Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Christmas 2006: Is Jesus still a Palestinian?; bethlehem notes....
Topic Started: Dec 13 2006, 02:41 AM (1,595 Views)
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
JBryan
Dec 15 2006, 03:43 PM
You have to admit, Tom, that your position might need some careful reevaluation when you find yourself defending "Jummah" Carter.

:D

I admit Carter is wrong on lots of stuff (I remember getting a 16% mortage during his watch :rolleyes: ) But I think he understands the situation in Israel pretty well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
phykell
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
TomK
Dec 15 2006, 07:46 PM
phykell
Dec 15 2006, 05:27 AM
Tom, I'm curious. Referring back to your recent comments about Eire and Northern Ireland and how you believe in unification and "setting your people free", do you not see any inconsistency with your attitude towards Israel and Palestine? I recall that you suggested that the non-Catholics should leave Northern Ireland (despite having been born there). Do you not think the Palestinians should do the same?

The situations are not analogous. Ireland is an occupied island. It has been occupied by the British for centuries, I feel the Protestants could leave if they wanted to keep their loyalty to the British Crown if and when the British leave Ireland--but I think it would be far better if they stayed and worked together for a united Ireland.

The vast majority of people who live in Northern Ireland consider themselves British, as opposed to "Irish" and consider that they live in Britain not in Ireland. If you say Britain has "occupied" the area for centuries does that mean that the US is currently occupied too? Why don't all you Americans leave the US and set the Native American people free? It's because that's now your home and I think the analogy most certainly does apply to the Middle East situation, The region is often described as "the occupied territories" and while unification is arguably even more unlikely than Eire and Northern Ireland, neither side would consider leaving their homes as a reasonable solution.
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated. - Ghandhi

Evil cannot be conquered in the world. It can only be resisted within oneself.

Remember, bones heal and chicks dig scars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Momentarily setting aside the Protestant-Catholic violence, I've always marvelled at the continuation of loyalty to England held by the Protestants of Northern Ireland.

The occupation of northern Ireland was originally the work of James I (two references to him in one day) who took up Francis Bacon's idea of sending settlers to the island as a sort of "seeding" to push the threat of Catholicism returning to dominance in England. The assumption was that these non-Catholics would eventually spread over the entire Island. In what must have been seen as a stroke of genius to James, the original "seeders" occupying Ulster Plantation were mostly comprised of the "riffraff" population from along the English-Scottish border who had given James fits. Here, he could get rid of them from the mainland while supposedly minimizing the "Catholic threat" to the Church of England at the same time.

One glaring problem to this solution was that the "rifraff" that James encouraged to resettle in Ireland were hardly good Church of England types. According to contemporary accounts, many of these settlers actually had little or no true religious affiliation but were simply emigrating with the hope of increased economic fortunes from what they had been experiencing. Possibly even worse, most of the ones who did practice a Protestant faith were those annoying Scottish Presbyterians that James was particularly annoyed by. James and his successor, Charles I (and later, Charles II) ended up having as much trouble with them as with the Catholics, and vice versa.

I've never understood the steadfast allegiance of these Protestants to a crown that never really cared much for them to begin with, and who routinely persecuted them for at least a century.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
There's a world of difference between the Stuarts and William of Orange. Same crown, different head.

Edit - Tom, I'm really sorry, I deleted your post about the potato famibe by accident - I hit the wrong button. I wasn't trying to stifle dissent, I promise.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
Dec 15 2006, 04:31 PM
Edit - Tom, I'm really sorry, I deleted your post about the potato famibe by accident - I hit the wrong button. I wasn't trying to stifle dissent, I promise.

No problem, John.

(Power corrupts--absolute power corrupts absolutely. Some Englishman said that. :lol: )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Jon - Again, you drastically misquote Rabin, as I pointed out in our last exchange on this topic. The rest of his comment (which you don't quote) makes clear that this was a hostile and armed population actively harrassing a major supply route. You erroneously deny the military rationale, which Rabin clearly states, and which did not seem to bother him at all. Arabs that were not hostile are now Israeli Arabs: Haifa being a good example. That by itself is the largest proof that JB's view is basically correct. Extremely few Arabs who did not leave voluntarily or were actively hostile during a war, are now refugees, and this number is surely far far less than the Jews made refugees by Arab pogroms (since that number is over 800 thousand). Yet no mention is made of Arab compensation to Jews for expelling Jews from their historic homes. Thus we can conclude that the Pal refugee issue is something of a one-sided farce.

In general, your comments, like almost all I have read apply pie-in-the-sky ethics to a real conflict, where the Jewish areas were invaded by foreign armies intending to massacre the Jews (a fact you oddly claim is irrelevant, when it is the key issue).

With regard to the hostile and harrassing population Rabin refers to, the nascent Israeli army had three choices: (1) kill them, (2) move them (3) let their own main supply line be cut and have the Jewish population of the area be massacred, man woman and child (as happened frequently when the nascent IDF lost a battle). (2) was the best option under the circumstances. You clearly have no understanding of war whatsoever. The IDF's actions are generally morally far superior in wartime to almost any other major conflict I have ever read about (witness the sack of Berlin, bombing London, the US in almost any war you mention, or any other civil or ethnic war in Africa, Indonesia or in the Middle East, such as Iraq-Iran).

Again, if the population did not flee and was not hostile and intending to aid the killing of Jews who legally immigrated on land they bought and cultivated, they are now Israeli Arabs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
On Friday, DNC Chairman Howard Dean and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi both issued written statements, included below in their entirety.

(i guess i can quote dean and pelosi because neither have very "makovsky" sounding names. hmmm, makovsky sounds abit too close to klonoski, definatly too polish. i think ill stick with wop pelosi and wasp dean.)

Dean: “While I have tremendous respect for former President Carter, I fundamentally disagree and do not support his analysis of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On this issue President Carter speaks for himself, the opinions in his book are his own, they are not the views or position of the Democratic Party. I and other Democrats will continue to stand with Israel in its battle against terrorism and for a lasting peace with its neighbors.”

Pelosi: “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever.

“The Jewish people know what it means to be oppressed, discriminated against, and even condemned to death because of their religion. They have been leaders in the fight for human rights in the United States and throughout the world. It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously.”

"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Edit


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
i was reprimanded for quoting an analysis by someone with a Polish name so i tried to find some different ethnicities...
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
No, I am not commenting on the fact that you quoted them. Quote away. That's not what I meant at all.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Do you have a point to make in this discussion other than the fact that politicians can be fickle? How does this help Jimmy Carter's "thesis"?
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JB, there is no substantial policy debate and no real difference of opinion about these issues when both parties in a two party system hold the same position is the point I am trying to make. There is a system of "political correctness" in place about these issues ranging from the propagandistic statements of the Democrats cited to personal attacks made against people who dissent concerning these issues.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
There is a lot of debate about the Middle East in this country. For example, ME threads in the CR are frequent and usually quite long. What you seem to mean by "not debated" is that you wish the consensus conclusion of these frequent and extensive debates be different and closer to your personal viewpoint.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
The proper background for this discussion:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA30706



The Role of Holocaust Denial in the Ideology and Strategy of The Iranian Regime
By: Yigal Carmon*
Today, December 14, 2006, a symposium titled "Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide" was held at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. MEMRI President and Founder Yigal Carmon spoke at the symposium.

The following are his remarks:

TO VIEW SEGMENTS FROM IRANIAN TV ON HOLOCAUST DENIAL SHOWN AT THE SYMPOSIUM VISIT: mms://207.232.26.152/events/IRANHOLOCAUST.WMV .


The persistent Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises a vital question that needs to be addressed: What function does this denial serve in the ideology of the Iranian regime and in its strategy? The answer to this question bears cardinal importance to the future of the State of Israel.

When we, at The Middle East Media Research Institute, collect and analyze the statements made by Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian regime, we can distinguish two major goals, both of which lead to the same conclusion: the Iranian regime's Holocaust denial is not a manifestation of irrational hatred, but a premeditated and cold-blooded instrument to achieve its goals.


Denial of Israel's Legitimacy

The first of these goals is the attempt to deny any legitimacy to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews after the Holocaust. In order to achieve this goal, he proclaims that no Holocaust occurred, and that if Jews were indeed harmed in World War II - a claim that requires thorough and "objective" research - this was no different than the experience of others in World War II. At any rate, Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials claim that this "myth" cannot justify the establishment of Israel in Palestine.


Elimination of the Zionist Entity, i.e. Israel

The second goal is - as often proclaimed by Ahmadinejad - to "wipe Israel off the map." His Holocaust denial is therefore planned, intentional, and premeditated. He is aware that as long as the world remembers the Holocaust, it will resist any new attempt to perpetrate another genocide against the Jews. Thus, eradicating the memory of the Holocaust is essential in order to achieve his goal.





Demonization

In order for Ahmadinejad to bring his plans to fruition, however, he has to demonize the Jews and the State of Israel. Demonization is a necessary precondition for genocide. As we well know, Hitler first engaged in a major campaign of demonization of the Jews before actually murdering them en masse. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are taking the same path, and are conducting a similar virulent, antisemitic campaign of demonization.

To this end, Iranian state-controlled television produces various TV series dedicated to the demonization of Jews. These include classic blood libels, depicting Jews as using the blood of non-Jewish children to bake their Passover matzos, and as kidnapping non-Jewish children to steal their body parts. Jews are reduced to sub-human levels, depicted as pigs and apes. They are accused of persecuting the Prophet Muhammad in voodoo ritualistic scenes, and as tormenting a historic figure reminiscent of Jesus on the Cross. All these TV series exist alongside others that deny the Holocaust.

Again, it should be stressed that all these phenomena are interrelated, and are state-directed at the highest level. It is most indicative that Ahmadinejad's first public appearance after coming to power was made before television producers.

All this is done in order to achieve the goal of demonization of Jews and Israel, which, as I mentioned earlier, is vital for their elimination. However, it is not possible to demonize a people as long as it is viewed as a victim of the Holocaust. Therefore, as long as the Jews are perceived as victims of the Holocaust, this demonization cannot take root. Holocaust denial is thus vital, in order to wipe out the image of the Jews as victims.

This is the reason why these three elements - Holocaust denial, the elimination of the State of Israel, and demonization of the Jews - are constantly present in statements by Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials.

Let us hear the Iranians in their own words. True, many of these statements have already circulated separately in the media. But hearing them together, in the context I have just outlined, will enable us to understand their function and significance within the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime.

In his well-known speech at the Iranian "World Without Zionism" conference on October 23, 2005, Ahmadinejad laid out his views on the State of Israel. It is an absolute evil, a tool in the hands of the West to dominate the Muslims. In reply to those who ask if it is indeed possible to bring about a world without America and Zionism, he says: "You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and can surely be achieved."

Later, he cites Khomeini: "The Imam said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'" Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: "This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." Later he adds, "Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable." This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel.

At the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting, which took place in Mecca in early December 2005, Ahmadinejad made statements that explicitly tied this goal with Holocaust denial: "Some European countries are insisting on saying that Hitler burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria. They insist so much on this issue that if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison. Although we do not accept this claim, let's assume that it is true, and we ask the Europeans: Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler [justify] their support for the regime that is occupying Jerusalem?..."

This statement by Ahmadinejad is telling. The implication is that the Holocaust is the only justification for the existence of Israel. The line, therefore, is twofold: a) the Holocaust is a myth, and b) even if it is true, it cannot justify Israel's existence. In either case, Ahmadinejad's primary obsession is not with the Holocaust, but with Israel's very existence. If the Holocaust gets in the way of achieving this goal, it must be denied.

Later on in the same speech, he adds: "If you [Europeans] think that you committed an injustice against the Jews, why must the Muslims and the Palestinians pay the price for it? All right, you oppressed [the Jews]. So put some of Europe at the disposal of this Zionist regime..." Again, the guiding principle is that Israel cannot exist. Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad because the Holocaust lends moral justification to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel.

In the speech you saw earlier on the DVD, from December 14, 2005, Ahmadinejad once again linked these two elements together. He calls the Holocaust a "myth," but also adds: "If you [Europeans] are correct in saying that you killed six million Jews in World War II… If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - in Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska…" Once again, Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad first and foremost as a means of de-legitimizing Israel's existence, and since the goal is the elimination of Israel, the speech includes the necessary element of demonization as well.

Then the Iranian president takes pains to portray the Jews as the true oppressors, and not as victims. "Zionism itself is a Western ideology and a colonialist idea, with secular ideas and fascist methods, which was founded by the English. So far, with the help and direct guidance of America and part of Europe, [Zionism] is slaughtering the Muslims." Later on in the speech, he says: "An important question that the Western countries and media must answer clearly is: What crime did they [i.e. the West] commit at that time [i.e. WWII] that the Zionists are not committing today? In essence, Zionism is a new Fascism…"

This, therefore, is Ahmadinejad's truth: the Zionists are the true oppressors and murderers. But while at times Ahmadinejad claims to differentiate between Zionists and Jews in general, in truth, this campaign of demonization uses and abuses history to depict Jews throughout the ages - not Zionists alone - as oppressors and murderers.

As you have just seen in the DVD, the true Holocaust, as portrayed by Ahmadinejad, was committed by the Jews: for example, by the Jewish king of Yemen, Yosef Dhu Nuwas, who, he claims, burned the Christians in the early days of Christianity, and by the Iranian Jews, as described in the Book of Esther. Moreover, Jews in modern times are continuing their murderous ways: killing large numbers of Christian children in London and Paris - again, as you saw with your own eyes - in order to procure blood for Passover matzos.

To sum up, Holocaust denial is an inextricable part of demonization, on the way to the final goal: the elimination of Israel.

All these elements figure prominently in the identity and works of those invited by the Iranian regime to the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. First and foremost is their explicit opposition to Israel's existence. This is why members of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect of Neturei Karta were invited, following the ongoing, strong ties maintained by the Iranian regime with them. Then comes the demonization of Jews in order to justify the agenda of elimination. Thus the invitation of Holocaust deniers, such as Frederick Toben, who not only denies the Holocaust, but also claims that the Jews intentionally spread the AIDS virus in the U.S.

In essence, the speech made by Ahmadinejad at the Holocaust denial conference best illustrates the role of Holocaust denial in the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime. He begins his speech by addressing the Holocaust deniers participating in the conference: "Iran is your home, and here you can express your opinions freely, in a friendly manner and in a free atmosphere." Then, without batting an eyelid, he adds: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall… I tell you now… the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Another relevant item:

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD139706

Iran Holocaust Denial Conference Announces Plan to Establish World Foundation for Holocaust Studies – To Be Eventually Based in Berlin and Headed by Iranian Presidential Advisor Mohammad-Ali Ramin Who Has Said: 'The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel'

On December 14, 2006 the Iranian news agency IRNA reported, in English, that participants in the Iranian Holocaust Denial conference, dubbed "Holocaust: A Global Vision," had announced the establishment of a "world foundation for Holocaust studies" and unanimously appointed Presidential Advisor Mohammad-Ali Ramin as its secretary-general.

According to IRNA, Ramin said that "one of the plans of the foundation is to assign a committee to find out the truth about the holocaust [sic], and noted that its main office will be in Tehran, and that it "will eventually be transferred to Berlin, once proper grounds are prepared."

Ali Ramin was the subject of a June 15, 2006 Special Dispatch by MEMRI based on a June 9, 2006 article in the reformist online daily Rooz. It reported that during a visit with students at GilanUniversity in Rasht, Iran, Mohammad-Ali Ramin had discussed historical accusations against the Jews and questioned the Holocaust.

The following are excerpts from the Rooz article: [1]




"Throughout History, This Religious Group [i.e. the Jews] has Inflicted the Most Damage on the Human Race"

"On a visit to Gilan University, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s advisor Mohammad Ali Ramin said to a group of students in the town of Rasht: 'We Iranians are definitely not, and never have been, nationalistic, and we are not against any ethnic [group]. We certainly do not worship race, nor [are we] against any race, and we nave never perpetrated genocide. This is why Islam, which appeared and advanced [the notion of] equality among nations and among peoples, greatly appealed to us Iranians. We have accepted the [principle] of equality among nations since the days of the Achaemenids. [2] Antisemitism, therefore, has no place in our Iranian [culture]. I myself honestly fight for just treatment of Judaism. Ten years ago, [when] I first brought up the issue of the Holocaust in this country, my intention was to defend the Jews…

"'But among the Jews there have always been those who killed God’s prophets and who opposed justice and righteousness. Throughout history, this religious group has inflicted the most damage on the human race, while some groups within it engaged in plotting against other nations and ethnic groups to cause cruelty, malice and wickedness.

"'Historically, there are many accusations against the Jews. For example, it was said that they were the source for such deadly diseases as the plague and typhus. This is because the Jews are very filthy people. For a time people also said that they poisoned water wells belonging to Christians and thus killed them,' Ramin said.

"Ramin also pointed that powerful people also concocted other plots to mislead public opinion around the world. 'When the Islamic Revolution of Iran succeeded and attracted many people around the world, including Christians, the AIDS epidemic came about, and fear again overtook the world. After the September 11 attacks, the deadly epidemic broke out, which was destroyed when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan. On the eve of the invasion of Iran, the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) illness broke out, but disappeared after the invasion,' he said."


"Nobody Asks How a Bird Infected with the Flu Could Fly From Australia to Siberia"

"Ramin also claimed that the spread of avian flu was a conspiracy plot cause[d] by the failure of America, Israel and Britain in the Middle East. Ramin pointed out that, to cover up and hide their failures, these countries have spread the news about the bird flu and thus preoccupied and distracted public opinion for some 5 to 6 months. 'Nobody asks how a bird infected with the flu could fly from Australia to Siberia,' he said, adding that even the Iranian minister of health had claimed to have stopped the disease at Iran’s borders. He claimed the holocaust story and bird flu rumors are interrelated. He stated that the killing of millions of chickens was intended to control the price and amount [of] chicken in the market."


"In Order to Deny the Germans the Ability to Increase Their Power, the British andAmericans Present Them as a Human-Burning Nation"

"While acknowledging not knowing the source of these events around the world, Ramin said, 'I only know that Jews have been accused of such conspiracies and sabotage throughout history and have not performed well.' Repeating the president’s claims about the Holocaust, he presented four theories that can be brought in support of these claims:

"The first theory is that, in order to deny the Germans the ability to increase their power, 'the British and Americans present them as a human-burning nation.'

"The second theory is that the Americans and the British have cooked up this story along with the Zionists, so as to create the state of Israel in the middle of the Islamic world and thus control the Islamic world using the pretext of the Holocaust, while also getting rid of the Jews from Europe…

"The third hypothesis relates to the traditional animosity between Christians and Jews. 'The U.S. and Britain, with the cooperation of France, Russia and Germany, and because of their Christian leanings and animosity towards the Jews, initiated the idea of the Holocaust after the Second World War in order to scare off the Jews and send them to what is now Israel in order to get rid of them in Europe and America,' he said. He further said that the movement that created Israel is in fact against the Jews.

"The fourth theory relates to covering up the crimes of the U.S. and Britain. Ramin claimed that Britain killed some 100 million Red Indians in the last 300 years, and the U.S. leveled Hiroshima - which, he said, were the real Holocausts...

"Ramin added that the aim of the Holocaust conspiracy was to facilitate the establishment of the state of Israel, which would, in turn, provoke the Muslims to rise up, confront the Jews, and massacre them. 'This [conspiracy],' he said, 'conducted by Europe and America, would lead to the total annihilation of global Jewry." Ramin added that 'as a religious Muslim, who believes in the equality of all nations, he must alert [people] to the fact that the state of Israel was established as the result of a conspiracy against the Jews...'"


"The Resolution of the Holocaust Issue Will End in the Destruction of Israel"

"Ramin claimed that the Holocaust was the main reason why Palestine was occupied, while Israel was the main cause of crises and catastrophe in the Middle East. 'So long as Israel exists in the region,' he said, 'there will never be peace and security in the Middle East. So the resolution of the Holocaust issue will end in the destruction of Israel.'

"Turning to President Ahmadinejad’s comments on the Holocaust, Ramin said that he criticized the president for making those comments. 'We do not know whether the Holocaust happened or not and so must find out in order to defend the injured party. My suggestion to him,' he said, 'was to set up an investigative committee on this to collect the supporting documents...

"He added that 'before [President] Ahmadinejad placed the issue of the Holocaust [on the global agenda], they [i.e. the West] were always the prosecutors, while we [Muslims] were always [in the position of] the accused. But now Ahmadinejad has enabled us to [take the position of] prosecutors, and challenge the West.

"Ramin also stated that 'many still fail to realize that Iran [now] has an unprecedented and extraordinary opportunity. Raising the issue of the Holocaust will give us a opportunity of global [proportions] to defend the rights of an oppressed nation - [either] the Germans or the Jews - and I hope that lecturers, intellectuals, students and all the Iranian citizens will be aware of this opportunity for change."


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daniel\
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jeffrey, it should be apparent to you that I am not talking about ME threads in the CR.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jeffrey - as I pointed out above, there in no ethnic cleansing you couldn't claim justified through military necessity. In the case of Rabin, I think the fact that he said 30 years later that the events at Lod-Ramle had "bothered him since 1948" tells us a little about his own personal opinion as to how much of it was military necessity vs. simple convenience.

Again, though, I would invite you to study the mass exodus of April-May 1948. THese were not people who left before hostilities begun, in order to give their Arab brethren the opportunity to kill Jews. Yes plenty did leave beforehand, but these were mostly more affluent people with the means to do so. Of the masses, the vast majority fled actual attack from Jewish forces or fear of attack from Jewish forces after seeing neighboring areas attacked.


Jeffrey - let me ask you two questions. I would very much appreciate it if you addressed them.

1 - Do you deny that Ben-Gurion was in favor of ethnic cleansing? (feel free to eupemize it as 'cumpulsory transfer' if you feel the need to)

2 - Do you deny that Ben-Gurion was in a position to give effect to his views in the spring of 1948?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
bachophile
Dec 16 2006, 02:27 AM
i was reprimanded for quoting an analysis by someone with a Polish name so i tried to find some different ethnicities...

A Russian name, bach--but close enough. :D

And Jeffery--nice quotes, but I don't believe anyone here is denying the Holocaust. I don't beleve anyone anywhere actually denies it (except for a few nuts.)

The Iranians are putting a show to inflame tensions in the ME for their own purposes but since no one pays attention to these kinds of over the top antics I believe the whole affair has backfired on the Iranians.

The only worthwhile point was David Duke Calling Wolf Blitzer an 'Israeli Agent.' That was kind of funny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
TomK
Dec 16 2006, 06:44 AM
bachophile
Dec 16 2006, 02:27 AM
i was reprimanded for quoting an analysis by someone with a Polish name so i tried to find some different ethnicities...

A Russian name, bach--but close enough. :D


Makovsky? You are both wrong. A Ukrainian-Jewish name.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
jon - Ben Gurion wanted to make sure the Yishuv was not massacred, man woman and child. Since you don't seem to read what I write or even attempt to reply to or show any understanding of the main points I make (e.g. the Iran quotes), I will reply in kind:

(1) Do you think as of April 1948 Ben Gurion and the Jewish military command had good reason to believe that they and the entire Jewish population would be attacked soon with no quarter given by a numerically superior force and that some of the local population would be armed, sympathetic to this aim and assist in this effort?

(2) Given their knowledge of (1) do you think it reasonable for the Jewish command to make preparations for such a forseen attack, or should they hide their eyes and hope others step in to protect them? If the latter, specify who this might be? If you think Ben Gurion should have let the Yishuv be massacred, please say so clearly and precisely, without equivocation.

(3) Would you ever so kindly compare the ethics of Ben Gurion and the Jewish military command under this threat of extermination to that of several other major military conflicts involving whole populations, for example the actions of (pick one) Russia or England during WW2 (I leave out Japan and Germany), the North during the Civil War (e.g. Sherman's march), or any intercommunal conflict in Indonesia, India, China, Europe or Africa whatsoever.

Please ever so kindly answer these questions in detail, based on your evident vast knowledge of military history and ethics in war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Jeffrey
Dec 16 2006, 08:53 PM
jon - Ben Gurion wanted to make sure the Yishuv was not massacred, man woman and child. Since you don't seem to read what I write or even attempt to reply to or show any understanding of the main points I make (e.g. the Iran quotes), I will reply in kind:

(1) Do you think as of April 1948 Ben Gurion and the Jewish military command had good reason to believe that they and the entire Jewish population would be attacked soon with no quarter given by a numerically superior force and that some of the local population would be armed, sympathetic to this aim and assist in this effort?

(2) Given their knowledge of (1) do you think it reasonable for the Jewish command to make preparations for such a forseen attack, or should they hide their eyes and hope others step in to protect them? If the latter, specify who this might be? If you think Ben Gurion should have let the Yishuv be massacred, please say so clearly and precisely, without equivocation.

(3) Would you ever so kindly compare the ethics of Ben Gurion and the Jewish military command under this threat of extermination to that of several other major military conflicts involving whole populations, for example the actions of (pick one) Russia or England during WW2 (I leave out Japan and Germany), the North during the Civil War (e.g. Sherman's march), or any intercommunal conflict in Indonesia, India, China, Europe or Africa whatsoever.

Please ever so kindly answer these questions in detail, based on your evident vast knowledge of military history and ethics in war.

Answer to question #1 - Yes, although I'd add that there was already low-level conflict occuring by April of 1948.


Answer to question #2 (first part) - It was more than reasonable for them to prepare for such an attack, indeed, there only conceivable advantages were (1) better preparations (2) better arms, (3) interior suply lines. (3) was a funciton of geography, (2) was an advantage but only slightly, so (1) is really what saved them, and Israel, from still birth.


Answer to question #3 - (choosing Russia) Russia was far more brutal, and had much less of a regard for human life, and/or for international opinion, than did Ben-Gurion. It still does today, and it did in the days of the czars.



Now will you show me the same courtesy and answer my quesitons?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Quote:
 
Since you don't seem to read what I write or even attempt to reply to or show any understanding of the main points I make (e.g. the Iran quotes)


I'll add that you are the one who won't address the point and keep bringing up irrelevancies (not irelevant in the course of history, rather in the discussion at hand).

Let me remind you...

JB and I were discussing a single, narrow point. Namely, whether all the refugees of 48 left on there own accord or were some in fact driven out by Jewish forces and Jewish irregulars. You chose to interject (which of course you're welcome to do) in a discussion on a very specific point.

THat's why i haven't dwelled on all the other points you've brought up - what on earth does Iran have to do with the actual point being discussed? Hell, in 1948 the Shah of Iran was drinking whiskey with Kermit Roosevelt, and spending American money on Western luxury goods.


Now would you please show me the same courtesy and answer my questions? As I did yours?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
bachophile
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
jon,

Quote:
 
JB and I were discussing a single, narrow point. Namely, whether all the refugees of 48 left on there own accord or were some in fact driven out by Jewish forces and Jewish irregulars.


didnt want to get involved in this, but i will interject a minor point.

i think its well established that the truth lies between the old zionist claim that the refugee problem was an arab induced problem versus the post zionist claim of "ethnic cleansing" (your term jon). the truth is in the middle as your above quote states more calmly.

i think the big turn off was your use of obviously a loaded inflammatory term such as ethnic cleansing with its associated images of concentration camps in bosnia.

just like jimmah's use of the loaded term apartheid.

loaded terms carry associations which go beyond the nature of the moment and give false understandings by clouding meaning.

the 1948 situation was one of survival. we all know what would have happened if they had won the war. 3 years after aushwitz would have witnessed the sequel...aushwitz 2. not to justify anything. just putting things in perspective.

hyperbole never helps anybody.
"I don't know much about classical music. For years I thought the Goldberg Variations were something Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg did on their wedding night." Woody Allen
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
jon - Iran is highly relevant, since it indicates the type of opposition Israel has faced in the Middle East. Iran's views did not arrive newly born a few months ago, nor are they idiosycratic in the region. This can be documented by reading www.memri.org for any random week you choose. Such views were also present in 1948, when Arab governments generally sided with Hitler. Also, you chose Russia to answer my question 3. I assume you realize that you could have chosen every single example all together, and still Israel would come out looking very good, given the context of an intercommunal war for survival.

You ask:

"1 - Do you deny that Ben-Gurion was in favor of ethnic cleansing? (feel free to eupemize it as 'cumpulsory transfer' if you feel the need to)

2 - Do you deny that Ben-Gurion was in a position to give effect to his views in the spring of 1948?"

(1) Yes, of course I deny it. Have you been reading Benny Morris or something? (You should read his Haaretz interview, BTW. It can be found on the web. He is not a leftist, he thinks there was ethnic cleansing, and that it was a minor evil under the circumstances and fully justified.) I believe exactly what Rabin said in the full quote you gave last time, and misquoted this time - hostile, armed fifth columns presented a problem for the military command of the Yishuv, and these were interpenetrated in local populations (as Hamas terrorists are today). The choices were (a) kill them (b) move them © be killed. Most intercommunal wars for survival lead to (a). Instead, Rabin chose (b). You chose to blame him for this, I chose to praise him, as it is far in excess morally of what most communities fighting for their existence do during an intercommunal war.

Arab populations known to be at peace with their Jewish neighbors were not moved (e.g. as in Haifa, long known for amicable relations between Jews and Arabs). Thus I can say that JB is essentially correct - Arabs either fled voluntarily, or voluntarily took up arms against Jews fighting for their existence. There may have been a few "innocent" Arabs who wanted peace but were stuck in a generally armed and hostile particular Arab village, but wartime does not allow for such distinctions.

The "worst" one could say about Ben Gurion is that he did not come down hard during wartime on people like those in the Stern gang. Such things are not done during intercommunal wars for survival. If you could find me one single example in all history, I would be most greatful.

(2) Well, your second question is snarky and presupposes that I answered question one falsely (and said Ben Gurion did support ethnic cleansing or genocide.) However, I can say that even if Ben Gurion did personally and privately in his mind's eye support ethnic cleansing (he left no written or spoken record in favor of this view, of course), he could *not* have given effect to this view in 1948, since the troops loyal to his command and the mainstream of Yishuv thinking would not have carried out an order of this type. You yourself even quoted Rabin that it was hard to carry out an order of basic and vital military necessity involving a hostile and armed and attacking, but not-officially-military-in-uniform Arab population. I cannot think of any population that had higher ethical standards during an intercommunal war for survival, than the Yishuv. If you think my view is overly sentimental and that I am biased, please bring another, better, example to my attention.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
Quote:
 
Answer to question #3 - (choosing Russia) Russia was far more brutal, and had much less of a regard for human life, and/or for international opinion, than did Ben-Gurion.  It still does today, and it did in the days of the czars.


[edit]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply