Iran Isreal and US

well black people in america were persecuted with the only escape of leaving so i guess that seem like de facto forcing them off, and yet here they still are. Amazing huh?

Well it looks like you were wrong either way. Their land ws never taken and they weren't forced off their land (which is pretty much the same thing), the jews left by choice

Not only were they not forced off their land but the people (Romans) who controled the land after they left were not even the same people the jews took the land back from (Arabs). So if i leave a patch of land for 1,000+ years then i can militarily take it back even if the people who now own the land were not the ones who controled it directly after i left?

apparently you don't know history very well, it was not the muslims who controlled the land it was the romans, not even the same people the jews took it from.

The jews had priveliges other minority religions did not, legally the jews weren't even allowed to worship their god they must accept the roman gods, but unlike other religious groups the jews weren't held to this law.

That would be a valid point if black people did not flee to the north, and those who couldn't wanted to.

The land was taken, and they were pretty much forced to leave for their personal well being. The choice of whether to leave or not was clear. If they wanted a better life, they had to leave.

It's not vengeance against the people, it's the reclamation of the land. Besides, the Jews stayed through Roman rule, many left only after the Muslims took over and started persecution.

Again, the Romans, the Muslims, both took the land by force. Why the double standard for the Jews?

Yes, I know. But I am talking about Muslim persecution. That is the major issue here.

the whole point is that black people didn't leave, under persecution So why did the jews? It's no stretch of th imagination to say that blacks suffer more persecution that did the jews.

It's funny that other peoples that suffered greater persution remained in their prospective lands.

the diaspora was initially started under Roman rule.

persecution is not sufficent reason to retake land that was given up thousands of years ago. The jewish people are the only people that i am aware of that completely gave up their land under the influence of persecution.

They did leave, when they could. It simply wasn't as easy.

Better examples than African Americans?

But many remained and did not leave until the Muslims. Besides, many went to Rome. It's obvious that they had it okay during Roman Rule. Still oppressed. The Muslims were the worst.

That's ridiculous. Why would you expect them to stay? Native americans went on to reserves. Muslims left Spain. Jews left Middle European countries again for Poland. Muslims to Pakistan and Hindus to India. Greeks to Greece. Buddhists to Nepal, etc. Those are just the ones that come to mind. By your logic the Arabs had no right to be there then. They were conquerers. So it's just as well that the Jews retook the land.

Did the persecution end with slavery? Thats something you should ask Dr.MLK

the Britanians, The Celts, the goths etc...

Do you actually think native americans went to reserves by choice? Have you heard of the trail of tears?

Muslims of spain(moors) were not only not the inhabitants but they were the invaders and were forced out by frankish forces!

Hinduism began in india (persian empire). What does muslim growth in pakistan have to do with this?

The example of jews moving to europe is actually hurting your case.

Greeks to greece?

They had the capability to fight from where they were. There would have been no outcry if they killed all the Jews.

They had nowhere to go. Rome was everywhere.

Blanket statement. Some were just tired of fighting.

Reminiscent of Israel, except in both places Muslims did indeed settle.

When the modern nations were created, minority religious members fled to their respective stares for fear of persecution.

Don't see how. Different time, different set of Jews. Unless you're implying there's something genetic going on. Anti-Semite.

That got the desired effect. You see Turkey on a map lately? Wasn't always there, FYI.

You know this how? You psychic or something?





that didn't stop the jews now did it?



Point being?



The muslims invaded spain and not israel.



and how many of them tried to reclaim their original homeland nearly 2,000 years later?



no becuase even at that time they didn't return and try to reclaim middle-europe as a "jewish state"



either was spain, greece, Iraq, Israel, armenia, france, hungary, Britain, India, Iran, Russia, germany, Italy etc....

You know this how? You psychic or something?

that didn't stop the jews now did it?

Point being?

The muslims invaded spain and not israel.

and how many of them tried to reclaim their original homeland nearly 2,000 years later?

no becuase even at that time they didn't return and try to reclaim middle-europe as a "jewish state"

either was spain, greece, Iraq, Israel, armenia, france, hungary, Britain, India, Iran, Russia, germany, Italy etc....

The Emperor could have killed the Jews and gotten away with it. That would be a logical position.

Those that emigrated to Rome were obviously not fleeing persecution.

They voluntarily stopped fighting and went on the reserves.

It hasn't been anywhere close to 2,000 years since the formation of India and Pakistan, which were created to provide a new homeland. The Jews had no homeland after leaving Israel.

Because they could not return in greater numbers than those who persecuted them. They would have been unsafe. However, Jews are now the large majority in Israel. It is the only home many of them have ever known. Why do you expect them to leave?

...and the Greeks fled to Greece.

the emporer could have killed anyone and gotten away with it, he is the ***ING emporer

i'm not talking about that now am I? The celts, goths and whatever other persecuted ethnic group could have left their lands like the jews but they didn't, you have still not provided a single example of an ethnic/religious group that was forced of their land and then reclaimed it thousands of years later

um yeah because they were dying, but do you think native americans have the right to reclaim the United States for themelves???

i'm not talking about pakistan or India, i'm talking about Israel.

first of all the jews still and weren't anymore safe in Israel than they were in europe, and secondly i don't expect the current jews in israel to leave, i merely condemn the action of taking Israel from the people who were already living there.

this is probably the dumbest thing you've said so far, and does not merit a response.

And they could not simply have killed all of the African Americans.

I provided those that were persecuted off their land. That's all you wanted. If the Jews were persecuted off their land then the clear choice was to leave and they are justified in coming back when they can.

Don't be stupid, these are the requested examples of people persecuted off their land.

So problem solved, the past is over, go ahead and condemn them, your opinion.

If you disregard the fact that it is true and the context it was provided in, it does sound redundant.

Not sure if you're aware of your history but intentional killing of african americans did occur on a regular basis.

i never contested the fact that other groups of people were persecuted, but you didn't provide a group that was persecuted off their land and then tried to take it back a thousand or more years later.

that's the only thing i've been trying to say this whole time, is that it's wrong, what i don't have the right to express my oppinion?

No, it's not true! Greece was not even a country at that time, it was divided into various independant city-states, Greece didn't become an idependant country untill 1829, that's more than a thousand years later.

Greeks did not exist in 543 AD, only Athenians, Spartans, Dorians, Ionians, Minoans, and Dorians

And was denounced. But they couldn't commit mass genocide. The justice system was screwed up enough for lynching to be a sport, but if it got much worse, there would be even more national pressure on them.

Point is Caesar could have killed all the Jews, the South could not get away with killing every black person.

Unfortunately, that cannot happen often as people who lose all their land are usually never in a position to regain it again. However, there have been resurgent peoples. How about the Risorgimento? United Italy under Rome was praised by Dante, etc. and philosiphers that supported Italian unification. And there was no really independent Italian state of any significance besides the minor duchies and Republics and maybe the somewhat better ones like Venice and Genoa. Anyway, a united Italy with an identity that was Italian was never there. That's quite a long time from the barbarian takeover of Italy to the reunification of Italy.

It's quite true. Constantinople did not fall until 1453. It's culture was distinctly Greek, as in Greek culture as a whole, not a subdivision of Greece. Greece was certainly more or less a regional identification and a single culture by this time. All the city states had been clumped together for a thousand years as Greece, and it became a reality. They were not so different from eachother that you could not tell they were all Greek. Eventually the fact that they had so much in common led to them being categorized together by their rulers.

the south would never want to kill all the blacks and the emporer never wanted to kill all the jews. If he wanted to he would've and there would be nothing to stop him.

That's is also wrong, there was no unified greek culture either, you say this looking to the past knowing they would eventually unite, but the different city-states had their own distinct cultures, this was the reason it took them so long to unite as one nation, even when the well-being of all greek city-states were under threat they had difficulty co-operating becuase they each had their own cultures. The spartan's were imfamously know for the way they raised their children to be warriors this type of behavior was foreign to the athenians who were a more knowledge oriented city-state who had their unique competitions which is seen today as the ancestor of the olympics, the minoans also had their own culture.

But there would have been something to stop the genocide of Southern blacks, which is the point.

Ancient Greece is not the only manifestation of Greece, but you seem to be focused on it. I am talking about 1453 AD. Byzantine and Greek culture were singular and synonomous, and the Byzantines were distinctly Greek.

Obviously you have lost sight of the original argument. The Byzantine Greeks from Byzantine lands fled the Ottomans and went to Greece.

I believe this was an example of an entire ethnic group fleeing their homeland because of persecution, it didn't have to be related to the Jews.

byzantines fled to greece....

how is that comparable to the jews leaving an area and then recapturing it 1,500 years later?

Well, again, this was before you changed it to stipulate that they had to come back 2,000 years later. Like the Jews, they fled merely out of fear of persecution.