Even the Muslim butcher Ibrahim gave the Jews this right 2 centuries ago, and today not only properties are not being given back in the year 2016, not only no compensation is being given back but more properties are being stolen by Israelis as we speak and you are here crying about that 2 centuries ago.

[wat0n]

You accuse me of claiming that a Muslim Cleric is not Muslim, because I asked for evidence that he was a Palestinian Sunni as you claim? And no you are being dishonest, no such thing is in the article, but you can quote it and prove that you are not being dishonest.

He was a local Muslims cleric. I wonder what can you deduce from that? That he was a Persian Shi'ite?

As long as you backpedal it's fine with me either way.

Can't backpedal from what I did not say.

That is simple, the new Palestinian Governor administered Justice to the Jews by letting them point towards any Muslim they feel like, have him beaten, have him confess and have him return the goods. People like me are not even asking for the Jews in Israel to be so just towards the Muslims but the least Israel can do is stop stealing more of their properties and throwing them on the street. And the least zionist apologists like yourself can do is stop blaming the victims, accusing the Palestinians for events 2 centuries ago when 2 centuries ago the Palestinian Muslims delivered justice to the Jews and yet in the year 2016, Israel is ethnic-cleansing them and stealing their land, crops and homes. That does not mean that Palestinian Sunnis were involved in the attacks and it is quite pathetic blaming them without evidence and while 2 centuries later you are trying to justify the lack of justice towards them.

Still misrepresenting what I said, and still ignoring what's in the article. Again, pathetic.

You never quoted anything of Palestinian Sunnis and the Druzes are Muslims.

Most Muslims (Sunni and Shia) don't consider the Druze to be Muslims.

And indeed, the article draws the distinction between Muslims and the Druze.

Again, pathetic.

a) You are not making any sense about some article in Haaretz in 1934?. What? I think you have lost it.

Read the article in full. Or simply read my quotation in full.

b) The anecdote of the Muslim cleric allegedly inciting people is only provided by a British traveller who did not witness it but was later told the anecdote by some local Jews.

Just like you didn't witness anything you have claimed ITT, including what happens in the West Bank. What's your point? Don't local Jews represent a source to consider?

Fyi, the rebel situation happened again 4 years later(this also trashes that Lebanon argument you laughably tried to make before), and are you saying that Israel is incapable of keeping itself secure?

I'm not sure of how it trashes the Lebanon argument? Explain.

And yes, Israel is most certainly not able to keep itself secure to allow thousands of Palestinians to cross into its territory in the context of a restitution scheme, particularly if they come from Gaza. It also does have legitimate concerns on whether Palestinians who got compensated would not have their money heavily taxed by Hamas to finance its war effort.

[noemon]

He was a local Muslims cleric. I wonder what can you deduce from that? That he was a Persian Shi'ite?

If he even existed which is doubtful, that he was Druze of coarse, since the Rabbi blames the Druze and the Druze alone.

That is simple, the new Palestinian Governor administered Justice to the Jews by letting them point towards any Muslim they feel like, have him beaten, have him confess and have him return the goods. People like me are not even asking for the Jews in Israel to be so just towards the Muslims but the least Israel can do is stop stealing more of their properties and throwing them on the street. And the least zionist apologists like yourself can do is stop blaming the victims, accusing the Palestinians for events 2 centuries ago when 2 centuries ago the Palestinian Muslims delivered justice to the Jews and yet in the year 2016, Israel is ethnic-cleansing them and stealing their land, crops and homes. That does not mean that Palestinian Sunnis were involved in the attacks and it is quite pathetic blaming them without evidence and while 2 centuries later you are trying to justify the lack of justice towards them.

Most Muslims (Sunni and Shia) don't consider the Druze to be Muslims. And indeed, the article draws the distinction between Muslims and the Druze.

Now you are going to claim the Druze are not Muslim. I wonder what else are you going to come up with. Still eager for the comic relief though.

The article does nowhere state any Palestinian Sunni.

Read the article in full. Or simply read my quotation in full.

If you have something to say about 1934, you should say it. I'm not in your head, dude.

Just like you didn't witness anything you have claimed ITT, including what happens in the West Bank. What's your point? Don't local Jews represent a source to consider?

The same Jews who believed that Shabatai Zevi was a prophet and who were keen on prophesy and who came up with a story that a Muslim prophesied the attack while no-one else mentioned anything, not even the Jewish Rabbi? Sure, but with a grain of salt. Still does not make the alleged prophet/cleric into a Palestinian Sunni.

I'm not sure of how it trashes the Lebanon argument? Explain.

According to you, there was no point on Ibrahim punishing the rebels and having Jews beat them and seize their properties, when the rebels rebelled again 4 years later, so he should not have done anything. This is your logic of coarse and the reason why Israel allegedly does not punish the settlers, compensate Palestinians or even worse why it cannot seize occupying and ethnic-cleansing them in the OPT as there is the alleged possibility in then future of them not "appreciating" the seizure of their mistreatment. But even Ibrahim the butcher, did that, yet Israel cannot. Where does that place Israel?

And yes, Israel is most certainly not able to keep itself secure to allow thousands of Palestinians to cross into its territory in the context of a restitution scheme, particularly if they come from Gaza. It also does have legitimate concerns on whether Palestinians who got compensated would not have their money heavily taxed by Hamas to finance its war effort.

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment until they seize funding their own government, so I am guessing you need them to say that they will seize paying any taxes to their government? What is the threshold exactly here?

Still misrepresenting what I said, and still ignoring what's in the article. Again, pathetic. Again Pathetic

Still no argument then.

Let me remind you the question:

The Rabbi says that the Jews were given by the Palestinian Sunnis carte blanche to point their fingers towards anyone they wanted and that allegedly proves that Palestinian Sunnis were involved. The only thing that proves is that Palestinian Sunnis who were the Governors of Palestine at the time gave the Jews carte-blanche to achieve their own justice and I ask you where is justice for Palestinians today, who have lost everything, their homes, their crops, their livelihoods? And what does that make Israelis? If the aforementioned arbitrary events caused by the Druze which resulted to the depopulation of several Palestinian villages and even that allegedly makes the Palestinians "haters"?

[wat0n]

If he even existed which is doubtful, that he was Druze of coarse, since the Rabbi blames the Druze and the Druze alone.

From the account by Rabbi Schwartz you quoted yourself:

"The most respectable Mahomedans of Zafed and its environs were arrested as the authors of the outrage, and some of them were afterwards publicly executed, and whatever could be found of the stolen property of the Jews was restored.

Now you are going to claim the Druze are not Muslim. I wonder what else are you going to come up with. Still eager for the comic relief though.

The article does nowhere state any Palestinian Sunni.

Why do the article and the accounts cited in it, including the one by Rabbi Schwartz, mention both Muslims and Druzes separately?

If you have something to say about 1934, you should say it. I'm not in your head, dude.

You don't need to read my mind, just read what I have quoted from the article.

The same Jews who believed that Shabatai Zevi was a prophet and who were keen on prophesy and who came up with a story that a Muslim prophesied the attack while no-one else mentioned anything, not even the Jewish Rabbi? Sure, but with a grain of salt. Still does not make the alleged prophet/cleric into a Palestinian Sunni.

Did Rabbi Schwartz witness the attacks or got the information from third party sources?

And seriously, people of any religion can hold stupid messianic beliefs.

According to you, there was no point on Ibrahim punishing the rebels and having Jews beat them and seize their properties, when the rebels rebelled again 4 years later, so he should not have done anything. This is your logic of coarse and the reason why Israel allegedly does not punish the settlers, compensate Palestinians or even worse why it cannot seize occupying and ethnic-cleansing them in the OPT as there is the alleged possibility in then future of them not "appreciating" the seizure of their mistreatment. But even Ibrahim the butcher, did that, yet Israel cannot. Where does that place Israel?

I'm not sure of how you concluded that, indeed what I did say is that it entailed security risk to provide compensation if it will be taken by the likes of Hamas just as they have taken humanitarian aid for the Gazan population for their ends in the past.

Certainly the situation was not the same in the case of Safed since it was limited to a specific city which was placed into the direct control of Ibrahim Pasha's military upon the suppressing of the revolt.

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment until they seize funding their own government, so I am guessing you need them to say that they will seize paying any taxes to their government? What is the threshold exactly here?

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

I would also exclude those Palestinians who are members of the armed groups for similar reasons.

The rest of the Palestinians could and must be compensated regardless since it's unlikely they would be taxed by Hamas, and it is necessary to distinguish between the different situations (I don't consider that it's either all or nothing). Israel should start with those living in friendly countries (the West, Egypt and Jordan), see how it works and then extend it to the Palestinian population of the West Bank as well.

It should be noted, too, that Israel did offer compensation in the '50s but only as a part of a final status agreement, as it regarded it necessary and fair that Jews be compensated as well. I think a similar sentiment drives the current Israeli position that compensation should come in the wake of final status talks - which does have a point as far as justice is concerned (if it's all about fairness, compensation should be provided to everyone, right?), even if I don't quite agree with it (for practical considerations, including the fact that this would need to be part of a regional arrangement, the fact that the wider Arab world is currently collapsing and unable to provide it for the most part and also that early compensation of Palestinians could also help to improve the situation by signaling Israel is willing to reach a permanent agreement - just like different practical considerations are also why distinctions between Palestinians are drawn in the paragraph above).

Needless to say, your question below becomes moot since your characterization of what Rabbi Schwartz is incorrect, and so is your straw man given that I did not claim that all Palestinians had hated Jews before the First Aliyah. Also, Ibrahim Pasha wasn't even Palestinian as you mentioned, and neither were the troops under his command.

[noemon]

From the account by Rabbi Schwartz you quoted yourself:

Rabbi Joseph Schwartz noted the justice that once calm had been restored, Ibrahim Pasha's army arrested and executed a number of perpetrators, and enforced summary justice on many suspects to ensure stolen goods were returned:

"The most respectable Mahomedans of Zafed and its environs were arrested as the authors of the outrage, and some of them were afterwards publicly executed, and whatever could be found of the stolen property of the Jews was restored. Every Jew was believed, when saying that he recognised this or that Arab among the robbers. The person so accused was instantly arrested, and punished with blows till he at last confessed and gave up his booty. Even many of the richest and most respectable of the Arabs were arrested, loaded with chains, and punished, upon the mere assertion of a very poor and common Jew. The word of a Jew was regarded as equal to the command of the highest authority, and severe punishment was at once resorted to, without any previous investigation, without any grounds or proofs. In this manner much of the stolen property was discovered; since many, in order not to be exposed to the violence of the Druses, delivered up everything of their own accord. The Jews were now required, by order of the Pacha, through the intervention of the consuls, to make out a correct list of all they had lost, of whatever they missed, and to indicate the true value of the same, and to hand it in to Abraim Pacha through means of the European consuls." [6]

Without any grounds or proofs.

Why do the article and the accounts cited in it, including the one by Rabbi Schwartz, mention both Muslims and Druzes separately?

False, there is no single mention of the perpetrators as being Druze and Muslims, separately. There is a mention from Barnay which I brought forward which says that the perpetrators were Druze, Maronites and Metoualis, and none of these people are Palestinian Sunnis, so even if some people take license and do make a distinction this is the reason why.

If you had any mention you would have brought it forward just like you falsely tried to imply something for Rabbi Schwartz, who distinguishes between the ones who did it(Druze) and the ones accused without proof of doing so by the poorest and most common Jew.

You don't need to read my mind, just read what I have quoted from the article.

If you have something to say, you should say it. I am not in your head and the only thing you said is a non-sensical statement about 1934, hence why I asked you what do you mean?

Did Rabbi Schwartz witness the attacks or got the information from third party sources?

You tell me. The Rabbi wrote extensively about the events and if something that like were true he would have written it either way(witnessing it or finding credible accounts towards it).

And seriously, people of any religion can hold stupid messianic beliefs.

Sure but no-one else mentioned anything.

I'm not sure of how you concluded that, indeed what I did say is that it entailed security risk to provide compensation if it will be taken by the likes of Hamas just as they have taken humanitarian aid for the Gazan population for their ends in the past.

So the people should stay homeless until further notice by Israel because their houses(and the compensation they deserve) are a "security risk" and the people of the West Bank should keep losing their homes because their homes are a security risk in a foreign territory.

And the UNRWA did not mention anything about their blankets, rice and grain posing a security risk to Israel, they were merely upset that the blankets the rice and grain did not go to the refugee centers as they were intended to.

Certainly the situation was not the same in the case of Safed since it was limited to a specific city which was placed into the direct control of Ibrahim Pasha's military upon the suppressing of the revolt.

This does not make any sense, but the fact remains that the butcher Ibrahim delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries, while Israel is incapable delivering justice in 2016. So where does that place Israel?

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

a) Negotiations are irrelevant to basic human right justice which is a given regardless of the political situation and hence why there are some many UN resolutions condemning it.
b) Hamas is only in Gaza not in the West Bank.
c) Haaretz-Hamas Opens Door to Direct Negotiations With Israel,
d) Tony Blair mediates secret Israel-Hamas talks, negotiating end to Gaza siege

The rest of the Palestinians could and must be compensated regardless since it's unlikely they would be taxed by Hamas, and it is necessary to distinguish between the different situations (I don't consider that it's either all or nothing). Israel should start with those living in friendly countries (the West, Egypt and Jordan), see how it works and then extend it to the Palestinian population of the West Bank as well.

That is a start, so I take it you agree that until Israel actually does that, it will still be considered the worst as it is clearly worse that Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago.

It should be noted, too, that Israel did offer compensation in the '50s but only as a part of a final status agreement, as it regarded it necessary and fair that Jews be compensated as well.
I think a similar sentiment drives the current Israeli position that compensation should come in the wake of final status talks - which does have a point as far as justice is concerned (if it's all about fairness, compensation should be provided to everyone, right?),

Whatever Jews lost property have already been compensated I understand and by property seized elsewhere and because their own properties have been seized by the State of Israel anyway.

Needless to say, your question below becomes moot since your characterization of what Rabbi Schwartz is incorrect, and so is your straw man given that I did not claim that all Palestinians had hated Jews before the First Aliyah. Also, Ibrahim Pasha wasn't even Palestinian as you mentioned, and neither were the troops under his command.

a) Rabbi Schwartz is explicit that the perpetrators were Druzes, not Palestinian Sunnis as you claimed.
b) Ibrahim Pasha's ethnicity is irrelevant, his troops were also Druze.
c) Certain Palestinians were said to have helped the Jews.
d) What you wrote is pretty clear on tis own and does not require much interpretation, but it is good that you backpedal it anyway.:

Hatred of the Jewish community in the region in the Arab world began long before Israel's founding, so it's quite hard to claim Israeli policies are responsible for it.

And that logical question is if the butcher Ibrahim Pasha provided justice to the Jews, 2 centuries ago, where does that place Israel today?

[wat0n]

Without any grounds or proofs.

False, there is no single mention of the perpetrators as being Druze and Muslims, separately. There is a mention from Barnay which I brought forward which says that the perpetrators were Druze, Maronites and Metoualis, and none of these people are Palestinian Sunnis, so even if some people take license and do make a distinction this is the reason why.


If you had any mention you would have brought it forward just like you falsely tried to imply something for Rabbi Schwartz, who distinguishes between the ones who did it(Druze) and the ones accused without proof of doing so by the poorest and most common Jew.

I even quoted the relevant part of the Rabbi you cited.

As selective reading as it could ever be.

If you have something to say, you should say it. I am not in your head and the only thing you said is a non-sensical statement about 1934, hence why I asked you what do you mean?

Already did, but since you selectively read whatever you want to read (even in stuff you quoted in verbatim), it's pointless to quote it again.

You tell me. The Rabbi wrote extensively about the events and if something that like were true he would have written it either way(witnessing it or finding credible accounts towards it).

You are somehow treating him as the most authoritative source so you have to tell me.

So the people should stay homeless until further notice by Israel because their houses(and the compensation they deserve) are a "security risk" and the people of the West Bank should keep losing their homes because their homes are a security risk in a foreign territory.

And the UNRWA did not mention anything about their blankets, rice and grain posing a security risk to Israel, they were merely upset that the blankets the rice and grain did not go to the refugee centers as they were intended to.

Just like Hamas took the UN's humanitarian aid against its will, it can perfectly levy heavy taxes on compensation money to fund its fight against Israel.

Of course this is something Israel is justified in avoiding.

This does not make any sense, but the fact remains that the butcher Ibrahim delivered justice to the Jews 2 centuries, while Israel is incapable delivering justice in 2016. So where does that place Israel?

Of course it makes sense, indeed it's a major difference compared to the situation between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

a) Negotiations are irrelevant to basic human right justice which is a given regardless of the political situation and hence why there are some many UN resolutions condemning it.

Actually international law recognizes there is a balance between humanitarian provisions and military consideration. So no, you're wrong on that account.

b) Hamas is only in Gaza not in the West Bank.

Hamas is only ruling Gaza and not the West Bank, you mean. - which is why I drew the distinction between both regions.

c) Haaretz-Hamas Opens Door to Direct Negotiations With Israel,
d) Tony Blair mediates secret Israel-Hamas talks, negotiating end to Gaza siege

Nothing came out of those, however. Ultimately, the hardliners in all sides prevailed.

That is a start, so I take it you agree that until Israel actually does that, it will still be considered the worst as it is clearly worse that Ibrahim Pasha 2 centuries ago.

Ibrahim Pasha was simply delivering justice to his subjects, it's not the same situation really: Since they were his subjects, he was to keep control of the area permanently under the prevailing arrangement within the Empire at the time, whereas Israel has no intention to rule over Gaza.

Whatever Jews lost property have already been compensated I understand and by property seized elsewhere and because their own properties have been seized by the State of Israel anyway.

Not really, even today there are restitution claims in Israeli courts. Particularly since Israel set a compensation fund for the properties that were seized by Israel in the '50s

As for the rest, it falls down since even your source disagrees with you.

[QatzelOk]

And you are still pretending I said all Sunni Muslims harboured hatred for the Jews, as I said, you are still selectively reading on what I've said. You are free to stop your straw man so we can have an actual discussion.

Interesting that you have used the word "selectively" to describe the way that your posts are read, rather than to describe the way they are written.

You write incredibly selectively. The "facts" that you toss around like salad ingredients are being manipulated to prove two points that you have pre-selected as truths:

1. That historically, Jewish communities have been resented WITHOUT ANY REASON

2. That Palestinians are getting what they deserve because of their involvement in this irrational hatred

Neither of these points sticks no matter how many ways you arrange the deck chairs on your Titanic arguments. You should just stick to violence and ad hom to prove your points. Logic and notions of justice aren't really working here.

[noemon]

I even quoted the relevant part of the Rabbi you cited.
As selective reading as it could ever be.

You selectively quoted you mean and then creatively interpreted.
I brought the whole thing which does not agree with your interpretation.

Already did, but since you selectively read whatever you want to read (even in stuff you quoted in verbatim), it's pointless to quote it again.

So I take it's only inside your head since you fail to even say what you mean when asked.

You are somehow treating him as the most authoritative source so you have to tell me.

Straw-man. The Rabbi disagrees with you, get over it.

Just like Hamas took the UN's humanitarian aid against its will, it can perfectly levy heavy taxes on compensation money to fund its fight against Israel.
Of course this is something Israel is justified in avoiding. Actually international law recognizes there is a balance between humanitarian provisions and military consideration. So no, you're wrong on that account.

Israel is justified on stealing property and then not providing compensation your mean and here you imply that international law even allows Israel to do that? Good to know that you are that kind of person. Still does not change the fact of placing Israel worse than the butcher Ibrahim.

Nothing came out of those, however. Ultimately, the hardliners in all sides prevailed.

You said that a willingness to sit on the table would be enough for Israel to return the properties back:

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

So you are backpedalling again I take it?

Ibrahim Pasha was simply delivering justice to his subjects, it's not the same situation really.

Ibrahim delivered justice to the Jewish victims 2 centuries ago, Israel is not delivering justice to its Palestinian victims in 2016. Israel is far worse.

Not really, even today there are restitution claims in Israeli courts. Particularly since Israel set a compensation fund for the properties that were seized by Israel in the '50s

Evidence that Jewish victims have not been compensated especially since Israel has seized everything.

As for the rest, it falls down since even your source disagrees with you.

You missed some bits:

d) What you wrote is pretty clear on tis own and does not require much interpretation, but it is good that you backpedal it anyway.:

Hatred of the Jewish community in the region in the Arab world began long before Israel's founding, so it's quite hard to claim Israeli policies are responsible for it.

And that logical question is if the butcher Ibrahim Pasha provided justice to the Jews, 2 centuries ago, where does that place Israel today?

[wat0n]

Interesting that you have used the word "selectively" to describe the way that your posts are read, rather than to describe the way they are written.

I draw the proper distinctions because I, unlike certain people, can realize that humans can't form hive-minds and have different motivations. You could embrace that simple fact as well.

You write incredibly selectively. The "facts" that you toss around like salad ingredients are being manipulated to prove two points that you have pre-selected as truths:

No Qatz, I am simply stating objective historical facts. That's easy since I made a pretty weak, easy to defend claim: There was hatred of Jews in the Islamic world before the First Aliyah, therefore such hatred can't have begun due to Israeli policies since there was already a sector within the Muslim world that was antisemitic.

1. That historically, Jewish communities have been resented WITHOUT ANY REASON

No, I said it quite clearly: Jewish communities have been presented in the Islamic world before the First Aliyah, therefore such resentment did not begin with Israeli policies.

I did not say that they were resented for no reason, usually there is a reason for everything, including bigotry and racism.

2. That Palestinians are getting what they deserve because of their involvement in this irrational hatred

It seems you missed the reasons I mentioned earlier of why there is animosity towards the Jews among some Palestinians today. Israeli policies do play a part in that, but they are not the whole story and as such not all of those who harbor this hatred would be freed of it if Israel radically changed its policies and even if a peace treaty were to be signed between Israelis and Palestinians.

Neither of these points sticks no matter how many ways you arrange the deck chairs on your Titanic arguments. You should just stick to violence and ad hom to prove your points. Logic and justice aren't really working here.

On the contrary, they clearly stick as it is necessary to simply ignore historical evidence to state I am not spot on.

[noemon]

I draw the proper distinctions because I, unlike certain people, can realize that humans can't form hive-minds and have different motivations. You could embrace that simple fact as well.
No Qatz, I am simply stating objective historical facts. That's easy since I made a pretty weak, easy to defend claim: There was hatred of Jews in the Islamic world before the First Aliyah, therefore such hatred can't have begun due to Israeli policies since there was already a sector within the Muslim world that was antisemitic.

No dear you said that Palestinians hate the Jews and hardly because of Israeli policy against them, but because of something else and you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence of what that other hatred actually is, especially since you imply that the Palestinians do have a hive mind, while ignoring that Palestinians helped the Jews as it has been cited already and while ignoring that Muslims delivered justice to the Jews, while the Jews are not delivering justice to the Palestinians. So if the Jews are right to believe that Muslims hate them, the same Muslims who delivered justice to them, then what should the Palestinians assume of the Jews in Israel today who steal their homes and are not providing justice to them?

On the contrary, they clearly stick as it is necessary to simply ignore historical evidence to state I am not spot on.

I can see delusions have kicked in.

[wat0n]

You selectively quoted you mean and then creatively interpreted.
I brought the whole thing which does not agree with your interpretation.

You brought the whole thing and still refuse to accept what the Rabbi states at the very beginning of the quote.

The most respectable Mahomedans of Zafed and its environs were arrested as the authors of the outrage, and some of them were afterwards publicly executed, and whatever could be found of the stolen property of the Jews was restored.

So I take it's only inside your head since you fail to even say what you mean when asked.

No, I am just encouraging you to actually read what other posters quote here. Hint: Scan for Eliezer Rivlin.

Straw-man. The Rabbi disagrees with you, get over it.

No noemon, you are claiming a British traveler to the region is not authoritative because he got information about the attack from local Jews. I assume then that the Rabbi was actually there in 1834 and had to experience the attack.

Israel is justified on stealing property and then not providing compensation your mean and here you imply that international law even allows Israel to do that? Good to know that you are that kind of person. Still does not change the fact of placing Israel worse than the butcher Ibrahim.

It seems you didn't even read what I said, nice straw man there. It's good to know you are that kind of person.

You said that a willingness to sit on the table would be enough for Israel to return the properties back:

"Sits", not "willing to sit". In any event, even the Ha'aretz article states Hamas was not considering direct talks at the time.

Ibrahim delivered justice to the Jewish victims 2 centuries ago, Israel is not delivering justice to its Palestinian victims in 2016. Israel is far worse.

I invite you to re-read the post since I added further explanation on the matter.

Evidence that Jewish victims have not been compensated especially since Israel has seized everything.

Sure, there are Court rulings to that effect.

You missed some bits:

d) What you wrote is pretty clear on tis own and does not require much interpretation, but it is good that you backpedal it anyway.:

Given your tendency to selectively read from the sources, I very much doubt of your interpretation of whatever I post. Indeed, you have sometimes understood the complete opposite of what I said even when it should be quite clear you're wrong.

No dear you said that Palestinians hate the Jews and hardly because of Israeli policy against them, but because of something else and you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence of what that other hatred actually is, especially since you imply that the Palestinians do have a hive mind, while ignoring that Palestinians helped the Jews as it has been cited already and while ignoring that Muslims delivered justice to the Jews, while the Jews are not delivering justice to the Palestinians. So if the Jews are right to believe that Muslims hate them, the same Muslims who delivered justice to them, then what should the Palestinians assume of the Jews in Israel today who steal their homes and are not providing justice to them?

I didn't imply that, and if you had some trouble to understand what I said - which would not surprise me, you have misunderstood even simpler claims in the past - I hope I have clarified my stance for you.

[noemon]

You brought the whole thing and still refuse to accept what the Rabbi states at the very beginning of the quote.

I don't refuse anything, you do:

Rabbi Joseph Schwartz noted the justice that once calm had been restored, Ibrahim Pasha's army arrested and executed a number of perpetrators, and enforced summary justice on many suspects to ensure stolen goods were returned:

"The most respectable Mahomedans of Zafed and its environs were arrested as the authors of the outrage, and some of them were afterwards publicly executed, and whatever could be found of the stolen property of the Jews was restored. Every Jew was believed, when saying that he recognised this or that Arab among the robbers. The person so accused was instantly arrested, and punished with blows till he at last confessed and gave up his booty. Even many of the richest and most respectable of the Arabs were arrested, loaded with chains, and punished, upon the mere assertion of a very poor and common Jew. The word of a Jew was regarded as equal to the command of the highest authority, and severe punishment was at once resorted to, without any previous investigation, without any grounds or proofs. In this manner much of the stolen property was discovered; since many, in order not to be exposed to the violence of the Druses, delivered up everything of their own accord. The Jews were now required, by order of the Pacha, through the intervention of the consuls, to make out a correct list of all they had lost, of whatever they missed, and to indicate the true value of the same, and to hand it in to Abraim Pacha through means of the European consuls." [6]

The most respectable Mahomedans of Zafed and its environs were arrested as the authors of the outrage, and some of them were afterwards publicly executed, and whatever could be found of the stolen property of the Jews was restored.

No, I am just encouraging you to actually read what other posters quote here. Hint: Scan for Eliezer Rivlin.

You wrote:

Still not mentioning the historian who wrote an article for Ha'aretz providing an account of the attack in 1934. Pathetic.

And you were told:

You are not making any sense about some article in Haaretz about 1934?. What? I think you have lost it.

If you have a point to make, you should do it, otherwise I take it you have none.

No noemon, you are claiming a British traveler to the region is not authoritative because he got information about the attack from local Jews. I assume then that the Rabbi was actually there in 1834 and had to experience the attack.

I said:

The same Jews who believed that Shabtai Zevi was a prophet and who were keen on prophesy and who came up with a story that a Muslim prophesied the attack while no-one else mentioned anything, not even the Jewish Rabbi? Their words should be taken with a grain of salt since no-one else mentioned anything. Still does not make the alleged prophet/cleric into a Palestinian Sunni.

If you dispute that, elaborate.

"Sits", not "willing to sit". In any event, even the Ha'aretz article states Hamas was not considering direct talks at the time.

And Blair has brokered direct talks between Israel and Hamas who have sat on the table.

Sure, there are Court rulings to that effect.

Are you blaming Hamas(you claimed that the lack of peace is because of the equitable compensation) for the decisions of Israel? When Israeli Civil Administration manages the properties anyway? And who used it to establish Jewish neighborhoods...

Abandoned Jewish property had been used in the past to establish a Jewish settlement in the city. The neighborhoods of Avraham Ainu, Beit Hadassah and Tel Rumeida were built this way.

Given your tendency to selectively read from the sources, I very much doubt of your interpretation of whatever I post. Indeed, you have sometimes understood the complete opposite of what I said even when it should be quite clear you're wrong. I didn't imply that, and if you had some trouble to understand what I said - which would not surprise me, you have misunderstood even simpler claims in the past - I hope I have clarified my stance for you.

You should answer the questions and arguments instead of attacking me and thus confirming your intellectual bankruptcy. And yes you did exactly that, explicitly...

No dear you said that Palestinians hate the Jews and hardly because of Israeli policy against them, but because of something else and you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence of what that other hatred actually is, especially since you imply that the Palestinians do have a hive mind, while ignoring that Palestinians helped the Jews as it has been cited already and while ignoring that Muslims delivered justice to the Jews, while the Jews are not delivering justice to the Palestinians. So if the Jews are right to believe that Muslims hate them, the same Muslims who delivered justice to them, then what should the Palestinians assume of the Jews in Israel today who steal their homes and are not providing justice to them?

Hatred of the Jewish community in the region in the Arab world began long before Israel's founding, so it's quite hard to claim Israeli policies are responsible for it.

[wat0n]

I've answered every question of yours, there's no reason for me to answer them several times over, just like I've pointed to the sources several times over (including highlighting the parts of your own sources which you chose not to read).

I am also amazed at how you can conclude I blamed Hamas for Israeli court rulings just because I showed that Israel has not compensated Israeli Jews who lost property, particularly when you asked evidence for it. As I said, Israel does have a compensation fund but it is for Arabs who lost their property as a result of the 1948 war.

[noemon]

I am also amazed at how you can conclude I blamed Hamas for Israeli court rulings just because I showed that Israel has not compensated Israeli Jews who lost property, particularly when you asked evidence for it.

You shouldn't pretend to be so amazed because I said:

So no justice for Palestinians, no compensation, the continuation of their mistreatment until they seize funding their own government, so I am guessing you need them to say that they will seize paying any taxes to their government? What is the threshold exactly here?

And you blamed Hamas for Israel not applying UN justice and not even applying the justice that the butcher Ibrahim pasha delivered to the Jews 2 centuries ago.

The threshold in that case would be that Hamas sits to the negotiating table. That would provide some guarantees that it has softened its position.

I would also exclude those Palestinians who are members of the armed groups for similar reasons.
....as it regarded it necessary and fair that Jews be compensated as well.

Who sat in the negotiating table and you also inferred that it is contingent to the Palestinians to compensate Jewish victims when in fact, their properties are managed by the Israeli Civil Administration and the lack of compensation is on Israel, not on Hamas or Palestinians.

[wat0n]

You shouldn't pretend to be so amazed because I said:

And you blamed Hamas for Israel not applying UN justice and not even applying the justice that the butcher Ibrahim pasha delivered to the Jews 2 centuries ago.

The same nonsense, why did you leave out the last bit of the paragraph I wonder?

Who sat in the negotiating table and you also inferred that it is contingent to the Palestinians to compensate Jewish victims when in fact, their properties are managed by the Israeli Civil Administration and the lack of compensation is on Israel, not on Hamas or Palestinians.

They should not be so secret as to provide a doubt on whether Hamas has changed its stance or not. Assuming the reports were even correct, which neither of us know.

[noemon]

The same nonsense, why did you leave out the last bit of the paragraph I wonder?

As I said you can backpedal on your statements and deny your ever made them, it is completely inconsequential to me as the argument matters and not kicking you when you 're down. As long as we both agree that Palestinians are no longer responsible to compensate Jews since Israel administers these formerly Jewish properties and that giving the Palestinians compensation is not contingent to Palestinians giving something that Israel already has, we' re all good.

They should not be so secret as to provide a doubt on whether Hamas has changed its stance or not. Assuming the reports were even correct, which neither of us know.

You said that Israel should compensate the victims for their properties and withdraw from the occupied territories when Hamas sits on the table. Hamas did sit on the table, so I understand that you are now a proponent of complete Israeli withdrawal and the compensation of Palestinian victims then? Or are you going to backpedal that one now?