If occupation means the presence of alien peoples in an others land then can they point the finger?

 

The Arabs are originally from  Arabia, that is in and around Mecca and Medina. Yet today they stretch east in to Iraq, south in to Yemen and west in to North Africa.

 

Their culture, religion and language are dominant in these regions. The people are either Arabised or Arabicated!

 

In Libya, Morocco and Algeria the Berbers are marginalised and their culture and language are suppressed. In Egypt the Copts, who are most closely related to the original "ancient Egyptians", are also suppressed. The Nubians of Sudan are constantly attacked and plundered by the Arab north.

 

The Yemen was never exclusively Arab, in fact it had Hebrew kingdoms and tribes that have now been Arabised. Iraq too have Arabised Iranians hence their fair complexions in relation to the real Arabs of Saudi. 

 

The Levant, Lebanon and Syria are actually of Phoenician origin, they too are Arabised.

 

Yet none of them are deemed as occupational, imperialistic or colonial. Has this been brushed under the carpet or is the term "occupation" selective. Some will argue that is all in past and doesn't justify the present. Well, what chronological cut off point is acceptable!  And it is not in the past, it is continuing in the present.

 

The "Palestinians" are of course descendants of Caliph Omar's armies who were sent to invade, conquer and occupy Jerusalem because Mohamed had a dream he flew there on the back of a mythical beast. The reason I use quotation marks is because that term is a bit misleading. The Romans changed the name of Israel to Palestine. For the next 600 years there was not an Arab in site. In fact it was the Hebrews who were known as Palestinian until Arabs arrived. Even up to the re-creation of Israel in the 20th century, a Palestinian meant both a Jew and an Arab. These Arab "Palestinians" are from the same army that attacked, invaded and occupied Iran. The difference is Iran eventually repelled them ( at a large cost), had they not , today Iranians returning to Iran would be the "evil occupiers". What is their claim to the land? Mohammed's night journey? the Quran? Why does the Quran not mention Palestine / Falestine? Did news of this name change not yet reach Arabia? Even in this book Jews are referred to as Bani Israel / children of Israel? 

 

What is not in common with the above, and Jewish people "occupying" Palestine, is that the Arabs have no historical origins in these lands, the Jews do. They are actually from Israel and the tribes have returned. There were pockets of Jews in North Africa and all over middle east before Islam was even invented. These "Arab" lands were never exclusively Arab until the homogenisation by Islam. 

 

It can even be argued that the Arabs bolstered the existence of Israel when during the second world war they expelled all Jews from Arab lands, lands where the Jews had lived since the days of Babylon, Rome and Cyrus the Great all who jostled them around the middle east (this was even before Arabs had left the deserts). Up until this mid-20th century expulsion Baghdad was one third Jewish! when they were expelled they went where?......Israel! Europe wasnt an option then for obvious reasons.

 

Turkey has a nerve to point the finger, they are not even from Turkey ( Constantinople), they swept out of Turkmenistan 600 years ago, laid siege, slaughtered then settled. Since then they have annexed half of Armenia, killing 3 million of them (which it wont even admit to) and are systematically wiping out Kurds. If you go there as a tourist you will notice a lack of Turkish historical sites, its all Greek and Roman. Even their famous Sufi saint Rumi, is an Iranian migrant. But what a great holiday destination, where east meets west.

 

The Arabs and their Muslim clones will often cite the crusades as European hostility, but there wouldn't have been a crusade if Jerusalem was not occupied by Arabs and Turks in first place. Is it only bad if done by Europe, why was the then Muslim occupation not deemed in a negative light.

 

Arabs and Muslim currently feel they are victims of relentless western attack. However, it is Muslims who have a history of attacking Europe. First it was the caliph Omar who's armies reached western Europe, then the Berbers via North Africa in to Spain, thirdly the Ottomans attack in to East Europe. All of which have lagacies that continue to this day (Chechnya for example), and currently there is mass immigration to Europe. Even in Britain there are Muslim areas where they are setting up sharia zones. The rise of the "clones".

 

Islam could be mistaken for Arab imperialism but sanctioned by God. This is the only difference between Alexander, Ghengis Khan and Mohamed, Mohamed invoked a very fickle God in to sanction his decision making policies.

 

Lets get one thing straight, Arab leaders no matter how Islamist, love Israel. Without Israel there would be no Arab unity, no political bargaining chips, no one to blame their problems on, no one to distract their miserable populations with. They use the issue to drum support in the west, to incite their muslim "clones", to enlist new converts. What a magnificent PR tactic, maybe this is why no Arab leaders fund the Palestinians, arm them, feed them, assimilate them or do anything other then use their banner and cause for themselves. Its all rhetoric.

 

As Iranians should we support Palestinians? They offered moral support to Sadam when he attacked Iran. They openly declare that they dislike Iran and Shiism ( and probably Zoroastrianism if they new what it was), refuse to help Iran if Israel attacks, but are happy to take Iranian money. They are from the initial Arab army who attacked Iran. Had they not been repelled and settled in Iran, today they would be called Persian and we the Iranian occupiers. Palestine would be in Iran.

 

It begs the question, should we as Iranians have anything to do with Islam? After 200 years of Arab occupation of Iran only fifty percent had been converted (by force), they left eventually because of Iranian rebellions but the Turks finished what the Arabs started. Occupation back then meant our language, culture and religion was outlawed, second class citizenship and pogroms for the resistant and re-education to an Arab world view was order of the day. Sounds quite similar to modern day Iran!  

 

Finally, why do Arab and muslim governments fear critisizm so much, they will execute a person for having an opinion. At least in Israel any one can be anti-Israeli even anti-semetic without the fear of being killed by government or mobs.