"'Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews,' ... the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, protested to Hitler that 'they’ll all come here,'referring to Palestine. 'So what should I do with them?' Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. 'He said, "Burn them."'"
Responding to criticism, Netanyahu said: "My intention was not to absolve Hitler of his responsibility... [b]ut rather to show that the forefathers of the Palestinian nation, without a country and without the so-called occupation, without land and without settlements, even then aspired to systematic incitement to exterminate the Jews. Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution to exterminate six million Jews; he made the decision.... It is equally absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, a war criminal, for encouraging and urging Hitler."
From "Netanyahu Draws Broad Criticism After Saying a Palestinian Inspired Holocaust" in the NYT.
October 21, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
226 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 226 of 226And J farmer I said the Muslims already got 80% of the land. So if Mexicans had 80% of historic Texas and they then decide to come over and take the land by force I'd say they were wrong.
The land never belonged to them but if we want to establish borders around a land mass and then assign you 80% of that land mass, at least recognize that you got 4/5ths of that land mass.
The Jews would never ask for a right to return to the countries that expelled them becausee they'd probably string them all up.
@pst314:
"No, I'm not, really, because you keep insisting that the Zionists intended to forcibly seize the land."
My original point was that zionism was a bad idea. On that, you seem to agree with me.
The issue of the conflicts in the 1940s is separate from the original question. The fact of the matter is that conflict included ethnically cleansing Arab villages. About 400 villages were depopulated. And this was done by people whose vast majority had immigrated to the area within the last 20 years.
"And what did they find? A lot of Muslims who were programmed by over 1000 years of Islamic indoctrination to be violently intolerant, and to believe that they had the right to kill, steal, and enslave."
Hmm...sounds like trying to create a state right next to such people might be problematic.
@President-Mom-Jeans:
"shall go fuck herself with a razorblade studded Koran."
I'd love to have you over for coffee.
@Gabriel:
"The Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine until 1918. There were, according to you, 94,000 Jews there in 1914. They came, therefore, under the Ottomans."
You're not arguing against anything I've said. I already conceded that early zionism consisted of people purchasing property from Ottomans. I also happen to think that turning Jews into socialist peasant farmers in Palestine is also a pretty dumb idea. Those purchases, by the way, also required Ottoman forces to evict tenant farmers, another source of tensions between communities. It is the last number that is relevant. 94,000 to 630,000 in about 30 years. That's a more than sixfold increase.
"So the British brought in 500,000 Jews. Did the British expel Arabs to make room for them? Or did they allow Jews to do it? "
"Brought in" does not make sense there. We are talking about an issue of a foreign people immigrating to a country their family had not set foot in in about 20 centuries. After the First World War, the British took control over that portion of Israel and in 1917 they gave their consent for Jews to found a state their. The Arabs, who were the overwhelming majority of the population, did not believe that it was justifiable for the British to give their state to a foreign people.
If you concede that its legitimate for indigenous Americans to be concerned by mass immigration from Latina America, why is it illegitimate for Arabs to be concerned about mass immigration of Jews into their country? Ethnic violence is wrong regardless of the source. To explain the situation is not to excuse it. Of course it is wrong for Arabs to use violence against people because they are Jewish. And its wrong to commit violence against people beaus they are Arab. My point is that when a foreign population moves into an area in large numbers, it is almost guaranteed to cause friction with the local population. Seventy years on, and we are still dealing with the mess.
"So the British brought in 500,000 Jews. Did the British expel Arabs to make room for them? Or did they allow Jews to do it? "
"Brought in" does not make sense there. We are talking about an issue of a foreign people immigrating to a country their family had not set foot in in about 20 centuries.
There was a movement in Britain, supported by a lot of powerful Britains(Gladstone?), to resettle jews in Transjordan. Their traditional stomping grounds. So the idea is hardly unique to Zionism.
Which was not a bad idea.
In the 19th century, sorry.
I also happen to think that turning Jews into socialist peasant farmers in Palestine is also a pretty dumb idea.
Why do you repeat this as if you think it is a cogent statement? Is Israel full of socialist peasant farmers today? What are you writing this b******* on? Probably a PC with an Intel designed in Israel. Yea peasant farmers. I suppose they should all have gone into hedge funds. Then you'd really like them. Because they know that place. What the f*** do you want?
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Mohammed Effendi Amin al-Husseini was a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. That pretty much explains his attitude toward Jews.
>rather to show that the forefathers of the Palestinian nation
Ah ah, slippery language there. You named one forefather, presumably among many, and then slipped into the plural and implicated all of them. Does one bad Jew condemn all Israel?
@Rusty:
"There was a movement in Britain, supported by a lot of powerful Britains(Gladstone?), to resettle jews in Transjordan. Their traditional stomping grounds. So the idea is hardly unique to Zionism."
Of course the British would prefer to settle Jewish refugees in Palestine. They certainly did not want to settle them in Britain. So what? I never said it was "unique to zionism." By the way, if a foreign power forcibly resettled refugees in our territory, how do you think the locals there would feel about it?
"Zionism...Which was not a bad idea."
Except for the 70 years of ethnic conflict.
@Nichevo:
"Why do you repeat this as if you think it is a cogent statement? Is Israel full of socialist peasant farmers today?"
No, it is not. The context of the sentence you quoted was early zionism. In fact, especially around the turn of the century, a big component of zionism was living in a communal society based around agriculture. Ever hear of a kibbutz? Now, I happen to think expecting living in agrarian based communal societies will free you from oppression is a pretty dumb idea. Later Israelis happened to agree with me and abandoned the idea.
"What the f*** do you want?"
I am talking about events in history. I do not "want" anything. Anymore than I "want" something when I say what I think about the First World War.
Now if you're talking about US policy today, well I've already said over and over that I think the US-Israeli relationship is way too close and that the US is far too deferential to the security needs of the Israelis.
If this:
http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Speeches/Pages/speechcongress201015.aspx
(the print version is better to read, but doesn’t have a separate URL. I only see about:blank)
…were a term paper, it wouldn’t get an A. It wouldn’t get a C either, but it wouldn’t get an A.
Benjamin Netanyahu has had years – no decades – to get his facts right.
I wonder how good his intelligence is on other, more contemporary matters.
He has Islam beginning 1,500 years ago, when it was less than 1,400 standard years ago, and still less than 1,500 Islamic years.
He has the Jewish community in Hebron massacred in 1921, when it was actually massacred in 1929.
He has the Mufti dying of cancer in Cairo (sounding like it was not too long after the war) instead of in Beirut in 1974.
He has him wanted by the Nuremberg tribunal, when that actually never came to pass.
He has him persuading Hitler to kill the Jews instead of exiling them (!)(when at most the Mufti argued against letting any escape Nazi rule for the time being.)
But, actually, overall, it’s still pretty good.
What J. Farmer wants is for his muslim buddies to be able to slaughter every last jewish man, woman, and child without any interference.
Of course the British would prefer to settle Jewish refugees in Palestine.
This was going on long before there was a refugee "problem".
@J Farmer:We are talking about an issue of a foreign people immigrating to a country their family had not set foot in in about 20 centuries.
False even if you exclude their living relatives in Israel, as you do. There were some Jews of whom that could be said, but there were also Jews driven out of Palestine in their father's or grandfather's time, and you've made no attempt to quantify any of that.
why is it illegitimate for Arabs to be concerned about mass immigration of Jews into their country?
Because it was never solely their country, there were always Jews living there, just as there were always Irish in Ulster, not just Scots and English. And in 1948 Arabs hadn't been governing Palestine for centuries.
And those seeking equity should come with clean hands. If they are so butthurt about the 700,000 Palestinians who left in 1948, maybe they shouldn't have expelled 700,000 Jews from their own countries immediately before that.
@President-Mom-Jeans:
"What J. Farmer wants is for his muslim buddies to be able to slaughter every last jewish man, woman, and child without any interference."
Right, that's precisely what I want. Glad to see you've really grasped the crux of the issue.
@Rusty:
"This was going on long before there was a refugee 'problem'."
There were Jewish refugee problems other than the one caused by WWII. About two millions Jews emigrated from Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. About a quarter of million emigrated during WWI alone.
@Gabriel:
"False even if you exclude their living relatives in Israel, as you do. There were some Jews of whom that could be said, but there were also Jews driven out of Palestine in their father's or grandfather's time, and you've made no attempt to quantify any of that."
Consider an analogy. The population of the US in 1800 was around 5 million. In 1950, the population was about 150 million. That's a 30-fold increase. The Jewish population in Palestine in 1800 was 7,000. In 1947, the population was 630,000. That's a 90-fold increase. According to a census taken by a zionist organization in the late 1920s, more than half of the Jewish inhabitants had lived in the area for 4 years or less. Zionism was not based on the idea that people whose father's and grandfather's had lived in Palestine had a right to Palestine. Zionism says that Jews everywhere on the planet have claims to Palestine regardless of how long it's been since any of their relatives have lived there.
"If they are so butthurt about the 700,000 Palestinians who left in 1948, maybe they shouldn't have expelled 700,000 Jews from their own countries immediately before that."
Interesting use of the word "left" there. The 700,000 who fled their homes in the late 1940s did so because they were either forcibly ejected from their home by Israeli forces or fled out of fear of an attack. And again, you are displaying a very interesting set of moral principles. Why do you say "they shouldn't have expelled?" The people who were driven from their homes in 1940s Palestine did not expel anyone. You're talking about the actions of somebody else. And you are essentially arguing that since one group of people commits an injustice, then it's okay to commit an injustice against someone else. If somebody wrongs me, dopes that give me the right to commit an unjust act against you?
And why is it that so many Palestinians "fled out of fear of an attack" when the Arab armies were defeated in 1948? They knew that if the Arab armies defeated the Israelis, they (the armies and the local civilians) would rape every Jewish woman they could catch, and kill every other Jew and probably the women too once they were done raping them. They assumed that Jews would do the same to them. They were shamefully wrong. A simple case of projection.
Geez Farmer. Did you not read a single word that I wrote. Those "Palestinians" (with exceptions like the rotten Husseini, and Arabfat) are essentially Jews themselves. This is a whole stupidly tragic irony of mistaken identity. The "Palestinians" have become over 2 millennia used to the idea that no one should run the place, while giving lip service to following the religious orders of the rulers. So they don't like the Jews next-door. That's nice, I guess they're self-hating. But the fact remains that if they come to terms with their own Jewish heritage, the whole "conflict" you pretend to be concerned about evaporates the next day. Although I guess that wouldn't be preferable to you as someone who prefers to keep the conflict alive so as to feel that you have a self-righteously moral role to play that's in any way helpful. And neither does it change the fact that I guess, from what we've been told, that those same Palestinians and all their outside sponsors wouldn't have a problem with Israel if its own inhabitants converted to Islam. Would you?
The whole conflict is phony, and now this bizarre finding - again corroborated by all the best combined evidence of genetics, archeology, history and common sense - just proves it beyond dead-to-rights.
So again, I ask. What point do you see in not only exacerbating and continuing the conflict, but in finding fault in the flimsiest excuses of historical narrative for doing so?
Aww fuck it. I'm talking to a wall. I might as well ask, "What's Mel Gibson's take on it these days?"
Fuck him and fuck the phony grievance festival. Of course they have legitimate grievances. What they lack (and unfortunately get support from guys like you on) is any willingness to resolve them in a constructive way.
@R&B:
"Geez Farmer. Did you not read a single word that I wrote."
Yes, I read it, but I didn't respond because I found it as muddled and incoherent as what you have written here.
"The whole conflict is phony, and now this bizarre finding - again corroborated by all the best combined evidence of genetics, archeology, history and common sense - just proves it beyond dead-to-rights."
Was the religious conflict of 16th and 17th century Europe phony given Europeans' shared genetic heritage. Hell, all human beings alive today share a common genetic heritage. Does that make all sectarian conflict phony?
"Aww fuck it. I'm talking to a wall. I might as well ask, "What's Mel Gibson's take on it these days?"
Yawn.
"What they lack (and unfortunately get support from guys like you on) is any willingness to resolve them in a constructive way."
I am an American. It is not my responsibility to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anymore than it it to settle the disagreements between China and the Tibetans, China and the Taiwanese, the Southeast Asian nations of Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia who all have differences of opinion on where their borders should be drawn. It's not even my business to tell the Basque that they can't have a state in France and Spain or that the Catalonians can't have a state in Spain.
"Although I guess that wouldn't be preferable to you as someone who prefers to keep the conflict alive so as to feel that you have a self-righteously moral role to play that's in any way helpful."
Yeah, that's my motive here. I don't want the US to be involved. We don't need to be brokering a peace deal, and I don't think we should be giving taxpayer money to both sides. It doesn't take much effort to discern my motives here. Just ask me.
@J. Farmer:The 700,000 who fled their homes in the late 1940s did so because they were either forcibly ejected from their home by Israeli forces or fled out of fear of an attack.
1 Jew for every 3 Palestinian Arabs in 1947, plus the invasion of FOUR ARMIES. Mysteriously missing from all of your accounts of how the evil Jews evicted the Palestinian Arabs for absolutely no reason.
The Palestinian Arab exodus couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the armies of Iraq, Syria, Jordan and Egypt? Must have been entirely the fault of the Jews, amirite? Why does the invasion of FOUR ARMIES on May 15, the day after the end of the Mandate, not factor anywhere into your analysis? Armies of course do not invade on 24 hours notice, incidentally.
Because Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians have treated Palestinian Arabs in such a brotherly way, right? Keeping them in refugee camps for four generations, unlike Germany or Israel.
Remind me again how many Jews serve in the parliaments and courts of the Arab nations?
@J. Farmer:I don't want the US to be involved. We don't need to be brokering a peace deal, and I don't think we should be giving taxpayer money to both sides.
I agree with this 100%, but your moral equivalence and selective narrative games are revolting.
There is only one nation in that part of the world where Arabs have anything like freedom and that country is Israel, and always has been.
@Gabriel:
"Because Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians and Egyptians have treated Palestinian Arabs in such a brotherly way, right? Keeping them in refugee camps for four generations, unlike Germany or Israel.
Remind me again how many Jews serve in the parliaments and courts of the Arab nations?"
You can keep using words like "evil" and making this out like I am making some big moral pronouncement against "Jews" all you want. I am talking about a specific group of people during a specific period of time. I am not talking about "Jews." For what it's worth, there are plenty of Jews who do not believe in zionism and write about it. Believe it or not, people engage their arguments instead of just yelling, "Why aren't you talking about Arab atrocities?!" The subject of my first post, and of virtually every subsequent post, is "zionism." Zionism is a nationalist movement among..you guessed it, Jews. That's why they're relevant.
"There is only one nation in that part of the world where Arabs have anything like freedom and that country is Israel, and always has been."
Nothing to do with my point. I am talking about the actions of zionists in the first half of the 20th century; I am not talking about Arab Israelis. What you mentioned is true but utterly irrelevant to the historical question of zionism.
Rusty:
"This was going on long before there was a refugee 'problem'."
There were Jewish refugee problems other than the one caused by WWII. About two millions Jews emigrated from Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. About a quarter of million emigrated during WWI alone.
That 2 million figure seems high. Nonetheless. It seems you're argument is with pre-state British policy than Zionism. It is, after all, because of the British that there is a state of Israel.
Farmer, so the Jews in Israel are sorry they bothered you, and will go away now. Where should they go?
@Rusty:
"Nonetheless. It seems you're argument is with pre-state British policy than Zionism. It is, after all, because of the British that there is a state of Israel."
No, you're talking about two different things. I think Zionism was a bad idea, and I think the steps the British took to facilitate a Jewish state in Palestine was a bad idea.
@Nichevo:
"Farmer, so the Jews in Israel are sorry they bothered you, and will go away now. Where should they go?"
Nobody is talking about Jews living in Israel today. We are talking about the zionist movement of the late 19th and early 20th century.
J. Farmer: "The 700,000 who fled their homes in the late 1940s did so because they were either forcibly ejected from their home by Israeli forces or fled out of fear of an attack."
A few were forced out of their homes. The vast majority fled only at the instigation of the Muslim leaders, who told them "get out of the line of fire, so that we can kill Jews without worrying about killing Muslims. When we have finished exterminating the Jews you can return and loot their property."
It's funny how J. Farmer keeps telling the same lies over and over.
@pst314:
"The vast majority fled only at the instigation of the Muslim leaders..."
That is utterly incorrect and has been demolished by Israeli historians of the conflict. Benny Morris, himself a fervent zionist and supporter of the state of Israel, marshalled a good deal of the evidence almost 30 years ago with the book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949. Your complete ignorance of the subject does not make something a lie.
Post a Comment