Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Israel grabs land around East-Jerusalem that belongs to palestinians...

Israel grabs land around East-Jerusalem that belongs to palestinians...
Thread Tools
Taliesin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2005, 01:55 PM
 
... whoever said that the wall was not a mean to grab further land from palestinians will be disproved by this development: Israel's government has decided to use a sleeping law from 1950 to grab land around East-Jerusalem from palestinians that are now cut off from that land through the wall in the Westbank. Read it up in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4201351.stm

Taliesin
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2005, 02:30 PM
 
I'm just amazed that some actually believed Israel when it came to this "not being a land grab". Just shows who support Israel.
     
lil'babykitten
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Herzliya
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2005, 02:50 PM
 
So, not only were Palestinians expected to hold an election under occupation, now they are also expected to end armed resistance against occupying forces who continue to steal more land?

     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2005, 02:52 PM
 
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So, not only were Palestinians expected to hold an election under occupation, now they are also expected to end armed resistance against occupying forces who continue to steal more land and that has threatened to continue attacks on Palestinian resistance?

Fixed.
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 25, 2005, 06:19 AM
 
Hmm, no comment from the pro-Israel-crowd? Vmarks, Splinter, Zimphire...?

The israeli law from 1950 was already illegal under international law in 1950. At that time Israel drove out a lot of palestinians from the area that should be used for founding of Israel and then just installed a law that said that land from people that are absent can be expropriated.

Taliesin
     
saltines17
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 26, 2005, 01:02 PM
 
On the idea of "belonging" to Palestinians, I would like to pose this for discussion, apparently from a Dutch newspaper in 1977:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan." - Zahir Muhsein, former PLO executive

Thoughts?
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 01:38 AM
 
Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
So, not only were Palestinians expected to hold an election under occupation, now they are also expected to end armed resistance against occupying forces who continue to steal more land?

What are the Israeli's expected to do? Exiled from their homeland they settle in desert, sparsely inhabited. They also migrate to areas such as Jerusalem which had a Jewish majority since 1840. And for this, because of downright racism on part of many Arabs (like the racism suffered by the Jews in Europe) they suffer the onslaught of attacks from people who want them blown off the face of the earth. The Israelis tried ignoring the state sponsored terrorism of Nasser of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan. It didn't work. The terrorism only intensified as Israel appealed to the United Nations who refused to condemn the terrorism. Then out of sheer frustration Israel launches reprisal attacks aimed at the headquarters of the terrorist organisations, and then Israel is condemned by the entire international community. These governments funded the terrorism but made sure that the terrorism was not done under the government's name and so Israel was unable to counter attack without being labled the aggressor.
In vino veritas.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 04:53 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
What are the Israeli's expected to do? Exiled from their homeland they settle in desert, sparsely inhabited. They also migrate to areas such as Jerusalem which had a Jewish majority since 1840. And for this, because of downright racism on part of many Arabs (like the racism suffered by the Jews in Europe) they suffer the onslaught of attacks from people who want them blown off the face of the earth.
You better check your history. Arabs and Jews lived in peace until the massive influx of foreigners(most of the Jews living in Israel today). That are was not "sparsely inhabited". The number were around 500.000 at the start of the importing of Jews to Palestine.

And the attacks on the foreigners(the Jews who were imported because Europe couldn't take care of their own problem and instead dumped it on another) did not materialise before it was obvious that the Jews(more correctly the Zionists) did not intend to work with the Palestinians for a joint state but were trying to carve out a state of their own. Even on land were they had no majority. Actually the only districs they had a majority in(and that was after the massive importing and colonisation) was Jaffa. Not Jerusalem.

Oh, and as for what they are expected to do. They are expected to follow international laws. They are expected to build the apartheid wall on Israeli soil instead of Palestinian. And they are expected to respect the lives of goyims as well. They miserably fail all of this.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 06:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
You better check your history. Arabs and Jews lived in peace until the massive influx of foreigners(most of the Jews living in Israel today). That are was not "sparsely inhabited". The number were around 500.000 at the start of the importing of Jews to Palestine.
The Jews certainly weren't living in peace in Europe, Yemen, Iraq amongst other places.

Even before the mass immigrations there was violence in Palestine. Arabs would attack Jewish settlements and then the Jews would attack them back. It has always been a very unstable region. Many of the Palestinians immigrated to Palestine at the same time the Jews did, under the British mandate.


And the attacks on the foreigners(the Jews who were imported because Europe couldn't take care of their own problem and instead dumped it on another) did not materialise before it was obvious that the Jews(more correctly the Zionists) did not intend to work with the Palestinians for a joint state but were trying to carve out a state of their own. Even on land were they had no majority. Actually the only districs they had a majority in(and that was after the massive importing and colonisation) was Jaffa. Not Jerusalem.
The concentration camps were supported by the vast majority of the Germans (as was Hitler), and the stigma of that lived on in many of the survivors of the Holocaust. If you were a Jew, how could you possibily live in Poland or Germany after experiencing all these horrors?

Most of the towns in Israel were founded by the Israelis on places where no settlement existed prior such as Tel Aviv.


Oh, and as for what they are expected to do. They are expected to follow international laws. They are expected to build the apartheid wall on Israeli soil instead of Palestinian. And they are expected to respect the lives of goyims as well. They miserably fail all of this.
In regards to reducing terrorism, the wall has worked. Do you expect Israel to passively suffer the racism of her Arab neighbours? Would you stand if your country was continually attacked by organisations funded by foreign states? Would you just leave them alone thinking being nice to people who want to rid you off the face of the earth would reduce the violence?
In vino veritas.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 07:00 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
The Jews certainly weren't living in peace in Europe, Yemen, Iraq amongst other places.

Even before the mass immigrations there was violence in Palestine. Arabs would attack Jewish settlements and then the Jews would attack them back. It has always been a very unstable region. Many of the Palestinians immigrated to Palestine at the same time the Jews did, under the British mandate.
Yes, Jews were treated badly in Europe. But in Palestine Jews, Muslims and Christians lived in peace up until the importation of Jews started.

A special Commission, headed by Sir Walter Shaw, a retired Chief Justice of the Straits Settlements, investigated this outbreak(1929). The Shaw Commission observed:

"In less than 10 years three serious attacks have been made by Arabs on Jews. For 80 years before the first of these attacks there is no recorded instance of any similar incidents. It is obvious then that the relations between the two races during the past decade must have differed in some material respect from those which previously obtained. Of this we found ample evidence. The reports of the Military Court and of the local Commission which, in 1920 and in 1921 respectively, enquired into the disturbances of those years, drew attention to the change in the attitude of the Arab population towards the Jews in Palestine. This was borne out by the evidence tendered during our inquiry when representatives of all parties told us that before the War the Jews and Arabs lived side by side if not in amity, at least with tolerance, a quality which to-day is almost unknown in Palestine". 87/

The Commission's findings on the causes of the violence:

"... If there was in Palestine in August last a widespread feeling of resentment amongst the Arabs at the failure of His Majesty's Government to grant them some measure of self-government, it is at least probable that this resentment would show itself against the Jews, whose presence in Palestine would be regarded by the Arabs as the obstacle to the fulfilment of their aspirations".
"That such a feeling existed among the leaders of the Arabs and the official and educated classes there can be no question ...

"... The Arab people of Palestine are today united in their demand for representative government. This unity of purpose may weaken but it is liable to be revived in full force by any large issues which involve racial interests. It is our belief that a feeling of resentment among the Arab people of Palestine consequent upon their disappointment at the continued failure to obtain any measure of self-government ... was a contributory cause to the recent outbreak and is a factor which cannot be ignored in the consideration of the steps to be taken to avoid such outbreaks in the future". 88/

The concentration camps were supported by the vast majority of the Germans (as was Hitler), and the stigma of that lived on in many of the survivors of the Holocaust. If you were a Jew, how could you possibily live in Poland or Germany after experiencing all these horrors?

Most of the towns in Israel were founded by the Israelis on places where no settlement existed prior such as Tel Aviv.
And how is it right to move that problem to people that had nothing to do with it? That is just wrong on so many levels.

And the latter paragraph is also wrong. Tel Aviv was founded as a substitude for the more expensive Arab neighbourhoods of Jaffa. It basically was a suburb. Nothing more nothing less.

In regards to reducing terrorism, the wall has worked. Do you expect Israel to passively suffer the racism of her Arab neighbours? Would you stand if your country was continually attacked by organisations funded by foreign states? Would you just leave them alone thinking being nice to people who want to rid you off the face of the earth would reduce the violence?
I don't know how often this needs to be stated, but. The wall itself is not a problem. It's the location of the wall. Israel can build whatever kind of wall they want on their territory. But never should they be allowed to build that apartheid wall on foreign territory.
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 07:05 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
What are the Israeli's expected to do? Exiled from their homeland they settle in desert, sparsely inhabited. They also migrate to areas such as Jerusalem which had a Jewish majority since 1840. And for this, because of downright racism on part of many Arabs (like the racism suffered by the Jews in Europe) they suffer the onslaught of attacks from people who want them blown off the face of the earth. The Israelis tried ignoring the state sponsored terrorism of Nasser of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan. It didn't work. The terrorism only intensified as Israel appealed to the United Nations who refused to condemn the terrorism. Then out of sheer frustration Israel launches reprisal attacks aimed at the headquarters of the terrorist organisations, and then Israel is condemned by the entire international community. These governments funded the terrorism but made sure that the terrorism was not done under the government's name and so Israel was unable to counter attack without being labled the aggressor.
It's easy to victimise Israel, afterall weren't jews persecuted and even genocized in Europe and elsewhere, and they came to the arabs only to find again persecution, everything Israel did is just done to defend itself for their survival.

While that's comforting the soul and conscience/guilt of europeans, it's not the reality. The reality is much more complex, don't forget that it were muslims that offered jews protection and a safe haven for centuries while Europe persecuted them, don't forget that the immigrants came to Palestine under the gun of british colonists without asking arabs for permission, don't forget that zionists used terrorism against arabs and the brits with the secret help of the US, in order to pave the ground for the recreation of Israel, don't forget that the US helped in establishing Israel as a souvereign state in order to serve as a military and secret-agency outpost in the oil-rich middleeast, and don't forget that since then Israel did its best to expand in order to achieve the size of ancient Israel again and for that purpose started wars and sent out settlers espescially into Westbank, including the protecting army...

You talk about terrorism against Israel, but Israel was founded on the ground of zionistic terrorism with US-funding, and since then Israel had the military and armed settlers to terrorise the surrounding arabic countries and espescially the palestinians. Occupation is terrorism as it emprisons, deports, kills civilians, as it destroys infrastrucure, homes, harvests, as it oppresses the political will of other people and the right of self-determination, as it robs land and water and as it drives out people from their own homes and land.

Taliesin
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 07:15 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
It's easy to victimise Israel, afterall weren't jews persecuted and even genocized in Europe and elsewhere, and they came to the arabs only to find again persecution, everything Israel did is just done to defend itself for their survival.

While that's comforting the soul and conscience/guilt of europeans, it's not the reality. The reality is much more complex, don't forget that it were muslims that offered jews protection and a safe haven for centuries while Europe persecuted them, don't forget that the immigrants came to Palestine under the gun of british colonists without asking arabs for permission, don't forget that zionists used terrorism against arabs and the brits with the secret help of the US, in order to pave the ground for the recreation of Israel, don't forget that the US helped in establishing Israel as a souvereign state in order to serve as a military and secret-agency outpost in the oil-rich middleeast, and don't forget that since then Israel did its best to expand in order to achieve the size of ancient Israel again and for that purpose started wars and sent out settlers espescially into Westbank, including the protecting army...

You talk about terrorism against Israel, but Israel was founded on the ground of zionistic terrorism with US-funding, and since then Israel had the military and armed settlers to terrorise the surrounding arabic countries and espescially the palestinians. Occupation is terrorism as it emprisons, deports, kills civilians, as it destroys infrastrucure, homes, harvests, as it oppresses the political will of other people and the right of self-determination, as it robs land and water and as it drives out people from their own homes and land.
Well said.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 09:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Hmm, no comment from the pro-Israel-crowd? Vmarks, Splinter, Zimphire...?

The israeli law from 1950 was already illegal under international law in 1950. At that time Israel drove out a lot of palestinians from the area that should be used for founding of Israel and then just installed a law that said that land from people that are absent can be expropriated.

Taliesin
I think it's quite obvious that, as a result of the Jewish persecution by the Nazis, Israel is not bound by international law. I mean, they were treated very badly, so Israel must be allowed to treat others badly.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
The notion that these are Palestinian lands is a popular one but one that is questionable:

Up until 1948, Judea, Samaria and Gaza were a part of the British Mandate. In the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt illegally grabbed the Gaza Strip, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, the 'West Bank.' Egypt did not claim sovereignty in Gaza, but Jordan deigned, in 1950, to annex Judea and Samaria. This annexation was not recognized by international law. The Arab nations objected to it, and only Britain and Pakistan recognized it - and Britain did not recognize the annexation of eastern Jerusalem. In 1967, after the Six Day War, these territories - which were originally meant for the Jewish Nation's National Home according to the Mandate Charter - returned to Israeli control.

-- http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/...n20040825.html

Since that is the case, why Egypt and Jordan's annexation is any different from Israel's reclaiming of the old city of Jerusalem (the new city has been Israel's capital from 1949 to present) is a puzzler- and why by extension Egypt and Jordan's relinquishing all claim on those lands suddenly means they belong to Palestinians is even more puzzling.

Even more puzzling is that the Palestinian Liberation Organization charter states that it expressly makes no claims to Gaza or to what is called the West Bank, and the PLO is now the PA (courtesy of Oslo) - so while they renounced all claim to those lands when they were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, they now want to reverse that and make a claim when those lands are wihin Israel.

All the claims of Israeli violation of International Law in its founding are interesting in light of the same people making those claims ignoring the International Law that suggests these lands are a part of Israel and not some imagined Palestine.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 12:11 PM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
All the claims of Israeli violation of International Law in its founding are interesting in light of the same people making those claims ignoring the International Law that suggests these lands are a part of Israel and not some imagined Palestine.
<anti-vmarks>

Oh I see now. It's your agenda that there never were Palestinians there.

</anti-vmarks>


So tell me vmarks. Who does the area now referred to as Palestine belong to?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 12:23 PM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
<anti-vmarks>

Oh I see now. It's your agenda that there never were Palestinians there.

</anti-vmarks>


So tell me vmarks. Who does the area now referred to as Palestine belong to?
There's a region called Palestine, but there's not a nation by that name.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Curios Meerkat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Am�rica
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 05:39 PM
 
And that region has been inhabited for thousands of years.

There wasn't a nation called "Italy" or "Germany" until a mere century ago; that doesn't deny that there's always been "Italians" or "Germans", living in a region that roughly corresponds the modern nation of the same name.

�somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. - J. F. Dulles
     
saltines17
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 06:48 PM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
<anti-vmarks>

Oh I see now. It's your agenda that there never were Palestinians there.

</anti-vmarks>


So tell me vmarks. Who does the area now referred to as Palestine belong to?
I'm not vmarks, but if that land doesn't belong to Israel, it belongs to Jordan. Why aren't the Palestinians upset with Jordan? Why don't they send suicide bombers over to that border? Oh, wait, they tried that in the 70s, and Jordan had no patience with them and murdered thousands of Palestinians.

If Israel were to get fed up in the same fashion today, there would have to be a whole new word for sensationalism to describe the media coverage that would result...
     
Curios Meerkat
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Am�rica
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 07:09 PM
 
Land belongs to the people that inhabit it. In the case of Palestine, it does not belong to Jordan or Israel, it belongs to the Arabs - be they Muslim, Jew or Christian, etc. - not to some European settlers.

�somehow we find it hard to sell our values, namely that the rich should plunder the poor. - J. F. Dulles
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 27, 2005, 08:41 PM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:

While that's comforting the soul and conscience/guilt of europeans, it's not the reality. The reality is much more complex, don't forget that it were muslims that offered jews protection and a safe haven for centuries while Europe persecuted them,
It wasn't exactly a 'safe' haven, but it was pretty good compared to how many Europeans treated them save the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland (where most Jews in Europe lived).


don't forget that the immigrants came to Palestine under the gun of british colonists without asking arabs for permission,
The British weren't supportive of the Zionists at all. You have the Balfour declaration of 1917, which declared the desire of the British government to establish a Jewish state. But when the British saw the reaction to the Arab world to the Jews immigrating to Palestine the Brits practically halted Jewish immigration. The British spent a lot of money and wasted man power detaining Jews at Cyprus (in less than ideal conditions) who fled Germany from the Holocaust.


don't forget that zionists used terrorism against arabs and the brits with the secret help of the US, in order to pave the ground for the recreation of Israel, don't forget that the US helped in establishing Israel as a souvereign state in order to serve as a military and secret-agency outpost in the oil-rich middleeast,
The US didn't help one bit in the creation of Israel (except for the Jewish community of America who gave some generous donations). The Americans only became involved after the Soviets did. The Americans didn't want to support Israel precisely because of the oil-rich middle east, they didn't want to lose access to the oil which they were becoming dependent upon and so upsetting the Arabs wasn't a good idea.


and don't forget that since then Israel did its best to expand in order to achieve the size of ancient Israel again and for that purpose started wars and sent out settlers espescially into Westbank, including the protecting army...
There are many things which I am displeased with about Israel like what you have mentioned.


You talk about terrorism against Israel, but Israel was founded on the ground of zionistic terrorism with US-funding,
No it wasn't. There was no 'US funding' (as in the US government). There was Israeli terrorism as revenge for much of the Arab terrorism; but at least the Israeli government condemned it unlike the Arab governments which supported their terrorism.


and since then Israel had the military and armed settlers to terrorise the surrounding arabic countries and espescially the palestinians. Occupation is terrorism as it emprisons, deports, kills civilians, as it destroys infrastrucure, homes, harvests, as it oppresses the political will of other people and the right of self-determination, as it robs land and water and as it drives out people from their own homes and land.
If the Israelis could withdraw from the occupied territories with a guarantee of peace and security, what do you think they will do?
In vino veritas.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2005, 06:09 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
It wasn't exactly a 'safe' haven, but it was pretty good compared to how many Europeans treated them save the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland (where most Jews in Europe lived).
I showed you above that it was infact a safe haven.

No it wasn't. There was no 'US funding' (as in the US government). There was Israeli terrorism as revenge for much of the Arab terrorism; but at least the Israeli government condemned it unlike the Arab governments which supported their terrorism.
Heh, sort of. It's just that those same terrorist organisations were later "enlisted" in the military(big surprise that the IOF acts like it does, huh?) and that those same terrorists were later elected as leaders of Israel.

If the Israelis could withdraw from the occupied territories with a guarantee of peace and security, what do you think they will do?
Nothing but expand the colonies and basically continue to do what they have been doing since before Israel was founded.
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2005, 07:14 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
The US didn't help one bit in the creation of Israel (except for the Jewish community of America who gave some generous donations). The Americans only became involved after the Soviets did. The Americans didn't want to support Israel precisely because of the oil-rich middle east, they didn't want to lose access to the oil which they were becoming dependent upon and so upsetting the Arabs wasn't a good idea.
...
No it wasn't. There was no 'US funding' (as in the US government). There was Israeli terrorism as revenge for much of the Arab terrorism; but at least the Israeli government condemned it unlike the Arab governments which supported their terrorism.
Officially, the US didn't fund pre-Israel-organizations, that means no decision was carried out through the congress, but inofficially by the organization that preceded the CIA and later by the CIA itself as well as the paramilitary units of the Pentagon, the US intervened either shortly before or shortly after Britain changed its mind and reduced jewish immigration into "Palestine". The change of mind by Britain was caused by the anti-arabic activities of jewish terror-organizations that later formed part of the israeli IDF and Shin Beth, as well as the israeli parties. These terror-organizations had the zionistic agenda to create a jewish nation through force.

At the beginning of their activities they targeted arabic movements and organizations as well as civilians ,but when Britain feared of losing control of the situation because of the backlash of arabic riots, Britain changed its mind regarding the jewish immigration as well as regarding the support for the zionistic agenda with its british army. That was the point when the jewish terror-organizations also attacked british interests in "Palestine". Around that time the US started the support for the jewish terror-organizations through unofficial channels.

The reason for the US to do that was to create a military outpost in the middle-east in order to have a neutral basis from which to control the ressource-rich arabic neo-colonies and to have a starting-place for intervention, should arabic nationalim start to develop for example in Saudi-Arabia, which would have dethroned the Sauds, with which US-oilcompanies have important contracts, which would then be at risk. Before the US decided to take up that role in the middleeast, the British Empire served that end, but it crumbled under worldwar2.

There were three important interests to control for the US and Europe in the middle-east: The artificial channel for ships in Egypt, the oil in Saudi-Arabia and the oil in Iraq/Iran.

The most important enemy for those interests was and still is arabic nationalim, which would not tolerate foreign troops occupying parts of the country like Britain did in Egypt, and which would dethrone any installed governors, that serve the interests of foreign mights.

If the improbable but possible scenario of an arabic nationalism-fire had happened it could have worked its way through the middle-east and beyond like in a domino-game, and that would have meant a tremendous threat for worldwide-economy of Europe and the US, and in order to have an eye on the situation as well as a threat as well as a last-possibility for intervention, the creation of Israel as a souvereign state was supported.

That were the strategic reasons, but there were also some ideological reasons, like the religious belief of fundamental american christians in a recreated Israel, that would bring the messias, etc..

Taliesin
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 06:28 AM
 
According to this new BBC-report, the US is concerned about Israel's idea to use the 1950-absentee-law to seize land that belongs to palestinians and pressures Israel to rethink it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4222249.stm

Taliesin
     
Splinter
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: with stupid
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 06:44 AM
 
here you go: Overturned

Edit: fixed link thanks Tal
( Last edited by Splinter; Feb 1, 2005 at 06:59 AM. )
What you don't see with your eyes, don't invent with your mouth. Yiddish proverb
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 06:51 AM
 
Originally posted by Splinter:
here you go: Overturned
Good, a small win for justice! But you should check the link you posted, it should start with "http" and not with "ttp", as it is now it doesn't work.

Here is the reasoning of the overturning quoted from that report:

In a letter sent Tuesday to Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is responsible for the law's enactment, Mazuz said it was not within the ministerial committee's power to interpret the extent of the authority of the absentee property custodian.

In his letter, Mazuz added that applying the committee's decision "could also have grave diplomatic repercussions on the separation fence, which has drawn strong criticism from the International Court of Justice at The Hague."

"This is an issue where clearly Israel's interest would be to avoid opening new fronts in the world and in international law," Mazuz wrote.

On Monday, Mazuz informed the Association for Civil Rights in Israel that the cabinet's decision to apply the Absentee Property Law to East Jerusalem was made without his knowledge or consent.

Taliesin
( Last edited by Taliesin; Feb 1, 2005 at 07:03 AM. )
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 11:02 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:

And how is it right to move that problem to people that had nothing to do with it? That is just wrong on so many levels.
False- The Arabs supported the Nazis, as I have shown time and time again.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.c...pg_jpg_jpg.htm

[img]http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/troops_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg[img]

And they do until today:

http://www.pmw.org.il/PMW2.pdf -- which details the Palestinian Authority media mouthpieces and their proclamation that if you 'kill a Jew, you go to heaven.'

-- palestinians holding a nazi flag they made.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 11:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Officially, the US didn't fund pre-Israel-organizations, that means no decision was carried out through the congress, but inofficially by the organization that preceded the CIA and later by the CIA itself as well as the paramilitary units of the Pentagon, the US intervened either shortly before or shortly after Britain changed its mind and reduced jewish immigration into "Palestine". The change of mind by Britain was caused by the anti-arabic activities of jewish terror-organizations that later formed part of the israeli IDF and Shin Beth, as well as the israeli parties. These terror-organizations had the zionistic agenda to create a jewish nation through force.


Taliesin
This is ridiculous. The CIA did not have anything to do with pre-1948. The Navy Department and War department did not. The US first got involved when Egypt began agitating post 1950.

I've detailed the history before in these forums. If you persist in this fabrication, I'll dig it up and re-post later.

The change in mind was not to support Arabs and not in response to imagined Jewish anti-arab activities, but instead to try and ease them into accepting reality-

The Jews accepted the Peel partition plan, and the Arabs categorically rejected it, demanding that all of the land be placed under Arab control, and that most of the Jewish population be "transferred" out of the country, because "this country cannot assimilate the Jews now in the country." - The Palestinian Arabs wanted to be a part of Syria and simply could not abide the reality that the Jews had created for themselves a homeland persuant to the League of Nations mandate and binding international law. Even if turning down the Peel proposal resulted in no state for Palestinian Arabs, that was perferable to allowing even a tiny, noncontiguous state for the Jews. When the British convened meetings between the parties, the official record shows that "The Arabs would not sit in the same room with the Jews." Further, they responded with massive violent attacks on the Jewish civilians and British police and civil servants.

This impasse, resulting from the Arab rejection of all attempts to give any part of "Palestine" over to Jewish sovreignty, coupled with the Arab violence led directly to the British decision to curtail the flow of Jewish refugees, despite the Peel Commission Report's stating that "Jews enter Palestine as of right and not on suffrance," and that Jewish Immigration is not merely sanctioned, but required by solemn international agreements."

The British limited immigration out of fear of Arab violence and had the Arabs accepted the Peel Partition, millions of Jews could have been saved.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 11:42 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
False- The Arabs supported the Nazis, as I have shown time and time again.
You have shown that one Palestinian supported the Nazis.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 12:24 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
You have shown that one Palestinian supported the Nazis.
So the Nazi youth club that was founded in Palestine based on the Hitler Youth just never happened?

Of course it did.

I don't know why you deny the Arab Palestinian sympathy with the Nazis and Facists, the Arabs admitted it at the time saying:

"Feeling the whip of Jewish presure and influence, the Arabs sympathize with the Nazis and Facists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigue and international financial pressure." - quoted in p137 of Benny Morris' Righteous Victims New York: Vintage Books 2001.

Additionally, the Palestinians regarded and regard to this day that Hajj Amin is a hero. His biographer wrote "Hajj Amin's popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis," because "large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War." His speeches on Berlin radio, "Kill the Jews wherever you find them - this pleases God, history, and religion" expose him for what he was, and his supporters too.

In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected him as their president. Arafat proclaimed him as a hero in 2002, and boasted of being "one of his troops." Remember that Husseini organized Muslim Nazi soldiers in Bosnia. Being one of his troops, even if it wasn't in that organization, means being trained by a Nazi as a Nazi. If any German today would call Hitler a hero, he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi- why Arafat and other Palestinians who revered him are not, is beyond the bounds of good sense.)

Hitler's partner in genocide is the "hero" of the past chairman of the Palestinian Authority, while Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) once tried to "prove" that the Holocaust never happened.

Generally, those who support the losing side of a war - especially a side so evil as the Nazis - do not benefit from the postwar reconstruction that inevitably follows from the surrender of the losing side.

The Palestinian and Arab support for the Nazis should have disqualified them from having much of a say in postware rearrangements, the same way it disqualified the Sudeten Germans from having a voice in their transfer from the Sudetenland borders of Czechoslovakia where they had lived for centuries to the new smaller borders of Germany.
Winston Churchill said "Of course there must be a tranfer," despite the objections of those being transferred and his own concerns over its humanitarian implications.

Instead, in 1947, the Palestinians were offered the same deal they had rejected in 1937, with the exception of the Negev desert- in spite of the need for greater space for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the death camps of Europe. At the time, a quarter-million Jewish refugees were living in prison camps in the countries that had murdered their parents, children, and siblings. They couldn't even return to Poland, because Poland continued to murder Jews even after the Nazis had been defeated, and the last thing the Polish communist leaders wanted were Jewish refugees.

The statement "If Nazis and Facists of the west committed crimes against the Jews, why should the Palestinians pay the price now?" fails for at least two reasons.

First, Israel did not come into existence at the expense of Arabs or Palestinians, the area partitioned was a Jewish majority that had the right to self-determination, and the land in question was neither Arab nor Palestinian, having passed from empire to empire. It was historically, demographically, economically, and legally, both a Jewish and Arab land.

Second, the argument fails to see the reality that Arab and Palestinian leaders bore significant responsibility for the Holocaust. They supported it, aided it, used it to their advantage, and expected to benefit from it. It was the direct result from Arab and Palestinian pressure that the gates of immigration were closed to the Jews during crucial years when hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved if they had permitted Jews to enter even the small land proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
SlowHands
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 01:15 PM
 
I see the israeli secret services have good propaganda agents *aehm* vmarks *ahem*
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 01:15 PM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
So the Nazi youth club that was founded in Palestine based on the Hitler Youth just never happened?

Of course it did.
Evidence?

...and even if it did, I would imagine that various Nazi groups have sprung up in all kinds of countries at one time or another - it doesn't necessarily mean those countries as a collective supported the Nazis - which is what you are trying to suggest.
I don't know why you deny the Arab Palestinian sympathy with the Nazis and Facists, the Arabs admitted it at the time saying:

"Feeling the whip of Jewish presure and influence, the Arabs sympathize with the Nazis and Facists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigue and international financial pressure." - quoted in p137 of Benny Morris' Righteous Victims New York: Vintage Books 2001.
Who said it?
Additionally, the Palestinians regarded and regard to this day that Hajj Amin is a hero. His biographer wrote "Hajj Amin's popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis," because "large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War." His speeches on Berlin radio, "Kill the Jews wherever you find them - this pleases God, history, and religion" expose him for what he was, and his supporters too.

In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected him as their president. Arafat proclaimed him as a hero in 2002, and boasted of being "one of his troops." Remember that Husseini organized Muslim Nazi soldiers in Bosnia. Being one of his troops, even if it wasn't in that organization, means being trained by a Nazi as a Nazi. If any German today would call Hitler a hero, he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi- why Arafat and other Palestinians who revered him are not, is beyond the bounds of good sense.)
And once again you fall back to al-Husseini.

So, to summarize: we have 'one' confimed Palestinian Nazi sympathiser and 'one' further Palestinian who may have stated his admiration of the first at some point - what precisely he admired him for, we don't know. We only have a mangled quote.
Hitler's partner in genocide is the "hero" of the past chairman of the Palestinian Authority, while Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) once tried to "prove" that the Holocaust never happened.
From what I know, he questioned the number of people killed in the holocaust. Is that a crime?
Generally, those who support the losing side of a war - especially a side so evil as the Nazis - do not benefit from the postwar reconstruction that inevitably follows from the surrender of the losing side.

The Palestinian and Arab support for the Nazis should have disqualified them from having much of a say in postware rearrangements, the same way it disqualified the Sudeten Germans from having a voice in their transfer from the Sudetenland borders of Czechoslovakia where they had lived for centuries to the new smaller borders of Germany.
Winston Churchill said "Of course there must be a tranfer," despite the objections of those being transferred and his own concerns over its humanitarian implications.

Instead, in 1947, the Palestinians were offered the same deal they had rejected in 1937, with the exception of the Negev desert- in spite of the need for greater space for the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the death camps of Europe. At the time, a quarter-million Jewish refugees were living in prison camps in the countries that had murdered their parents, children, and siblings. They couldn't even return to Poland, because Poland continued to murder Jews even after the Nazis had been defeated, and the last thing the Polish communist leaders wanted were Jewish refugees.

The statement "If Nazis and Facists of the west committed crimes against the Jews, why should the Palestinians pay the price now?" fails for at least two reasons.

First, Israel did not come into existence at the expense of Arabs or Palestinians, the area partitioned was a Jewish majority that had the right to self-determination, and the land in question was neither Arab nor Palestinian, having passed from empire to empire. It was historically, demographically, economically, and legally, both a Jewish and Arab land.

Second, the argument fails to see the reality that Arab and Palestinian leaders bore significant responsibility for the Holocaust. They supported it, aided it, used it to their advantage, and expected to benefit from it. It was the direct result from Arab and Palestinian pressure that the gates of immigration were closed to the Jews during crucial years when hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved if they had permitted Jews to enter even the small land proposed by the Peel Commission in 1937.
Meandering babble. You offer no further evidence to back your outrageous claim that the Arabs supported the Nazis, just baseless misdirection.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2005, 11:04 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Evidence?
Jillian Becker, The PLO, London, 1984, p. 19.

...and even if it did, I would imagine that various Nazi groups have sprung up in all kinds of countries at one time or another - it doesn't necessarily mean those countries as a collective supported the Nazis - which is what you are trying to suggest.
Add up the evidence. The Nazi Scouts in Pre-1948 Israel, coincidental to Eichmann's visit to the land with Husseini as his guide, the election of Husseini to the Presidency of the Palestinian National Council, his role in the Arab League and being the Hero of Palestine-

Consider that his legacy even lives on today: The official TV station broadcasts movies in which children kill Israeli soldiers. Reports from summer camps show children training with weapons and singing bellicose songs and songs of praise for the "shahids" [suicide bombers]. The map of Greater Palestine, which covers the area of the entire State of Israel, is often shown, and the name "Israel" is not mentioned. All of Israel's cities are presented as the cities of Palestine. The spokesmen nurture among viewers a longing and a love for these cities and a promise to return to them soon: Israel is a "racist country that uses the same method of ethnic cleansing that Nazi Germany used against the Jews." Israel is a temporary existence, and its end is decreed by the heavens.


The Jews are presented as the enemies of Islam, "wild animals," "locusts," "swindlers," "traitors," "aggressive," "war-mongers," "robbers," "sly," "avaricious," "disloyal," "thieves," and their end, too, will come. A cartoon in one of the newspapers showed a dwarf with a Star of David, his face like the face of the Jew from the Nazi Stuermer, with the caption "The disease of the century." In another cartoon an Israeli soldier is barbecuing Arabs. One by one he takes them off the grill and eats them with relish. Zionism, according to these harsh and seditious cartoons, is equivalent to Fascism and Nazism.


Shoot, Mein Kampf is a best-seller and Hitler is an idol to the youth of the PA.
-- http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Ar...a%20Bestseller



From what I know, he questioned the number of people killed in the holocaust. Is that a crime?
Abbas entered graduate studies at the Oriental College in Moscow, where he earned a Ph.D. in history. In 1982, Abbas wrote a doctoral dissertation, referring to so-called "Holocaust deniers", claiming secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist movement. In 1984, a book based on Abbas' doctoral dissertation was published in Arabic by Dar Ibn Rushd publishers in Amman, Jordan. His doctoral thesis later became a book, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, which, following his appointment as Palestinian Prime Minister in 2003, was heavily criticized by some Jewish groups as an example of Holocaust denial.

In his book, Abbas raised doubts that gas chambers were used for the extermination of Jews, and suggested that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "less than a million." In an interview with Haaretz in May 2003, he claimed merely to have been quoting the wide range of scholarly disagreement over the Holocaust, but no longer harbored any desire to argue with the generally accepted figures; he further affirmed his belief that "the Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind".

--http://www.syrianobles.com/website/?more=106&history_category=40
The thesis questions way more than numbers, it questions the methodical means that the Germans employed, and worse.

In fact, Abbas tells one thing to Western audiences, another to Arab ones. http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2005/jan/10_03.html

Many have heard the story of how Abbas, as a doctoral candidate at Moscow's Oriental College in 1982, wrote a thesis suggesting far fewer than 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.


But, Abbas did much more than that.


He actually accused the Jews of conspiring with Adolph Hitler to annihilate European Jewry. He accused the Jews of deliberately inflating the numbers of those killed in concentration camps to pave the way for a Jewish state. He may have been one of the first to equate Zionism with Nazism.


"The Zionist movement's stake in inflating the number of murdered in the war was aimed at ensuring great gains," he wrote, adding that "this led to confirm the number [6 million] to establish it in world opinion, and, by so doing, to arouse more pangs of conscience and sympathy for Zionism in general."


In the version of his doctoral paper later published under the title, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement," Abbas denied the German use of gas chambers and suggested the total number of Jews killed was fewer than 1 million.


But perhaps the most horrifying and revolting charge by Abbas is that Zionists were complicit with the Nazis in the murder of Jews.


"The Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination," Abbas wrote.


Abbas has danced around this treatise for many years. He has attempted to put it in perspective. He has tried to explain what he really meant when he denied 6 million Jews were murdered.


But he has never publicly retracted his accusation that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.


Abbas was one of the principal planners of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack. He was the guy who wrote the checks and embraced the operatives as they headed off to one of the most sensational terrorist attacks of its time in 1972.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 03:06 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
This is ridiculous. The CIA did not have anything to do with pre-1948. The Navy Department and War department did not. The US first got involved when Egypt began agitating post 1950.

I've detailed the history before in these forums. If you persist in this fabrication, I'll dig it up and re-post later.

The change in mind was not to support Arabs and not in response to imagined Jewish anti-arab activities, but instead to try and ease them into accepting reality-

The Jews accepted the Peel partition plan, and the Arabs categorically rejected it, demanding that all of the land be placed under Arab control, and that most of the Jewish population be "transferred" out of the country, because "this country cannot assimilate the Jews now in the country." - The Palestinian Arabs wanted to be a part of Syria and simply could not abide the reality that the Jews had created for themselves a homeland persuant to the League of Nations mandate and binding international law. Even if turning down the Peel proposal resulted in no state for Palestinian Arabs, that was perferable to allowing even a tiny, noncontiguous state for the Jews. When the British convened meetings between the parties, the official record shows that "The Arabs would not sit in the same room with the Jews." Further, they responded with massive violent attacks on the Jewish civilians and British police and civil servants.

This impasse, resulting from the Arab rejection of all attempts to give any part of "Palestine" over to Jewish sovreignty, coupled with the Arab violence led directly to the British decision to curtail the flow of Jewish refugees, despite the Peel Commission Report's stating that "Jews enter Palestine as of right and not on suffrance," and that Jewish Immigration is not merely sanctioned, but required by solemn international agreements."

The British limited immigration out of fear of Arab violence and had the Arabs accepted the Peel Partition, millions of Jews could have been saved.
Very true.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 03:08 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
So the Nazi youth club that was founded in Palestine based on the Hitler Youth just never happened?

... etc
Another thing, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the Second World War offered to form a unit to fight along side the Nazis.
In vino veritas.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 03:10 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
Shoot, Mein Kampf is a best-seller and Hitler is an idol to the youth of the PA.
-- http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Ar...a%20Bestseller
Some impeccable posts. In addition, many copies of Mein Kampf were founded in the possession of the Egyption armed forces after their defeat.
In vino veritas.
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 07:10 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
This is ridiculous. The CIA did not have anything to do with pre-1948. The Navy Department and War department did not. The US first got involved when Egypt began agitating post 1950.
Says who? You? Now, this is rediculous. What do you know of secret-agency-activities of the orgnizations that preceded the CIA and the CIA itself? And what do you know of the secret campaigns of US-paramilitary-units?

Off course they were involved in the creation of Israel and supported the jewish zionistic and terroristic organizations against the british colonists as well as against the arabs in that region. For the US it was a clear-cut strategical decision to do so inofficially as the US wanted to take over the british influence in that region, it was part of US' economic imperialism in the middle-east.

You are right though that the US didn't get involved "officially" until the fifties.

Taliesin
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 07:27 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
False- The Arabs supported the Nazis, as I have shown time and time again.
Actually you have only been able to show that one Arab supported the Nazis. The Mufti. That's all you have been able to show so far.

You could find people supporting the Nazis all over the world. Should Israel also get their land?

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.c...pg_jpg_jpg.htm

[img]http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/images/troops_jpg_jpg_jpg.jpg[img]
Those weren't Arab troops. Those were Bosniak troops.

And they do until today:

http://www.pmw.org.il/PMW2.pdf -- which details the Palestinian Authority media mouthpieces and their proclamation that if you 'kill a Jew, you go to heaven.'
Link is dead.

-- palestinians holding a nazi flag they made.
Wikipedia is all of a sudden used as something reliable?

It doesn't surprise me at all that some of the Palestinians support Nazism. The Palestinian people have been subjected to among the worst treatment any people in the world have faced the last 50 years. Of course some would hope that the Nazis would have finished the job.

And I could show you pics like that from everywhere in the world(probably inside Israel as well). Does that mean the rest of the world support Nazism? Do Germans support Nazism? Do American support Nazism?
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 07:36 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
The Jews accepted the Peel partition plan,
uh, no they didn't. They categorically rejected it.

"... rejects the assertion of the Palestine Royal Commission that the Mandate has proved unworkable, and demands its fulfillment. The Congress directs the Executive to resist any infringement of the rights of the Jewish people internationally guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

"The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable.

"The Congress empowers the Executive to enter into negotiations with a view to ascertaining the precise terms of His Majesty's Government for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State."



Another highlight from the Peel commission:

"It must have been obvious from the outset that a very awkward situation would arise if that basic assumption should prove false. It would evidently make the operation of the Mandate at every point more difficult, and it would greatly complicate the question of its termination. To foster Jewish immigration in the hope that it might ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish majority and the establishment of a Jewish State with the consent or at least the acquiescence of the Arabs was one thing. It was quite another thing to contemplate, however remotely, the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against the will of the Arabs. For that would clearly violate the spirit and intention of the Mandates System. It would mean that national self-determination had been withheld when the Arabs were a majority in Palestine and only conceded when the Jews were a majority. It would mean that the Arabs had been denied the opportunity of standing by themselves; that they had, in fact, after an interval of conflict, been bartered about from Turkish sovereignty to Jewish sovereignty.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 08:09 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks: the Palestinians regarded and regard to this day that Hajj Amin is a hero
He fought for the Palestinians. Of course he is viewed as a hero. Just like Israel has elected several known terrorists as their PM's.
Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) once tried to "prove" that the Holocaust never happened.
You tried to back that up in the following posts but didn't come even close to proving your point. He questioned(like any good scientist would) the official numbers. That's all.
Instead, in 1947, the Palestinians were offered the same deal they had rejected in 1937
Do you just make up stuff on the go?

Here are the two partition plans you talk about.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fact...tion-plan.html

and

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fact...plan-reso.html

How are these two the same?

First, Israel did not come into existence at the expense of Arabs or Palestinians, the area partitioned was a Jewish majority that had the right to self-determination
Dear God. Take some history lessons will you?

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fact...population.htm

This is '46. After the massive waves of imported Jews into Palestine. Only one district is a Jewish majority.

"shahids" [suicide bombers]
I have to be careful with my words here because you will ban me if I say what I think of you and this comment. This is a blatant lie, fabrication and hateful speech. You know what a shahid is!!!!

But to wrap things up, maybe you can answer a few questions.

1. What is the border of Israel today?

2. http://www.angelfire.com/ct3/bspline/img/10agurot.jpg

What is that and what borders does it show?

3. http://www.jabotinsky.org/logo2.jpg

What symbol is that and what borders does it show?

4. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...laboration.jpg

What is that?

5.
You Israelis must have no compunction when you kill your enemy. You must not sympathise with him until we have destroyed the so-called Arab culture, on whose ruins we shall build our civilisation."


The Israeli nation must expand its territory from the Euphrates to the Nile


Do you agree with these statements? Would you be proud if an elected Israeli official said this? Would you condemn Israelis for electing someone who says that like you condemn Palestinians for what their officials "say"?
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 10:38 AM
 
Originally posted by Taliesin:
Says who? You? Now, this is rediculous. What do you know of secret-agency-activities of the orgnizations that preceded the CIA and the CIA itself? And what do you know of the secret campaigns of US-paramilitary-units?

Off course they were involved in the creation of Israel and supported the jewish zionistic and terroristic organizations against the british colonists as well as against the arabs in that region. For the US it was a clear-cut strategical decision to do so inofficially as the US wanted to take over the british influence in that region, it was part of US' economic imperialism in the middle-east.

You are right though that the US didn't get involved "officially" until the fifties.

Taliesin
Laughable. You question what I know of secret agency activities and provide no reason why you should be a credible source either.

You place support where there was none.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 10:55 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Actually you have only been able to show that one Arab supported the Nazis. The Mufti. That's all you have been able to show so far.
Who was a leader of Arabs and Palestinians, revered in the country for his views. But we're making progress. You used to deny that the Mufti was a Nazi.

Those weren't Arab troops. Those were Bosniak troops.
Interesting point to raise- You don't deny that Muslims followed and supported the war, but want to say that Arabs didn't. They did of course, I just didn't show pictures of Arab troops.
Link is dead.
http://www.pmw.org.il/KAJ_eng.htm is the HTML link instead of the PDF.

Wikipedia is all of a sudden used as something reliable?
No, it's still unreliable for its biased text, but the picture wasn't generated by Wikipedia, it happens to be hosted there. Even broken clocks are correct twice a day.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some of the Palestinians support Nazism. The Palestinian people have been subjected to among the worst treatment any people in the world have faced the last 50 years. Of course some would hope that the Nazis would have finished the job.

And I could show you pics like that from everywhere in the world(probably inside Israel as well). Does that mean the rest of the world support Nazism? Do Germans support Nazism? Do American support Nazism?
I would say that you couldn't find pics like that within Israel- as for the other countries, they don't have leaders, representatives of the country, who praise Nazis. The PA does, without shame.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
uh, no they didn't. They categorically rejected it.

"... rejects the assertion of the Palestine Royal Commission that the Mandate has proved unworkable, and demands its fulfillment. The Congress directs the Executive to resist any infringement of the rights of the Jewish people internationally guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

"The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable.

"The Congress empowers the Executive to enter into negotiations with a view to ascertaining the precise terms of His Majesty's Government for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State."



Another highlight from the Peel commission:

"It must have been obvious from the outset that a very awkward situation would arise if that basic assumption should prove false. It would evidently make the operation of the Mandate at every point more difficult, and it would greatly complicate the question of its termination. To foster Jewish immigration in the hope that it might ultimately lead to the creation of a Jewish majority and the establishment of a Jewish State with the consent or at least the acquiescence of the Arabs was one thing. It was quite another thing to contemplate, however remotely, the forcible conversion of Palestine into a Jewish State against the will of the Arabs. For that would clearly violate the spirit and intention of the Mandates System. It would mean that national self-determination had been withheld when the Arabs were a majority in Palestine and only conceded when the Jews were a majority. It would mean that the Arabs had been denied the opportunity of standing by themselves; that they had, in fact, after an interval of conflict, been bartered about from Turkish sovereignty to Jewish sovereignty.
Those are disagreeing over details, not rejecting the plan in whole.

http://www.nationbynation.com/Israel...ommission.html

The commission recommended the partition of Palestine. The Jews accepted the recommendation, but the Arabs opposed the plan.


In 1936, in partial response to the ongoing Arab disturbances, the British appointed a royal commission led by Lord Peel, to recommend a solution to the problems in Palestine. The Peel Commission undertook extensive hearings to come up with a solution to the problem. After considerable deliberation, the commission recommended the partition of Palestine into a small Jewish and a larger Arab State. The commission posited that Jewish settlement had been beneficial for Palestine as a whole, and that the Jews had taken some of the most arid, unmanageable parts of Palestine and brought them to life.

The Jews of Palestine deliberated on whether to accept the plan, for the State being promised was much smaller than anything the Jews had envisioned. On the other hand, this was a concrete opportunity for a Jewish State. Most importantly, this new Jewish State would have control over its immigration policies, and would thus be able to ensure a homeland for the mass of European Jewry. With this last point in mind, the Jews reluctantly decided to accept the plan. The Arabs, on the other hand, categorically rejected it.

Britannica agrees: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9058944

As a related aside, this was interesting to read in the Peel Commission:

"It is true of course that in times of disturbance the Jews, as compared with the Arabs, are the law-abiding section of the population, and indeed, throughout the whole series of outbreaks, and under very great provocation, they have shown a notable capacity for discipline and self-restraint."
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
vmarks
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Up In The Air
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 11:36 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
He fought for the Palestinians. Of course he is viewed as a hero. Just like Israel has elected several known terrorists as their PM's.

You tried to back that up in the following posts but didn't come even close to proving your point. He questioned(like any good scientist would) the official numbers. That's all.

Do you just make up stuff on the go?

Here are the two partition plans you talk about.

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fact...tion-plan.html

and

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fact...plan-reso.html

How are these two the same?
The numbers vary, from 80 Arab / 20 Jewish to 40/60 with Jews getting the Negev wasteland in a nearly discontiguous state- Hardly defensible, but then, history showed that it didn't matter- All the surrounding Arab countries attacked in order to "Kill all the Jews" (Yes, that's a direct quote) and Israel defended itself and the Arabs lost.

That's the history here: At every turn, the Arabs say no, attack, and end up losing more than if they had just agreed in the first place. In 1937, in 1947, in 1967, in 2000.

The plans are the same in principle that they would establish a state where the majority populations were. The populations moved, so the pretty maps look different, but other than that, the plans were very much the same.

I have to be careful with my words here because you will ban me if I say what I think of you and this comment. This is a blatant lie, fabrication and hateful speech. You know what a shahid is!!!!
I know that people who blow themselves up in order to become martyrs call themselves that. I know that you in one of your earlier banned nicknames (and you keep evading that ban) protested saying that "shuhid" is the martyr, not the "shahid" - but you're transliterating.

My using the word they use for themselves is not hateful. It is honest.
But to wrap things up, maybe you can answer a few questions.

1. What is the border of Israel today?

2. http://www.angelfire.com/ct3/bspline/img/10agurot.jpg
Angelfire blocks image linking. You have to actually show the page. And why is an Angelfire page authoritative for anything?

3. http://www.jabotinsky.org/logo2.jpg

What symbol is that and what borders does it show?
That is the symbol of the Ze'ev Jabotinsky Institute. The logo shows the borders of the British Palestine, pre-establishment of Israel, which is when Jabotinsky was in his political heyday. The institute is a museum and archive of history, so of course they use the map that is relevant to his history, that of the land before Israel.
That is you being ghastly offensive.

First of all, we do not know anything about that document. We don't even know that the context Wikipedia provides is the truth- it is, after all, Wikipedia. The translation I can get out of that document, if it is even a non-manufactured document, seems to suggest that the notion was to try and save Jews. This is the same notion that Jews took part in the Judenrat councils, they thought that by working to negotiate or with Nazis, they could save Jews. It was horribly misguided, especially in light of the Palestinian Arab collaboration with the Nazis.

5.
You Israelis must have no compunction when you kill your enemy. You must not sympathise with him until we have destroyed the so-called Arab culture, on whose ruins we shall build our civilisation."


The Israeli nation must expand its territory from the Euphrates to the Nile


Do you agree with these statements? Would you be proud if an elected Israeli official said this? Would you condemn Israelis for electing someone who says that like you condemn Palestinians for what their officials "say"? [/B][/QUOTE]

The only site I can find that holds those quotes (yes, google only finds one with both of those on it. One out of millions of sites. http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ivanov.html ) is a poorly made page that doesn't cite sources clearly. It appears to be written in a Russian propaganda book that Begin said those quotes, but the citations in the bottom of the page seem to refer to another Russian author for those quotes, Walichnowski, who I can not verify.

Given your past preference to rely on fabricated quotes (such as the one you used to quote about Sharon claiming to Peres on Israeli radio that he would 'take care' of the US, a quote that -NEVER- was said) I'm going to have to not give any credence to these quotes. It seems very odd that you would bring up the 'greater-Israel-as-imperialist-fear' concept when Israel is currently making real motions to withdraw from Gaza, not expand, and certainly not to the Nile and Euphrates.
If this post is in the Lounge forum, it is likely to be my own opinion, and not representative of the position of MacNN.com.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
Add up the evidence. The Nazi Scouts in Pre-1948 Israel, coincidental to Eichmann's visit to the land with Husseini as his guide, the election of Husseini to the Presidency of the Palestinian National Council, his role in the Arab League and being the Hero of Palestine-
Add up your evidence and you are still left with one confirmed Arab Nazi sympathizer.
Consider that his legacy even lives on today: The official TV station broadcasts movies in which children kill Israeli soldiers. Reports from summer camps show children training with weapons and singing bellicose songs and songs of praise for the "shahids" [suicide bombers]. The map of Greater Palestine, which covers the area of the entire State of Israel, is often shown, and the name "Israel" is not mentioned. All of Israel's cities are presented as the cities of Palestine. The spokesmen nurture among viewers a longing and a love for these cities and a promise to return to them soon: Israel is a "racist country that uses the same method of ethnic cleansing that Nazi Germany used against the Jews." Israel is a temporary existence, and its end is decreed by the heavens.
Irrelevant - it doesn't offer any evidence that the Arabs supported the Nazis.
The Jews are presented as the enemies of Islam, "wild animals," "locusts," "swindlers," "traitors," "aggressive," "war-mongers," "robbers," "sly," "avaricious," "disloyal," "thieves," and their end, too, will come. A cartoon in one of the newspapers showed a dwarf with a Star of David, his face like the face of the Jew from the Nazi Stuermer, with the caption "The disease of the century." In another cartoon an Israeli soldier is barbecuing Arabs. One by one he takes them off the grill and eats them with relish. Zionism, according to these harsh and seditious cartoons, is equivalent to Fascism and Nazism.
Irrelevant - it doesn't offer any evidence that the Arabs supported the Nazis.

Your problem seems to be with the fact that many Palestinians aren't particular fond of Israel. What a revelation! Maybe if Israel hadn't been making their lives miserable for decades they would regard them in a different light. But, in any case, this is another discussion entirely, it does not lend anymore credibility to your rantings about an Arab-Nazi alliance.
Shoot, Mein Kampf is a best-seller and Hitler is an idol to the youth of the PA.
-- http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Ar...a%20Bestseller
Mein Kampf is a popular book for many different reasons. Are you suggesting that anyone who has ever read of discussed the book is a Nazi sympathizer? Are you really that desperate?
Abbas entered graduate studies at the Oriental College in Moscow, where he earned a Ph.D. in history. In 1982, Abbas wrote a doctoral dissertation, referring to so-called "Holocaust deniers", claiming secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist movement. In 1984, a book based on Abbas' doctoral dissertation was published in Arabic by Dar Ibn Rushd publishers in Amman, Jordan. His doctoral thesis later became a book, The Other Side: the Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism, which, following his appointment as Palestinian Prime Minister in 2003, was heavily criticized by some Jewish groups as an example of Holocaust denial.

In his book, Abbas raised doubts that gas chambers were used for the extermination of Jews, and suggested that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was "less than a million." In an interview with Haaretz in May 2003, he claimed merely to have been quoting the wide range of scholarly disagreement over the Holocaust, but no longer harbored any desire to argue with the generally accepted figures; he further affirmed his belief that "the Holocaust was a terrible, unforgivable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind".

--http://www.syrianobles.com/website/?more=106&history_category=40
The thesis questions way more than numbers, it questions the methodical means that the Germans employed, and worse.

In fact, Abbas tells one thing to Western audiences, another to Arab ones. http://goldwater.mideastreality.com/2005/jan/10_03.html

Many have heard the story of how Abbas, as a doctoral candidate at Moscow's Oriental College in 1982, wrote a thesis suggesting far fewer than 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust.


But, Abbas did much more than that.


He actually accused the Jews of conspiring with Adolph Hitler to annihilate European Jewry. He accused the Jews of deliberately inflating the numbers of those killed in concentration camps to pave the way for a Jewish state. He may have been one of the first to equate Zionism with Nazism.


"The Zionist movement's stake in inflating the number of murdered in the war was aimed at ensuring great gains," he wrote, adding that "this led to confirm the number [6 million] to establish it in world opinion, and, by so doing, to arouse more pangs of conscience and sympathy for Zionism in general."


In the version of his doctoral paper later published under the title, "The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement," Abbas denied the German use of gas chambers and suggested the total number of Jews killed was fewer than 1 million.


But perhaps the most horrifying and revolting charge by Abbas is that Zionists were complicit with the Nazis in the murder of Jews.


"The Zionist movement led a broad campaign of incitement against the Jews living under Nazi rule, in order to arouse the government's hatred of them, to fuel vengeance against them, and to expand the mass extermination," Abbas wrote.


Abbas has danced around this treatise for many years. He has attempted to put it in perspective. He has tried to explain what he really meant when he denied 6 million Jews were murdered.


But he has never publicly retracted his accusation that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the extermination of Jews.


Abbas was one of the principal planners of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack. He was the guy who wrote the checks and embraced the operatives as they headed off to one of the most sensational terrorist attacks of its time in 1972.
I am willing to submit that some Arabs did in fact support the Nazi cause or shared sympathies with it - despite your profound inability to provide any solid evidence to support the kind of Arab-Nazi collaboration you have asserted existed. This is not some magnificent insight on my part, it's just common sensical to assume that members of many different groups were involved with the Nazis in one way or another. That doesn't necessarily mean that the whole group was complicit.

I don't know much about Abu Mazen's works, I don't have the time to track them down and read them and, frankly, I'm not much interested in what he has to say anyway - but, nothing you have presented here suggests to me that he was/is supportive of the Nazis. The information that you have provided (which I am taking at face value) seems to suggest that Abu Mazen is suspicious of the number of people purported to have been killed in the holocaust and that he questions the involvement of some early Zionists with the Nazis. Hardly evidence that he is a hard-core Nazi sympathizer. He is right about one thing though, there is a lot of scholarly debate about the holocaust in general and there is certainly debate about Zionist involvement with the Nazis not just from the likes of Abu Mazen but from members of the Jewish community too.

Even if there was a small Zionist-Nazi link, I wouldn't jump to the same sort of conclusion you did and right off an entire race as Nazi collaborators. It would be ridiculous.

Let's recap your position so far: You claim (repeatedly) that "the Arabs supported the Nazis". Your case to support this immensely broad claim is based almost entirely on the actions of one Palestinian Mufti and the fact that another Palestinian leader once expressed admiration for his predecessor. The most bizarre argument you have thus far presented is that 'the current Palestinian leader suggested that some Zionists may have collaborated with the Nazis' - WTF are we supposed to infer from that? That therefore he is a Nazi? - and, consequently, so are all Palestinians? - and, consequently, so are all Arabs? Nonsense. Your entire argumentation rarely strays outside the bounds of the Palestinian leadership and even there it's limited to three individuals. To then make the sweeping claim that "the Arabs supported the Nazis" is simply ludicrous and pathetic.
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 02:56 PM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
Who was a leader of Arabs and Palestinians, revered in the country for his views. But we're making progress. You used to deny that the Mufti was a Nazi.
I did? That's new to me.
Interesting point to raise- You don't deny that Muslims followed and supported the war, but want to say that Arabs didn't. They did of course, I just didn't show pictures of Arab troops.
Then show the pictures of the Arab troops. And I didn't say "that Muslims followed and supported the war". I said that some did. Just like some Christians, some Jews, some atheists, some birds and some pigs.

http://www.pmw.org.il/KAJ_eng.htm is the HTML link instead of the PDF.
I'll read that when I have the time. Looks like a good piece for studying propaganda.

I would say that you couldn't find pics like that within Israel- as for the other countries, they don't have leaders, representatives of the country, who praise Nazis. The PA does, without shame.
Where has the PA praised Nazis? Or do you think that if anyone praises Oscar Schindler that he is praising Nazis?
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 03:03 PM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
Those are disagreeing over details, not rejecting the plan in whole.

http://www.nationbynation.com/Israel...ommission.html

The commission recommended the partition of Palestine. The Jews accepted the recommendation, but the Arabs opposed the plan.
What Jews are you talking about here? Because the Zionist Congress rejected this plan.
The Royal Commission's report was the subject of intense debate at the twentieth Zionist Congress in Zurich in August 1937. Dr. Weizmann urged acceptance of the partition plan (with fundamental modifications) since the world was now viewing the problem in terms of a Jewish State. However, the Congress apparently did not consider that the time had come to accept a Jewish State in only part of Palestine. It was too early - the ultimate aim was to establish the Jewish State in all of Palestine, and at this point the numbers of immigrants were too small and, in Zionist eyes, the mission of the Mandate was unfulfilled. The Congress declared that it:

"... rejects the assertion of the Palestine Royal Commission that the Mandate has proved unworkable, and demands its fulfillment. The Congress directs the Executive to resist any infringement of the rights of the Jewish people internationally guaranteed by the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate.

"The Congress declares that the scheme of partition put forward by the Royal Commission is unacceptable.

"The Congress empowers the Executive to enter into negotiations with a view to ascertaining the precise terms of His Majesty's Government for the proposed establishment of a Jewish State." 107/
Doesn't show me anything as I'm not registered. Perhaps you could copy paste the article(hasn't stopped you before without giving the link).
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2005, 03:19 PM
 
Originally posted by vmarks:
The numbers vary, from 80 Arab / 20 Jewish to 40/60 with Jews getting the Negev wasteland in a nearly discontiguous state- Hardly defensible, but then, history showed that it didn't matter- All the surrounding Arab countries attacked in order to "Kill all the Jews" (Yes, that's a direct quote) and Israel defended itself and the Arabs lost.
Provide the source for both those claims. And interesting to see that you think it's "hardly defensible" for Jews to have a discontigous state but that it's ok for the Palestinians to have one. Why is that?

The plans are the same in principle that they would establish a state where the majority populations were. The populations moved, so the pretty maps look different, but other than that, the plans were very much the same.

I know that people who blow themselves up in order to become martyrs call themselves that. I know that you in one of your earlier banned nicknames (and you keep evading that ban) protested saying that "shuhid" is the martyr, not the "shahid" - but you're transliterating.

My using the word they use for themselves is not hateful. It is honest.
What nickname is that? And why do you think I'm the other guy?

But for this. I have no idea what you are talking about. It's just wrong. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit.

ohh.... You probably are getting confused here. It's shaheed/shahid. But the act of becoming a martyr is the Shuhada and not the Shahada like many Israeli and hence Western reports state. Subtle propaganda that seems to work wonders in Israel.

Angelfire blocks image linking. You have to actually show the page. And why is an Angelfire page authoritative for anything?
......Working on getting the image to work.....

That is you being ghastly offensive.

First of all, we do not know anything about that document. We don't even know that the context Wikipedia provides is the truth- it is, after all, Wikipedia. The translation I can get out of that document, if it is even a non-manufactured document, seems to suggest that the notion was to try and save Jews. This is the same notion that Jews took part in the Judenrat councils, they thought that by working to negotiate or with Nazis, they could save Jews. It was horribly misguided, especially in light of the Palestinian Arab collaboration with the Nazis.


What is this? A Jew supporting Nazis??? OMG!!!!oneone!!! Fact is that some Jews supported Nazism. Just like people from all over the world and from different religions did. It's nothing to be ashamed of, just something we should learn from. And you can't learn if you try to hide it and forget it

Here's a translation for you.

To the Right Honourable Ambassador!
as attachment I send you:
1.) a letter, which the chief of general security in Syria
Colombani sent to General Dertz. Roser communicates,
that because of this letter apparently a further
meeting between Colombani and Dertz took place.
C. holds the opinion, that his call-back has been caused by
the co-operation of F. [Goirtz?] (H.C.) and the minister "xxxx".
2.) an order related to demobilisation, which has been sent
by the French military in Syria to its units.
3.) a proposal of the National Military Organisation in
Palestine regarding the solution of the Jewish question in Europe.
With regards
I am your loyal and devoted
Yeah, saying I am your loyal and devoted sure sounds like he didn't like Nazis.

5.
You Israelis must have no compunction when you kill your enemy. You must not sympathise with him until we have destroyed the so-called Arab culture, on whose ruins we shall build our civilisation."


The Israeli nation must expand its territory from the Euphrates to the Nile


Do you agree with these statements? Would you be proud if an elected Israeli official said this? Would you condemn Israelis for electing someone who says that like you condemn Palestinians for what their officials "say"?
The only site I can find that holds those quotes (yes, google only finds one with both of those on it. One out of millions of sites. http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ivanov.html ) is a poorly made page that doesn't cite sources clearly. It appears to be written in a Russian propaganda book that Begin said those quotes, but the citations in the bottom of the page seem to refer to another Russian author for those quotes, Walichnowski, who I can not verify.

Given your past preference to rely on fabricated quotes (such as the one you used to quote about Sharon claiming to Peres on Israeli radio that he would 'take care' of the US, a quote that -NEVER- was said) I'm going to have to not give any credence to these quotes. It seems very odd that you would bring up the 'greater-Israel-as-imperialist-fear' concept when Israel is currently making real motions to withdraw from Gaza, not expand, and certainly not to the Nile and Euphrates. [/B][/QUOTE]
Is that why they will expand some settlements in the West Bank? It's scary that you believe that will be any sort of retreat.

Oh, and you forgot to tell me what the borders of Israel looks like.
     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2005, 02:44 AM
 
Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
What is this? A Jew supporting Nazis??? OMG!!!!oneone!!! Fact is that some Jews supported Nazism. Just like people from all over the world and from different religions did. It's nothing to be ashamed of, just something we should learn from. And you can't learn if you try to hide it and forget it
Maybe there were Jewish fascists, but I doubt a Jew would support a system which wishes to wipe them off the face of the earth.
In vino veritas.
     
Taliesin  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2005, 04:46 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Maybe there were Jewish fascists, but I doubt a Jew would support a system which wishes to wipe them off the face of the earth.
I don't know much about the connection of zionism to nazism, for me those stories read like fictive conspiracies. There obviously have been contacts between zionists and nazis, but those were probably to save jews. Besides it wasn't until the fourties that Hitler-Germany decided to use the socalled "end-solution", before that Hitler-Germany played with the idea to just transfer jews to Palestine or Madagascar or somewhere else in Africa, and therefore it could well be that zionists contacted Hitler-Germany so that the jews get treansferred nowhere else than to Palestine.

Some conspiracy-stories go even as far as to claim that the zionism-organization provoked the holocaust in Europe,in order to further their political agenda of convincing all jews in the world to work for an own nation and in order to convince the world itself that such a state is necessary, but I haven't seen any proof for that story, so it's probably not true.

Taliesin
     
Salah al-Din
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 3, 2005, 11:11 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
Maybe there were Jewish fascists, but I doubt a Jew would support a system which wishes to wipe them off the face of the earth.
http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/righit.html
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,