A Hamas Parable

[jbg]

That's Point Roberts. One of the nicest places on Earth...next to the Gulf Islands, of course.

Oops. Got me there. I was tired.

How many Intifadas have emanated from Point Roberts?

[jbg]

Half of them were non-Jewish Poles, systematically eliminated - intelligentsia/professional class ... democide:

And your point is?

[tango]

And your point is?

That the Poles are often maligned the way you have, as Nazi collaborators, in ignorance of their losses.

[jbg]

That the Poles are often maligned the way you have, as Nazi collaborators, in ignorance of their losses.

Then why did Poland's kill rate of Jews exceed even Germany's?

[myata]

Hamas is a terrorist organization that happened to win a local election by killing and maiming its opponents.

I'm not keen on using certain terminology simply for the fact that it adds little more to understainding of the situation than already known simple formula ("I am good, you are bad... ", remember?).

Yet it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the rise of organisations like Hamas in itself is caused by the past and ongoing injustice. As it happened and happens virtually everywhere (Northern Ireland is a good example much closer to home). It's not in human nature to forget injustice easily, nor to let go of their own without fight.

Jerusalem wasn't always a Muslim holy place.

Sure interesting exercise in history. If conditions long past are a fair ground for land devisions and reacquisitions, the world will become a hellish place with never ending wars, mass migrations and such. That is exactly the future we will see if "moralists" would get their way (ie the right to start wars, captures lands, resources, etc on the grounds of it being "moral" and "right" - in somebody's own understanding of the above).

Re: fair settlement.

Both sides had a state ready to go in 1947. The Arabs had already recieved Syria, Jordan, etc from the former Allied mandates. But the greedy fellow,

In most people's interpretation, "fair" means "negotiated and mutually acceptable". I see that you have a different take on the matter ("received", "granted" - something that they - I mean, "former mandates" - had any right to give (divide / assign and so on), did they? What right, exactly?). It may explain your difficulties (in reconciling hate of them a "enemy" while excusing us and our friends for no less dubious and shall we say, morally questionable, acts).

[DogOnPorch]

That's swell you're not 'into' calling Hamas a 'terrorist' group. That's what they are and I'll continue to treat them as such. That they give the Nazi salute and hero worship a dead SS officer, while being no problem to you, is certainly a problem to me. I could ask you again why you support a group with connections to the actual Holocaust, but you wouldn't answer. So I'll just assume the worst.

Meanwhile, this very morning, Hamas and Fatah continue to fight.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/05/31/west-bank.html

It's also not my problem that you have a poor grasp at history. Jerusalem wasn't always a Muslim holy city. It was taken by conquest (that's known as using force) and then turned into a Muslim holy city by a human, not a supernatural 'god'. At least the Muslims had the courtesy to build right ontop of the old Jewish Temple. Why cluter the place up with a bunch of temples and churches, afterall?

Finally, it is also not my problem that you don't understand that this land didn't BELONG to anyone in particular. The British had it as a mandate post WW1. Whatever fantasy version of history you're looking at probably doesn't mention that. Both Arab and Jewish interests were busy trying to get a commitment out of them (Sykes-Picot Agreement/Balfour Declaration). The pie was eventually split AFTER the Arabs already received Syria and Jordan...but as mentioned, the Grand Mufti (a Nazi) wanted all these former Turkish lands.

[DogOnPorch]

Then why did Poland's kill rate of Jews exceed even Germany's?

Did it?

While some non-Jewish Poles were indeed collaboraters, they didn't match the ruthlessness of the non-Jewish Ukranian population further east. Babi Yar was essntially a Ukrainian police action with SS supervision/assistance, for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar

Feldgrau has reliable information re: Polish collaboration.

http://www.feldgrau.com/poland.html

They acted mostly as police and militia. I don't think the Poles formed an SS unit as did many other occupied/axis allied countries. You might have some different information I haven't considered, though.

tango brings up that murky period when the Soviets and Nazis were chums. While the Nazis were rounding up Jews and such in west Poland, the Communists were rounding up political enemies and old foes from the Russian Civil War in the east. Poland, if you recall your history, more or less entered the war on the side of the Whites (Tsarist forces). Revenge is a dish best served cold, as the Klingons say (Pashtuns, actually...go figure ).

Edited May 31, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

Poles are block head like traditional inbred Germans - and they were Catholic - and Hitler loved the Vatican and their high archy adored him...such a sweet thing - to kill people who "killed Christ" - MEAN WHILE - IT WAS ROME- the Italians who were in control of Judea - the law enforcement - the courts and had the final say on the execution of the Judean King Jesus - I would say that the the Italians should have been holocausted..

[myata]

Finally, it is also not my problem that you don't understand that this land didn't BELONG to anyone in particular.

One may think that land belongs to the people who live on it. By that understanding, most certainly a family living on land for generation has better claim to it, than somebody who read about it only in the books and never set foot in it, for generations.

On the other hand, one could also think that it belongs to anybody who could conquer it. That is also a possible postion, but only if one agrees and admits that it can be reconquered over and again, by whoever happens to have a bigger stick at the time. Then there would be no morally logical paradoxes struggling to prove unprovable, i.e. why it was OK for me to grab hold of this piece, but is a "terrorism" for them to do the same. Simply state that it's OK for me because I happen to be stronger now, and if ever they'd overcome me and "repossess" it from me, it'd be OK too. Morally, legally, and logically. In other words, the moral principle of "Grab and hold while you can".

[Oleg Bach]

One may think that land belongs to the people who live on it. By that understanding, most certainly a family living on land for generation has better claim to it, than somebody who read about it only in the books and never set foot in it, for generations.

On the other hand, one could also think that it belongs to anybody who could conquer it. That is also a possible postion, but only if one agrees and admits that it can be reconquered over and again, by whoever happens to have a bigger stick at the time. Then there would be no morally logical paradoxes struggling to prove unprovable, i.e. why it was OK for me to grab hold of this piece, but is a "terrorism" for them to do the same. Simply state that it's OK for me because I happen to be stronger now, and if ever they'd overcome me and "repossess" it from me, it'd be OK too. Morally, legally, and logically. In other words, the moral principle of "Grab and hold while you can".

Boring barbarism - in this case the rule of law is - who ever can sneak up to the sleeping man and hit him in the head with the biggest rock is entitled to the house that the sleeping man built and lived in for ten generations...great world - do we want to go back to the stone age? It might be better - even primatives were more civlized than modern man.

[jbg]

Yet it shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the rise of organisations like Hamas in itself is caused by the past and ongoing injustice. As it happened and happens virtually everywhere (Northern Ireland is a good example much closer to home). It's not in human nature to forget injustice easily, nor to let go of their own without fight.

Great.

A fight that's out of uniform, uses children as suicide bombers, and missile strikes against schools. What a great "fight".

Sure interesting exercise in history. If conditions long past are a fair ground for land devisions and reacquisitions, the world will become a hellish place with never ending wars, mass migrations and such. That is exactly the future we will see if "moralists" would get their way (ie the right to start wars, captures lands, resources, etc on the grounds of it being "moral" and "right" - in somebody's own understanding of the above).

Then why is the the alleged "Palestinian" history not "conditions long past"? It seems that whatever formula causes Israel and the Jews to lose appeals most to you.

[myata]

A fight that's out of uniform, uses children as suicide bombers, and missile strikes against schools. What a great "fight".

Why would somebody (who started a fight) insist on certain "correct" way in which it has to be conducted? Their own way? I wonder.

Then why is the the alleged "Palestinian" history not "conditions long past"? It seems that whatever formula causes Israel and the Jews to lose appeals most to you.

Could it be because we claim to have become "civilzed", in the meanwhile? No? Still the same world as 2,000 years back, in a (certain) perspective of morality? Then what's all the noise about "law", "justice", "terrorism" and such? People didn't worry about such triffles back then. Whoever has the stick, rules. Read your bible.

[DogOnPorch]

Why would somebody (who started a fight) insist on certain "correct" way in which it has to be conducted? Their own way? I wonder.

In the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Arabs are the attackers while the Israelis are the defenders. The only exception to this is the Suez Crisis which was more an Anglo-French show with Israeli support. Interestingly, Israel is always portrayed as the aggressor by the pro-Arabs. But then, pro-Arabs call Yom Kippur a great victory over the Israelis...lol.

Could it be because we claim to have become "civilzed", in the meanwhile? No? Still the same world as 2,000 years back, in a (certain) perspective of morality? Then what's all the noise about "law", "justice", "terrorism" and such? People didn't worry about such triffles back then. Whoever has the stick, rules. Read your bible.

So far, Hamas has yet to put a man on the Moon.

[myata]

And could it be that something also happened before those wars (hint; enormous and glaring one; like e.g. an elephant)? Or the lights just came on around the end of the 40s, and nothing, nada of what was in this world before that date worth discussing, analysing or even noticing or recognizing?

You know what? Because you aren't bringing anything new into this discussion, maybe in the hope that on a 101st repetion of the same stale pointless adage the opponent would forget, or not bother to answer, thus allowing yourself to claim moral victory, for that reason and also to save my time, I've no choice but to start ignoring your further posts in this thread, officially and irrevocably. Of course, you can still proceed with the strategy (of claiming moral victory) but at least I'll have no part in it.

[DogOnPorch]

And could it be that something also happened before those wars

Yeah. It was called WW2. The Jewish leadership threw their lot in with the Allies (see: The Jewish brigade). The Arab leadership sided with Hitler and the Nazis. You can continue to deny this but this is a reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Brigade

Essentially, by supporting Hamas, you're supporting that last dying ember of Hitler's Third Reich. Enjoy.

You know what? Because you aren't bringing anything new into this discussion, maybe in the hope that on a 101st repetion of the same stale pointless adage the opponent would forget, or not bother to answer, thus allowing yourself to claim moral victory, for that reason and also to save my time, I've no choice but to start ignoring your further posts in this thread, officially and irrevocably. Of course, you can still proceed with the strategy (of claiming moral victory) but at least I'll have no part in it.

You've lost, then. Run away. Real history is frightening.

[myata]

And before? Did something also happen there, our scholar? Come on. For the umpteenth time. Over and again. And again. And again! Of course, you won, who could even think of matching these rare and absolutely undisputable disputing skills? Who would want to?

Yes indeed, it appears to be the only way you folks can ever "win". Why else would point blank ignorance of obvious facts and mechanic repetiotion of some mantra in the hope that on the x,000,000 repetion it'd somehow become reality, be the only "arguments" we are being offered? Go back home, and try again. Start by attempting to answer this very simple question:

"Is it OK to take something from other by force?"

Good luck in your scientific endeavours.

Edited June 2, 2009 by myata

[DogOnPorch]

And before? Did something also happen there, our scholar? Come on. For the umpteenth time. Over and again. And again. And again! Of course, you won, who could even think of matching these rare and absolutely undisputable disputing skills? Who would want to?

Which point of history would you like to discuss?

Yes indeed, it appears to be the only way you folks can ever "win". Why else would point blank ignorance of obvious facts and mechanic repetiotion of some mantra in the hope that on the x,000,000 repetion it'd somehow become reality, be the only "arguments" we are being offered? Go back home, and try again.

The Grand Mufti was an officer (obergruppenfuhrer) in the SS. This is a fact. He was one of Eichmann's best friends (fact). He impressed Himmler so much that Himmler had him raise the all Muslim volunteer 13th SS Handshar Division in Yugoslavia (another fact). He met Hitler face-to-face where Hitler divulged his plans for the Jews (The Final Solution...another fact). He never faced trial @ Nuremberg (fact). Nasser hid the Mufti (and numerous other old SS men) in Egypt from Nazi hunters (fact).

Start by attempting to answer this very simple question:

"Is it OK to take something from other by force?"

When the Muslims conquered the area, they were taking land that didn't belong to them. But no doubt you wish to make it appear that Israel was created by force. It wasn't. It was created by the UN after voting on partition. The Grand Mufti (there's that forbidden name again) however did go to war and attempted to take the area by force. He failed. During the 6 Day War, Nasser attacked and failed. During the Yom Kippur War, Sadat attacked and failed.

But according to folks like you, Palestine was a country. There never was anything called 'The Ottoman Empire'. Jerusalem was always a Muslim holy city since time began. Arabs are peaceful goat-herders. And, of course, the Grand Mufti never existed.

Good luck in your scientific endeavours.

Good luck with your neo-Nazi terrorists. I'll keep supporting the good guys.

Edited June 2, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[ft.niagara]

As for Obama's Muslim roots, you have still yet to show them as attending a school as a child hardly qualifies one to be anything other than a kid who attended a school for a few years.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/20...would-have.html

Funny how if it hurts to have Muslim roots, hide them. If it helps to have Muslim roots, parade them.

[ft.niagara]

But according to folks like you, Palestine was a country.

The history of Palestine is reflected in its postal history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postage_stamp...ry_of_Palestine

"In the era of modern postage, the postal administrations in Palestine have included Austrian, French, Italian, German, Egyptian, and Russian post offices (through arrangements made with the Ottoman Empire), the Egyptian Expeditionary Forces, the British Mandate, and various interim authorities in the lead up to and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Since 1948, postal services have been provided by Egypt, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian National Authority."

It obviously was not an independent country, but an area under managed control by others.

There never was anything called 'The Ottoman Empire'. Jerusalem was always a Muslim holy city since time began. Arabs are peaceful goat-herders.

Like Palestine, Jerusalem has been under managed control over the years, presently Jewish.

And, of course, the Grand Mufti never existed.

The history of the Grand Mufti was covered in a History Channel documentary. His support of Hitler was because he was against anything Jewish, especially emigration to Palestine/Israel. He is in part responsible for the holocaust because he fought to deny Hitler the option of sending the Jews there.

Edited June 3, 2009 by ft.niagara

[myata]

He is in part responsible for the holocaust because he fought to deny Hitler the option of sending the Jews there.

By that extension, who else would be "in part responsible for the holocaust ", because they "denied the option" of accepting masses of refugees fleeing from Nazis? Can we see anybody here? Why being shy, all of a sudden? Most certainly that notorious "mufti" will take all the blame anyways.

[DogOnPorch]

By that extension, who else would be "in part responsible for the holocaust ", because they "denied the option" of accepting masses of refugees fleeing from Nazis? Can we see anybody here? Why being shy, all of a sudden? Most certainly that notorious "mufti" will take all the blame anyways.

You don't seem to get it. The fellow was right up there with Himmler. Part of Hitler's inner circle, etc. He spent the war in Europe...he was bannished from the Mandate for terrorist activities. Eventually in charge of a large SS army which he raised (all Muslim). What he did is pure horror. When he learned via his sources that Jewish children (!) had escaped the SS's clutches and made it to Hafia, he flipped. Let's let him speak in his own words...shall we?

Mufti Asks Hungary to Send Jews to Poland*

[The Nation appended their own note to this document: "As a Sequel to This Request 400,000 Jews Were Subsequently Killed."]

Rome

June 28, 1943

His Excellency

The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Hungary

Your Excellency:

You no doubt know of the struggle between the Arabs and Jews of Palestine, what it has been and what it is, a long and bloody fight, brought about by the desire of the Jews to create a national home, a Jewish State in the Near East, with the help and protection of England and the United States. In fact, behind it lies the hope which the Jews have never relinquished, namely, the domination of the whole world through this Important, strategic center, Palestine. In effect their program has, among other purposes, always aimed at the encouragement of Jewish migration to Palestine and the other countries of the Near East. However, the war, as well as the understanding which the members of the Three-Power Pact have of the responsibility of the Jews for its outbreak and finally their evil intentions towards these countries which protected them until now - all these are reasons for placing them under such vigilant control as will definitely stop their emigration to Palestine or elsewhere.

Lately I have been informed of the uninterrupted efforts made by the English and the Jews to obtain permission for the Jews living in your country to leave for Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey. I have also learned that these negotiations were successful since some of the Jews of Hungary have had the satisfaction of emigrating to Palestine via Bulgaria and Turkey and that a group of these Jews arrived In Palestine towards the end of last March. The Jewish Agency, which supervises the execution of the Jewish program, has published a bulletin which contains important information on the current negotiations between the English Government and the governments of other interested states to send the Jews of Balkan countries to Palestine. The Jewish Agency quoted, among other things, its receipt of a sufficient number of immigration certificates for 900 Jewish children to be transported from Hungary, accompanied by 100 adults.

To authorize these Jews to leave your country under the above circumstances and in this way, would by no means solve the Jewish problem and would certainly not protect your country against their evil influence - far from it! - for this escape would make it possible for them to communicate and combine freely with their racial brethren in enemy countries in order to strengthen their position and to exert a more dangerous influence on the outcome of the war, especially since, as a consequence of their long stay in your country they are necessarily in a position to know many of your secrets and also about your war effort. All this comes on top of the terrible damage done to the friendly Arab nation which has taken its place at your side in this war and which cherishes for your country the most sincere feelings and the very best wishes.

This is the reason why I ask your Excellency to permit me to draw your attention to the necessity of preventing the Jews from leaving your country for Palestine and if there are reasons which make their removal necessary, it would be indispensable and infinitely preferable to send them to other countries where they would find themselves under active control, for example, in Poland, in order thereby to protect oneself from their menace and avoid the consequent damages

Yours, etc.

Source: The Arab Higher Committee. Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes. Documentary Record Submitted to the United Nations, May 1947, by the Nation Associates. Hungary acceded to the Mufti's request and sent Hungarian Jews to the death camps ("where they would find themselves under active control") in Poland. The Nation Associates added their own note stating that as a result of this request, 400,000 Jews were killed.

[Letter from Mufti ends here]

This was the fellow now facing the Jews in the Mandate. It was he who said 'No' to the state of Palestine via partition. Arafat was his nephew. Hamas and Hezbollah both idolize him. He's a hero of Arab Nationalism to this day...hero if you leave all the nasty Holocaust stuff (he gased a boxcar load of Jews himself in Auschwitz). But some folks don't seem to think that's a fault.

*Hungary along with Finland, Rumainia and Bulgaria were Axis Allied nations during WW2.

Edited June 3, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[myata]

For (mentally) blind and deaf I have to repeat the question, again (it has to be considered as repeated ad infinitum, till answered specifically and in full, because I'm not gonna bother): which other countries refused to accept mass immigration of Jewish refugees, fleewing from Nazi prosecution?

[DogOnPorch]

For (mentally) blind and deaf I have to repeat the question, again (it has to be considered as repeated ad infinitum, till answered specifically and in full, because I'm not gonna bother): which other countries refused to accept mass immigration of Jewish refugees, fleewing from Nazi prosecution?

Canada for one. My aunt was on the SS St Louis. She barely made it out of France in 1940 after the St Louis dropped her off in Europe (after being taken for a ride by the Cubans). She served as a consultant to the movie 'Ship of Fools' about their journey. She now lives peacefully in NYC...since 1940 to be precise.

Conversely, one of my uncles (now dead) worked for the Mufti. Served 7 years post WW2 for war crimes involving his tour of Yugoslavia with the SS. He was a German officer in charge of Muslim volunteers in the 13th SS Mountain and 369th Croat Divisions.

This sums up my childhood interest in the whole affair. These two actually met at a family reunion back in the late 1970s.

[DogOnPorch]

Here's an article from 1948 (Mansfield Ohio newspaper)...

[myata]

Would that make that particular country also eligible to have a part of its territory "given" or "declared" to the persecuted? Why not?

There's been Nazi collaborators in virtually any country in Europe. In some countries, more, significantly more, than in others. Unlike arabs in Palestine, who had to experience results of mass foreign immigration first hand, they'd had no reason to collaborate with Nazi other than pure ethnic hatred (note that I do not exonerate arab Nazi collaborators; only explain how such collaboration could emerge as a logical result of a colonial policy over which local population had no control). Can / should the same argument be used to "partition" those countries in favour of persecuted as well? Why not? Who decides, what can and should and what can't? League of Nations (made of colonial powers of the West). You? Me? More importantly, does existence of collaborators, like that "muft", make the entire population guilty, and subject to punishment? What if it's your country and you don't agree with the proposed partition? Would you be justified in your resistance? What if partition is forced on you anyways, against your objections? Would it make your resistence a "terrorism"?

There's really only two logically consistent alternatives of dealing with "others": of force, where you do what you can and have to do and logically, have to accept that the same can be done to you, no "moral" objections because they'd be pointless; I do this to you, because I have to, and you to something else to me, for pretty much the same reason; or of peace, where you don't do things to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself. Now, pick one.