Am I correct that this was during World War I, when Ottomans were expelling Zionists who were non-Ottoman citizens as they believed they might have alliances with the British? More on the deportations: https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-708455
Yes, you are correct, probably to the extent that "Zionists" means Jews. From the article you posted- Even before the expulsion of April 1917, thousands of Jews left the area or were deported for refusing to “Ottomanize.” I think that pretty much means failing to convert. Here is some more history of "Palestinian" Jews. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1660_destruction_of_Safed Friction between Jews and Turks was less common than in the Arab territories. Some examples: During the reign of Murad IV (1623–1640), the Jews of Jerusalem were persecuted by an Arab who had purchased the governorship of that city from the governor of the province. Under Mehmed IV, the 1660 destruction of Safed occurred. (Safed is Israel) The Jews of Safed "had suffered severely" when the city had been destroyed by the Arabs.
I thought it means renouncing foreign citizenship. Were Jews who were citizens of the Ottoman Empire also being deported?
I think your automatic jump to "failing to convert" rather than just making the more reasonable assumption of failing to exist in the tax system set up by the Ottoman empire for centuries which even though in today's standard is considered not egalitarian and democratic was still better than the European version of "acceptance" of Jews says a lot about your biases.
Numerous documents attest to the harshness of Ottoman rule in Palestine during the war years. While Jews had previously served in the Ottoman army, with the announcement of jihad upon the Empire’s entry to World War I, the ‘foreign Jews’ in Palestine were caught in a Catch-22 situation: if they refused to become Ottoman subjects they were expelled; if they Ottomanized they were liable for army service within a year. As non-Muslims, they would not be permitted to serve in combat units of the Ottoman army but would rather be sent, with other non-Muslims, to the labour units that, in many cases, meant a death sentence. Those with means could ransom themselves out of the army through a payment of 50–1000 gold francs every year of the war. Many people sold all their possessions in order to pay the ransom. Note: Ottoman labour Units were a form of forced labour in lieu of regular military service. The conscription into these units during and after the war has come to be identified with removal from active units, disarmament, internal displacement, and outright murder of Ottoman Armenian and Greek soldiers. The term is associated with the disarmament and murder of Ottoman Armenian soldiers during World War I and of Ottoman Greeks during the Greek genocide in the Ottoman Empire. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2022.2112388
You are trying to express some virulent hatred of Jews akin to European pogroms and all you are describing is basic cases of sovereign states and empires expressing their borders and having qualms with a new group of foreign settlers that were backed by another foreign empire(British). It wasn't about the Jews. And you are describing systems that in its time were no more harsh than systems in Europe and in fact worse many times for the Jewish population in Europe.
This particular exchange resulted from you questioning a response I made to Durvasa regarding the 1914-1917 Jaffa deportations. I think the other posts in the last couple of pages and throughout this thread do a better job of expressing a virulent hatred of Jews, including the list of violent pogroms, massacres and atrocities committed against Jews that I linked earlier. However, that list or the other posts didn't pique your intellectual curiosity. What is it that you're arguing? That there is no virulent hatred of the Jews? No pogroms or atrocities committed against Jews in Palestine before the Balfour Declaration in 1917? No hatred of Jews before Zionist Movement?
A nation state exercising their right to deport what they perceived as illegal people is pretty old concept. The US does it all the time. I think it's wrong in both cases but we are again talking about standard things we expect our state to do even though again, I think it's wrong. They were settlers. They refused to go through the state's process. The reason why the Ottoman Empire did it wasn't because they were specifically Jews either, but merely foreigners. Again did they do the same for the native Jewish populations? We only kick out Latin migrants not Latin American citizens. Still think it's wrong but it's acceptable in our world order even today so of course that would be acceptable in many many decades ago.
sure hope this isnt one of the families that had their babies abducted by izrael. but at least if it was they got the closure they needed in the form of a one time payment given under the condition they shut the f*ck up about their stolen child
If we are discussing this particular subject, the 1914-1917 Jaffa deportation of Jews, it was a little harsher than you are making it when comparing to what the U.S. would currently do. "Civilians were not allowed to carry off their belongings, and the deportation was accompanied by severe violence, starvation, theft, persecution and abuse. It is thought that about 1,500 of the evicted people died as a result of the deportation. Also, the choice was between expulsion or Army labour units of assured death (for non-Muslims). Also, it is probable that not all were "settlers" as the entire population of Jaffa/Tel Aviv was deported. Some were certainly not first generation Jewish immigrants but native Palestinian Jews. You are correct, it was not entirely specific to Jews, but all non-Muslims. The Greeks and Armenian Christians suffered similar and worse treatment in the Ottoman at this time. The entire reason this incident was mentioned was to point out numerous examples of how Jews were not living in relative peace for centuries in Palestine before the Balfour Declaration and Zionist Movement. There are other relevant and better examples. Peace.
The Ottomans were facing extinction (sick man of Europe). The Russian empire was an existential threat to the Ottoman empire, including its holdings in the Balkans. The whole point of the 1800s was to keep balance in Europe, which is why the Crimea war was even fought. But the Ottomans had to modernize to be more like France, UK, and later, Germany. But unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your perspective) the Ottomans were never able to modernize their armed forces, or create a unified Ottoman people within its empire’s borders. It was not an Empire of 10+ million ethnic Turks, but a smorgasbord of different ethnicities and religions. so, like the other empires of the day, it broke up. Both along ethnic boundaries and artificial ones created by France and England. But the Muslims of the Middle East became exponentially more hostile to all Jews once it became clear the Jews of Europe intended to found a homeland in what was up to that point Arab settled land (even if the real rulers were wealthy Ottoman landowners).
The Ottoman reforms enacted during the 1800s: guarantees to ensure the Ottoman subjects perfect security for their lives, honour, and property (1839); the introduction of the first Ottoman paper banknotes (1840); the opening of the first post offices of the empire (1840); the reorganization of the finance system (1840); the reorganization of the Civil and Criminal Code (1840); the establishment of the Meclis-i Maarif-i Umumiye (1841), which was the prototype of the First Ottoman Parliament (1876); the reorganization of the army and a regular method of recruiting, levying the army, and fixing the duration of military service (1843–44); the redesign of Ottoman national anthem and Ottoman national flag (1844); the first nationwide Ottoman census in 1844 (only male citizens were counted); the first national identity cards (officially named the Mecidiye identity papers, or informally kafa kağıdı (head paper) documents, 1844); the institution of a Council of Public Instruction (1845) and the Ministry of Education (Mekatib-i Umumiye Nezareti, 1847, which later became the Maarif Nezareti, 1857); the establishment of the first modern universities (darülfünun, 1848), academies (1848) and teacher schools (darülmuallimin, 1848); the establishment of the Ministry of Healthcare (Tıbbiye Nezareti, 1850); the Commerce and Trade Code (1850); the establishment of the Academy of Sciences (Encümen-i Daniş, 1851); the establishment of the Şirket-i Hayriye which operated the first steam-powered commuter ferries (1851); the establishment of the modern Municipality of Constantinople (Şehremaneti, 1854) and the City Planning Council (İntizam-ı Şehir Komisyonu, 1855); the Hatt-ı Hümayun of 1856 (called Islahat, meaning improvement) promising full legal equality for citizens of all religions (1856); various provisions for the better administration of the public service and advancement of commerce; the establishment of the first telegraph networks (1847–1855) and railway networks (1856); the replacement of guilds with factories; the establishment of the Ottoman Bank (originally established as the Bank-ı Osmanî in 1856, and later reorganized as the Bank-ı Osmanî-i Şahane in 1863) and the Ottoman Stock Exchange (Dersaadet Tahvilat Borsası, established in 1866); the Land Code (Arazi Kanunnamesi) (1857); the permission for private sector publishers and printing firms with the Serbesti-i Kürşad Nizamnamesi (1857); the decriminalization of homosexuality (1858); the establishment of the School of Civil Service, an institution of higher learning for civilians under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the School of Economical and Political Sciences (Mekteb-i Mülkiye-i Şahane, 1859) the Press and Journalism Regulation Code (Matbuat Nizamnamesi, 1864), among others; the establishment of the Imperial Ottoman Lycée at Galatasaray, another institution of higher learning for civilians (1868); the Nationality Law of 1869 creating a common Ottoman citizenship irrespective of religious divisions (1869).
