"'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:
1 – 200 of 226 Newer› Newest»Sounds possible to me. Why was he in Berlin ?
My brief reading of this suggests that many of the people who are excoriating Netanyahu are in the opposing political party.
Too bad the NYTimes headline is clearer about that.
Bibi gets criticism for everything. The international Left is virulently anti-Semitic. Shame a lot of Jews seem to not notice.
Someone went digging for a story.........
Classic disinformation.
Palestinians want the same thing as Hitler - what the big deal for saying so?
Read up on Haj Amin al-Husseini's. Good God. Maybe he didn't inspire Hitler, but Hitler seems to have inspired him.
Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Husseini submitted to the Nazi German Government a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:
Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.
Mr. Abbas was the subject of scrutiny last week when he falsely claimed that Israeli forces had executed a 13-year-old Palestinian who had attacked Israelis with a knife, when the youth was alive and being treated in an Israeli hospital.
I don't remember this having a front page link in the NYT.
Mr. Netanyahu blamed the Palestinians for the Holocaust and completely absolved Adolf Hitler’s heinous and reprehensible genocide of the Jewish people,” Mr. Erekat said in a statement.
Doesn't this completely eradicate Erekat's credibility? Saying one person is guilty does not "completely absolve" others. This is so obvious anyone making this claim must be so influenced by political or social goals none of their conclusions can be acepted.
A more accurate headline would be:
"Netanyahu Draws Broad Criticism, Continues to do so After Saying a Palestinian Inspired Holocaust."
I have a hard time imagining that these particular comments made the needle shift in any direction whatsoever.
I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940.
If he wants to apply that standard, I bet most people's dead relatives were incredibly racist by today's standards.
Sometimes an apology is better than trying to cover.
Is there an election coming on in Israel?
Consider the "international Left" as a group nearly devoid of rightist Jews.
The Jews remaining in America (which has the biggest Jewish population outside Israel, 4m to 8m), in the aggregate, is far more leftist than would be the case if so much of rightist Jewry hadn't already departed for Israel.
It's worse outside America. In most of Europe, heritable shame and doublethink lead to greater hatred of Jews, even among Jews themselves. Some Jews simply leave their heritage behind and worship the god of leftism.
Non-Israeli Jews bred in extreme leftism, like David Horowitz and Norman Podhoretz, have struggled mightily to gain intellectual rightism.
Leftism breeds stronger leftism. Anti-leftism doesn't come easily.
Sunia wants to kill Shia.
Shia wants to kill Sunni.
Both want to kill the Jews.
What is wrong with the Religion of Peace?
It's important for the Right not to completely put all their eggs in the Israeli PM's basket. There are many on the Israeli right that don't necessarily like the PM. He's known for not finishing what he started. Also, this ridiculous statement about the Final Solution. The reality was well-documented by the Germans & it had nothing to do with the arab Mufti. That's just the way it is. As with anyone, opinions can sometimes be mixed up with facts.
Mark: "I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940"
Let's see. Arab Middle East leader sidles up to Hitler and wants to join in on mass murder of Jews.
On the other hand, it's possible, at some point in the past, that one or more of Bibi's relatives may, may, have said something somewhat "impolitic" about folks of the lefts favorite religion.
Mark is just keeping his eye on the real "crime" here.
Well played lefty. Well played.
Mark wrote:
":I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940.
If he wants to apply that standard, I bet most people's dead relatives were incredibly racist by today's standards.
Sometimes an apology is better than trying to cover."
have you watched any of the kids shows on Palestinian TV? They still are teaching their kids Jew hatred.indoctinated from birth that Jews are subhuman and evil. There was no period of time when the grand mufti and his generation held racist views, but then his kids were all moderate about he Jews. And the. Their kids suddenly hated the Jews again. They always hated the Jews.
And it's in the Koran and hadiths to hate the Jews. In Islamic laws in many country they actually have a section on what a Muslim must do if he touched a Jew to remove the dirtiness.
These guys REALLY hate Jews.
marcwinger,
Also, this ridiculous statement about the Final Solution. The reality was well-documented by the Germans & it had nothing to do with the arab Mufti. That's just the way it is.
That's not so, I think. The Mufti certainly cozied up to Hitler. And the original plan for the Jews wasn't extermination, but deportation -- to Madagascar, of all places.
It's true that the Nazis war against the Jews developed over the years from basic persecution and discrimination, to attempts at removal (where Eichmann had actually worked with Zionists to transfer Jews from Europe to Palestine, both parties trying to accomplish the same goal for very different reasons) to finally extermination. But Netanyahu's comments give the impression that Hitler was inspired by the Arab, and if he didn't mean to go light on Hitler then he made a poor choice of words.
The Grand Mufti was a Jew hater since day one. A big time Jew hater. Which is why he was such a natural ally to the Nazis. Did the Nazis carry out the Final solution? of course. but might they have been influenced by Mufti? absolutely.
He personally lobbied against Jews leaving Hungary (as he was afraid they would go to Israel) and also interceded when Eichamn tried to exchange Jewish kids for German POWs' with England. Instead of going through with the deal they sent all the kids off to gas chamber.
In 1943 he travelled to Bosnia and helped setup the Hanjar troopers who were a special Bosnian Waffen SS corp. who exterminated 90% of Bosnian Jews. Himmler was impressed enough to establish a special mulla Military school in dresden
(cont) forgot to mention, the one stipulation that he had about helping the Nazis was that once they won the war. the entire population of Jews in Palestine be killed. So could he have influenced Hitlers idea of a final solution for Jews? Absolutely.
The anti-Semite machine hates one thing more than Jews. It hates exposure that it exists.
The antidote to exposure that it exists is standard issue confusion and more confusion fed through their Media accomplices for trumpeting like frogs croaking all night.
Bibi 1, Jew haters zero on that exchange.
It wasn't JUST the grand mufti either. Many groups were ecstatic that Hitler seized power in 1933. And plenty of muslim national socialist styled organization popped up all over the ME. Influencing Yasser Arafat and the PLO as well as the Ba'ath party. They have never renounced those beliefs.Their beliefs show why they embraced Hitler.
The outcry is due to the Israel hating Palestinian loving left.
If Bibi said the sun set in the west, there would be a protest in Manhattan.
"I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940"
"I hope we don't all get murdered by the Germans and Arabs."
Mark said...
I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940.
If he wants to apply that standard, I bet most people's dead relatives were incredibly racist by today's standards.
Sometimes an apology is better than trying to cover.
No it is not.
Also, this:
Blogger AprilApple said...
Palestinians want the same thing as Hitler - what the big deal for saying so?
@bgates
Touche'
"It doesn't matter if Hillary is indicted. The Dems would still nominate her and many people (woman?) will still vote for her."
Who is going to vote for her exactly?
Obama won because he he turned out voters. Who in the world is enthusiastic about a Hillary presidency. I mean even for Hillary it has to be defined as a goal unto itself without anything concrete behind it. Do you think there are any voters who envision a HRC presidency in relation to any actual policy or program?
How are you going to get minorities out of the house to vote for a frail elderly white woman with a screechy voice?
In case "what does it matter now" is your thought about Jews in Israel being murdered by Islamic assholes, please remember the Jews are targeted first and the Christians are targeted a close second. It turns out that Allah despises the still living people who worship on Sunday like he does the still living people who worship on Saturday.
Messiah is the issue. And saying Jesus is the incarnate Son of God enrages a Muslim far more than merely respecting Moses.
I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940.
If he wants to apply that standard, I bet most people's dead relatives were incredibly racist by today's standards.
Funny. Progressives are busily attacking anybody they can find in the West who was racist at any point, in spite of any good they did.
...and, if people wish to be mean about it, Jews did far better in Fascist countries like Italy and Spain than they did in respectable countries in Europe like France. The French couldn't WAIT to ship their Jews off to camps. Italy actually didn't participate much at all until Nazis came in in 1943.
But international Jews seem to believe that Christians are their enemies. Not the Muslims who teach their kids to slaughter them. Those Muslims are cool.
In case "what does it matter now" is your thought about Jews in Israel being murdered by Islamic assholes, please remember the Jews are targeted first and the Christians are targeted a close second. It turns out that Allah despises the still living people who worship on Sunday like he does the still living people who worship on Saturday.
The genocide of Christians in the Arab World the last few years is amazingly ignored by the press. Showing that, yes, the Holocaust could EASILY happen again. The press has a narrative. It isn't changing it.
One thing Netanyahu's remarks have accomplished, though, is to introduce the world to the Mufti, a man who was supposed to have been in the dock at Nuremburg before oil politics intervened:
Openly and knowing about Auschwitz, he had advocated the Shoah. “Germany,” he declared in 1943, has “decided to find a final solution to the Jewish menace, which will end this misfortune in the world.” Nevertheless, the Mufti’s reputation remained intact after 1945. He was, to be sure, personally responsible both for the atrocities committed by the Muslim SS division in Bosnia and for the deaths of thousands of Jewish children in the Holocaust. However, in order not to fall out with the Arab world, the United States and Britain refrained from prosecuting him, while France, in whose custody the Mufti had been since 1945, let him escape. When on 10 June 1946 the headlines of the world press announced the Mufti’s “flight” from France, “the Arab quarters of Jerusalem and all the Arab towns and villages were garlanded and beflagged, and the great man’s portrait was to be seen everywhere.” While amnestying the Mufti, the Allies also rehabilitated his anti-Semitism. Even more: the Arabs saw in the Mufti’s impunity “not only a weakness of the Europeans, but also absolution for past and future occurrences,” commented Simon Wiesenthal in 1947. Now the pro-Nazi past began to become “a source of pride, not shame.”
Nice, huh?
None of what Netanyahu said changes the fact that Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea, and we're still living with the consequences today.
traditionalguy said...
"In case "what does it matter now" is your thought about Jews in Israel being murdered by Islamic assholes, please remember the Jews are targeted first and the Christians are targeted a close second."
Actually, at the moment they are mostly targeting Christians. The remaining Jews in the Middle East are mostly a lot better armed than the Christians. So, there you have it. If you want to live among the adherents of the Religion of Peace, you had better be ready to kill them. Why exactly are we letting them into America?
Drago said...
Mark: "I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940"
Ow?
Please don't kill me?
...
There should be an investigative news organization that only investigates media and entertainment people.
...
Farmer, I don't know why you resent Zionism. Having them all in Israel makes it much easier for you to kill them all, if you can only get your hands on a couple of nukes.
"None of what Netanyahu said changes the fact that Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea, and we're still living with the consequences today."
Yeah, and when Israel is gone, it will be Andalusia. UBL referenced the Spanish "Reconquista" in his bill of particulars justifying 9-11 and declaration of war on the US. "Whatever anybody says, kicking the Muslims out of Spain was a stupid idea and we are still paying the consequences today!"
Then Crescent rolls will be outlawed in Europe, and what we will hear is "Whatever anybody says, defeating the Muslims at Vienna was a stupid idea!"
"None of what Netanyahu said changes the fact that Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea, and we're still living with the consequences today."
It makes you terrorist cheerleading cunts so upset that Jews are able to defend themselves now, doesn't it?
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
Rekindle the Crusades.
Next year in Byzantium.
J. Farmer,
A lot of what you post has value, but by process of elimination, I seem to be coming to the conclusion that what you think is a good idea amounts to staying home and that anything the neighbors do to disturb your peace is the problem. Kind of like being irritated at the loud party next door but not asking them to keep it down or calling the cops.
@Nichevo:
"Farmer, I don't know why you resent Zionism. Having them all in Israel makes it much easier for you to kill them all, if you can only get your hands on a couple of nukes."
@President-Mom-Jeans:
"It makes you terrorist cheerleading cunts so upset that Jews are able to defend themselves now, doesn't it?
Go fuck yourself, asshole."
As you can all see, Zionism is such a good idea that it's defenders have no trouble defending it without histrionic absurdities.
@CWJ:
There should not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion about what I think. I state it out right and try to be as clear as possible about it. I do not support interventionism. I think it's a stupid policy that more often than not leads to terrible outcomes. No state has a right to exist, but every state has a right to defend itself. I find the notion that the US need to exercise something called "global leadership" or should have a foreign policy driven by utopian ideals like the "end of tyranny" to be disastrous for the United States.
Farmer, in all sincerity, what else can you possibly mean?
If you think Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea you must think the Muslim-Arab conquests (c. 630-1050s) was a REALLY incredibly stupid idea. Big differences between the two, however. E.g., the Zionists had a history with the land, an historical claim on it: and it wasn't (isn't) a very big land at that. The Palestinian Arabs were latecomers to the region; so much so that when, in the 1930s, the Zionists began to purchase land from the Arabs (who willingly sold it to them), it was the Jewish settlers of the region where known as "Palestinians." For a spell the term "Palestianin" meant "Jew."
Whereas the Arabs just flat out conquered the entire Middle East, a large part of Iberia, parts of Europe. Which was followed by Turkic Muslims conquering Anatolia. Those lands were almost UNIVERSALLY Christian except for Iran, which was Zoroastrian. The Arabs had no history with those lands. They took them with fire and sword and great slaughter.
And those conquests continue. It is quite possible, even likely, that the next few years will see the total eradication of all of the ancient Christian communities in the Muslim-majority lands of the Middle East. This includes the Copts, who are genetically the ancient Egyptians: a minority in their own ancestral homeland, dominated and persecuted and occasionally murdered and massacred by ethnic Arab Muslims. This includes Assyrians and Chaldeans, plus Armenians living outside of the sanctuary of the sovereign nation of Armenia. The Greeks who once peopled much of Anatolia are, of course, long gone, massacred in final days of the Greco-Turkish war that followed World War I. The Christian population of Alexandria, once quite substantial, and which included Catholics, is just about gone. And so it goes ...
It seems he has a point on the historical merits. Didn't know much about this Mufti character until just now, seems like he was a pretty awful guy. And yet, I can't help but think that Netanyahu is trying subtextually to tie modern Palestine to the evil of this one man, and that's a spurious use of history.
If he wants to go back and sort through WWII-era history looking for connections to the modern diaspora, then we should in fairness make an examination of the messy, morally dubious creation of the State of Israel, and see how it ties into the current impasse in the region.
Either we can say that the world was as it was and is as it is, or we can draw sweeping historical parallels that sweep nuance up in their wake. Netanyahu, it seems, would much prefer to cherry-pick and prevaricate.
"Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea, and we're still living with the consequences today."
Yes, dying quietly is preferable for those who hate Jews, some of whom had Jewish parents.
"I find the notion that the US need to exercise something called "global leadership" or should have a foreign policy driven by utopian ideals like the "end of tyranny" to be disastrous for the United States."
I'm trying to figure out of you are a lefty or one of those Big L Libertarians I dislike. History would help you a lot,
Try reading about Pax Britannica.
It was an enormous benefit to everyone alive at the time., including the colonies.
We did much the same between 1945 and 1975 when we withdrew from Vietnam defeated.
"the messy, morally dubious creation of the State of Israel,"
Was that similar to the origins of most other countries ? I think so. Tell us which do not resemble it.
@Nichevo:
"Farmer, in all sincerity, what else can you possibly mean?"
I mean exactly what I said. I think the idea of taking European and American Jewry and turning them into communal peasant farmers in Palestine was an incredibly stupid idea. The Arabs living in the area were never going to accept Britain's authority to carve out a piece of Palestine and give it to foreigners as a state. That was always going to ensure enmity and resentment. And, as expected, Jewish settlers from about the 1920s on had to rely on terror campaigns to drive people from their homes and drive out foreigners and establish a state.
Now, that's all a matter of history. It has nothing to do with how one thinks policy should be conducted today. An historical opinion on, say, the Mexican-American War does not mean that you want to give Texas back to Mexico.
@Roughcoat:
"If you think Zionism was an incredibly stupid idea you must think the Muslim-Arab conquests (c. 630-1050s) was a REALLY incredibly stupid idea."
Yes, I do. So what?
J. Farmer,
O.K. Then we're basically in agreement as to your views. I personally think they are intellectually untenable, but YMMV.
we should in fairness make an examination of the messy, morally dubious creation of the State of Israel ...
First lets make an examination of the bloody, genocidal creation of the Muslim Middle East during the Middle Ages AND CONTINUING TO THE PRESENT DAY with ISIS beheading its way to create an Islamic state in the heart of the Middle East and all--yes all--of the Muslim nations of the Middle East engaged in eradicating the Christian minorities within their borders.
Yes, I do. So what?
I don't think Zionism was/is an "incredibly stupid idea." I think it was/is a legitimate movement by peoples to resettle a land to which they have an historical claim and which they were forced to abandon.
@Michael K:
I really have no idea why you are so obsessed with attaching a political label to me. It would make no difference to whether or not the arguments I made were correct or not. Are you incapable of simply relating to someone as an individual human being without being preoccupied with assigning them to a tribal group that will then determine how you "feel" about them. Hate me, like me, respect me, disrespect me...I don't care how you feel about me. It has no bearing on my opinion.
The foreign policy you are arguing for says that it is okay to impose yourself on other people because it's really for their own good. They'll be better off as a result of it. Isn't that the kind of mentality that conservatism despises about liberalism? If you believe it's okay to kill lots of innocent people because their society will be better off down the road for having done it, then I really hope you weren't bothered in the slightest by those Planned Parenthood videos, because you obviously regard the worth of individual human life with very little regard.
@Roughcoat:
"I think it was/is a legitimate movement by peoples to resettle a land to which they have an historical claim and which they were forced to abandon."
So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse, engaged in terror campaigns to drive indigenous Americans from their homes, and then declared a state...you'd be on their side, right? You'd support their "historical claim" to to the land they were "forced to abandon?"
Whereas the Muslim milennia-long and still ongoing conquest of the Christian/Zoroastrian/Jewish lands and peoples of the Middle East was and is what we would now call an act of criminal aggression.
The difference between the Jews and the Arabs in Israel is that the Jews are Jooooooooos! And the Arabs have that claim based on the *fact* that Mohamed ascended to heaven on a winged horse from Jerusalem.
They also claim an ancient Temple of Rah in India as a Muslim holy site. It is almost as if it were a pattern.
So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse, engaged in terror campaigns to drive indigenous Americans from their homes, and then declared a state...you'd be on their side, right? You'd support their "historical claim" to to the land they were "forced to abandon?"
When does it stop? Don't answer that, I know. When the Joooooooos are gone.
So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse, engaged in terror campaigns to drive indigenous Americans from their homes, and then declared a state...you'd be on their side, right? You'd support their "historical claim" to to the land they were "forced to abandon?"
Muslims were offered land (they didn't own Palestine). They rejected it and left, per the Arab states advice, to await the land when the Jews were obliterated.
It didn't happen.
Tough shit for them.
The Arabs then constantly attack Israel.
And lose wars.
Every time.
Losses have repurcussions.
The US President should tell Bibi to do whatever he has to do to protect his people. America will always stand by them.
The Palestinians aren't wanted by other Arabs, but they have placed to go. Where do Israelis have?
So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse..., etc.
That's pretty much what's happening now. Do you believe those mostly Mestizo migrants from Mexico should be allowed to form their own sovereign state?
Or should they yield to the land to the Indians who got there before them?
Or should those Indians yield the land to the first wave of Asiatic immigrants who arrived on the continent tens of thousands of years ago?
@tim in vemont:
Yes, Tim, opposition to Zionism must be anti-semitism, right? Just like opposition to affirmative action and welfare policies must be racist and opposition to abortion must be sexist and opposition to gay marriage must be homophobic. Having to engage in identity politics to support your pet cause is usually a sign that you don't have a very coherent argument.
@Roughcoat:
"That's pretty much what's happening now. Do you believe those mostly Mestizo migrants from Mexico should be allowed to form their own sovereign state?"
No. I am an immigration restrictionism because I oppose the very same thing. But if you believe that Jews have a right to a state based on an historical homeland, then why don't indigenous Americans have a right to a state on the very same basis?
And, concerning Palestine: Zionists originally purchased the lands that became Israel from willing Arab property owners. The entire region had previously been under Ottoman rule and became a British protectorate after the Great War. In other words, no one had a sovereign claim to it, apart from Turkey. The Arabs in the area were titled owners to the land and sold their titles freely to Zionist buyers.
@Nguyên Hoàng: Nó phải là một cuộc sống khủng khiếp để có dán liên kết tiếp thị trong blog, chỉ để đặt thức ăn trên bàn.
The Grand Mufti was up to his neck in collaboration with the Nazis. The collaboration was all about eliminating Jews. It is well-documented.
Why would anyone be surprised by Netanyahu's comments? It is also not surprising that revisionist historians, Palestine pimps and the mediaswine are excoriating him for his remarks, since they excoriate him about everything.
why don't indigenous Americans have a right to a state on the very same basis?
Oops, you're doing a bait and switch. Previously we were talking about Mexicans. Now you're talking about Native Americans. Getting tricksy, my Precious.
Native Americans do have semi-autonomous homelands in the form of tribal reservations. They are self-governing. However the United States guarantees their existence and safety. We defend and protect them and support them economically. You're welcome.
@Roughcoat:
"Now you're talking about Native Americans. Getting tricksy, my Precious."
Uh, no. "Indigenous Americans" does not just refer to the peoples contained within the modern political border of the United States.
Zionism is/was a stupid idea. No doubt 10 million Jews in Montana or British Columbia at the end of the 19th century would probably be vying for control of the world by now (sorry, I forgot,we already control it.) but we had to "settle" for the place of our origin. Doubt it was very nice in 800 B.C. when a bunch of guys living in caves invented the God most people west of the Indian Ocean still worship. But there it is, They did it, The Near East as it was quaintly called by the Brits is in the first stages of its self-destruction which will proceed through this century. For Jews the Big Question is where do you move 10 million Jews and 300 nukes when the region becomes unlivable which it will be when Pakistan, the current version of the American Confederacy, in desperation commences biological warfare. We will respond with nuclear broadsides and live to regret we squandered decades not doing the research to make the nukes smaller and cleaner. But we will throw it all at them. British Columbia, Montana, even Saskatchawan are going to look very appealing by 2040.
"Did the Nazis carry out the Final solution? of course. but might they have been influenced by Mufti? absolutely."
Hitler said that he was inspired by success of Turkey's genocide of the Armenians.
So genocidal Muslims inspired genocidal fascists, who allied with genocidal Muslims.
No surprise there, except perhaps to those who do not want to see.
But Hillary blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video was OK.
The 1947 UN partition giving 1/8th of Palestine to be a Jewish State to be called Israel was not the creature of Secretary of State Marshall. He was a typical elite Episcopalian and semi anti-semite. He and his Anglophile Diplomats could only see Arab oil as the issue.
What it took was a close friendship between Captain Harry Truman and his buddy from the WWI fighting in France, and later business partner after the war, named Eddie Jacobson to create Israel. Eddie,a true Lower East Side Son of Jacob, ask for and got his meeting between President Truman and Chaim Weizmann. Truman who trusted Eddie implicitly listened to Weizmann's wisdom. And Israel was created November 29, 1947 behind Marshall's back and in face of his threatened resignation.
Seventy years of war now has preserved Jews alive in Israel, if you count the first two years fighting the British Empire's Army. The former British Empire, that is.
What inspired Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies? That was 1543, and he was advocating burning down synagogues and persecuting Jews.
I roughly agree with J. Farmer. Consider:
* If you have Jewish blood, then you have a right to Israeli citizenship. This is comparable to the USA exception for Indian (native American) rights. You get the right by blood, and can achieve it through other means. I, a non-Jew, have no intrinsic right to be Israeli, just as I, a native-born, 3rd-generation American, have no right to, say, casino dividends right next door to the city I grew up in. Roughcoat, this is not precious or tricksy. It's legal. It's not welcome among us white invaders who happened to be born there.
* Establishing a homeland on the basis of an ethnic/religious primary occupation is anti-American. It really is comparable to Mexicans taking over San Diego. Those Mexicans are mostly mestizos at this point, with all kinds of heritage. What constitutes ownership and citizenship? 1/16? At what point does my firstborn son get ownership of his tiny piece of Poland by virtue of his being the rightful heir to once-German-controlled land by some Duke of Hasbien? We Americans aren't supposed to believe in that kind of thing.
* And while we're on the subject, what the fuck with this Muhammad dream about floating somehow to Jerusalem, and that makes the place an Islamic shrine? Please.
The thing is, the Jews are generally peace-loving, inclusive, decentralizing-power-loving people. I love and support that, and so should all residents of rich countries.
@JFarmer: Exactly right, Farmer. Zionism sucks. Now the world has to put up with with 6 million Israeli Jews bullying 600 million Arabs and Persians over an area the size of one-sixth of one per cent of Arab territories.
Pesky Jews!!
J Farmer "So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse, engaged in terror campaigns to drive indigenous Americans from their homes, and then declared a state..."
The Zionist movement began in the 19th Century with people purchasing land to farm.
They suffered periodic pogroms from the Muslims--no surprise, because Islam is a viciously intolerant religion.
Not only that, there were periodic Muslim pogroms against Jews before the Zionist movement existed. Riots and killings in the 19th Century. The 18th Century. And so on.
All this talk about Jewish incitement of Muslim rage is utter garbage.
Tim in Vermont: "They also claim an ancient Temple of Rah in India as a Muslim holy site. It is almost as if it were a pattern"
There is no Hindu god Rah, perhaps you are thinking of the Ancient Egyptian diety Ra?
Perhaps you should verify your claim before claiming a pattern.
Sorry for my imperfect memory, it was Ram.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/30/AR2010093002570.html
Mexicans are taking back California.
What inspired Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies? That was 1543, and he was advocating burning down synagogues and persecuting Jews
Yeah, Jooo hating is an old business. It's not like you invented something new here.
@hombre:
"Pesky Jews!!"
Snark is not an argument. Come back to me when you actually have something useful to say.
@pst313:
"All this talk about Jewish incitement of Muslim rage is utter garbage."
I am not sure what "talk" you're referring to. None of its come from me. But just out of curiosity, what's your opinion on the King David Hotel bombing?
Netanyahu reminds us of the essential truth of the old saying that those that forget history are condemned to repeat it.
He could have taken it a step further and drawn comparisons between those that enabled Hitler in the 30's and those that enable Hamas and Hezbollah today.
That would probably provoke outrage on the pages of the NYT's. You know, the same pages that extolled the virtues of Stalin's agricultural reforms in the 30's, the one that starved millions of people to death. Written by that Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Walter Duranty.
The hater's gotta hate and they've been doing it a long, long time.
The thing those in the anti-Zionist/anti-Israel camp overlook is that the problem fundamentalist Islamists like the Mufti have always had with Israel has never been only, or even mainly, because they were Jews settled in Muslim land but because they represented modernism. That was and is the number-one enemy for those folks. So kiss-off Israel and you're still left with that.
But if you believe that Jews have a right to a state based on an historical homeland, then why don't indigenous Americans have a right to a state on the very same basis?
That analogy only works if you consider amerindians a homogenous group. Far from it.
Hey, by the way, Breath-of-Toad Warren gained her questionable access to scholarship via her claim of Amerindianism. I have the book, Pow Wow Chow.
Jooo-hating is indeed an old business. But hypocrisy in the service of tolerance does not work. Never did.
@tim in vermont:
Please go back to your sandbox and stop interrupting adult conversation with your childish invective.
Yes, Tim, opposition to Zionism must be anti-semitism, right?
I just notice that you seem to be for stable borders starting now everywhere except for Israel.
I am for stable borders. That's why I didn't think it was a good idea to try to overthrow Assad, I did think it was a good idea to overthrow Saddam at the time, but I learned that I was, in fact, wrong. Based on that hard won wisdom I opposed Hillary's adventures in both Syria and Libya.
But before we freeze the borders, there is the matter of Israel... See how it works?
Germany corrects Netanyahu on the Holocaust. Nope, that is on us.
Rusty, that "right to a state" exists. Maybe you think it doesn't work, but it's working today across the 49 states, and Hawaii is trying to work it up for their own indigenous folks.
Where afre the jews to go?
To get back to the original issue: When the Muslims make peace with the Jews, then I say we should stop saying nasty things about the Mufti.
Not until then.
@Rusty:
"That analogy only works if you consider amerindians a homogenous group. Far from it."
Rusty, do you believe that Pueblos and Navajos have historical claims on land in the southwest US and that they should be given sovereign states of their own to run their own currency, manage their own borders, have a seat at the UN, and conduct their own foreign policy? I don't, and I think such an outcome would be a disaster for Navajos and Pueblos and for Americans. Similarly, I don't think that European and American Jews had a right to a state in Palestine. But again, that's all history, because the state of Israel exists and has rights within the international system.
@tim in vermont:
"I just notice that you seem to be for stable borders starting now everywhere except for Israel."
Here's what I wrote 50 minutes before you published that comment:
"Now, that's all a matter of history. It has nothing to do with how one thinks policy should be conducted today. An historical opinion on, say, the Mexican-American War does not mean that you want to give Texas back to Mexico."
J Farmer: The King David Hotel bombing was in 1946. I condemn it. How do YOU feel about the decades--no, centuries--of anti-Jewish Muslim violence that preceded it?
@pst314:
That's not what I meant by your opinion. Condemning injustices is the easiest, cheapest kind of moral grandstanding. What I meant by your opinion, why do you think it happened? What was the motive? Would the British have been just in attacking Jewish settlers in Palestine in retaliation for it?
Should Germany be split up into the 450-ish principalities, duchies, etc. that were there prior to Napoleon consolidating so many of them?
And what about the Native Americans in Canada? Let's give Quebec to them instead of the Frogs.
Which Native American tribes get to control the land - the earliest identified entities, or those that controlled the land on July 4, 1776?
J. Farmer: Why do YOU think it happened? Do you think it might have had something to do with the long history of Muslim terror?
@pst314:
Jewish settlers blew up the King David Hotel to kill British citizens because of Muslim terror? What are you talking about?
Might it have had something to do with British favoritism towards Muslims, even though Muslims were oppressing Jews?
Netanyahu will be roundly criticized for anything he says until the day he declares himself a progressive liberal and begins criticizing Israel and Jews- Then he will be, like Colon Bowell, celebrated as a truth-teller and great man by the same scumbags currently calling him a mass-murderer and war criminal- just like Colon Bowell.
Are you incapable of simply relating to someone as an individual human being without being preoccupied with assigning them to a tribal group that will then determine how you "feel" about them. Hate me, like me, respect me, disrespect me...I don't care how you feel about me. It has no bearing on my opinion.
I was just trying to figure out where you are coming from. Not that I care much. If someone is posting randoms statements that don't have much connection to history, it is helpful to try to understand their POV. If you prefer I will ignore your comments.
"Jewish settlers blew up the King David Hotel to kill British citizens because of Muslim terror? What are you talking about?"
The Haganah blew up the British headquarters because the British were blocking Jewish immigration from a place where millions of them were dead or homeless. And preventing the survivors from getting to a place where they could survive.
Pretty simple, really. Survival instinct it's called.
There's a persistent myth that all the Jews just showed up in Palestine one day in the 1940s, but that's false. There has been a continual Jewish presence there.
For example Arabs massacred Jews in Hebron in 1929, where Jews had always lived. Hebron was made completely Judenrein in 1948, like the rest of Jordan, but Jews moving in since 1967 are the bad guys, I guess.
The creation of Israel was an extremely reasonable step based on the history of oppression the Jews endured, especially in Europe in the 30s and 40s.
Yet there continues to be significant overreaction to statements such as Netanyahu's, while ignoring the repeated anti-Jewish incitements and threats by Muslim political and religious leaders.
this is me in the gym-i have blondish hair but found a couple gray's-I was deva.
why do gays look good even in their 40's while most straightie men have fallen apart?
exhelodrvr1 said...
The creation of Israel was an extremely reasonable step based on the history of oppression the Jews endured, especially in Europe in the 30s and 40s.
Then shouldn't we create a state for blacks in America (or maybe invade Africa and make one there), and one for Chinese in California, and one for...
The creation of Israel was a good step. It is not "extremely reasonable", especially with regard to Israel's extreme attention to religious blood. That's wrong.
I maybe had a great-great grandfather who was wrongly shot somewhere in Wyoming. Do I have a suit against Wyoming or the USA?
Jeez, this seems like simple stuff, but people just get stupid when they write about it online.
all these Harvard and MIT undergrads what to hook with me on grindr but I am like no. I aint anyone's daddy. Plus my husband is younger, hotter, better body, richer and actually takes care of me....he gives me an allowance.
we had a fight and he threatened me with giving him back all the money and gifts he have me-I was like no way Sanjay.
In John Toland's excellent biography of Hitler, he recounts that in Hitler's last days in his bunker, some of his cronies urged him to try to escape to the Middle East, where his virulent anti-Semitism had made him a hero to many Arabs.
Hitler never had an original idea in his life.
Everything he came up with, including the Master Race theories and the anti-Semitism, he ripped off from other thinkers.
I had read Mein Kampf once, and I was surprised to see Hitler mentioning the Ku Klux Klan favorably in it.
Gentlemen: Had to drop out of the discussion in order to go to work. I'm on the job now. Unable to comment further. Just fyi.
Do you like my haircut; cute right?
"It is not "extremely reasonable", especially with regard to Israel's extreme attention to religious blood. That's wrong."
So, the Musilms' fixation on Islam vs Judaism is what in your opinion ? God ? Bad ?
Imagine for a moment Dennis Ross had really gotten the two sides to agree in 2000. That was the closest the Palestinians ever cam to success. They could have had their state. Ross said there were lots of western businessmen ready to invest in the West Bank. A combination of Israeli entrepreneurship and Palestinian workers could have made that area into a rich bistate like Lebanon was before the Palestinians arrived there. What happened ? Arafat and Musilm hatred.
The Israelis, in return for a vow from Bush, which Obama has now abandoned, vacated the Gaza strip and even left irrigation works and huge greenhouses behind. What happened ? The infrastructure left behind was immediately destroyed.
I think the Israelis will have to clear out the west bank and drive the Palestinians into Jordan and Syria.
Iran may do it for them with nuclear attacks that will kill hundreds of thousands of Jews but which will result in the massacre of Muslims. The entire Middle east will be a glowing layer of hot asphalt.
Bob Ellison said...
exhelodrvr1 said...
The creation of Israel was an extremely reasonable step based on the history of oppression the Jews endured, especially in Europe in the 30s and 40s.
Then shouldn't we create a state for blacks in America (or maybe invade Africa and make one there), and one for Chinese in California, and one for...
We did create a state in Africa for freed slaves. Always amusing when people are so insulting to others while accidentally revealing their own ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia
Bob Ellison,
The difference is that the Jews weren't new to the Levant.
They lived there long before Mohammed was born. That's proven by numerous archaeological finds.
They have a 3,000-year-old ancestral claim to it that Asians in California and blacks in America do not.
It's Islam, not Judaism, that's the new kid on the Middle East block.
"It's Islam, not Judaism, that's the new kid on the Middle East block."
Yup, even in Arabia where Jews were warriors before the Muslims.
that's what the khaybar reference, was all about,
http://www.meforum.org/5574/schwanitz-husaini
"For example Arabs massacred Jews in Hebron in 1929, where Jews had always lived."
Also other massacres in the first decades of the 20th Century.
Also massacres in the 19th Century.
Also massacres in the 18th Century
. . .
Starting with the original Muslim conquests, which featured mass murder, forced relocation of populations, enslavement, appropriation of land, punitive taxation, oppressive laws, and so on.
"Then shouldn't we create a state for blacks in America..."
As if blacks are still horribly oppressed.
Maybe in the 18th Century one might suggest that, but today that is just silly.
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54517
Why do so many Arabs sound like Nazis when they talk about Jews? The answer lay buried for decades in the archives of the Third Reich. Then a generation of younger German scholars expanded their attention beyond the death camps of Europe to Hitler’s activities in the Middle East. What they discovered: it was Hitler who financed the modern jihadi movement.
Nazi-Arab collaboration was crucial to the Final Solution. The Third Reich financed and trained the Muslim Brothers of Palestine and Egypt in terrorism and focused their anti-modernity rage on Jews. One of the first people Hitler told about his plans to kill Europe’s Jews was the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, the infamous mufti of Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat’s cousin. Hitler and the mufti shook hands on a plan to exterminate all the Jews of the Middle East. The Reich preserved the memo, the minutes, and a photo of their famous handshake.
Husseini was passed along to Goebbels, who established him as the Nazi voice to the Middle East. It was the most popular radio program of the long war years, broadcast daily into every café. This Nazi station was listened to by the entire male population, Arab and Persian, including most famously Ayatollah Khomeini. It was an intoxicating mix of militant Islam, Nazism, and war propaganda.
The Palestinian leadership and Hitler successfully collaborated on a crucial step of the Final Solution — mob violence and a reign of terror pressured Britain to shut down Jewish immigration to what is now Israel. They trapped the Jews in Europe, where six million perished in the killing fields and death camps. Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, stated at his Nuremberg trial that the mufti’s importance “must not be disregarded[.] … [T]he Mufti had repeatedly suggested to … Hitler, Ribbentrop and Himmler, the extermination of European Jewry[.] … The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and advisor of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of the plan.”
. . .
Snark is not an argument. Come back to me when you actually have something useful to say.
This applies to your initial snark about Zionism as well, Farmer.
pst314,
Those Arabic-language radio broadcasts came from a town south of Berlin, via one of the world’s most powerful shortwave transmitters at the time. Goebbels called the broadcasts “our long-range gun in the ether”.
He could have added long-term to that.
"As if blacks are still horribly oppressed.
"Maybe in the 18th Century one might suggest that, but today that is just silly."
If by "silly" you mean "still true," then, yeah, it's "silly."
. . .
Hitler’s influence has been permanently embedded in Arab culture. During World War II, there was a popular song among Arabs: “Allah in heaven, Hitler on earth.” Sheikh al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood today, in his weekly sermon broadcast on Al Jazeera to an audience of 60 million, prayed about the Jews: “Oh Allah, kill them, down to the very last one.” “Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler.” In Tahir Square, a mob of Arab Spring celebrants screamed, “Jew, Jew, Jew” as they raped blond American journalist Lara Logan. [...]
The Palestinian national movement was founded by Hitler’s henchman, al Husseini, mufti and the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. The founder of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, was trained by German Nazi army officers who were welcomed in Cairo after the war. He adopted the name “Yasser” to honor the Muslim Brother’s terror chief of the 1930s, who kidnapped Arabs in Western clothes and threw them into pits of scorpions and snakes. Their corpses would be left in the street for days, shoes stuck in their mouths, as a lesson for any Arab who believed in tolerating Jews or welcoming modernization. During Oslo, Arafat’s personal bodyguard had sons named Hitler and Eichmann, according to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s book, A Place Among the Nations.
. . .
Hitler has never left the Middle East. For almost 70 years, the Arab world has been pickled in Nazi Jew-hatred. In the words of Matthias Kuntzel, author of Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, “[i]f there is one theme … which unites Islamists, Liberals, Nasserites and Marxists, it is the collective fantasy of the common enemy in the shape of Israel and the Jews, which almost always correlates with the wish to destroy Israel.” Jew-hatred is indispensible to Arab leaders, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia to Iran to the Palestinian Authority, in their fight against democratic Western values.
Nazi jihadism didn’t win without a fight from the modernizing forces in Egypt. Many signs indicate that Israel would have been a welcome neighbor. Religious leaders fought the Brotherhood’s attempts to politicize Friday prayers with false claims that Jews were attacking Al Aqsa and the Koran. The rector of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most important university, forbade anti-Jewish propaganda. Ali Mahir, Egyptian King Farouk’s top adviser, called for a united Palestinian state based on mutual tolerance and regulated immigration for both Jew and Arab.
Today, the fight is lost. All of those institutions are firmly entrenched in Nazi-jihadi anti-Semitism. The coalition government of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, which is a terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organization, are united in their denial of Israel’s right to exist. Jew-hatred is so popular that it is possible that no Arab leader can speak out against it. It explains why the Palestinians have turned down a state of their own four times. They are holding out for Hitler’s solution. Peace is the last thing they want. Otherwise, peace would be here today.
Obama is quite wrong. If desired by both sides, peace is easy. It is Nazi-Islamic propaganda that is so hard to solve.
(end quote)
I would add that Nazi propaganda succeeded so well in the Middle East because it fell on extremely fertile soil. Tolerant Muslims and modernizers were a tiny minority.
Hmmm, that comment looks rather long. I should have edited it down. Sorry.
Farmer wrote: "@hombre:
"Pesky Jews!!"
Snark is not an argument. Come back to me when you actually have something useful to say."
Evidently you missed the rest of my post which was considerably less snarky and more informative than your original indefensible and ignorant comment at 2:40 about Zionism.
Robert, while I won't dispute that there remind an unacceptable amount of racism in the US, to say they are "horribly oppressed" is to be so hyperbolic as to hurt what is a legitimate cause. "Horribly oppressed" is slavery, routine lynching and Jim Crow. This is not that.
The Final Solution didn't become final until the policy of extermination was laid down at the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942. Before that date Nazi policy toward the Jews was haphazard. There were scattered mass killings in Russia, Poland, and especially Latvia, but mostly the policy was social and economic isolation, followed by expropriation of property and deportation.
Other than the minutes of the Wannsee Conference itself there are no extant documents outlining down plans for anything like the Holocaust as it developed from 1942 until the surrender in May 1945. If Hitler was advised by anyone regarding the Jews and their fate under his hand it would be impossible to demonstrate.
What is clear is that Mohammed Amin al-Husseini led pogroms against Palestinian Jews on several occasions, in one case he wrote and distributed a tract claiming that the Jews planned to destroy the Dome of the Rock, that he was an admirer of Hitler and National Socialism from 1933, that he knew and approve of the persecution of European Jews, people who had little to do the Zionists, most of whom had lived in Palestine since before WWI, in some cases long before, that he was a frequent visitor to Berlin where he never failed to get an audience with Hitler, thathe visited at least one concentration camp, probably several, and that he advocated the creation of an all-Muslim Nazi armed force. What arose from al-Husseini's machinations was the13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar and the23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama, both formation belonging to the Waffen-SS. These troops were used to terrorize Orthodox Yugoslav Christians and to round up Jews for deportation. To al-Husseini Jews were Jews -- all were to exterminated, but the Jews of Palestine were his special task.
'If by "silly" you mean "still true," then, yeah, it's "silly."'
Here's your big chance Cook. Tell us how it's "still true" that blacks "are still horribly oppressed."
Try to do it without offering up the blather about how being held accountable for their criminal conduct is oppressive, given that most of said criminal conduct is directed at other blacks. (Although most of the white criminals I recall also thought they were horribly oppressed when held accountable for their crimes. They just didn't think it was because they were white.)
Cookie, I would suggest some reading material for you.
In Please Stop Helping Us, Jason L. Riley examines how well-intentioned welfare programs are in fact holding black Americans back. Minimum-wage laws may lift earnings for people who are already employed, but they price a disproportionate number of blacks out of the labor force. Affirmative action in higher education is intended to address past discrimination, but the result is fewer black college graduates than would otherwise exist. And so it goes with everything from soft-on-crime laws, which make black neighborhoods more dangerous, to policies that limit school choice out of a mistaken belief that charter schools and voucher programs harm the traditional public schools that most low-income students attend.
You're welcome.
the prologue was a meeting Eichmann had with the Mufti in 1937
http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-official-record-what-the-mufti-said-to-hitler/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
More fun stuff on genocidal Islam's deep connections to genocidal Nazism:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/lets-talk-about-the-grand-mufti-hitler-and-the-knife-intifada/
Includes 2 photos of the Mufti, one with Hitler, the infamous "how to stab a Jew" diagram, and 3 videos of current Blood Libels and incitements to mass murder.
Incidentally I saw a fascinating video last night that proposes the Palis are largely Jews who were forcibly converted to Islam but retained some sekrit Jewish customs. What a bunch of stubborn bastards. Think of how much more easily all this shit would be resolved if they came to terms with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCmUz7Z-9E
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsvi_Misinai#Project_on_Palestinians
Good thing that nothing important to discuss in 2015 'cause nothing is better than another discussion of Hitler. He's only been dead for 70 years.
But its good to know the Head of Israel is an antisemite.
rcocean "Good thing that nothing important to discuss in 2015 'cause nothing is better than another discussion of Hitler. He's only been dead for 70 years."
And yet his evil lives on.
In fact, if it were not for the Nazis, the moderates and modernizers of the Middle East might have succeeded in creating a civilization worthy of respect and which was not a menace to others.
In sum, FARMER is a Libertarian with Liberal ideas about Jews: invaders and terrorists.
Normally, I prefer to reply individually, but there's too much morass to try to wade through. Let me start by repeating a statement I made earlier:
"Do you believe that Pueblos and Navajos have historical claims on land in the southwest US and that they should be given sovereign states of their own to run their own currency, manage their own borders, have a seat at the UN, and conduct their own foreign policy? I don't, and I think such an outcome would be a disaster for Navajos and Pueblos and for Americans. Similarly, I don't think that European and American Jews had a right to a state in Palestine."
Let me suggest another small thought experiment. An ethnically-based conflict breaks out in your state between rival factions. In the midst of the conflict, you are driven forcibly from your home and dispossessed of your property. Do you think this might engender a sense of resentment and injustice? Do you think this might not sew seeds of ethnic hatred? Look at the history of the 20th century. It's a history of ethnic conflict and hatred because two groups of people do not want to share the same political space. If a foreign power decided that a piece of our territory should be carved away to give to a refugee population, we would be highly resentful of that. This is the tribal nature of humanity. It's why I happen to be an ethno-nationalist. I think the so called "browning" of America will be a disaster precisely because of ethnic conflict. The reason Israel has progressed as a state, setting aside the Jewish IQ edge, is because it's an implant culture. It isn't native. You disrupt the ecology, you get the consequences.
That said, virtually every modern border has been drawn by injustices. As I've said repeatedly, whatever one thinks of Zionism, Israel is a state and must be approached on that basis. That's fine. But all this no daylight between the US and Israel and Netanyahu-worship that conservatives engage in to me is just creepy and bizarre. I imagine some of it has to do with the so called spiritual importance people place on that particular slice of geography.
All this stuff about Jew-hatred and anti-semitism is just standard identity politics 101. Pick any interest group you want and think of the litany of accusations they have to replace argument (e.g. racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, disables, blah blah blah). Look, I think the Kurds have a pretty strong historical case to make for a state; Tibetans too. But I do not believe that it should be US foreign policy to support either of those things. You do not have to infer some kind of unspoken ethnic animosity to explain my position on those issues. It's the same exact reasoning that leads me to my opinion on Israel.
The fundamental fact is that Islam is a Jewish heresy and Muhammed was enraged that the Jews, who had a large presence in Arabia, did not buy his adaptation of the Jewish religion. Jews have never been much for conversion to other religions based on theirs.
@Quaestor:
'Snark is not an argument. Come back to me when you actually have something useful to say.'
This applies to your initial snark about Zionism as well, Farmer.
I'll concede that. But it was only ever meant to whip up a backlash that I could then respond to.
@Michael K:
"The fundamental fact is that Islam is a Jewish heresy and Muhammed was enraged that the Jews, who had a large presence in Arabia, did not buy his adaptation of the Jewish religion. Jews have never been much for conversion to other religions based on theirs."
I imagine there's some historical truth to that. But my whole point is that I don't see anywhere in that narrative where the United States needs to step in. I say let the Israelis and Palestinians work it out themselves. I wouldn't be in the middle of trying to negotiate a peace deal, and I wouldn't be mailing US taxpayer checks to the Israeli government and Palestinian Authority.
Reading comment on the King David Hotel bombing,as I recall that was the British Army's Headquarters running its own private war was stopping Jewish refugees as a bribe to Saudi oil sheiks. To bad about any cruelty done to the British Empire.
But the British Empire arranged its revenge after Truman went around them at the UN. They announced the date they would pull out so the 7 Arab Armies could get ready to launch their wipe out the Jews. Then they armed those Arab Armies with all of the British guns, British artillery and British ammunition needed to slaughter the Jews in a Holocaust redux.
Again, to bad, so sad about the mighty British Empire's subsequent disappearance from the earth
@traditionalguy:
"Again, to bad, so sad about the mighty British Empire's subsequent disappearance from the earth."
You are correct. The Jewish settler were fighting an insurgency campaign against a foreign occupying power on nationalist grounds. Sound familiar?
"Netanyahu-worship that conservatives engage in to me is just creepy and bizarre"
Lots of things seem creepy and bizarre to you. Two facts. I was not much of a fan of Israel until they went to Entebbe to rescue their hostages and pulled it off. That got my attention.
I am not a religious guy and my admiration for Israel is more about the miracles they have worked in that inhospitable land, The Arabs spent seven centuries there and made nothing but sand.
I like accomplishment. I like my black medical students who do good work. I am against affirmative action. I like people who make things and who run small business. Doctors used to be small businessmen and had the politicks to match. Now, lots of them are salaried employees with politics to match.
I am getting old but am still working and pay my own way. I see what is going on with the younger people I know and am very very pessimistic about the future. I am libertarian but I don't buy the Big L Libertarian delusion that everybody will obey the law if we just do away with policemen.
The Pax Brittanica left us a world at peace for 100 years. The Pax Americana left us 50 years of peace. Prosperity grew exponentially. That is over. We now live in a low trust world and will pay a heavy price for it. The fools at HuffPo are delirious that Hillary and Justin Trudeau and Jeremy Corbyn will usher in a new world of bunnies and puppies and candy and plenty of dope.
They will die miserably if they live long enough, which I plan not to o.
At first you think, man those Israelis must be killing a lot of Palestinians. This whole stabbing wave must be horrible. All this violence! If Israel just didn't exist people in the middle east would just be peaceful happy people!
@Michael K:
"Lots of things seem creepy and bizarre to you."
Won't argue with that! I find boxing and MMA creepy and bizarre, too, but that's a whole other story. I don't begrudge people their creepy indulgences. I certainly have my own. But I still find the enterprise bizarre. Fashion shows, too. I digress...
"I am not a religious guy and my admiration for Israel is more about the miracles they have worked in that inhospitable land, The Arabs spent seven centuries there and made nothing but sand."
Well, Arabic numerals and algebra turned out okay for us. But anyway, what moral system do you subscribe to in which people are treated based on their material accomplishments? I certainly understand having more respect for an accomplished person but treating them differently, even going so far as to see them as something approaching sub-human, seems to me a little...yes...creepy and bizarre.
"I like accomplishment. I like my black medical students who do good work."
I, on the other hand, am in the trenches with the underclass. I spend every day of my life involved with people involved with the criminal justice or child welfare system and try to make them act right. It's a Sisyphean task to the say the least.
"I am libertarian but I don't buy the Big L Libertarian delusion that everybody will obey the law if we just do away with policemen."
I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas but the system is as unworkable as communism for the same reason--human nature. It's no accident that small communities of homogenous ethnic groups like Sweden and Iceland have managed to make something like socialism work. Sweden's recent importation of ethnic minorities has been upsetting that balance for several years now.
"The Pax Brittanica left us a world at peace for 100 years."
We will just have to chalk this one up to difference of historical opinion. First, the notion that the 19th century was "a world at peace" is strange. At most, it was a period of relative peace compared to the conflicts occurring in Europe that thad proceeded it. There were numerous violent conflicts that killed lots of people all over the world during the period of the Pax Britannica. Not to mention, simmering underneath all of this were the dynamics that led to the First World War.
"The Pax Americana left us 50 years of peace."
Again, I assume you are referring to the post-WWII period through 2000. How was that "years of peace." We fought several wars ourselves during that period not to mention that huge conflicts that occurred in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and South and Southeast Asia. Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam. Military juntas in the Philippines. Indonesia's violent war against the Timorese. Tens of thousands killed in ethnically-based killing in Guatemala.
And even building a huge globalized military force, it was actually totally ineffective against a very small group of stateless actors determined to act destructively and die for a cause.
@Achilles:
"At first you think, man those Israelis must be killing a lot of Palestinians. This whole stabbing wave must be horrible. All this violence! If Israel just didn't exist people in the middle east would just be peaceful happy people!"
Nobody has to think that way to render a fair assessment of the historical situation.
https://goo.gl/ofIAKT
http://panampost.com/steve-hecht/2015/09/29/the-dirty-hand-of-us-policy-lurks-over-guatemala/
A guy as well read as you think you are should know some of these things are myths.
"Well, Arabic numerals and algebra turned out okay for us. "
The numbers we call "Arabic" are Hindu and were stolen like most things the Arabs have. Algebra refers to al jabir who described the equals sign but the Babylonians had something very like algebra. Most of the "accomplishments"of Harun al Rashid and his son were done by Greeks who had "converted" to Islam rather than have their hands cut off.
"the notion that the 19th century was "a world at peace" is strange."
Please list the major wars that affected most people. The American Civil War and he Crimean War were localized disturbances except for the participants.
"simmering underneath all of this were the dynamics that led to the First World War. "
No, the dynamics were the unification of Germany that followed the 1870 war. After that, there was mostly peace until 1914 and one reason why it seemed to be so strange was that most civilized people thought that there would be no war because the European countries did so much trade with each other. Probably without Kaiser Bill, there would have been no war which is why I think he should have been hung in 1918.
Your examples of "huge conflicts" are ridiculous. This were minor events that did not disturb the vast majority of civilization. The Russians did more harm in the Hungarian Revolution than everything else but Vietnam.
You are straining at gnats.
he does prove agregiously ignorant doesn't he, like Otto in a fish called wanda,
J Farmer: "Well, Arabic numerals and algebra turned out okay for us."
Unbelievable.
And the Hagia Sophia must have been built by the islamists as well.
There is ignorance. Then there is impenetrable ignorance.
J Farmer: "An ethnically-based conflict breaks out in your state between rival factions. In the midst of the conflict, you are driven forcibly from your home and dispossessed of your property."
Lies on top of lies. All to try and cover up what is transparently obvious.
J Farmer: "So if indigenous populations moved from Mexico to the San Diego area en masse, engaged in terror campaigns to drive indigenous Americans from their homes.."
LOL
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/25/local/la-me-0126-compton-20130126
Moron.
J Farmer: "Yes, Tim, opposition to Zionism must be anti-semitism, right?"
In 2015, without question.
In 2015, the mere use of "Zionism" in the way you use it gives the game away.
You aren't fooling anyone. Your ignorance doesn't help your case either, btw.
"I'm trying to figure out of you are a lefty or one of those Big L Libertarians I dislike. History would help you a lot"
The far left and the libertarians are not really different on foreign policy. When Ron Paul spoke I'm sure members of Code Pink were constantly nodding their head in agreement.
So it ultimately is irrelevant.
-----I wonder what sorts of things Bibi's relatives said in 1940.
Things like, 'I hope we survive this persecution'. Things like 'That SS Officer just broke my jaw for wearing this yellow star'. Things like 'Our neighbors seemed so nice but now they are informing on us to the gestapo'. Things like 'Do you think we should escape to America'. Things like 'I hope our relatives aren’t being burned in ovens'. Things like 'ohh, my arm looks so ugly with this number tattooed to it.' Things like 'I’m not sure I can survive another procedure from Dr. Mengele'
Mark, the banality of evil is contained in what you thought was a clever post.
Whatever. Whoever believes is not afraid.
Well seeing as Benzion, was the premier scholar of Inquisition studies, he had more than a few notions,
I love the talk form the anti zionists about the odiousness of Zionism. But I'll point out that despite the expansionist rhetoric they hold roughly the same amount of land that they did since their founding. Every time they got more land it was because their neigbors thought they could kill them and they had the temerity to win. And the land they hold is about the size of Long Island.
Even if you look at historic Palestine under the British mandate zionists couldn't even bring them the majority of Palestine. The Muslims got 80% of that land. And Jews didn't even complain much having lost 80% of the land promised to them.
Considering the stewardship of Islam and how they treat their minorities I would actually prefer a lot more Zionist style movements where minority populations in the region get a swath of land and turn into a country that doesn't have Islams jackboot on its neck.
Rhythm and Balls: "Whatever. Whoever believes is not afraid."
Well, you've got that right homeboy.
This is one is for garage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Qlnw3i6Rg
He'll be upset on all kinds of levels.
it's always been a tough neighborhood, the Phillistines, the Amaleks (sic) and not to mention the Egyptian kingdoms and the Assyrian and Babylonian empires,
@Drago:
"In 2015, the mere use of "Zionism" in the way you use it gives the game away."
That's ridiculous. Zionism is a part of history and open to judgment in historical terms. The validity of one's arguments has nothing to do with the timeline in which they are expressed. I'd make the same arguments at the time. I'd say that Jews moving in large numbers to Palestine with the goal of creating a sovereign state would be pursuing a bad goal sure to result in prolonged conflicts. A lot of Jews made the very same argument at the time. We're they also motivated by anti-Jewish animus? European Jewry has a legitimate claim on the fact that the countries of Europe owe them an historical reparation. But I don't find it very just or legitimate that the European powers give European Jewry a state on the land of a foreign people who had been carved from the Turkish Empire. Innocent people were violent cleansed of their homes and their property because of their ethnic identity. That's ethnic cleansing. And it creates resentments almost everywhere it happens. See the history of post-colongial 20th century, for example. Israel is not unique on this front. As I have said repeatedly, virtually all borders have been drawn by violence and conquest. But the reality is that the founding of the modern state of Israel required a great number of innocent Arabs to suffer huge injustices. To simply dismiss this all has irrational religious hatred (which does exist) is to simply make oneself blind to the plain historical reality. Benny Morris is a professor at Ben-Gurion University, and that name should be familiar to anyone minimally acquainted with the facts. He is a strong advocate for Zionism. Read his history of the 1940's period, and his description of Arab villages being cleansed by Jewish forces. The fact that Jews have suffered similar atrocities in their history does not give them the right to visit similar atrocities against innocent people. Those people were living in homes their families had occupied for centuries. What right did Jewish immigrants have to drive them from their property and seize it for themselves What minimally moral person would say that this was acceptable behavior for a just people to engage in?
@Jr565:
"The Muslims got 80% of that land. And Jews didn't even complain much having lost 80% of the land promised to them."
So if huge numbers of Cuban immigrated to south Florida and then decided to claim it as a homeland, sovereign from the United States, why complain? After all, Americans would still have 99% of the rest of the country to live in. Crimea is just a small part of Ukraine; why care about its annexation? I don't think you get how nationalism works.
J. Farmer brings up the King David Hotel bombing without noting that (a) Israeli leaders were horrified, deeply embarrassed, and apologetic about it, (b) the bombers tried to blow up an empty hotel by giving warnings or at least trying to. If they'd been Muslims, they would have made sure not to give any warning to maximize the casualties, and then handed out candy to children and danced in the streets to celebrate the number of victims.
In short, J. Farmer takes the one example of Jews sinking even halfway to the usual level of Muslims, as if that were more important than the fact that the Palestinians and their Mufti have been wallowing in far greater depths of viciousness for decades, and show no sign of even wanting to come out. That puts him pretty deep in the pit of viciousness and subhuman stupidity himself.
They weren't Muslims for very long.
They were Jews before and they'll become Jews and reunite with Israel again, before long.
This is the way it will be resolved.
Read/watch Tzvi Misinai.
@Michael K:
"The numbers we call "Arabic" are Hindu and were stolen like most things the Arabs have."
I think you might have been missing my sarcasm there. My larger point was that it seems odd to judge the justice of a situation by the relative material prosperity of the parties involved. Nigeria is a pretty underdeveloped country. Do Nigerians have less human rights then Finns, who have developed a very high standard of living society? My very next sentence asked, " But anyway, what moral system do you subscribe to in which people are treated based on their material accomplishments?" You didn't bother to answer.
"Please list the major wars that affected most people."
If your definition of peace is lack of a world war, then that's true of virtually all centuries before the 20th. Wouldn't level of violence be a more consistent measurement? Probably 20,000,000 people died in civil wars in mid-19th century China. That makes it just about as violent as the First World War. The European powers were just beginning to establish global dominance over the course of the 19th century, and it fell apart very quickly thereafter. The fact is that the industrial might the West was able to muster from the 17th through the 19th century were quickly adapted by the rest of the world. Japan had quickly modernized and was able to defeat Russia in the early 20th century. Events in certain places in 1776, 1789, 1848, and 1898 had spurred nationalist movements challenging old dynastic empires. Niall Ferguson makes a good case, I think, in his book The War of the World that the second half of the 20th century was as violent the first half of the 20th century with the exception that the violence was occurring mostly within nation-state borders as opposed to between them. The relative peace experienced on the European continent I think was largely due to the fact that the European great powers were being eclipsed by the Soviets to the East and the US to the West. And later Japan and China in the east. This has put the Europeans in the geostrategic position of having to band together in the form of the EU. However, as has been apparent for years, the EU's desire to erase the nation-state borders of old Europe is creating a huge populist backlash, as nationalist, anti-immigration parties have been surging in countries all over Europe. The convulsions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are unique only in their geography. Achieving stable borders between nation-states has proved a fragile endeavor for most of human history. It is wrong to isolate temporary periods of relative calm between certain nation-states, cite a parallel historical reality, assign causation, and then assume that if the parallel situation could be duplicated, it would therefore result in the same relative calm. I don't buy that argument.
@J. Farmer:So if huge numbers of Cuban immigrated to south Florida
If Cubans had been living in South Florida for 3000 years continuously, despite being repeatedly massacred by successive waves of invaders over that whole time who kept trying and failing to completely drive them out, your analogy might be valid.
Except for Arabfat. He was Egyptian.
And the rest of his gang of crooks was Tunisian.
That's why the Palestinians have no natural leaders.
They survived on centuries of crypto-Judaism, lying to the caliphs and Ottoman authorities, and making do.
Old habits die hard. Once their culture rids itself of the phony Arab-Muslim identity and they lose their fear of expulsion and exclusion, they'll slowly regain a traditional Jewish identity, be re-accepted into that fold, and something good will happen.
As for Husseini, he was probably Bedouin Arab. As I said, they were of the habit of going leaderless and let the interlopers run things.
You can tell a lot by the names they went by and still go by. About 15% (some say more) Palestinian Arabs are Arabs from somewhere else. They use names that indicate origin, like "al Tikriti" (from Tikrit), etc.
The ones that retained Jewish names are now becoming more obvious.
Those are the ones that also seem less likely to have formed terrorist leadership.
It's just one big fucking problem of mistaken identity, the way many Hispanics are now finding out their roots in those persecuted under the Inquisition.
A huge shame, but that's water under the bridge.
Fix the identity problem, and then those terrorists are fucked. Their gooses cooked.
And then Israel can go on to gain greater regional legitimacy, strengthen and enlarge its regional alliances (for example with the Kurds), and put a much stronger damper on all that regional terrorist bullshit.
If one can will it, it is no dream.
@DrWeevil:
"In short, J. Farmer takes the one example of Jews sinking even halfway to the usual level of Muslims, as if that were more important than the fact that the Palestinians and their Mufti have been wallowing in far greater depths of viciousness for decades, and show no sign of even wanting to come out. That puts him pretty deep in the pit of viciousness and subhuman stupidity himself."
This is one of the pretty standard retorts. It essentially says you are wrong because you choose to criticize Jews instead of Arabs. The fact that I could write a post describing something bad Arabs did to Jews doesn't mean that it's illegitimate for me to write a post saying something bad Jews did to Arabs. I bet that white racism against blacks does exist, and racist acts probably are committed. But I wouldn't accept a black person acting unjustly against a white person because of it. Would you?
It's really not that deep. The founding of the state of Israel is an historical event that contained certain historical realities. In my reading of those facts, it was a fundamentally unjust thing. It involved ethnic cleaning and dispossession of innocent people. The fact that Jews had suffered historical injustices does not give them the right to visit similar injustices against innocent people.
@Gabriel:
"If Cubans had been living in South Florida for 3000 years continuously, despite being repeatedly massacred by successive waves of invaders over that whole time who kept trying and failing to completely drive them out, your analogy might be valid."
A complete caricature of the actual reality. The overwhelming number of founders emigrated in the early 20th century from places in Europe and the Americas and had, at best, very tenuous connection to that land. But even if the historical claims were legitimate, that doesn't make it a good idea. Nonetheless, a Jew born in Brooklyn, who would have no hope of tracing his family back to that land has, through the right of return, the ability to live in Israel. Arabs whose families had been living there for centuries were forcibly ejected from their homes and dispossessed of their property.
It's really not that deep. The founding of the state of Israel is an historical event that contained certain historical realities. In my reading of those facts, it was a fundamentally unjust thing. It involved ethnic cleaning and dispossession of innocent people.
Hey there. I know a native tribal elder who's in need of a house. I'm sure you won't mind if I kick you out of yours in order to correct the historical injustice of your living on his land. It's really not that deep.
The fact that Jews had suffered historical injustices does not give them the right to visit similar injustices against innocent people.
Those "innocent" people are themselves long-lost Jews who tragically fomented conflict because of the idiocy of mistaken identity into a more belligerent cultural ethos. (Read above). It will correct itself before long and then I guess you're going to have to find the next reverse social justice war to take up.
Nonetheless, a Jew born in Brooklyn, who would have no hope of tracing his family back to that land has, through the right of return, the ability to live in Israel.
LOL. And if his Y chromosome is shown to be identical with those in that region and possessed by nearly all other Jews, and with an unbroken family lineage of the identity associated with said chromosome, then I guess that would be evidence of "no hope of tracing his family back" there. Jews were just sekrit Europeans (even the Middle Eastern ones) who somehow magically gained access to a notoriously very protective tribe. Yes, that makes a lot of sense.
Arabs whose families had been living there for centuries were forcibly ejected from their homes and dispossessed of their property.
They're not Arabs. They think they are, were made to take on that identity through years of hegemony by the people who bequeathed that identity, a hegemony much more oppressive than anything any Jewish politician ever did to anyone.
no they were Bedouin Arabs, in some cases as with Arafat's family, they were Circassians, Turkic peoples, nomads, who the Egyptian and Syrian vilayets competed over to rule,
Are you talking to me, narciso? The genetics show otherwise. As do various customs, family names, and even quiet acknowledgment by almost half of those Palestinians themselves.
But it is true that there were many, many non-native Arabs, etc., who settled as well. You can tell by their own family names, and they came from all over the rest of the Middle East.
They weren't Turkic. Even the Turks aren't Turkic. The Turks are Armenians/Greeks/etc. who were conquered by Turks and adopted their language and religion.
Once you wrap your mind around a mindf*&$ like that, then you realize what is possible as long as a small, powerful elite is brought in charge. Anything. It can change the entire face of a nation - if it wants to.
the Zionists had a history with the land, an historical claim on it: and it wasn't (isn't) a very big land at that. The Palestinian Arabs were latecomers to the region; so much so that when, in the 1930s, the Zionists began to purchase land from the Arabs (who willingly sold it to them), it was the Jewish settlers of the region where known as "Palestinians." For a spell the term "Palestianin" meant "Jew."
"Jerusalem" isn't even mentioned by name in the Koran.
Old habits die hard. Once their culture rids itself of the phony Arab-Muslim identity and they lose their fear of expulsion and exclusion, they'll slowly regain a traditional Jewish identity, be re-accepted into that fold, and something good will happen.
The Palis are going to have to start making better decisions. Starting with trying to overthrow the Hashemites (Jordan 1970, expulsion), antagonizing the Phalangists (Beirut 1982, massacre and expulsion) and welcoming Saddam to Kuwait City (Gulf War 1, 1990, expulsion) not even the Palis' Arab brethren want them around.
@Rhythm and Balls:The genetics show otherwise. As do various customs, family names, and even quiet acknowledgment by almost half of those Palestinians themselves.
My mind boggled at this at first, but on second thought it's really not very far-fetched. The genetic evidence shows the British, for example, to be overwhelmingly of Celtic and pre-Celtic descent with the "Anglo-Saxon" element being almost entirely language and folkways.
This is actually very common, and of course once you think about it it's hard to see how it could be any other way. Take the Arabs living in Arabia in Mohammed's time, and then look at how many nations they conquered within a hundred years. It's not mathematically possible that Arabs could make up a significant fraction of the conquered populations at that time or for the century following. The Normans were originally a small band of Vikings who Gallicized, and then of course when William conquered England he couldn't have had more than 10,000 men with him; a century later Normans couldn't mathematically have been a significant fraction of the population. Or the Romans, how many Romans could there possibly have been in Augustus's time relative to the population of the Empire?
There are very few cases of actual displacement of people; rather in most cases it is displacement of language and culture. In the 20th century of course it really got going: the Soviet Union exterminated whole peoples and shuffled others around, and the Allies didn't feel sorry enough to stop the Poles and Russians from completely depopulating the German lands they ended up with.
These displaced Germans, incidentally, are not holed up in refugee camps in Germany and Poland since 1945. And there are no Germans murdering women and children in Warsaw or Moscow and using their exile from their homelands as an excuse, and no one would be making excuses for them if there were. It's almost as if there's one standard by which the world judges Israel, and a completely different one by which every other nation is judged.
Gabriel wrote: My mind boggled at this at first, but on second thought it's really not very far-fetched. The genetic evidence shows the British, for example, to be overwhelmingly of Celtic and pre-Celtic descent with the "Anglo-Saxon" element being almost entirely language and folkways.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0315/180315-fine-scale-british-isle-genetic-map
@J. Farmer: The overwhelming number of founders emigrated in the early 20th century from places in Europe and the Americas and had, at best, very tenuous connection to that land.
There has never been a time in recorded history when no Jews lived in Israel. There was never a time in recorded history when the West Bank or Gaza were empty of Jews, until 1948. Which is when, incidentally, Jews were expelled from Arab nations where they had been living for a thousand years, including Jordan, the first nation to become completely Judenrein.
Your argument is like saying that the Irish have no right to live in Northern Ireland because there are more Irish living outside it than within it. Or Armenians to Armenia.
It's strange Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, and then Arabs again successively invaded and governed the historical land of Israel, but only the Jews are considered interlopers with no business being there, despite having always been there. Injustice begins only in 1948, it seems.
"Mark, the banality of evil is contained in what you thought was a clever post"
Either that or you are conveniently ignoring Israel clearing Arabs off their land.
Just because they were wronged in 1944 does not clear one of responsibility for what happened just a few years later when they stole people's homes and land.
I am sure they only spoke politically correct while doing so.
Starting with the original Muslim conquests, which featured mass murder, forced relocation of populations, enslavement, appropriation of land, punitive taxation, oppressive laws, and so on.
Hell, the international Left keeps ignoring that the Crusades, for their problems, were DEFENSIVE wars.
He keeps bringing up the holocaust, it is ancient history. Millions have died since Israel was created a state, and millions will die down the road.
Tell me about it. And blacks won't shut up about slavery too, huh?
Just because they were wronged in 1944 does not clear one of responsibility for what happened just a few years later when they stole people's homes and land.
Arab state leaders told the Muslims there to leave until they wiped out the Jews.
The citizens made an incredibly poor decision as the Arabs couldn't --- and, honestly, still cannot --- manage a competent military.
Israel asked them to stay.
If you leave by choice, that is filed under "tough shit"
J Farmer wrote:
So if huge numbers of Cuban immigrated to south Florida and then decided to claim it as a homeland, sovereign from the United States, why complain? After all, Americans would still have 99% of the rest of the country to live in. Crimea is just a small part of Ukraine; why care about its annexation? I don't think you get how nationalism works.
well one difference is that at the time there was no country or state known as Palestine. It was a land mass, like a desert who's borders were cobbled together to appear on a map. There was no govt of Palestine, no Palestine citizen. So, in the case of South Florida, those seeking to annex the land would be doing so despite a legitimate govt already being there.
Here there was simply land that was independently owned and that migrant types worked at. And it was crummy land that the owners were more than happy to sell to the Jews. The "Palestinains" at the time were in fact the Jews, but the Muslims there were from places like Syria or Egypt.
So who did the land really belong to?
The Brits cane in and set borders. Not just for Israel but for Jordan, and Iraq. Most modern Islamic countries were actually created by the Brits and their allies. The Jews were promised a portion of that land, just like Muslims of various stripes were. Blame the fall of the Hashemite empire, but the Brits had to carve up,the area and dole it out. Muslims did REALLY well on the deal. Compare the size of Saudi Arabia to Israel for example. Even if you say that the Jews were the minority of Palestine (with historic Palestine borders) they were still a sizable group. and more importantly, they got only 20% of that land mass anyway. Jordan is 80% of historic Pakestine and still is majority "Palestinian" to this day.
So, if a group gets 80% of something and another group gets 20% which made out better?
You should really be asking why the Hashemites who control Jordan should be the ones in power considering Hashemite are not native to Palestine. When Arafat was waging a "civil war" against Jordan, they addressed that very issue.
But Muslims got most of the land already.
(Cont) as others mention, though, Arafat himself wasn't Palestinian either. He like most Palestinians were in fact members of nomadic tribes from elsewhere that competed over ruling in an area. That's the fiction of the Palestinian identity. It was an identify created by people like Arafat long after Israel was a legal countrywide appropriated the name Palestinian. It's a legal fiction.
go back to when the land mass was known as historic Palestine. It wasn't a county, but look a its borders. The Palestinian state question has already been decided. And the Palestinians got the better deal. This then is really about Islamic arrogance and thinking it must control every speck of land in the ME. And if any dirty Jew seeks to assert dominance he must be treated like the lowly Jew that he is.
Islam simply does not like to share.
Also, to throw this out there, even the Indians got reservations and casinos. For you, Farmer, the lousy stinking Indians get nothing and can live anywhere they want, as long as the locals let them.
J. Farmer said...
@Rusty:
"That analogy only works if you consider amerindians a homogenous group. Far from it."
Rusty, do you believe that Pueblos and Navajos have historical claims on land in the southwest US and that they should be given sovereign states of their own to run their own currency, manage their own borders, have a seat at the UN, and conduct their own foreign policy? I don't, and I think such an outcome would be a disaster for Navajos and Pueblos and for Americans. Similarly, I don't think that European and American Jews had a right to a state in Palestine. But again, that's all history, because the state of Israel exists and has rights within the international system.
As far as the United States is concerned they are considered sovereign states.
The various tribes with casinos are buying up land for the tribes.
So in that instance they are alike.
@Gabriel:
"There has never been a time in recorded history when no Jews lived in Israel."
That is completely irrelevant. Just because some Jewish families lived in Palestine does not mean that every Jew anywhere in the planet has claims on that land. And you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel was not founded mainly by people buying land and moving into homes but by forcibly removing people and taking their property. Is it seriously your position that so strong is any Jewish person's claim on Palestine that they have the right to take it from someone by force?
In 1800, there were about 7,000 Jews living in Palestine. In 1914, there were 94,000 Jews living in Palestine. In 1947, there were 630,000. No, sorry, I do not believe 630,000 people have a right to land because their ancient ancestors used to live there,
I'd love to have the opportunity to witness that muslim apologist cunt J. Farmer spout his anti-semitic garbage on the streets of Tel Aviv. Or perhaps some neighborhoods in Boca Raton or Brooklyn.
You really are one despicable piece of camel shit.
@J. Farmer:And you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel was not founded mainly by people buying land and moving into homes but by forcibly removing people and taking their property
How did they do that, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire? How did they do that when it was British Mandate?
And the Jews who were forcibly removed from the West Bank and Gaza, what about them? Or do you deny this happened?
How many Jews are members of the Jordanian parliament, by the way? How many Jews serve on the Supreme Court of Jordan?
I do not believe 630,000 people have a right to land because their ancient ancestors used to live there,
So you believe that Israel, unique among nations of the earth, has no right to decide who should be allowed to immigrate there. And again you deny that these Jews had relatives already living there--even after you concede that 630,000 Jews were there before 1948.
J. Farmer "The fact that I could write a post describing something bad Arabs did to Jews doesn't mean that it's illegitimate for me to write a post saying something bad Jews did to Arabs."
And yet you focus your actual attention those Jews and never seem have much interest in what Muslims did to create the situation that you deplore. As the Church Lady said, how convenient.
And he's not an anti-Semite, but oddly has every possible anti-Semitic factoid right at hand. Coincidence I'm sure.
J. Farmer said...
@Gabriel:
"There has never been a time in recorded history when no Jews lived in Israel."
That is completely irrelevant. Just because some Jewish families lived in Palestine does not mean that every Jew anywhere in the planet has claims on that land. And you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel was not founded mainly by people buying land and moving into homes but by forcibly removing people and taking their property. Is it seriously your position that so strong is any Jewish person's claim on Palestine that they have the right to take it from someone by force?
In 1800, there were about 7,000 Jews living in Palestine. In 1914, there were 94,000 Jews living in Palestine. In 1947, there were 630,000. No, sorry, I do not believe 630,000 people have a right to land because their ancient ancestors used to live there,
I agree. They conquered it fair and square.
If Netanyahu said "good morning", he'd be criticized.
J. Farmer "So if huge numbers of Cuban immigrated to south Florida and then decided to claim it as a homeland, sovereign from the United States, why complain?"
and:
Just because some Jewish families lived in Palestine does not mean that every Jew anywhere in the planet has claims on that land.
(and various other comments)
You keep saying that the Zionists intended to forcibly appropriate the land from the people already living there.
That is not true.
Their intent, from the beginning, was to purchase farmland and to purchase wasteland and make it fertile.
Most of the Zionist fund-raising, in fact, was for the purchase of land.
In fact, the Zionists began with the (obviously mistaken in retrospect) sincere believe that they could build a new multi-religious, multi-ethnic state.
How interesting that you, who claim to know so much, ignore this.
Furthermore,
And you keep conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel was not founded mainly by people buying land and moving into homes but by forcibly removing people and taking their property.
That is a lie.
There were some Jewish terrorists who, during the 1947-48 War of Independence, did force Muslims from their homes. But that was the opposite of the Israeli government's policy, which begged Muslims to stay and promised that they would not be harmed.
In the vast majority of the cases, the Muslims fled their lands at the instigation of the Muslim governments and terrorists, who wanted them out of the way so that they could kill without worrying about killing Muslims. They promised those people that the war would be quickly over, at which time they would be able to seize the property of the dead Jews.
There is also the matter of all the public lands (a very large fraction of what became the state of Israel) on which nobody lived. Jew-hating propagandists like to include those lands as well when they are telling their lies:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/msnbc-apologizes-for-using-false-anti-israel-propaganda-map/
@President-Mom-Jeans:
"You really are one despicable piece of camel shit."
King of snappy comebacks strikes again!
It's anti-semitic to recite census information?
@Gabriel:
"How did they do that, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire?"
It did't occur during the Ottoman period. That's the entire point of the numbers I cited. The population of Jews in Palestine increased more than 600% between 1914 and 1947. Read The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947—1949 by Benny Morris. Jewish paramilitary groups were committing insurgent attacks against the British Mandate. The attacks were frequently denounced by Churchill, himself a proponent of zionism. The war of the 1940s involved ethnically cleansing neighborhoods and seizing people's property by force.
Yes, of course Palestine was under the British Mandate at the time. My entire point is that it was a bad idea for the British to allow mass immigration of Jews into Palestine with the intention of establishing a sovereign state. It was an action taken mostly to settle domestic and European concerns. It was sure to lead to ethnic conflict, and there were intermittent attacks on both sides throughout the 1920s, 30s, and 40s.
pst314:
"In fact, the Zionists began with the (obviously mistaken in retrospect) sincere believe that they could build a new multi-religious, multi-ethnic state."-my bold
You're making my case! That's my entire point. The notion that Jews could move in large numbers into Palestine and establish a stable state that could function in that neighborhood was a bad idea. Like I said, Zionism was not a good idea. Jews said it at the time. Jews said it and went anyway with the expectation that force would eventually have to be used. There was no single mind. There were numerous factions and splinters of splinters.
"Their intent, from the beginning, was to purchase farmland and to purchase wasteland and make it fertile."
You're talking about the very early period of zionism from the late 19th and early 20th century. The majority of the immigration occurred after the First World War and after the Second World War. The Balfour Declaration was made in 1917. And by the way, it wasn't just Muslim Arabs who were opposed to this. Christian Arabs were opposed to it, too.
J. Farmer "You're making my case!"
No, I'm not, really, because you keep insisting that the Zionists intended to forcibly seize the land.
"You're talking about the very early period of Zionism from the late 19th and early 20th century. The majority of the immigration occurred after the First World War and after the Second World War."
When Jews were desperate to escape pogroms, and didn't know what they were in for when they arrived in the Middle East. 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. The Jews became increasingly militant in direct response to the violent of Muslims who hated, hated, hated the idea of Jews who did not behave submissively to Muslims--and to add insult to injury, the Jews had more money than most Muslim. If the Muslims had been peaceful and tolerant people everything would have turned out differently.
The King of Snappy Comebacks decrees that Princess HatesJews shall go fuck herself with a razorblade studded Koran.
@J. Farmer:It did't occur during the Ottoman period. That's the entire point of the numbers I cited. The population of Jews in Palestine increased more than 600% between 1914 and 1947.
The Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine until 1918. There were, according to you, 94,000 Jews there in 1914. They came, therefore, under the Ottomans.
Yes, of course Palestine was under the British Mandate at the time. My entire point is that it was a bad idea for the British to allow mass immigration of Jews into Palestine with the intention of establishing a sovereign state.
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?
Your case simply doesn't stand up if limited only to the information you yourself have presented.
@J. Farmer: Incidentally the same British who allowed Jews to settle Palestine with the intention of a sovereign homeland for them, ALSO set up Transjordan as a sovereign Arab land.
And Jordan expelled all the Jews in 1948, so--I'm not seeing any mention of that from you.
Again, one standard for Israel a different one for everyone else.
@J. Farmer: So I was reading about Mandatory Palestine and noticed this:
In 1945, a demographic study showed that the population had grown to 1,764,520, comprising 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 people of other groups.
In other words Jews were less than 1/3 of that population. And in 1947 that population was attacked by the combined forces of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria. Who somehow managed to lose. And still were awarded the West Bank and Gaza--from which they immediately proceeded to expel Jews.
And after that war 700,000 Jews expelled from Arab lands settled in Israel.
So, no your narrative of swamping and expulsion of Arabs by Jews does not hold water.
And Jordan expelled all the Jews in 1948, so--I'm not seeing any mention of that from you.
...as did almost all other Arab states.
I love that the only real reason there is violence in that region is a tiny piece of land that was a total shithole until Israelis did something with it.
Post a Comment