Free Gaza Movement

[kraychik]

Arafat (an al-Husseini) was the Mufti's nephew and merely picked-up the torch around 1964 when the Mufti 'retired'. Haj Amin viewed his clan as the keepers of al-Aqsa and pushed the '3rd most holy place in Islam' biz on the rest of the 'Islamic world'. A concept which had been snoozing since the days of Omar in the 7th century. His hatred of Jews was only matched by his hate for the Hashemites in Jordan who not only wanted peace with the new Jewish state but also scoffed at the Mufti's egotistical aspirations of greatness. The Mufti eventually got a hit out on Abdullah I in 1951...assassinating him as he visited the Mufti's mosque in Jerusalem.

Even when under Arafat, the Palestinian Arab-Jordanian relationship was volatile, exploding into Black September in 1970.

How does any of this change the fact that the "Palestinian" national identity is largely a product of the Six Day War? Arab nationalism certainly predates the Six Day War, as do internal struggles for control, I'm not disputing that. The narrative of a distinct nation known as the "Palestinians", however, is entirely a recent political manufacture.

[DogOnPorch]

How does any of this change the fact that the "Palestinian" national identity is largely a product of the Six Day War? Arab nationalism certainly predates the Six Day War, as do internal struggles for control, I'm not disputing that. The narrative of a distinct nation known as the "Palestinians", however, is entirely a recent political manufacture.

It doesn't and the Palestinians are a modern construct. But, if we want to go that route, so are many other groups. Realistically, the movement started in 1920 when the Mufti was given power by the British. He took the ball and ran...guess you can't really fault the fellow's ambition. Once the Turks were removed, everybody and their camel wanted a country.

[bud]

It doesn't and the Palestinians are a modern construct. But, if we want to go that route, so are many other groups.

much like israel and israelis. the difference is that majority of the people who call themselves palestinian lived in palestine but majority of the jews who migrated to palestine in the last century from eastern europe, in order to create a new state called israel, had absolutely no connection to the land (except for fairytale/biblical).

lol...UN Resolutions are the issue. You're also not "the whole world', even though you think you speak for "the whole world".

you need to understand and accept something very simple; the official stance of the whole world is that the occupation and the settlements are illegal. if a country does not agree with this stance, they would object and voice their opinion. the whole world agrees on this issue, including israel's 3 closest allies: u.s., canada and the e.u.

i hope you're able to absorb this fact.

South Viet-Nam used to exist until an aggressor invaded and took over by force well after the so-called precedent of the 1967 Six Day War re: international law and the results of war. Yet, there are no UN Resolutions telling what was North Viet-Nam to had over the 'illegally occupied land'.Try as you might, you won't wiggle out of the fact that there's one 'international law' for Israel and another 'international law' for everybody else. UN 413, which rewards North Viet-Nam's aggression by admitting it to the UN as the new reality on the ground, proves this to be true. This was despite the massive refugee problem (Boat People) and the torture & slaughter in the 're-education camps' that occurred post war.

south and north vietnam used to be one nation until they were split after ww2. they were always been one people. they didn't have mass immigration from another part of the world, where the new immigrants wanted to create a new state. once the north won the war against the south and united states, vietnam went back to what it was before.

your comparisons are ridiculous because you, either ignorantly or purposely, do not look at the whole context. the two situations cannot be compared for the reasons given above.

So, like the Mufti turned SS man, the fate of East Prussia and the end of the Viet-Nam War, you'll just have to continue to ignore the more uncomfortable aspects of your cause's zealotry...ironic word, that.

the act of grand mufti and his collaboration does not equate the palestinians to being a part of the nazis. ever considered that there were also several palestinian brigades that were enlisted into the british army? of course not. that would ruin your whole narrative.

it's interesting that you never talk about the acts of the jewish stern gang, a terrorist organization, who not only resisted the british mandate, but they also committed terrorist acts against palestinian and british civilians. they also collaborated and received funding from the italian fascists to resist the british mandate.

while their jewish brothers were being killed in concentration camps the stern gang's and the irgun gang's leaders and future israeli prime ministers, yitzak shamir and menachem begin, were busy killing british soldiers and blowing up railroads to stop the british supply lines. they were also blowing up hotels and terrorizing british and palestinian civilians.

when shamir, israel's future prime minister was asked to explain their collaboration with the fascists, he replied: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (One Palestine Complete , p. 464).

it's hypocritical to hold palestinians responsible for the choice of one man, al-hajj amin, while israelis and jews still blind themselves to the choices some of their leaders and future prime ministers made during ww2.

Edited October 16, 2012 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

Yes, the Palestinian regiment was mainly Jewish as was the Jewish brigade. Some Arabs did, in fact, volunteer for duty in the first one. But, the Mufti and his cadre were busy up in Yugoslavia raising SS divisions for Himmler. As long as you acknowledge that the Palestinian Arab leadership was hand-in-hand with Hitler, we don't have a problem...well, other than supporting what is essentially a branch of the SS. But, that's your demon...not mine.

[bud]

Yes, the Palestinian regiment was mainly Jewish as was the Jewish brigade. Some Arabs did, in fact, volunteer for duty in the first one. But, the Mufti and his cadre were busy up in Yugoslavia raising SS divisions for Himmler. As long as you acknowledge that the Palestinian Arab leadership was hand-in-hand with Hitler, we don't have a problem...well, other than supporting what is essentially a branch of the SS. But, that's your demon...not mine.

i have never denied the mufti's involvement. although there were a minority of palestinians who collaborated with the nazis, a whole nation cannot pay the price for the choice of a few. especially since palestinians (and most of the arab world) aided the allies with personal and logistics. they also ignored the mufti's call for jihad against the british.

so back to the information which you totally ignored:

it's interesting that you never talk about the acts of the jewish stern gang, a terrorist organization, who not only resisted the british mandate, but they also committed terrorist acts against palestinian and british civilians. they also collaborated and received funding from the italian fascists to resist the british mandate.

while their jewish brothers were being killed in concentration camps the stern gang's and the irgun gang's leaders and future israeli prime ministers, yitzak shamir and menachem begin, were busy killing british soldiers and blowing up railroads to stop the british supply lines. they were also blowing up hotels and terrorizing british and palestinian civilians.

when shamir, israel's future prime minister was asked to explain their collaboration with the fascists, he replied: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." (One Palestine Complete , p. 464).

it's hypocritical to hold palestinians responsible for the choice of one man, al-hajj amin, while israelis and jews still blind themselves to the choices some of their leaders and future prime ministers made during ww2.

[DogOnPorch]

i have never denied the mufti's involvement. although there were a minority of palestinians who collaborated with the nazis, a whole nation cannot pay the price for the choice of a few. especially since palestinians (and most of the arab world) aided the allies with personal and logistics. they also ignored the mufti's call for jihad against the british.

Let's ask Germany, Japan, South Viet-Nam, etc, to see if the statement in bold is true or not.

The Mufti willingly hitched his wagon to Hitler while keeping-up his dream of being the Big Boss in the Levant. He was a wildly popular young fellow to the Arab masses and preached of ridding the Arab world of the corruption of fat cats and foreigners. Music to many ears. He was also all over the place, causing trouble for the Allies as far away as Iraq during WW2...making him quite the hero in many folks' eyes. His deep involvement in the Holocaust...particularly in Hungary...was generally unknown until well after the War Trials were over. But, this hasn't tarnished his image over time to those who can get over the hundreds of thousands of dead he can be attributed to. Much like Samir Kuntar, the Mufti is still a figure to be admired in some areas of the Arab world...but, mostly unknown in the West. I heard about him as a kid from an uncle telling campfire tales...I imagine I was rare.

I understand that your particular cause needs to place the Mufti in a box to separate him from the mantra about the Arabs being victims of genocide. SS men knee deep in actual genocides make rotten poster boys...which is why the Mufti retired in the first place. Instead, now your cause has terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah to fill the Mufti's former role. At least they're still giving the old Nazi salute.

As for Stern...he was willing to make deals with the Devil and in the end got what he deserved in terms of British pay-back. Bullets. Gone like Tesio. Unlike the Mufti, there's no cult of personality surrounding Stern's image. Pretty much despised as a Nazi collaborator and a terrorist except by some old farts in the Likud party and their ilk.

[GostHacked]

In this post I'll be playing the part of the anti-semite, that some members have claimed me to be, I'll leave this right here.

http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/antisemitism/holocaust/index.cfm

[bud]

As for Stern...he was willing to make deals with the Devil and in the end got what he deserved in terms of British pay-back. Bullets. Gone like Tesio. Unlike the Mufti, there's no cult of personality surrounding Stern's image. Pretty much despised as a Nazi collaborator and a terrorist except by some old farts in the Likud party and their ilk.

you kind of missed most of that.

what about the other leaders of the terrorist groups, who eventually became prime ministers of israel? you're trying to make it sound like it was only stern when begin and shamir were also part of the terrorist organizations who collaborated with the fascists and attacked the british and the allied supply route.

[DogOnPorch]

you kind of missed most of that.

what about the other leaders of the terrorist groups, who eventually became prime ministers of israel? you're trying to make it sound like it was only stern when begin and shamir were also part of the terrorist organizations who collaborated with the fascists and attacked the british and the allied supply route.

Depends on what Shamir and Begin did during their tour through Irgun, doesn't it? Were they smashing children's heads open with rifle butts? Gutting pregnant women? Sending trains full of Hungarians to Poland? What crimes are they particularly accused of? Cutting off supply routes are a thing that happens during war and since they wouldn't heed Haganah and stop fighting the British, they were de facto Axis forces.

Edited October 16, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

south and north vietnam used to be one nation until they were split after ww2. they were always been one people. they didn't have mass immigration from another part of the world, where the new immigrants wanted to create a new state. once the north won the war against the south and united states, vietnam went back to what it was before.

your comparisons are ridiculous because you, either ignorantly or purposely, do not look at the whole context. the two situations cannot be compared for the reasons given above.

South and North WERE NOT one nation before WW2. The area then was French Indochina and before that it was a mish-mash of various kingdoms including the Anam, Khmer, Hong, Cham, Viet, Thai and Cochin Chinese...those are the ones I can remember.

[DogOnPorch]

you need to understand and accept something very simple; the official stance of the whole world is that the occupation and the settlements are illegal. if a country does not agree with this stance, they would object and voice their opinion. the whole world agrees on this issue, including israel's 3 closest allies: u.s., canada and the e.u.

i hope you're able to absorb this fact.

That's swell. So how's that working out for South Viet-Nam again?

[bud]

Depends on what Shamir and Begin did during their tour through Irgun, doesn't it?

they were deemed terrorist organizations for a reason. they blew up buildings and killed civilians.

they sabotaged the british efforts against the nazis and they collaborated with the axis while receiving arms to fight the british. this is while jews were being taken into concentration camps. what more do you want them to do?

[DogOnPorch]

they were deemed terrorist organizations for a reason. they blew up buildings and killed civilians.

they sabotaged the british efforts against the nazis and they collaborated with the axis while receiving arms to fight the british. this is while jews were being taken into concentration camps. what more do you want them to do?

Stern was the one with big plans of the Nazis actually helping him.

Begin joined Irgun in 1943, well after the split. Shamir is the more questionable figure of the two with closer ties to Stern. I'm curious as to where you got your information about Germany arming Irgun, however...or the Stern Gang for that matter. Perhaps one of those wing-nutz like Mark Weber?

[bud]

Stern was the one with big plans of the Nazis actually helping him.

Begin joined Irgun in 1943, well after the split. Shamir is the more questionable figure of the two with closer ties to Stern. I'm curious as to where you got your information about Germany arming Irgun, however...or the Stern Gang for that matter. Perhaps one of those wing-nutz like Mark Weber?

i never said germany was arming irgun. it was mussolini who was arming them.

whatever watered down version you want to write about 2 of israel's former prime ministers, and a past zionist leader, they all fought against the allies and killed civilians in the process. when they were blowing up ally supply routes, they were helping out the nazis who were at the same time, putting jews in concentration camps.

so why all the cries about the grand mufti, who never really had much of a fan base and was eventually shunned by the arabs when two of israel's prime ministers have had a darker past with their collaborations with the enemy of the allies.

Edited October 17, 2012 by bud

[bleeding heart]

So now statism is another term we can add to the growing list of terms you don't understand.

This from a guy who not only has no idea about the history of Libertarianism...but throws tantrums at his own ignorance of the concept.

[DogOnPorch]

i never said germany was arming irgun. it was mussolini who was arming them.

Ah....Mark Weber it is.

whatever watered down version you want to write about 2 of israel's former prime ministers, and a past zionist leader, they all fought against the allies and killed civilians in the process. when they were blowing up ally supply routes, they were helping out the nazis who were at the same time, putting jews in concentration camps.

I think we can both agree Stern was a traitor.

so why all the cries about the grand mufti, who never really had much of a fan base and was eventually shunned by the arabs when two of israel's prime ministers have had a darker past with their collaborations with the enemy of the allies.

Revisionism...you're the king of it. There's no denying that.

[bud]

Ah....Mark Weber it is.

i don't even know who that is. regardless, you're failing in rebutting and instead, you're trying to dismiss information without citing.

I think we can both agree Stern was a traitor.

stern lead a terrorist organization which an eventual israeli prime minister was a part of. can we both agree that they were terrorist organizations that targeted civilians and fought against britain, one of the allies?

telll me again, who was the commander of irgun when they blew up the king david hotel and killed 91 people:

91 people were killed, most of them being staff of the hotel or Secretariat: 21 were first-rank government officials; 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers; 13 were soldiers; 3 policemen; and 5 were members of the public. By nationality, there were 41 Arabs, 28 British citizens, 17 Palestinian Jews, 2 Armenians, 1 Russian, 1 Greek and 1 Egyptian. 46 people were injured.

Revisionism...you're the king of it. There's no denying that.

another cheap answer. either explain what you find to be wrong, or we'll have to jot another one down as DoP failing.

Edited October 17, 2012 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

Your mistake is thinking I support Irgun. I don't...errr...didn't. Wasn't born yet. Nor did I vote for Begin or Shamir being a Canadian. I'm more concerned with the actual history...military history in particular...of various time periods. I'm just as happy discussing the 100 Year War if that's what you'd like to do...but, you only post on this subject matter.

another cheap answer. either explain what you find to be wrong, or we'll have to jot another one down as DoP failing.

My line on the Mufti hasn't changed since I came here to MLW. His history is well known and as usual, your revisionism puts him in the back row somewhere...of little influence or consequence to the Arab-Israeli situation.

i don't even know who that is. regardless, you're failing in rebutting and instead, you're trying to dismiss information without citing.

Mark Weber is a historical revisionist that claims Germany armed Irgun. Speaking of cites...where's yours?

http://www.ihr.org/

[bud]

Your mistake is thinking I support Irgun. I don't...errr...didn't. Wasn't born yet. Nor did I vote for Begin or Shamir being a Canadian. I'm more concerned with the actual history...military history in particular...of various time periods. I'm just as happy discussing the 100 Year War if that's what you'd like to do...but, you only post on this subject matter.

how often do you repeat the grand mufti's ties to the nazis and try to paint the palestinians as allies of the nazis? why then so silent on irgun and lehi and their leaders who not only attacked and killed the british but they also committed terrorist attacks against civilians. then, their leaders became prime ministers of israel. wouldn't that be as alarming, if not more alarming?

so why are you so selective about your history if you claim to be honest and truthful?

My line on the Mufti hasn't changed since I came here to MLW. His history is well known and as usual, your revisionism puts him in the back row somewhere...of little influence or consequence to the Arab-Israeli situation.

i don't agree with any person or group who collaborated with the nazis and the fascists. whether it's the mufti, irgun, lehi, france, italy, japan, romania, croatia, bulgaria, switzerland. what i'm not about to do is to try to sell the involvement of groups or people and generalize an entire population like you do. how many times have you tried to portray the palestinians as nazis?

so why don't you have the same standard towards israelis and jews? why so selective when it comes to history? why the whitewashing? why don't you be honest and truthful?

Mark Weber is a historical revisionist that claims Germany armed Irgun. Speaking of cites...where's yours?http://www.ihr.org/

where is ihr.org's information on two of israel's prime ministers who were leaders of terrorist groups that killed scores of civilians and attacked the allies?

my information comes from variety of books, including:

The Righteous Victims by benny morris - the best book out there in regards to the history of the conflict.

One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate by tom segev

Israel: A History - by martin gilbert

you should check them out and then we'll compare notes.

[DogOnPorch]

Benny Morris, Tom Segev: revisionists. Martin Gilbert: love his Churchill stuff.

how often do you repeat the grand mufti's ties to the nazis and try to paint the palestinians as allies of the nazis? why then so silent on irgun and lehi and their leaders who not only attacked and killed the british but they also committed terrorist attacks against civilians. then, their leaders became prime ministers of israel. wouldn't that be as alarming, if not more alarming?

None of my family worked for Irgun. This also hasn't changed since I arrived here at MLW.

[bud]

Benny Morris, Tom Segev: revisionists. Martin Gilbert: love his Churchill stuff.

his book is, hands down, one of the best written and most thorough book on the history of the region. show me someone who has been able to show something, anything from his book that has been shown to be wrong.

you have once again lowered yourself to the biased, propagandist you pretend not to be.

None of my family worked for Irgun. This also hasn't changed since I arrived here at MLW.

who gives a sh*t about you or your family. we're talking about the history of the region and you are purposely omitting glaring information about israel's past and its prime ministers' roles in terrorism and activity against the allies, while harping and exaggerating the role of a palestinian who had ties with the nazis and then trying to sell that palestinians have nazi roots.

if you want to be serious about discussing the history of the region, then stop being a little baby and discuss. instead of trying to wiggle and weasel your way out of the uncomfortable truth. time to put away wikipedia and ihr.org and start reading real history books.

are we done here on this topic or are you going to respond to this?

how often do you repeat the grand mufti's ties to the nazis and try to paint the palestinians as allies of the nazis? why then so silent on irgun and lehi and their leaders who not only attacked and killed the british but they also committed terrorist attacks against civilians. then, their leaders became prime ministers of israel. wouldn't that be as alarming, if not more alarming?

so why are you so selective about your history if you claim to be honest and truthful?

Edited October 18, 2012 by bud

[DogOnPorch]

Oh...oh...bud said the word 'truthful'...drink a beer.

[kraychik]

Benny Morris himself describes himself as one the "new historians", which is a euphemism for a historical revisionist. It's not necessarily a problem, sometimes historical revision is justified if the original dominant narratives are incomplete or incorrect. More importantly, Morris is a staunch Zionist and is certainly not on board with bud's Islamic anti-Semitic narratives.

[DogOnPorch]

Benny Morris himself describes himself as one the "new historians", which is a euphemism for a historical revisionist. It's not necessarily a problem, sometimes historical revision is justified if the original dominant narratives are incomplete or incorrect. More importantly, Morris is a staunch Zionist and is certainly not on board with bud's Islamic anti-Semitic narratives.

Indeed...but, revisionist-he-still-be. History is a funny thing. It will rot if not maintained properly. As eyewitnesses disappear, the planet relies more and more on 2nd hand info...and if that 2nd hand info is wrong, it may get treated as correct by consensus. Barbra Tuchman spelled this out in detail in her book "A Distant Mirror" which tried to sort out what happened in 14th century France. Fact and fable dance hand in hand.

Edited October 18, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

Indeed...but, revisionist-he-still-be. History is a funny thing. It will rot if not maintained properly. As eyewitnesses disappear, the planet relies more and more on 2nd hand info...and if that 2nd hand info is wrong, it may get treated as correct by consensus. Barbra Tuchman spelled this out in detail in her book "A Distant Mirror" which tried to sort out what happened in 14th century France. Fact and fable dance hand in hand.

All unquestionably true, but first-hand accounts can be monumentally mistaken as well. So the complex dance of how we tell stories about ourselves is a moebius strip.