PDA

View Full Version : Palestinian complicity in the Holocaust?



Castellano
28 Dec 08,, 20:26
I still don't think Israelis have any justice to build a country in Palestine. What Nazis did to Jew was cruel, and the whole world feel sympathy about Jew in WWII. If they want to build a new country to protect its people, it should be in Europe.

No xunil. The Middle East is not the private property of the Arabs, other peoples such as the Jews or the Kurds also have the right to political independence. Jews were a clear majority in the areas assigned to Israel by the UN. Jerusalem has had a provable Jewish majority since the first Ottoman census in the 1830s.

So where is the injustice then?

BTW, so called ¨Palestinians¨ were allies to Hitler and complicit to the Holocaust. Their leader Amin Al-Husseini organized a Muslim SS division and was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds, in not thousands of Jewish children and many more adults. Just because they were Jews.

Take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Amin_al-Husayni


Recent Nazi documents uncovered in the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Military Archive Service in Freiburg by two researchers, Klaus Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers indicated that in the event of the British being defeated in Egypt by Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel's Afrika Korps the Nazis had planned to deploy a special unit called Einsatzkommando Ägypten to exterminate Palestinian Jews and that they wanted Arab support to prevent the emergence of a Jewish state. In their book the researchers concluded that, "the most important collaborator with the Nazis and an absolute Arab anti-Semite was Haj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem.

To this day this scumbag is refered to as a hero in their History textbooks. If these guys have earned a right to nationhood, then, I´m the Bishop of Rome.

GraniteForge
28 Dec 08,, 22:53
BTW, so called ¨Palestinians¨ were allies to Hitler and complicit to the Holocaust. Their leader Amin Al-Husseini organized a Muslim SS division and was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds, in not thousands of Jewish children and many more adults. Just because they were Jews.


No, there wasn't "a Muslim SS Division." I guess that you are referring here to 13. SS Gebirgs Division "Handschar," which was a Croation unit. Yes, it had Muslims, and Roman Catholics as well, and many Croations of no religious affiliation. And yes, they killed Jews, although their primary targets were Orthodox Christians and Bosnians who were fighting against the Germans. They also killed Gypsies. The unit was well-regarded for their anti-Partisan successes, which of course included murdering civilians, but became something of a liability when it was later used in the line. The Germans did not regard Muslims or Arabs as very good material from which to fashion soldiers in the Western sense, due to their historic culture.


But I do perceive an anti-Israeli bias in your comment when you hint that this crisis is manufactured and that Israel will try to maximize Palestinian deaths and will only stop when they feel US aid is at risk. In other words, their blood lust being only tempered by their greed.

I'm sorry that you found my words ambiguous. I wasn't "hinting" that I think this crisis is manufactured. I thought I was stating it fairly explicitly. But you did misunderstand my point about the aid. I don't think that Israel is operating under some sort of blood lust here, I think that they are, rather, manufacturing new enemies at the start of a new American administration, so that they can claim continuing US support during the next phase of retaliation. To put it more clearly: Israel knows that they can only successfully draw on US money as long as they are perceived as being at risk. This requires them to have active enemies. Therefore, it is in Israel's best self-interest to see to it that those enemies exist. I admire their tenacity and maintenance of aim in achieving their national goals.




Did you know that Hamas fires rockets over Sderot preferably at the times the children are going to or coming from school?

I suggest we leave the US aid thing aside and discuss it in other threads, like the Israel asset or liability one. I´m not prepared to debate it yet, but your figures do seem very high. It is a difficult issue to research. One of the reasons is that Jimmy Carter put Israel aid under control of the State Department instead of the Pentagon, thus making it a political issue.

This is what bothers me.

I think that Israel is a first world country and they might well be getting too much. But if the US cut all its aid I suspect not a single person in the US would change his or her views over Israel. At the same time, the US is sending lots of aid to Egypt, Jordan or the ¨Palestinians¨, the same guys that were handing out sweets and dancing in the streets when the twin towers came down. So how come it is not that aid that is being questioned?

Let me make one thing very clear: I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care who shoots rockets at who, or who blows up which school, any of that. War and conflict is the human condition. Israel certainly has the right to fight for existence. So do the Palestinians. For that matter, if the Basques want their own country and want to fight for it, that's fine. If the Parti Québécois or the Micmac or Pequot tribes want their own countries and decide to start fighting, that is still fine with me. I really don't care. I just don't enjoy being taxed to pay for other peoples' fun.

Why am I criticizing welfare payments to Israel and not other countries? This is a thread about Israel. I don't want payments to go to Egypt or the Palestinians, either, or Pakistan, France, Argentina, Burkina Faso, etc. Jordan is doing some good military work for the money they receive, and that is more an employee relationship than foreign aid, as such. I don't think we should be fighting that war, but as long as its happening, Jordan is earning their keep.

Castellano
29 Dec 08,, 00:26
No, there wasn't "a Muslim SS Division." I guess that you are referring here to 13. SS Gebirgs Division "Handschar," which was a Croation unit. Yes, it had Muslims, and Roman Catholics as well, and many Croations of no religious affiliation. And yes, they killed Jews, although their primary targets were Orthodox Christians and Bosnians who were fighting against the Germans. They also killed Gypsies. The unit was well-regarded for their anti-Partisan successes, which of course included murdering civilians, but became something of a liability when it was later used in the line. The Germans did not regard Muslims or Arabs as very good material from which to fashion soldiers in the Western sense, due to their historic culture.

Al-Husseini was involved in the mobilization of support for Germany among Muslims and he recruited around 20000 of them for the SS. The 13. SS Gebirgs Division was a Muslim oriented division and apparently had a Muslim Imam for each battalion and a Mullah for each regiment, even if not all members were Muslims. But the point of my comment was to remind xunil that so called Palestinians were involved in WWII and the Holocaust. (Some Muslims, Berber and Arab alike in North Africa helped their Jewish brothers and sisters to escape from the nazi onslaught though, and that should also be mentioned and those people praised for it)

I didn´t express myself well, I wasn´t trying to link the Muslim volunteers with the Holocaust (although I´m pretty sure some of them were), but specifically al-Husseini (¨Palestinian¨ leader at the time, and Arafat´s hero in his own words) who for example personally intervened to prevent Hungarian Jewish children being saved and were subsequently sent to Auschwitz instead.


I'm sorry that you found my words ambiguous. I wasn't "hinting" that I think this crisis is manufactured. I thought I was stating it fairly explicitly. But you did misunderstand my point about the aid. I don't think that Israel is operating under some sort of blood lust here, I think that they are, rather, manufacturing new enemies at the start of a new American administration, so that they can claim continuing US support during the next phase of retaliation. To put it more clearly: Israel knows that they can only successfully draw on US money as long as they are perceived as being at risk. This requires them to have active enemies. Therefore, it is in Israel's best self-interest to see to it that those enemies exist. I admire their tenacity and maintenance of aim in achieving their national goals.

Manufacturing new enemies in Gaza?

To get US aid?

That would be truly diabolic on Israel part.

I think you will find that Palestinians don´t need any outside help to be terminally brainwashed into ethnic and religious hate. An entire generation has been exposed to the most vicious forms of hate propaganda, and that, coupled with the fact that the average age in Gaza is around 15, is the reason a ¨peace process¨ can only be a fraudulent one. I have come to this conclusion after observing Palestinian media for some time. Have a look at things like Farfur the Mouse clips in youtube and then tell me who is manufacturing enemies and looking for a fight here.



Let me make one thing very clear: I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't care who shoots rockets at who, or who blows up which school, any of that. War and conflict is the human condition. Israel certainly has the right to fight for existence. So do the Palestinians. For that matter, if the Basques want their own country and want to fight for it, that's fine. If the Parti Québécois or the Micmac or Pequot tribes want their own countries and decide to start fighting, that is still fine with me. I really don't care. I just don't enjoy being taxed to pay for other peoples' fun.

Why am I criticizing welfare payments to Israel and not other countries? This is a thread about Israel. I don't want payments to go to Egypt or the Palestinians, either, or Pakistan, France, Argentina, Burkina Faso, etc. Jordan is doing some good military work for the money they receive, and that is more an employee relationship than foreign aid, as such. I don't think we should be fighting that war, but as long as its happening, Jordan is earning their keep.

I think you, like everybody in the civilized world, have a dog in this fight whether you know it or not. Because if Israel goes down you won´t be safer as you think you would. The Israeli factor does not answer the why do they hate us question. It doesn´t.

That is a question that exceeds this debate as far as I´m concerned, but I do hope to share my views and debate yours in the near future.

Ironduke
30 Dec 08,, 00:50
No xunil. The Middle East is not the private property of the Arabs, other peoples such as the Jews or the Kurds also have the right to political independence. Jews were a clear majority in the areas assigned to Israel by the UN. Jerusalem has had a provable Jewish majority since the first Ottoman census in the 1830s.
Yes, but the Palestinians also have a right to statehood alongside the state of Israel.

BTW, so called ¨Palestinians¨ were allies to Hitler and complicit to the Holocaust. Their leader Amin Al-Husseini organized a Muslim SS division and was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds, in not thousands of Jewish children and many more adults. Just because they were Jews.
That's a massive stretch. Al-Husseini's collusion with the Nazis in no way reflected the views of the rest of the Palestinian political leadership, and it's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian issue of today.

Castellano
30 Dec 08,, 04:11
That's a massive stretch. Al-Husseini's collusion with the Nazis in no way reflected the views of the rest of the Palestinian political leadership, and it's irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian issue of today.

Wait, I wasn´t implying it is relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian issue today, or not by itself. But my initial response was to a comment that repeated an often heard ¨argument¨ about the Palestinians not having anything to do with the Holocaust. They had plenty to do with it through their leadership. The Mufti Al-Husseini even planned to build a death camp with Eichman in Nablus, apparently delighted after a visit to Auschwitz.

Ironduke
30 Dec 08,, 04:41
Wait, I wasn´t implying it is relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian issue today, or not by itself. But my initial response was to a comment that repeated an often heard ¨argument¨ about the Palestinians not having anything to do with the Holocaust. They had plenty to do with it through their leadership. The Mufti Al-Husseini even planned to build a death camp with Eichman in Nablus, apparently delighted after a visit to Auschwitz.
I'd say that he, Al-Husseini, had plenty to do with the Holocaust, not they, the Palestinians. As I understand he was in exile, and was acting on his own.

Castellano
30 Dec 08,, 05:17
I'd say that he, Al-Husseini, had plenty to do with the Holocaust, not they, the Palestinians. As I understand he was in exile, and was acting on his own.

Exiled by the British, but he remained popular among its constituency. What bothers me though, is the fact that he has not been discredited as he deserves, on the contrary. No wonder Hamas feels no regrets using the language it uses when writing down its charter.


Yes, that's correct, but it was actually a freighter loaded with arms, not a warship by any means.

Yes, it was an ironic license :))

Ironduke
30 Dec 08,, 05:30
Exiled by the British, but he remained popular among its constituency. What bothers me though, is the fact that he has not been discredited as he deserves, on the contrary. No wonder Hamas feels no regrets using the language it uses when writing down its charter.
It doesn't matter if he remained popular with his constituency, the Palestinians as a people didn't play a role in the Holocaust.

Castellano
30 Dec 08,, 05:35
It doesn't matter if he remained popular with his constituency, the Palestinians as a people didn't play a role in the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was a secret enterprise. Were Germans responsible for the Holocaust?

Ironduke
30 Dec 08,, 05:44
In a letter sent by three non-American, European, Jewish physicist to Roosevelt.

From allies, in short.
What's your point?

What are you trying to get at?

Israel provided the US the atom bomb?

That's exactly what you've been implying.

The Holocaust was a secret enterprise. Were Germans responsible for the Holocaust?
Has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The Palestinians were not complicit in the Holocaust.

I wasn´t the one to bring it up. But once the Holocaust is brought up, we have to discuss the role of Al-Husseini, who happened to be the leader of the Palestinians. Or did he perpetrate by himself the massacres of Jews in the Mandate in the 1920s and 30s? But even all that could and would have been forgotten if it were not for the unbroken line of genocidal designs that punctuate the recent history in the Arab world: Al-Husseini-Nasser-Arafat-Nasrallah-Hamas. They are not shy about it. Not at all.

They, the Palestinians, still regard him as a hero, precisely for what he did.
You can discuss the role of Al-Husseini all you want. The Palestinians were not complicit in the Holocaust. But I'll do a short interview with a Palestinian I know personally tomorrow or the day after regarding popular Palestinian views of Al-Husseini in the 1936-1948 time period and now. But again, it's something that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Castellano
30 Dec 08,, 07:34
What's your point?

What are you trying to get at?

My point is that I find some of the insinuations about US aid to Israel repellent. Some of them I said. I have read a whole tome of criticism to US-Israel relations today, and I mean a TOME, in British and Spanish press. I have decided I´m gonna take on this issue head on and expose the hypocritical repellents for what they are.


Israel provided the US the atom bomb?

I did not say that, but somebody did provide the US with the bomb, it didn´t get it by itself, and if you are going to call Albert Einstein a Zionist Entity, then, I´ll settle to that.


That's exactly what you've been implying.

I said very clearly that the US didn´t get where it is alone, and I stand by it.
I want to continue with this, but before I make myself perfectly clear in every way, I want to know what 7thsniper implied by this question:

I know where hamas is getting its backing but where does Isreal keep getting financing for waging this very long war?

Strange question. Either it is very late and I´m paranoid or I detect implications of my own in that question.

Once my question is answered, I will continue.


Has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The Palestinians were not complicit in the Holocaust.

I wasn´t the one to bring it up. But once the Holocaust is brought up, we have to discuss the role of Al-Husseini, who happened to be the leader of the Palestinians. Or did he perpetrate by himself the massacres of Jews in the Mandate in the 1920s and 30s? But even all that could and would have been forgotten if it were not for the unbroken line of genocidal designs that punctuate the recent history in the Arab world: Al-Husseini-Nasser-Arafat-Nasrallah-Hamas. They are not shy about it. Not at all.

They, the Palestinians, still regard him as a hero, precisely for what he did.

Castellano
30 Dec 08,, 18:26
You can discuss the role of Al-Husseini all you want. The Palestinians were not complicit in the Holocaust. But I'll do a short interview with a Palestinian I know personally tomorrow or the day after regarding popular Palestinian views of Al-Husseini in the 1936-1948 time period and now. But again, it's something that's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I said the Palestinians through their leadership were complicit with the Holocaust. As I suggested (exaggerating, but just a bit) by your own logic the Germans had nothing to do with it either. I´m not saying they hold the same degree of responsibility as the Germans but they hold some. Or just do a mental exercise and try to imagine what would have been the reaction if Al-Husseini got his way and built a death camp in Nablus. You do have the antecedents of events in the mandate to compose a picture.

I don´t know what your friend will tell you, but Edward Said himself acknowledged that the more Al-Husseini supported Hitler the more his popularity grew. I have the source in Amsterdam, if you want I can look it up and prove it. I believe I read it in a book by Alan Dershowitz, where he has the original source.

Why is all this relevant?

First, because when I brought it up, it was to respond a comment that tried to undercut the legitimacy of the creation of Israel by pointing out that Palestinians had nothing to do with WW2. Well, that would be irrelevant to the creation of Israel, but actually, it is relevant for the creation of Palestinian state:

Just from memory, Palestinians have in fact participated in WW1, WW2, The Genocidal War against Israel 48-49, The War of attrition, The terrorist campaign that followed Suez, The Genocidal War against Israel in 67, The terrorism campaign that followed, The Yom Kippur War, The terrorism campaign that followed, The First Lebanon War, The first intifada & The second intifada. They have lost every single one of these wars. At the same time, they have refused to create their own state at least twice: 1948 and 2000-1, killing the Oslo peace process with it. An in addition to all that, they didn´t challenge the annexation of the West Bank by Jordan or the Occupation of Gaza by Egypt.

Yet you contend that Palestinians have a right for their own State.

There was never in history an Arab Palestinian state. There is no justification for one now (other than perhaps in Jordan). The only justification I can possibly see is to encourage a pacification of the region, which is all I really care about. Arabs already rule 22 states. The creation of a 23rd Arab state, "Palestine", in the West Bank and Gaza will escalate Middle East violence and world terrorism almost certainly. The Palestinians are not and never were a "nation". They are not even a tribe. They are a branch of Arabs with only minor and secondary cultural differences that distinguish them from Syrians, Lebanese or Jordanians. You and I have covered this before. It is doubtful whether they ever did have a right for a State, but - even if they once did - they forfeited it thanks to decades of terrorism, savagery, mass murders and barbarism.

Convince me a Palestinian state will lead to less violence, and I will use all the will and intelligence I can muster to help make it a reality.


Second, Hamas & Hezbollah are Fascist, even Nazis.

This is not a political metaphor but the clinical description of these two parties. And the thing to do the Fascists is to crush them before they crush you. Is the only way to go. Furthermore, their Fascism is not a new development but the result of a historical evolution, rooted in the 1930s, the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood and individuals such Al-Husseini. So here is the link you are looking for to establish the relevance of all this.

I´m aware the world in general and the State Department in particular is filled with fools who think that Arabs cannot be Fascist. They must consider that is probably too sophisticated of an ideology for them (because there is a lot of closet racism in the multiculti crowd). I don´t know what is the reason. But what Israel is facing today in Gaza is exactly that: a Nazi party.

Why so many people fail to see it? I dont know.

cape_royds
04 Jan 09,, 03:11
You obviously don't know much about the Hezbollah. They are not fascists, if the term "fascist" is to retain any meaning whatsoever.

And the Palestinian people had very little to do with the massacres of European Jews under the Third Reich. The entire premise of your thread is absurd.

Bigfella
04 Jan 09,, 04:03
You obviously don't know much about the Hezbollah. They are not fascists, if the term "fascist" is to retain any meaning whatsoever.

And the Palestinian people had very little to do with the massacres of European Jews under the Third Reich. The entire premise of your thread is absurd.

The purpose of all this is pretty clear - trying to smear people you disagree with by any means to hand.

When Palestinians & were associated with left wing 'liberation' movements in the 60s, 70s & 80s and sought help from the communist world (the US had already chosen its side) this was one of the things that made them dangerous.

During the same period people on the left with no understanding of history but a keen sense of the power of certain words took to using the word 'fascist' to describe anyone they didn't like. As the popular memory of communism fades the power of 'fascist' & 'nazi' remains. The holocaust remains the most powerful symbol of human evil in the west. Thus, if you want to smear your opponents nowadays, you call them 'fascist' & try to link them to the holocaust. Jonah Goldberg has taken this to its illogical extreme with 'Liberal Fascism'. All part of the same game.

So, if you want to smear the Palestinian causer, a good way is to link them to the holocaust. They are fascists. They are Nazis. They are beyond civilized discourse. And within a decade Israel will be sitting down to talks with Hamas as it did with Fatah. There are ample reasons to dislike Hamas & Hezbollah (& Likud for that matter). Making stuff up says more about the person doing it than the intended target.

Castellano, you seem quite passionate about this, so here is a suggestion. As you are probably aware, Subhas Chandra Bose was a wartime collaborator with both Hitler & Imperial Japan. He raised men to fight for both, contributing a whole army to the Japanese cause. He remains a hero to hindreds of millions of Indians & especially the powerful BJP. As we are shying away from Indian topics oin WAB at the moment I suggest you go to an Indian website & post a topic about how Indians are complicit in the holocaust AND Japapese war crimes because they still admire Chandra Bose. Post the url here so we can watch you defend your principles. SHould be fun.

Castellano
04 Jan 09,, 04:08
You obviously don't know much about the Hezbollah. They are not fascists, if the term "fascist" is to retain any meaning whatsoever.

Hezbollah might not be exactly like an European 1930s party, but they are fascists to the core.


And the Palestinian people had very little to do with the massacres of European Jews under the Third Reich. The entire premise of your thread is absurd.

Yes I think you are correct that the Palestinian people had very little to do with the Holocaust and it would be unfair to hold them responsible.

But bear in mind that this thread was opened as a sub-debate of an existing thread, and their leadership did actively participate, there is some connection.

The problem that I see though, is that figures like the Mufti have not been discredited.

I have found my sources proving his popularity during the War and beyond. In 1948 he was elected as president of the National Palestinian Council even though he was a wanted war criminal.

I'll try to transcribe what I found tomorrow, part of it is from Edward Said & Christopher Hitchens "Blaming the victims", a clearly pro-Palestinian source.

Castellano
04 Jan 09,, 04:32
The purpose of all this is pretty clear - trying to smear people you disagree with by any means to hand.

So whom am I trying to smear in your opinion? The Palestinians? Prove it.

First, I want to expose al-Husseini, remember, Arafat's hero.

And read how this began, what I was trying to do is point out that the often heard mantra, "the Palestinians had NOTHING to do with the Holocaust or WW2 and therefore Israel should be dismantled and carved out of Germany and Austria", first is an irrelevant point, but also contains a good deal of falsehoods.


When Palestinians & were associated with left wing 'liberation' movements in the 60s, 70s & 80s and sought help from the communist world (the US had already chosen its side) this was one of the things that made them dangerous.

During the same period people on the left with no understanding of history but a keen sense of the power of certain words took to using the word 'fascist' to describe anyone they didn't like. As the popular memory of communism fades the power of 'fascist' & 'nazi' remains. The holocaust remains the most powerful symbol of human evil in the west. Thus, if you want to smear your opponents nowadays, you call them 'fascist' & try to link them to the holocaust. Jonah Goldberg has taken this to its illogical extreme with 'Liberal Fascism'. All part of the same game.

I might agree with some of what you say here, but it is completely irrelevant to anything of what I said.


So, if you want to smear the Palestinian causer, a good way is to link them to the holocaust. They are fascists. They are Nazis. They are beyond civilized discourse. And within a decade Israel will be sitting down to talks with Hamas as it did with Fatah. There are ample reasons to dislike Hamas & Hezbollah (& Likud for that matter).

A Palestinian causer is one thing. An organization bent on butchering the Jews in the Middle East is quite another.


Making stuff up says more about the person doing it than the intended target.

So, what did I make up then? I am all ears to find out.


Castellano, you seem quite passionate about this, so here is a suggestion. As you are probably aware, Subhas Chandra Bose was a wartime collaborator with both Hitler & Imperial Japan. He raised men to fight for both, contributing a whole army to the Japanese cause. He remains a hero to hindreds of millions of Indians & especially the powerful BJP. As we are shying away from Indian topics oin WAB at the moment I suggest you go to an Indian website & post a topic about how Indians are complicit in the holocaust AND Japapese war crimes because they still admire Chandra Bose. Post the url here so we can watch you defend your principles. SHould be fun.


Bigfella, my advantage is that I am post-everything. I don't fear the Nationalists nor the Multicultural crowd. I'm passionate but I'm fair. I don't shrink to criticize my own country in the harshest terms, and I want to think that I would concede points and acknowledge my mistakes if exposed.

So now, exactly what did I make up?

Bigfella
04 Jan 09,, 07:31
Bigfella, my advantage is that I am post-everything. I don't fear the Nationalists nor the Multicultural crowd. I'm passionate but I'm fair. I don't shrink to criticize my own country in the harshest terms, and I want to think that I would concede points and acknowledge my mistakes if exposed.

If you say so. Still not quite sure what it has to do with what I posted. Do be sure to post that url when you get stuck into Chandra Bose.



So now, exactly what did I make up?

Now that's easy.


Hamas & Hezbollah are Fascist, even Nazis.

This stretches the definition of fascism beyond breaking point. It is little more than name calling. The 'even Nazis' point is even worse. You might just as well call them the Khmer Rouge. Not even the Italian Fascists or the Falange were Nazis. Again, little more than name calling.

As I said before, there are plenty of grounds on which to criticize both Hezbollah & Hamas. Try sticking to those & we will get along just fine. Try to monkey with history to serve your arguments & we will disagree profoundly.

aktarian
04 Jan 09,, 09:30
Wait, I wasn´t implying it is relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian issue today, or not by itself. But my initial response was to a comment that repeated an often heard ¨argument¨ about the Palestinians not having anything to do with the Holocaust. They had plenty to do with it through their leadership. The Mufti Al-Husseini even planned to build a death camp with Eichman in Nablus, apparently delighted after a visit to Auschwitz.

If you believe that because Palestinians were pro-Nazi they should give up their land for Israel then why not create Israel in Germany? Surely Germans had much more to do with Holocaust than Palestinians, right?

zraver
04 Jan 09,, 10:15
If you believe that because Palestinians were pro-Nazi they should give up their land for Israel then why not create Israel in Germany? Surely Germans had much more to do with Holocaust than Palestinians, right?


How is that land Palestinian? Israel has expanded only through defensive war, WWI and II make it perfectly clear that aggressors have no right to territorial integrity. Both legitimate governments the Palestinian people recognized-Jordan and Egypt ceded the land to Israel, or gave up their claim as part of peace treaties. The land was originally Jewish and never devoid of a Jewish presence, They were initially invited back in by the recognized Islamic Caliph and recognized sovereign of the area.

The arab connection to Nazi Germany is well known, its not even a matter of contention. Arab volunteers fought in the Waffen SS. The Grand Mufti Al Husseni might not have been a Nazi politically, but he signe don to the "Final Solution" with vigor. Nor was he alone. Throughout the 30's pro-nazi or self styled Arab Nazi's in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were active. One of their members was Nasser. Arafat was related to the Grand Mufti if the surnames are accurate.

prominent Arabs made statements during WWII and after totally in line with what the Nazi's were trying to do. So in my opinion, the connection is not vague or unwarranted. Hamas is the bastard child of a sub-culture that grew up swaddled in Swastikas and pan-nationalism.

fascism - "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

aktarian
04 Jan 09,, 10:37
How is that land Palestinian? Israel has expanded only through defensive war, WWI and II make it perfectly clear that aggressors have no right to territorial integrity. Both legitimate governments the Palestinian people recognized-Jordan and Egypt ceded the land to Israel, or gave up their claim as part of peace treaties. The land was originally Jewish and never devoid of a Jewish presence, They were initially invited back in by the recognized Islamic Caliph and recognized sovereign of the area.

They liverd there and were majority before jews started moving in in large numbers



The arab connection to Nazi Germany is well known, its not even a matter of contention. Arab volunteers fought in the Waffen SS. The Grand Mufti Al Husseni might not have been a Nazi politically, but he signe don to the "Final Solution" with vigor. Nor was he alone. Throughout the 30's pro-nazi or self styled Arab Nazi's in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were active. One of their members was Nasser. Arafat was related to the Grand Mufti if the surnames are accurate.

prominent Arabs made statements during WWII and after totally in line with what the Nazi's were trying to do. So in my opinion, the connection is not vague or unwarranted. Hamas is the bastard child of a sub-culture that grew up swaddled in Swastikas and pan-nationalism.

fascism - "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

Fine, then going by the logic that connection to Nazis means that Jews get a state there I would be far more logical to create Israel in germany. Germans were far more involved in Holocaust than Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Moyne#Assassination

zraver
04 Jan 09,, 10:48
They liverd there and were majority before jews started moving in in large numbers

before the jewish return began the area was a virtual wasteland. It was Jewish money and a new railroad that led to an explosion of Arab immigration. Most Palestinian families cannot trace roots to the area back before about 1870.




Fine, then going by the logic that connection to Nazis means that Jews get a state there I would be far more logical to create Israel in germany. Germans were far more involved in Holocaust than Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Moyne#Assassination

Why create a state out of Germany, when there was already a Jewish homeland. The jews did not leave on their own accord, they were kicked out by the various powers that marched through. They never signed over any deeds.

aktarian
04 Jan 09,, 10:59
before the jewish return began the area was a virtual wasteland. It was Jewish money and a new railroad that led to an explosion of Arab immigration. Most Palestinian families cannot trace roots to the area back before about 1870.


so Jews have about as much claim to the land as Palestinians, you say?



Why create a state out of Germany, when there was already a Jewish homeland. The jews did not leave on their own accord, they were kicked out by the various powers that marched through. They never signed over any deeds.

because it is argued that since Palestinians had connections to Nazis they should STFU and move aside as a punishment. which still doesn't explain why not do this with Germany who did much more to Jews then Palestinians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(group)#Contact_with_Nazi_authorities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun#Struggle_against_the_British

Bigfella
04 Jan 09,, 11:40
How is that land Palestinian? Israel has expanded only through defensive war, WWI and II make it perfectly clear that aggressors have no right to territorial integrity. Both legitimate governments the Palestinian people recognized-Jordan and Egypt ceded the land to Israel, or gave up their claim as part of peace treaties. The land was originally Jewish and never devoid of a Jewish presence, They were initially invited back in by the recognized Islamic Caliph and recognized sovereign of the area.

The arab connection to Nazi Germany is well known, its not even a matter of contention. Arab volunteers fought in the Waffen SS. The Grand Mufti Al Husseni might not have been a Nazi politically, but he signe don to the "Final Solution" with vigor. Nor was he alone. Throughout the 30's pro-nazi or self styled Arab Nazi's in Egypt, Syria and Lebanon were active. One of their members was Nasser. Arafat was related to the Grand Mufti if the surnames are accurate.

prominent Arabs made statements during WWII and after totally in line with what the Nazi's were trying to do. So in my opinion, the connection is not vague or unwarranted. Hamas is the bastard child of a sub-culture that grew up swaddled in Swastikas and pan-nationalism.

fascism - "A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

Zraver,

Once again you are going for a fairly simplistic guilt by association. I could play a similar game with Likud. What would be the point?

As I pointed out to Castrellano, using that logic on Indian nationalism gets you some strange results. Try them out in Indian posters some time.

You want to assume that anyone who sought assistance from the Nazis or was therefore a fascist. The same crude approach during the Cold War dismissed the legitimate claims of many peoples for national self-detemination as 'Communist. Indeed, you cite Nasser, a man who was happy to sound socialist when it got him Russian arms.

And there you have the crux of the issue - when you are occupied by a foreign power you don't always get good choices. The enemy of mine enemy & all that. Nationalists in the 30s who were occupied by the bastions of European democracy turned to the nations that wanted to undemine them - Arab nationalists turned to Germany. In Asia Japan was the model. Chandra Bose did both, and Indians actually fought for the Nazis too. The bombastic nationalism of Germany & Japan appealed in the 30s. From the 40s to the 70s communism was able to appeal to the social equity issues of repressed people. Revolutionary Islam currently appeals to some of the same people for some of the same reasons. Provided the same issues are around after revolutionary Islam folds then it will be another set of ideas. As long as the issues exist someone will find an ideology around which to organize such people.

Trying to make Hamas & Hezbollah into fascists won't make them go away (nor will it make them fascist). As long as the people they represent have legitimate grievences (and they most certainly do) then there will be a militant group to represent them.

Oh, and the definition of Fascism you posted could cover a whole bunch of regimes that no historian would classify as Fascist. The number of actual Fascist regimes probably doesn't go past 2 unless you add WW2 puppet regimes. One of the reasons Fascism is such a good insult is that it is slippery to define. That is why throwing around the term is dangerous & foolish.

And one more thing. You need to be a bit more careful about how you justify Israeli occupation of Israel. Right now you have a mixture of justifications. Some come right out of the playbook of European colonialism. The rest don't really stand up to close examination, though they offer a great justification for Mexico claiming back chunks of the USA.

Israel has no nore right to the territory it holds that it would have had to a state in a half dozen places in Eastern Europe. It just happens that for a variety of reasons, some virtual accidents, this is where Israel was established. We all get to live with that now. Trying to retrospectively legitimize or de-legitimize that process is all about other agendas.

Castellano
04 Jan 09,, 14:35
This stretches the definition of fascism beyond breaking point. It is little more than name calling. The 'even Nazis' point is even worse. You might just as well call them the Khmer Rouge. Not even the Italian Fascists or the Falange were Nazis. Again, little more than name calling.

As I said before, there are plenty of grounds on which to criticize both Hezbollah & Hamas. Try sticking to those & we will get along just fine. Try to monkey with history to serve your arguments & we will disagree profoundly.

Falange were Fascists, Hezbolah are (perhaps) "only" Fascists, but specifically Hamas is a Nazi-like organization without a doubt.


You problably heard of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's "Hitler's Willing Executioners", I read an article by him in 2006:


A manifesto for murder
By Daniel Jonah Goldhagen


MUCH HAS been said about the Hamas charter’s call for the destruction of Israel and the need for Hamas to renounce this goal as the condition for being granted international legitimacy, economic aid and diplomatic recognition.

But an examination of the charter (available at www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) reveals that Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, is not just dedicated (however wrongly or murderously) to the destruction of Israel. It shows Hamas to be governed by a Nazi-like genocidal orientation to Jews in general.

It would be no surprise if a self-styled Palestinian liberation movement depicted Israel in unflattering or even (if we indulge the movement some license to exaggerate) venomous terms. Yet Hamas’ 9,000-word charter of 1988 – repeatedly reconfirmed by its leaders – pits Jews, Israelis and Zionists (used pretty much interchangeably in the charter) in Manichaean conflict, not just with Palestinians, but with Islam, which to Hamas is synonymous with all goodness.

“Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims,” Article 28 of the charter says. This otherwise stunning statement is not surprising, given that Hamas describes Jews and Israel as a cosmic evil. Almost mimicking Nazi textbooks, Hamas contends that Zionism does “not hesitate to take any road, or to pursue all despicable and repulsive means to fulfill its desires.” And what are those desires? “To demolish societies, to destroy values, to wreck answerableness, to totter virtues and to wipe out Islam. It stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion.” (Article 28)

Hamas sees Jews as extremely malevolent and also extremely powerful, capable of achieving their desires. In a hallucinatory anti-Semitic passage recalling the most extreme Nazi ideologues, the charter asserts that the Jews amassed wealth that permitted them to “take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there.” (Article 22)

Pursuing this hallucinatory reverie (among the clandestine organizations the Jews allegedly use to take over the world, “Rotary Clubs” are highlighted), Hamas’ charter then describes Jewish power and malevolence as still more sinister: The Jews “used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein

As if this wild, anti-Semitic litany, which includes Jews establishing the United Nations as part of their plan for world domination, is insufficient, Hamas declares that “there was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it.” (Article 22)

With how much power will the Jews be satisfied? According to Hamas, “Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates. Only when they have completed digesting the area on which they will have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion, etc. Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” (Article 32)

Faced with this demonic enemy, Hamas is determined to rouse the Islamic world to act in the only manner adequate to the danger. Negotiation, compromise, any permanent modus vivendi with Israel and Jews (Jews’ very existence in Israel is deemed an affront against Islam), is not thinkable. Jihad and destruction is. Proclaiming every inch of Palestine, including all of Israel, to be Palestinian and Islamic, and in accord with its demonic view of Jews, the charter declares, “[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement.”

Why? Because “renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad.” (Article 13)

So what is left for Hamas and all Muslims to do? Despite Hamas’ pro-forma statement that “humane” Hamas will tolerate Jews and Christians only under the impossible condition that they live under Islamic fundamentalist domination (Article 31), the genocidal logic of Hamas’ foundational document is explicit: “Hamas has been looking forward to [implementing] Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree.” (Article 7)

This is no selective reading of Hamas’ charter, as the extensive quotations indicate. The charter’s almost classically Nazi accounts of Jews and its annihilative reveries form the core of Hamas’ uncompromising and divinely ordained canonical version of the Declaration of Independence.

As a lifelong student of Nazism and its radical murderousness, I have always been extremely reluctant to use the epithet “Nazi” for other reprehensible, anti-Semitic or genocidal movements. Whatever the other differences, the anti-Semitism and the murderous logic that form the principal content and rhetorical structure and substructure of this charter and this political party are unmistakably Nazi-like with regard to Jews.

Imagine if a territory or country next to the United States, Germany, France or Britain were governed by a political party that had repeatedly terrorized and murdered citizens of its neighbor, and had issued a governing charter about Americans, Germans, French or Britons that described the people of that country as Hamas describes Jews – calling not only for that country’s destruction but also for the mass murder of its people.

Would people in that country accept the threatening political party as a fit partner in peace? Would people say that a political party harboring such profoundly irrational beliefs, fomenting such uncompromising hatred and speaking the language of mass murder should receive international aid that could only further its hold on power and facilitate its murderous intentions?
Hamas’ charter should not be dismissed as just words, and all that it contains would not be nullified even if Hamas, under pressure, renounced its goal to destroy Israel. (So far, Hamas has adamantly defended its genocidal charter.)

Seldom in the modern world has a political party enshrined such hallucinatory hatred and overt murderousness against another people in its constitution, and more seldom still has such a party taken power. The Nazi Party Program of 1920 also contained much anti-Semitism, but compared to Hamas’ charter, its demonology and prescriptions were tame. Given the extreme political costs of such speech, governments, political parties and political leaders rarely speak the language of annihilation openly. So when they do, we should take them at their word. The last 100 years have shown that those expressing murderous dreams, like Hitler, mean it.

Ironduke
04 Jan 09,, 14:46
Castellano,

You're conflating fascist with anti-Semitic, and using the term as an epithet. Because one is anti-Semitic, does not necessarily make one fascist. It's a misuse of the term as fascism is a political system, and it does not accurately reflect the ideologies of either Hezbollah or Hamas, who are theocratic, non-nationalist, and non-corporatist.

Castellano
04 Jan 09,, 15:12
If you believe that because Palestinians were pro-Nazi they should give up their land for Israel then why not create Israel in Germany? Surely Germans had much more to do with Holocaust than Palestinians, right?

No aktarian, read my damn posts. I said precisely that I find those kind of arguments absurd. But what Palestinians call their land is not only theirs, other peoples in the Middle East have a right for political independence besides Arabs, and the legitimacy of Israel and a Palestinian State are not based in WW2, or not by itself, although there was in fact a Jewish brigade fighting with the allies, and al-Husseini was allied to Hitler.


It would be unfair to make Palestinian people responsible for the Holocaust, but there is some connection, and as a people they definitely supported the Axis even if mostly rhetorically. In the light of this, the partition plan was a very good deal for them, and they rejected it anyway.

aktarian
04 Jan 09,, 15:25
No aktarian, read my damn posts. I said precisely that I find those kind of arguments absurd. But what Palestinians call their land is not only theirs, other peoples in the Middle East have a right for political independence besides Arabs, and the legitimacy of Israel and a Palestinian State are not based in WW2, or not by itself, although there was in fact a Jewish brigade fighting with the allies, and al-Husseini was allied to Hitler.


And yet the argument of Jewish homeland is frequently brought up as a reason why Jews had a right to establish their own state. If that's not saying Palestine is their land I don't know what is.

As for WW2 legitimacy, you brought up the issue of Palestinian (or Arab in general) connections with Germany, as if that puts them in some inferior position and that they should keep quiet as they were pro-German. If legitimacy of Israel is not connected with WW2 (or not a big point anyway) then why bring up Arab position in that period? Either is not relevant which means that who spported who is irrelevant or it is at which point one should also look into action of Jewish terrorists who were attacking British targets when Britain was fighting Germany.



It would be unfair to make Palestinian people responsible for the Holocaust, but there is some connection, and as a people they definitely supported the Axis even if mostly rhetorically. In the light of this, the partition plan was a very good deal for them, and they rejected it anyway.

so now you say that because they were pro-German they should accept partition plan. If WW2 is not deciding issue, as you claimed before, then this position is invalid and whether they should accept partition or not should be based on other criteria, not their WW2 position

Castellano
04 Jan 09,, 15:53
Castellano,

You're conflating fascist with anti-Semitic, and using the term as an epithet. Because one is anti-Semitic, does not necessarily make one fascist. It's a misuse of the term as fascism is a political system, and it does not accurately reflect the ideologies of either Hezbollah or Hamas, who are theocratic, non-nationalist, and non-corporatist.

Ironduke, your remark is impeccable from an academic point of view. Well, except that I am not only thinking on their anti-Semitism to charaterize them as Fascist or Nazi-like.

However, there is War going on here, and even we in our small way are on it. We have a problem to fight said War which I would define as the moral equivalency problem, and pointing out just how intolerant, fanatic and totalitarian and really murderous Hamas is, helps unite people from the left and the right and all kinds of backgrounds around the World to defeat it. Just Theocratic is too aseptic, Theocratic and Antisemitic is still not enough, there is something more here and can be actually traced back in History to the 1930s.

Having said that, of course Hamas as a political phenomenon exists in a very different cultural context of NSDAP, likewise, the Mufti and Hitler were different, but I still think that characterizing Hamas as Nazi-like or Islamo-Nazis is entirely appropriate, and not only for the reasons explained above.

In Goldhagen's words:


As a lifelong student of Nazism and its radical murderousness, I have always been extremely reluctant to use the epithet “Nazi” for other reprehensible, anti-Semitic or genocidal movements. Whatever the other differences, the anti-Semitism and the murderous logic that form the principal content and rhetorical structure and substructure of this charter and this political party are unmistakably Nazi-like with regard to Jews.

Gilles Keppel wrote a similar critique to yours when GW Bush made the islamo-fascist comment. I still stick with the Texan rather than the sophisticated professor.

Ironduke
04 Jan 09,, 16:12
Castellano,

There are perfectly adequate adjectives that already exist to accurately describe Hamas and Hezbollah. Islamist, terrorist, jihadi, extremist, anti-Semitic, and so on. Butchers, baby-killers, and so forth.

Fascist just isn't one of them. It is a distinctive political ideology that existed in Germany, Italy, Spain, Argentina and a few other countries. It's best to preserve the use of the term for what is actually fascist, instead of trying to broaden the term to characterize a whole set of other political ideologies. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and others are/were authoritarian/totalitarian, but not fascist.

Hamas is authoritarian, fanatic, intolerant, and murderous, but it's not necessary to dilute and misuse well-defined existing terminology to describe them as something they're not when there's perfectly adequate language that already exists to describe them perfectly.

zraver
04 Jan 09,, 16:25
Zraver,

Once again you are going for a fairly simplistic guilt by association. I could play a similar game with Likud. What would be the point?

The Likud laid down its arms.


As I pointed out to Castrellano, using that logic on Indian nationalism gets you some strange results. Try them out in Indian posters some time.

The Indians were fighting against colonialism and oppression. Hamas is fighting against a people. The Indians did not seek the utter annihilation of a people either.


You want to assume that anyone who sought assistance from the Nazis or was therefore a fascist. The same crude approach during the Cold War dismissed the legitimate claims of many peoples for national self-detemination as 'Communist. Indeed, you cite Nasser, a man who was happy to sound socialist when it got him Russian arms.

If they mimicked the Nazi's and adopted their philosophies in whole or in part what are they then?


And there you have the crux of the issue - when you are occupied by a foreign power you don't always get good choices. The enemy of mine enemy & all that. Nationalists in the 30s who were occupied by the bastions of European democracy turned to the nations that wanted to undemine them - Arab nationalists turned to Germany. In Asia Japan was the model. Chandra Bose did both, and Indians actually fought for the Nazis too. The bombastic nationalism of Germany & Japan appealed in the 30s. From the 40s to the 70s communism was able to appeal to the social equity issues of repressed people. Revolutionary Islam currently appeals to some of the same people for some of the same reasons. Provided the same issues are around after revolutionary Islam folds then it will be another set of ideas. As long as the issues exist someone will find an ideology around which to organize such people.

Hamas is more than Nationalist, they seek the destruction of the Jewish people.


Trying to make Hamas & Hezbollah into fascists won't make them go away (nor will it make them fascist). As long as the people they represent have legitimate grievences (and they most certainly do) then there will be a militant group to represent them.

They don't have legitimate grievances, they are making war on Israel and targeting civilians as a matter of course. Terror does not have an excuse.




And one more thing. You need to be a bit more careful about how you justify Israeli occupation of Israel.

Israel is not occupying Israel, its their country.


Right now you have a mixture of justifications. Some come right out of the playbook of European colonialism. The rest don't really stand up to close examination, though they offer a great justification for Mexico claiming back chunks of the USA.

Mexico gave up its claims via treaty, and its claims were tenuous to begin with,


Israel has no nore right to the territory it holds that it would have had to a state in a half dozen places in Eastern Europe. It just happens that for a variety of reasons, some virtual accidents, this is where Israel was established. We all get to live with that now. Trying to retrospectively legitimize or de-legitimize that process is all about other agendas.

The land is Jewish, all three of the major faiths in question recognize this at some level. The area was never devoid of Jews, the initial land was bought back from people holding deeds. Subsequent land was gained through defensive war etc. You say trying to retrospectively legitimize or de-legitimize is about other agendas. Your word choice makes me think you have a problem with Israel.

Bigfella
05 Jan 09,, 10:25
You say trying to retrospectively legitimize or de-legitimize is about other agendas. Your word choice makes me think you have a problem with Israel.

Then your thinking on what I mean is as wrongheaded as your thinking on Fascism. You will notice that my statement covers both those who try to legitimize Israel using history & thise who also seek to de-legitimize Israel using history.

One of the problems with this sort of issue is that anyone who is remotely percieved as critical of Israel is constantly required to assure one and all that they are not racist or desireous of the destruction os Israel. Curiously, people who support pretty much anything Israel does to others never seem to have to meet this burden.

For the great sin of disagreeing with Israeli policy I have been called everything under the sun including an anti-semite, sometimes by people who advocate the mass murder of Palestineans. Don't even think about taking that route.

So, for the record: Few nations in the world have a greater justification for their existence than Israel. The holocaust proved that the Jews needed a nation in which they could be safe. I don't know if there was any other solution than the one that was arrived at, but it seems to me that Europe managed to foist the problem of dealing with small, frightened nation emerging from one of history's great tragedies onto a people who were given no say in the matter. I think that the people of the region have good cause to feel peeved at those who made that particular decision.

That is, however, irrelevant now. Israel exists where it does. Some people want to arrange what facts & interpretations they can to suggest that Israel has no right to exist. Revisionist BS - Israel is going nowhere. Some people want to arrange what facts & interpretations they can to suggest that the non-Jews who lived in what is now Israel before it existed & their descendents have some lesser claim on the land of their birth. Revisionist BS - the Palestinians are going nowhere. Trying to write them out of history won't make then unexist.

Israelis exist. Palestinians exist. Both have the right to live in peace within viable independent states. At the moment significant & powerful elements in both societies have no intention of permitting this to happen. Nazism, the holocaust, Dier Yassin & even Sabra & Chatila simply cloud current issurs rather than clarifying them. Abusing history to buttress one side or another achieves nothing.

Castellano
05 Jan 09,, 15:11
Then your thinking on what I mean is as wrongheaded as your thinking on Fascism. You will notice that my statement covers both those who try to legitimize Israel using history & thise who also seek to de-legitimize Israel using history.

You really think so? Israel's very existence is being de-legitimized every single day for as long as I can remember. A good deal of such "arguments" are based on a selective or outright false read of History. Are you going to compare that with the effort to expose the historical falsehoods in which such arguments are based?


One of the problems with this sort of issue is that anyone who is remotely percieved as critical of Israel is constantly required to assure one and all that they are not racist or desireous of the destruction os Israel. Curiously, people who support pretty much anything Israel does to others never seem to have to meet this burden.

It is a canard to argue that criticism of Israel is viewed as anti-Semitism. I challenge you to come up with significant examples, and I am confident you won't be able to. How do I know? Because I've been following debates about Israel for some time and it is just false that those kind of accusations are being made. Categorically false, actually. You have the best proof by just checking out the J Post or Haaretz, Israel's Democracy is a remarkable vibrant one and there is criticism, often bitter, every single day, all the time.

And your other premise is also false. How many times have you heard the Palestinian life is just as valuable as a Jewish life thing (implying racism)? The outrageous lie about Israel being an "apartheid" state?



So, for the record: Few nations in the world have a greater justification for their existence than Israel. The holocaust proved that the Jews needed a nation in which they could be safe. I don't know if there was any other solution than the one that was arrived at, but it seems to me that Europe managed to foist the problem of dealing with small, frightened nation emerging from one of history's great tragedies onto a people who were given no say in the matter. I think that the people of the region have good cause to feel peeved at those who made that particular decision.

Here we go again. This is precisely the reason I started a sub-debate in another thread that became this thread. To our shame, it must be said, Europe did absolutely nothing relevant. Nothing. The Jewish people fought for and obtained political independence for themselves in a project that pre-dated WW2 for that matter, and the creation of Israel is best understood as that effort of self-determination coupled the result of the decolonization process. And they didn't dispossess anyone in the process either. Israel doesn't need to thank nor apologize to anyone.

And since you mention it, the people who you are saying had no say in the matter, did in fact speak quite a lot in the massacres of the 1920s and 1930s; and their leader sent thousands of Hungarian children who were going to be saved to the death camps. If you think I am making it up you can look it up in Benny Morris. Keep this in mind next time you see Israel associated with Nazis in one of these pro-Palestinian rights hate fest demonstrations...talking about which, what do ya know...?

This is what took place here in Amsterdam this weekend, around the corner from my girlfriend's place, in the city of Spinoza and Anne Frank:

hamas hamas joden aan het gas! (jews to the gas!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLlHPPO25nM&eurl=http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024231.php


How lovely. I'm not going to make demagoguery with this. We are falling into a nominal debate here. What I'm going to do instead is take days off, fill my flask with Black Label for a cold, cold Amsterdam, and protest in front of the "socialist" party offices.


That is, however, irrelevant now. Israel exists where it does. Some people want to arrange what facts & interpretations they can to suggest that Israel has no right to exist.

A lot of people. Hamas talks about the Zionist entity. But specially the liberal media talks about the "Zionist State" for Israel without a trace of shame. How many times have you heard of Australia the Australian State?

zraver
05 Jan 09,, 15:16
And one more thing. You need to be a bit more careful about how you justify Israeli occupation of Israel. Right now you have a mixture of justifications. Some come right out of the playbook of European colonialism. The rest don't really stand up to close examination, though they offer a great justification for Mexico claiming back chunks of the USA.

Israel has no nore right to the territory it holds that it would have had to a state in a half dozen places in Eastern Europe. It just happens that for a variety of reasons, some virtual accidents, this is where Israel was established. We all get to live with that now. Trying to retrospectively legitimize or de-legitimize that process is all about other agendas.


your words not mine

zraver
05 Jan 09,, 20:32
Then your thinking on what I mean is as wrongheaded as your thinking on Fascism. You will notice that my statement covers both those who try to legitimize Israel using history & thise who also seek to de-legitimize Israel using history.

But your choice of later words is judgemental.


One of the problems with this sort of issue is that anyone who is remotely percieved as critical of Israel is constantly required to assure one and all that they are not racist or desireous of the destruction os Israel. Curiously, people who support pretty much anything Israel does to others never seem to have to meet this burden.

I didn't know people defending a nations right to defend itself needed justification.


For the great sin of disagreeing with Israeli policy I have been called everything under the sun including an anti-semite, sometimes by people who advocate the mass murder of Palestineans. Don't even think about taking that route.

I didn't call you anything, and nice work with the empty threat.

So, for the record: Few nations in the world have a greater justification for their existence than Israel. The holocaust proved that the Jews needed a nation in which they could be safe.[/quote]

Where,

1- Israel did not invade Palestine, they were invited in initially by the Caliph and bought the land they possessed from the people with the deeds.

2- it is their ancestral homeland as proven by genetic testing.

3- They never fully left the area, and their emigration was forced by successive waves of invaders.


I don't know if there was any other solution than the one that was arrived at, but it seems to me that Europe managed to foist the problem of dealing with small, frightened nation emerging from one of history's great tragedies onto a people who were given no say in the matter.

They had a say, they chose war over statehood. They chose Egyptian and Jordanian control over statehood. In many cases they were not land owners, those who fled did so on the understanding they would return when the Jews had been subjected to another genocide, those who did not flee were made citizens.


I think that the people of the region have good cause to feel peeved at those who made that particular decision.

Instead they embrace them and continue to reject statehood and peace in favor of genocidal dreams and war.


That is, however, irrelevant now. Israel exists where it does. Some people want to arrange what facts & interpretations they can to suggest that Israel has no right to exist. Revisionist BS - Israel is going nowhere. Some people want to arrange what facts & interpretations they can to suggest that the non-Jews who lived in what is now Israel before it existed & their descendents have some lesser claim on the land of their birth. Revisionist BS - the Palestinians are going nowhere. Trying to write them out of history won't make then unexist.

The majority of Palestinians have no roots to the region. They moved in following jobs. They did not bring industry, capitol, or own land. They did not want statehood being comfortable under Ottoman, mandate, Egyptian and Jordanian flags. But they flipped out when the Star of David flew higher than the Cresent. The root of the problem is in fact Arab antisemitism.


Israelis exist. Palestinians exist. Both have the right to live in peace within viable independent states.

Yet the Palestinians keep rejecting statehood.


At the moment significant & powerful elements in both societies have no intention of permitting this to happen. Nazism, the holocaust, Dier Yassin & even Sabra & Chatila simply cloud current issurs rather than clarifying them. Abusing history to buttress one side or another achieves nothing.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring Judaism's connection to Israel or trivializing it does even less.

Bigfella
05 Jan 09,, 21:07
zraver,

much as I suspected, this is pointless.

You have drunk deeply of the idea that Palestinians have a lesser claim to a state on land they have occupied for generations than a nation whose population is overwhelmingly composed of people who cannot trace their occupation of that land back more than 60 years.

You use a highly questionable view of history to write Palestinians out of their own land. These arguments are pretty much the same ones colonizers use to justify their actions. I would have thought Israel was worthy of a better defence than that.

Fine. If you can subvert the truth to prejudice so successfully then arguing with you will do no good.

Castellano
05 Jan 09,, 21:08
Looks like in the Melbourne hate fest they had their own share of "smearing" over the weekend too.

Islamists? Theocratist? Yihadists?

Maybe, but if half these guys ever set a foot on a Mosque, then, I am the Archbishop of Canterbury

I know they feel enraged, but there is more to this than that; I think with one symbolism or another what they feel is total impunity, they have been used to it for decades after all. Al-Bana and his friends have got to do something with it

And the world is outta its fackin' mind

Castellano
05 Jan 09,, 23:23
While Ironduke's remarks have somewhat convinced me to be moderate with the link Yihad-Fascism, I want to share this article. VDH is the thinker that I most admire lately. If I lived in the US I might leave everything and just take a course with him.




Islamic Fascism 101
On all they’ve done to earn the name.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Make no apologies for the use of “Islamic fascism.” It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist “anti-fascist” appeasers in the West is just too bad.

First, the general idea of “fascism” — the creation of a centralized authoritarian state to enforce blanket obedience to a reactionary, all-encompassing ideology — fits well the aims of contemporary Islamism that openly demands implementation of sharia law and the return to a Pan-Islamic and theocratic caliphate.

In addition, Islamists, as is true of all fascists, privilege their own particular creed of true believers by harkening back to a lost, pristine past, in which the devout were once uncorrupted by modernism.

True, bin Laden’s mythical Volk doesn’t bath in the clear icy waters of the Rhine untouched by the filth of the Tiber; but rather they ride horses and slice the wind with their scimitars in service of a soon to be reborn majestic world of caliphs and mullahs. Osama bin Laden sashaying in his flowing robes is not all that different from the obese Herman Goering in reindeer horns plodding around his Karinhall castle with suspenders and alpine shorts.

Because fascism is born out of insecurity and the sense of failure, hatred for Jews is de rigueur. To read al Qaeda’s texts is to reenter the world of Mein Kampf (naturally now known as jihadi in the Arab world). The crackpot minister of its ideology, Dr. Zawahiri, is simply a Dr. Alfred Rosenberg come alive — a similar quarter-educated buffoon, who has just enough of a vocabulary to dress up fascist venom in a potpourri of historical misreadings and pseudo-learning.

Envy and false grievance, as in the past with Italian, German, or Japanese whining, are always imprinted deeply within the fascist mind. After all, it can never quite figure out why the morally pure, the politically zealous, the ever more obedient are losing out to corrupt and decadent democracies — where “mixing,” either in the racial or religious sense, should instead have enervated the people.

The “will” of the German people, like the “Banzai” spirit of the Japanese, should always trump the cowardly and debased material superiority of decadent Western democracies. So al Qaeda boasts that in Somalia and Afghanistan the unshakeable creed of Islam overcame the richer and better equipped Americans and Russians. To read bin Laden’s communiqués is to be reminded of old Admiral Yamamato assuring his creepy peers that his years in the United States in the 1920s taught him that Roaring Twenties America, despite its fancy cars and skyscrapers, simply could not match the courage of the chosen Japanese.

Second, fascism thrives best in a once proud, recently humbled, but now ascendant, people. They are ripe to be deluded into thinking contemporary setbacks were caused by others and are soon to be erased through ever more zealotry. What Versailles and reparations were to Hitler’s new Germany, what Western colonialism and patronizing in the Pacific were to the rising sun of the Japanese, what the embarrassing image of the perennial sick man of Europe was to Mussolini’s new Rome, so too Israel, modernism, and America’s ubiquitous pop culture are to the Islamists, confident of a renaissance via vast petro-weatlh.

Such reactionary fascism is complex because it marries the present’s unhappiness with moping about a regal past — with glimpses of an even more regal future. Fascism is not quite the narcotic of the hopeless, but rather the opiate of the recently failed now on the supposed rebound who welcome the cheap fix of blaming others and bragging about their own iron will.

Third, while there is generic fascism, its variants naturally weave preexisting threads familiar to a culture at large. Hitler’s brand cribbed together notions of German will, Aryanism, and the cult of the Ubermensch from Hegel, Nietzsche, and Spengler, with ample Nordic folk romance found from Wagner to Tacitus’s Germania. Japanese militarism’s racist creed, fanaticism, and sense of historical destiny were a motley synthesis of Bushido, Zen and Shinto Buddhism, emperor worship, and past samurai legends. Mussolini’s fasces, and the idea of an indomitable Caesarian Duce (or Roman Dux), were a pathetic attempt to resurrect imperial Rome. So too Islamic fascism draws on the Koran, the career of Saladin, and the tracts of Nasserites, Baathists, and Muslim Brotherhood pamphleteers.

Fourth, just as it was idle in the middle of World War II to speculate how many Germans, Japanese, or Italians really accepted the silly hatred of Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, so too it is a vain enterprise to worry over how many Muslims follow or support al Qaeda, or, in contrast, how many in the Middle East actively resist Islamists.

Most people have no ideology, but simply accommodate themselves to the prevailing sense of an agenda’s success or failure. Just as there weren’t more than a dozen vocal critics of Hitler after the Wehrmacht finished off France in six weeks in June of 1940, so too there wasn’t a Nazi to be found in June 1945 when Berlin lay in rubble.

It doesn’t matter whether Middle Easterners actually accept the tenets of bin Laden’s worldview — not if they think he is on the ascendancy, can bring them a sense of restored pride, and humiliate the Jews and the West on the cheap. Bin Laden is no more eccentric or impotent than Hitler was in the late 1920s.Yet if he can claim that his martyrs forced the United States out of Afghanistan and Iraq, toppled a petrol sheikdom or two, and acquired its wealth and influence — or if he got his hands on nuclear weapons and lorded it over appeasing Westerners — then he too, like the Fuhrer in the 1930s, will become untouchable. The same is true of Iran’s president Ahmadinejad.

Fifth, fascism springs from untruth and embraces lying. Hitler had contempt for those who believed him after Czechoslovakia. He broke every agreement from Munich to the Soviet non-aggression pact. So did the Japanese, who were sending their fleet to Pearl Harbor even as they talked of a new diplomatic breakthrough.

Al-Zawahiri in his writings spends an inordinate amount of effort excusing al Qaeda’s lies by referring to the Koranic notions of tactical dissimulation. We remember Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic, and bin Laden denying responsibility for September 11 and then later boasting of it. Nothing a fascist says can be trusted, since all means are relegated to the ends of seeing their ideology reified. So too Islamic fascists, by any means necessary, will fib, and hedge for the cause of Islamism. Keep that in mind when considering Iran’s protestations about its “peaceful” nuclear aims.

We can argue whether the present-day Islamic fascists have the military means comparable to what was had in the past by Nazis, Fascists, and militarists — I think a dirty bomb is worth the entire Luftwaffe, one nuclear missile all the striking power of the Japanese imperial Navy — but there should be no argument over who they are and what they want. They are fascists of an Islamic sort, pure and simple.

And the least we can do is to call them that: after all, they earned it.

zraver
06 Jan 09,, 00:28
zraver,

much as I suspected, this is pointless.

You have drunk deeply of the idea that Palestinians have a lesser claim to a state on land they have occupied for generations

generations? Try again, most Palestinians immigrated to the area with the beginning of the Jewish return and the building of the railroad. The only continuous population in the region going back to the time of the Babylonian Empire are the Jews.



than a nation whose population is overwhelmingly composed of people who cannot trace their occupation of that land back more than 60 years.

Who overwhelming have genetic markers specific to that area going back thousands of years.


You use a highly questionable view of history

whats questionable about it?

These are facts

The area has not been devoid of a Jewish presence since at least 540BCE

The vast majority of modern Israelite have specific genetic markers unique to the region

The Jews did not leave of their own freewill.

The first waves of returnees bought the land from those with the deeds.

The Palestinians rejected statehood and chose war

The Palestinians had no serious aspirations of statehood under the Ottomans, British mandate, Egypt or Jordan.

Most Palestinians cannot trace their presence in the area back before about 1870, and most much more recent than that.

Most of the Jews there in 1948 had been there nearly as long as most of the Arabs- some longer than any Arab, Movement of Jews into Israel post 1948 is immaterial, a nation can invite in who it wants.


to write Palestinians out of their own land.

They rejected statehood in 1948 and chose aggressive war over land they did not legally own. Are you advocating territorial sanctity for aggressors? international law is clear on that- lose an aggressive war and lose your land.


These arguments are pretty much the same ones colonizers use to justify their actions.

Colonizers relied on arguments or race and lesser peoples. On the contrary I am crediting the Palestinians with full humanity and thus full responsibility for the actions they took. They choose war and lose, again and again and for what? None of the land they tried to take in 1948 was theirs, renters have no claim of ownership.



I would have thought Israel was worthy of a better defence than that.

Fine. If you can subvert the truth to prejudice so successfully then arguing with you will do no good.

You warn me against calling you an anti-semite which i never did nor indicated I was going to, and then you say I am full of prejudice. That is called hypocrisy. Why don't you address the specific points I keep raising instead of just dismissing them?

GraniteForge
06 Jan 09,, 01:13
To our shame, it must be said, Europe did absolutely nothing relevant. Nothing.

Castellano, I think that this is the heart of your argument. You personally feel shame, and you are certainly entitled to your emotions, but you are then projecting your personal feelings on to others.

Ultimately, the safety of any given person or group, is the responsibility of that person or group. Yes, one would hope that others pitch in, and its nice when they do, but its not required.

Castellano
06 Jan 09,, 01:31
Not really GraniteForge, I'm not projecting anything personal here. Having been raised in a Catholic environment and culture, guilt in abstract is always in the air but has nothing to do with all this.

I was thinking in something specific actually; the White Paper, forced by al-Husseini on the British, and which prevented very many people to escape from the Nazis. Bottom line is, the idea that Israel was created by an act of generosity or compassion by Europe or anybody else is totally false. Israel gave political independence to itself, and it owes nothing to anybody for it. Is its own merit. Resolution 181 acknowledged that reality. So it wasn't created by the UN either.

It goes back to how this thread began, and that's exactly what I had in mind.

GraniteForge
06 Jan 09,, 01:46
the White Paper, forced by al-Husseini on the British, and which prevented very many people to escape from the Nazis. Bottom line is, the idea that Israel was created by an act of generosity or compassion by Europe or anybody else is totally false. Israel gave political independence to itself, and it owes nothing to anybody for it. Is its own merit. Resolution 181 acknowledged that reality. So it wasn't created by the UN either.

It goes back to how this thread began, and that's exactly what I had in mind.

Nothing was "forced" on the English with regard to the region. England has always done precisely what it wants to do, whether the locals like it or not.

I have to partially disagree with your premise. Yes, the Israelis did do a tremendous amount of work to create their country in that specific spot, but they also received a lot of assistance from foreigners, including the eventual English decision to walk away from whole problem. The only reason that those outsiders helped, and the English walked away, was because of what happened to the Jews during WWII in Europe.

Castellano
06 Jan 09,, 03:17
Nothing was "forced" on the English with regard to the region. England has always done precisely what it wants to do, whether the locals like it or not.

This is arguable. I think the British Empire behaved a bit like Groucho Marx:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Britain had Principles and Empire aspirations. The Arabs used violence and...well, it worked, the British dropped their principles to appease the Arabs.

The Arabs rejected the Peel partition plan of 1937 (itself, the result of a broken promise that had benefited the Arabs, and a response to the violence instigated by al-Husseini since the 1920s). The Jews reluctantly accepted it. The Arabs responded with violence directed at Jewish civilians, and British police and civil servants.

This lead directly to the curtail of the flow of Jewish refugees, and the 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish (and only Jewish) immigration to 75000 over the next 5 years. To appease the Arabs. This was in direct contradiction to the obligations expressed in the Peel Commission Report.

Since it was not until 1941 that the final solution began, between 1939 and 41, when Jews were called to leave Europe but were not necessarily murdered, hundreds of thousands if not more than a million Jews could have been saved by escaping to the mandate, where there was already a home for them.

This is described by Michael Oren among others.

And it was the Arabs (later called Palestinians, but at this time self proclaimed Syrians) who were behind this, although neither they nor the British were aware of the consequences of their actions.

(Why does all this remind me to the US State Department & the Oil? The Oil lobby machinations you know? The OPEC. The only thing remaining equal through the ages seem to be the Principles. )


I have to partially disagree with your premise. Yes, the Israelis did do a tremendous amount of work to create their country in that specific spot, but they also received a lot of assistance from foreigners, including the eventual English decision to walk away from whole problem. The only reason that those outsiders helped, and the English walked away, was because of what happened to the Jews during WWII in Europe.

I have to learn more about this, actually. My hunch tells me the British ran from it and dropped it at the UN. They abstained 181, after all. Churchill was sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish state, and detested al-Husseini and the rest of the gang; but don't know about the establishment in the Foreign Office.

But it wouldn't have been easy for anyone to stop what was already in fact a burgeoning state. The Arabs tried the very same day Israel was born, and they were defeated.

GraniteForge
06 Jan 09,, 04:21
This is arguable. I think the British Empire behaved a bit like Groucho Marx:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Britain had Principles and Empire aspirations. The Arabs used violence and...well, it worked, the British dropped their principles to appease the Arabs.

Good line.

You seem pretty firm on this point, so I will try to do some research before raising it again.



I have to learn more about this, actually. My hunch tells me the British ran from it and dropped it at the UN. They abstained 181, after all. Churchill was sympathetic to the idea of a Jewish state, and detested al-Husseini and the rest of the gang; but don't know about the establishment in the Foreign Office.

But it wouldn't have been easy for anyone to stop what was already in fact a burgeoning state. The Arabs tried the very same day Israel was born, and they were defeated.

I highly recommend the book The Pledge, by Leonard Slater. Slater tells the story of how the nascent Israeli state was secretly provided with the logistics it needed to defend itself during the early battles. Guns, explosives, the machinery to make ammunition, first aid supplies, airplanes, and an endless list of other items were obtained -- some legally, but most not -- and smuggled into Palestine. The book is dominated by personalities, who struggled against incredible odds to accomplish their mission, often just one step ahead of the FBI.

One point that emerges again and again in the story is that many people became aware of the illegal activities, and only kept their silence because the activities were done to help Israel. Perhaps the single, best example of this is the fact that an air base for transshipment was set up in Communist Czechoslovakia, staffed almost completely by Americans. They were an interesting mix of highly-paid adventurers and unpaid volunteers, but they were Americans, making regular, secret flights to Palestine from behind the Iron Curtain. The Czechs who were in the know, and all of those Americans, ran incredible risks that they would not have been willing to run in any other endeavor.

Its also clear that without thousands of people committing serious crimes all over the world, but especially in the US, Israel would not have had the resources they needed to survive the crucial birth phase of their nation.

Ironduke
15 Jan 09,, 11:23
You really think so? Israel's very existence is being de-legitimized every single day for as long as I can remember. A good deal of such "arguments" are based on a selective or outright false read of History. Are you going to compare that with the effort to expose the historical falsehoods in which such arguments are based?
Yes, it is being de-legitimatized every day. But I don't think the proper response is to try to have a contest to see which side can be de-legitimized more. I think the fact that more than half of the Israeli Jewish population alone is enough to legitimize the existence of the state. There is international precedent for the legitimacy of population exchanges -- that between the Greeks and Turks comes to mind.

This is arguable. I think the British Empire behaved a bit like Groucho Marx:

"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others."

Britain had Principles and Empire aspirations. The Arabs used violence and...well, it worked, the British dropped their principles to appease the Arabs.

The Arabs rejected the Peel partition plan of 1937 (itself, the result of a broken promise that had benefited the Arabs, and a response to the violence instigated by al-Husseini since the 1920s). The Jews reluctantly accepted it. The Arabs responded with violence directed at Jewish civilians, and British police and civil servants.

This lead directly to the curtail of the flow of Jewish refugees, and the 1939 White Paper, which limited Jewish (and only Jewish) immigration to 75000 over the next 5 years. To appease the Arabs. This was in direct contradiction to the obligations expressed in the Peel Commission Report.

Since it was not until 1941 that the final solution began, between 1939 and 41, when Jews were called to leave Europe but were not necessarily murdered, hundreds of thousands if not more than a million Jews could have been saved by escaping to the mandate, where there was already a home for them.

This is described by Michael Oren among others.

And it was the Arabs (later called Palestinians, but at this time self proclaimed Syrians) who were behind this, although neither they nor the British were aware of the consequences of their actions.
If there is any responsibility for Britain's policy in the 1930s, causing the loss of lives who may have otherwise been saved during the Holocaust, it rests with the British and the British alone. They exercised control over the Mandate of Palestine during that time period, made the policy decision, they even elevated al-Husseini to the position of Grand Mufti (which they invented). The choice to close Palestine to further Jewish immigration was theirs and theirs alone.