Ahmadinejad:'Hated Israel will be annihalated'

[GostHacked]

No but you did say this:

Correct. And I will clarify. The people who created Israel were not living in the Middle East and had no ties to the land other than an ancient one long gone and done. Why not carve out a piece of Germany for a Jewish homeland? Germany is to blame for the holocaust correct?

The rights of Palestinians in the Palestinian Authority is not an Israeli issue.

Indirectly it is. This is why fighting still goes on.

You are right, the quotes are not perfect for your argument and no doubt there are many far less than perfect quotes to be found.

But I have shown that when Israel is criticized they play the Holocaust/anti-semite card.

[M.Dancer]

Correct. And I will clarify. The people who created Israel were not living in the Middle East and had no ties to the land other than an ancient one long gone and done. Why not carve out a piece of Germany for a Jewish homeland? Germany is to blame for the holocaust correct?

Because the jews do not have a continous presence in Germany. The Holocaust is irrelevant, What is relevant is:

• The Jews have been in and have claimed the land as their homeland for eons.
  

• That the land was not a sovereign land and could be distributed legally.
  

[DogOnPorch]

Ahmadinejad has the gall to claim there is no 'scientific' research into the Holocaust...then asks the questions...

If this happened (The Holocaust)...where did it happen? Did the Palestinian people have anything to do with it (implying 'no'). Why should the Palestinians pay for it now?

Now...to avoid me repeating myself, Ghosthacked, did the Palestinian people have anything to do with the Holocaust or not?

[ToadBrother]

That the land was not a sovereign land and could be distributed legally.

And that's the crucial point. The only time since the Romans walked in and seized the East Mediterranean that any part of Palestine was a sovereign state was the Medieval Crusader States (like the Kingdom of Jerusalem). Prior to that, it belonged to the Byzantines, prior to that to Rome. After the Byzantine Empire lost the region, the Turks took it over and it became part of the Ottoman Empire, until that empire's collapse when the British got a mandate over it. The Brits, with a nod first to the League of Nations and later to the UN, was free, as a victorious power, to do what it would, and thus guaranteed a homeland for the Jews. Everyone even agreed that the Palestinian Arabs should also have a homeland, but instead of taking what they had never had before (namely, a state), they sided with surrounding Arab rulers and lost when none of them could push the newborn Israeli state into the sea.

[M.Dancer]

But I have shown that when Israel is criticized they play the Holocaust/anti-semite card.

No you showed one instance where the unfettered grasp for power and the military might to attain it is compared to NAzi Germany and another where a preceding speaker (Iran) brings up the holocaust, denies the holocaust and tries to link the (fake) holocaust to the creation of Israel.

So yes, if your criticism of Israel is to deny its legitimacy by denting the holocaust, both points are erroneous...the plan for a Jewish homeland predates the holocaust and the holocaust is a fact....that an Israeli politician has to defend history at the UN is another black mark on the UN.

[GostHacked]

Because the jews do not have a continous presence in Germany. The Holocaust is irrelevant, What is relevant is:

• The Jews have been in and have claimed the land as their homeland for eons.
  

• That the land was not a sovereign land and could be distributed legally.
  

The Holocaust is 100% relevant. It's a major catalyst (and I'd say the major catalyst) to the creation of a re-established Jewish homeland. I don't think Israel would exist if the holocaust or another horrific event on the same scale did not happen.

And there was much in the area that was not sovereign, it was all controlled by Britain. Only after the mandate in 1947 were borders drawn up. This created Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon ect ect ect. Israel and Jewish people should have been happy with the land they were given. But the rest of the population did not want it, and that has been obvious from the start. Most of it was drawn up by people not even native to the area.

If what you claim is true (and a claim is much different from a right) that they have always had a presence and nothing was sovereign then the Jews should blame themselves for the situation they are in.

[DogOnPorch]

The Holocaust is 100% relevant. It's a major catalyst (and I'd say the major catalyst) to the creation of a re-established Jewish homeland. I don't think Israel would exist if the holocaust or another horrific event on the same scale did not happen.

According to this Holocaust historian, you're very much mistaken.

[DogOnPorch]

And there was much in the area that was not sovereign, it was all controlled by Britain. Only after the mandate in 1947 were borders drawn up. This created Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon ect ect ect.

Partly correct...France controlled their own Mandate in the area.

[GostHacked]

Now...to avoid me repeating myself, Ghosthacked, did the Palestinian people have anything to do with the Holocaust or not?

I will say no.

What is the reason for your question though?

[M.Dancer]

The Holocaust is 100% relevant.

I suggest you research the origins of Zionism, the Balfour declaration and the sates associated with them.

And there was much in the area that was not sovereign, it was all controlled by Britain. Only after the mandate in 1947 were borders drawn up. This created Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon ect ect ect.

Your history and Geography are wrong. Jordan was created in 1923, much to the satistfaction of the Hashemites and giving all of the west bank to Jordan.

Syria and Lebanon were under the French Authority. Syria becoame independant in 1944. Lebanon became independant in 1943.

Israel and Jewish people should have been happy with the land they were given.

They were, Excedeingly. So happy even, they died to prevent anyone from taking it away.

But the rest of the population did not want it, and that has been obvious from the start.

Which start? The Syrian start? The Jordanian start? Or the start when the arab league said, we can take it all?

If what you claim is true (and a claim is much different from a right) that they have always had a presence and nothing was sovereign then the Jews should blame themselves for the situation they are in.

That is nonsense.

Edited March 16, 2010 by M.Dancer

[DogOnPorch]

I will say no.

What is the reason for your question though?

The answer is 'yes' of course.

This is a thread about Ahmadinejad, no? I thought you would have been familiar with with his actual words.

[GostHacked]

The answer is 'yes' of course.

This is a thread about Ahmadinejad, no? I thought you would have been familiar with with his actual words.

I don't get it Dog. You asked what the Palestinians had to do with the Holocaust. I said they had nothing to do with it. That is all on Nazi Germany.. regardless of what Ahmadinejad claims.

Edited March 16, 2010 by GostHacked

[DogOnPorch]

I don't get it Dog. You asked what the Palestinians had to do with the Holocaust. I said they had nothing to do with it. That is all on Nazi Germany.

Sigh...ok...here we go.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/17089176.html

[M.Dancer]

I don't get it Dog. You asked what the Palestinians had to do with the Holocaust. I said they had nothing to do with it. That is all on Nazi Germany.. regardless of what Ahmadinejad claims.

Nazi Germany...Albania...Bulgaria...Hungary ....Iraq....Arabia..

But that is tangential...

[DogOnPorch]

Nazi Germany...Albania...Bulgaria...Hungary ....Iraq....Arabia..

But that is tangential...

Yea olde Mufti's insistence that every Jew get the special treatment in Poland resulted in the deaths of some 400-700 thousand Jewish people (plus numerous Roma and Tito supporters) at a time when Nazi Germany and friends were busy trying to sanitize the Holocaust in view of the fading opportunities on the battlefield.

Edited March 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

Has the declaration been adhered to?

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."[1]

Further down the page.

Conflicts and broken treaty commitments (contradictory assurances)

"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant [of the League of Nations] and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American [King-Crane] Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.

Am I reading this right? They never intended to consult the locals?

The Four Great Powers [britain, France, Italy and the United States] are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.

I am not sure I like this Balfour guy.

[DogOnPorch]

I am not sure I like this Balfour guy.

Paid for with British/ANZAC blood.

[M.Dancer]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1917

Has the declaration been adhered to?

In Israel, yes. Jews, Muslims and christians have full religious freedom. Outside of Israel..not so much

[GostHacked]

In Israel, yes. Jews, Muslims and christians have full religious freedom. Outside of Israel..not so much

But this declaration was before the creation of Israel and seemed to talk about the whole area. So that does not make any sense.

[M.Dancer]

But this declaration was before the creation of Israel and seemed to talk about the whole area. So that does not make any sense.

I don't know what is confusing you.

[DogOnPorch]

But this declaration was before the creation of Israel and seemed to talk about the whole area. So that does not make any sense.

The year 1917 was a very dark one for the Allied cause on all fronts. Support was sought after from all parties involved in the area re: the Ottoman Turks. Big promises made, etc. Keep in mind the strategic importance of the Middle East (with the Suez canal in particular) in maintaining the British Empire. At the time the Suez was of #1 importance and everything else was a factor in keeping it open for British interests.

As hinted at, the whole region from Turkey to Egypt saw very heavy fighting over the course of WW1 and hundreds of thousands of Allied casualties plus victory gave the Allies pretty much all the say in how things were divided up.

Edited March 16, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[Bonam]

I don't support Israel and I really don't think it has the right to exist

Honestly guys, why bother arguing and debating further? Clearly there is no point after a statement like that.

[M.Dancer]

Honestly guys, why bother arguing and debating further? Clearly there is no point after a statement like that.

Because he's a nice guy.

[naomiglover]

I haven't had a chance to read all the pages yet, but I have to say, it's nice to see American Woman's posts and her honesty on the first page.

At the same time, it's dissapointing to see Gosthacked's comments about Israel's right to exist. My opinion is that it's fine to criticize the way Israel came to be, which I do, but to say that it doesn't have a right to exist is simply wrong.

[ToadBrother]

Honestly guys, why bother arguing and debating further? Clearly there is no point after a statement like that.

I'd like to find out what justification Gosthack would require for any nation state to exist? I can't think of a single example of a nation state that didn't, somewhere along the line, spring forth from sort of invasive power. I mean, I guess some of the most ancient civilizations like Egypt, Sumeria and China were largely native to the areas that they grew up in, but just about everything that came into existence in the last 3,000-3,500 years has pretty much done so via invasion. The earliest Greeks invaded the Greek mainland and for the most part dispossessed the native inhabitants (who are only known by a few Classical place names). West Semitic peoples overthrew the Sumerians, and while adopting much of their culture, rendered the world's first written language little more than a ritual one. England was founded by West Germanic peoples driving Celtic culture to the very fringes of the Isle of Britain (and even the Celts had displaced the original inhabitants, whose origins may have been the Iberian Peninsula). Canada was founded by various forms of conquest; either over the French or over the Native peoples. Italy, France, Spain, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, India (and we're talking pre-British Raj here), all were largely founded by some sort of cultural invasion, and as often as not military conquest as well.

I'd ask Gosthack by what definition there is a right to any particular state in the region of Israel and the Palestinian territories. Other than for a rather brief period in the Medieval period, there hasn't been an independent state there in over 2,000 years. The people that lived there spent a good deal of time as subjects of the Romans, then the Byzantine Empire, then the Turks up until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps we should find the last owners, which were the Ottomans and the absentee landlords that held so much of the land in the more hospitable parts of the region.