Muslim antisemitism the cause of the Israeli conflict

[DogOnPorch]

20 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

BTW I am aware of the absurdity of a North American resident like myself lecturing anybody else on this topic. At least the Jewish People do have an ancient claim to the land of Israel which is more than can be said for my lot here. The Beothuk of Newfoundland conveniently disappeared in various ways as the Europeans encroached on the island. Were I a surviving member of that tribe, I would feel perfectly entitled to regard the foreigners with some lack of affection. 

 

Well, unfortunately for the poor Arabs, the Sultan enacted the Land Code of 1858 which gave the Zionist Movement the opening they were looking for when it took-off. And believe me, there was better...cheaper land available all over the place.

The Code allowed the buying and selling of land for the first time in the Ottoman Empire. This as a result of Ottoman Imperialism against Russia....etc, etc, etc. The Crimean War draining the royal coffers. The Jews paid dearly for desert...especially connected plots. Plus they paid the head tax/jizya...but were excluded from having to serve in the Ottoman Army. Few Arabs actually bought land (from the Sultan). Not only due to the nomadic lifestyle of many of the region's Arabs; but, it DID mean serving in the Ottoman Army and paying property taxes. Plus Arab Nationalism, of course...that is a factor. But most Arabs got EXACTLY what they wanted after WW1...save the Mufti and crew....and the Zionists on the Jewish side.

Edited January 22, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Again...stolen land = lie.

Bought from thieves = stolen land.  The people of the region had no say in the rules made by the absentee landlords and rulers that facilitated their dispossession.

I recall how often the usual suspects who defend this decriminalized form of dispossession also refer to the influx of Chinese money into Canada in pursuit of real estate as an invasion. They seem to understand the nature of the principle that's at issue here but as usual the ethics appear to completely baffle them.

[SpankyMcFarland]

14 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Well, unfortunately for the poor Arabs, the Sultan enacted the Land Code of 1858 which gave the Zionist Movement the opening they were looking for when it took-off. And believe me, there was better...cheaper land available all over the place.

The Code allowed the buying and selling of land for the first time in the Ottoman Empire. This as a result of Ottoman Imperialism against Russia....etc, etc, etc. The Crimean War draining the royal coffers. The Jews paid dearly for desert...especially connected plots. Plus they paid the head tax/jizya...but were excluded from having to serve in the Ottoman Army. Few Arabs actually bought land (from the Sultan). Not only due to the nomadic lifestyle of many of the region's Arabs; but, it DID mean serving in the Ottoman Army and paying property taxes. Plus Arab Nationalism, of course...that is a factor. But most Arabs got EXACTLY what they wanted after WW1...save the Mufti and crew....and the Zionists on the Jewish side.

 

The land is still changing hands. A two state solution is being paved over as we correspond.

The basic point I am making is that land is at the heart of this matter. Anti-Semitism or bigotry of any type are secondary. Even Bill Maher and Sam Harris have chosen to ignore this truism. People fighting over land hate each other and always find good reasons to hate each other in Bihar, Fermanagh or Hebron. The only time I have been threatened with violence in a forum was during a discussion of a property lawsuit where I made some mild comments about the rights of way of hikers through farms. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

It's more like if you steal a racist's car is your grandson a thief.

You know what that reminds me of - Guantanamo, a deal that recognizes the ultimate sovereignty of the Cuban government there, whatever that means, but gives the territory to the Americans apparently for eternity despite the fierce objections of the Cubans. Treaties are binding on the weak. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

55 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The basic point I am making is that land is at the heart of this matter. Anti-Semitism or bigotry of any type are secondary. 

 Who owns what land in the former Roman province of Palestine is not important to Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, etc. If the powers had split Palestine up into three Muslim ruled states instead of two Muslim states and one Jewish state there'd have been no wars, no attacks. Nobody invaded when Jordan was created as a separate state because it was under a Muslim ruler. The continuing violent antipathy of the Arab world towards Israel is solely due to it being a Jewish state. Perhaps to some of the local Palestinians it's about land, but not to the Arab world around them.

Edited January 22, 2017 by Argus

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

 

The land is still changing hands. A two state solution is being paved over as we correspond.

The basic point I am making is that land is at the heart of this matter. Anti-Semitism or bigotry of any type are secondary. Even Bill Maher and Sam Harris have chosen to ignore this truism. People fighting over land hate each other and always find good reasons to hate each other in Bihar, Fermanagh or Hebron. The only time I have been threatened with violence in a forum was during a discussion of a property lawsuit where I made some mild comments about the rights of way of hikers through farms. 

 

Meh...it really is a 'who cares?' situation. I see you're upset, but you don't have this sort of passion for...say...South Viet-Nam being erased from the map by invaders. And that happened AFTER the Six Day War.

Why is that?

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Meh...it really is a 'who cares?' situation. I see you're upset, but you don't have this sort of passion for...say...South Viet-Nam being erased from the map by invaders. And that happened AFTER the Six Day War.

Why is that?

 

 

I'm upset? Did you ever hear the expression, 'Play the ball, not the man'? Take a look at the length and tone of the some of the other contributions to this debate even just here over the years. I have passion for all sorts of things that don't come up in this forum on a regular basis, mainly in Europe, and the Middle East is not exactly high on my priority list. All I am saying is that each side has its arguments on the land which I can't be bothered getting into too deeply. For the Palestinians, Muslim or Christian, the land matters. I am merely pointing out my perception of such rows about land around the world. On the wider ME question, Palestine's neighbours should certainly have taken the refugees in and given them full citizenship instead of treating them like pawns.

South Vietnam is an odd choice to pick. The Americans backed a lousy horse there - a regime seen by many of its own people as a corrupt and too Christian oligarchy. A lot of the Viet Cong were local and fought far better than the South Vietnamese Army in the opinion of most US military memoirs. The two sides saw the war very differently and that doomed the American effort. Of course, communism has been a nightmare for the country. I am highly impressed by the lack of bitterness ordinary Vietnamese people feel towards Americans, something we could all learn from. 

 

Edited January 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[DogOnPorch]

It is the man and not the ball at this point...this many decades on: reality is the Palestinian Cause was initially the pipe dream of a rabid Nazi Jew hater named Hajj Amin al-Husseini. There is simply zero reason to support an ember of the Third Reich. No argument you could present...ball or man...can change that for me.

As for South Viet-Nam: they were deemed not worthy of nationhood by those who abandoned them as you detail...unlike the Nazi Palestinian Cause. But the sharks ate well.

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

It is the man and not the ball at this point...this many decades on: reality is the Palestinian Cause was initially the pipe dream of a rabid Nazi Jew hater named Hajj Amin al-Husseini. There is simply zero reason to support an ember of the Third Reich. No argument you could present...ball or man...can change that for me.

As for South Viet-Nam: they were deemed not worthy of nationhood by those who abandoned them as you detail...unlike the Nazi Palestinian Cause. But the sharks ate well.

No national cause belongs to one man and that was a long time ago. Right now the West Bank is being fractured into little pieces from which it will be impossible to create a state. For simple ethnic nationalists like Bennett that is a good outcome but for others who want Israel to remain part of the Western club it will pose serious problems. 

BTW one blind spot I find really striking is the pass Finland gets for actually fighting with the Nazis. I hear criticism of Swedish and Irish neutrality on a regular basis and lots of stuff about the Mufti but the Finns never seem to come up. Must be a conspiracy. 

Edited January 22, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[Argus]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

BTW one blind spot I find really striking is the pass Finland gets for actually fighting with the Nazis. I hear criticism of Swedish and Irish neutrality on a regular basis and lots of stuff about the Mufti but the Finns never seem to come up. Must be a conspiracy. 

The Finns were attacked by the Soviets, who wound up stealing some of their land. they tried to get help from the Swedes and British but were turned down. Under the circumstances, it's hard to blame them looking to allie themselves with the Soviets' enemies to try and defend themselves.

[SpankyMcFarland]

53 minutes ago, Argus said:

The Finns were attacked by the Soviets, who wound up stealing some of their land. they tried to get help from the Swedes and British but were turned down. Under the circumstances, it's hard to blame them looking to allie themselves with the Soviets' enemies to try and defend themselves.

That's all true but they did end up providing concrete assistance to the Nazis' push into Russia with all the horrors that entailed. Are they the only Axis ally that gets a pass? You could apply the same argument to the Palestinians, the Irish revolutionaries of 1916 who spoke of 'our gallant allies in Europe', and Indians who allied with the Japanese. 

Edited January 23, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[DogOnPorch]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

No national cause belongs to one man and that was a long time ago. Right now the West Bank is being fractured into little pieces from which it will be impossible to create a state. For simple ethnic nationalists like Bennett that is a good outcome but for others who want Israel to remain part of the Western club it will pose serious problems. 

BTW one blind spot I find really striking is the pass Finland gets for actually fighting with the Nazis. I hear criticism of Swedish and Irish neutrality on a regular basis and lots of stuff about the Mufti but the Finns never seem to come up. Must be a conspiracy. 

 

In this case it does: Haj Amin al-Husseini. Nazi.

The Finns refused to 'deal with' their Jews.

Edited January 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[SpankyMcFarland]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

In this case it does: Haj Amin al-Husseini. Nazi.

The Finns refused to 'deal with' their Jews.

Did the Finns worry unduly about what was happening to Jews and Russians etc. across the Eastern Front? Their actions had concrete consequences.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Of course, this is a problem in many wars. Britain branded Napoleon a tyrant and enemy of freedom if you don't mind, a notion that has stuck to this day in the Anglosphere, while happily allying itself with a far worse one in the Tsar. 

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Did the Finns worry unduly about what was happening to Jews and Russians etc. across the Eastern Front? Their actions had concrete consequences.

 

The number of Jews in Finland were minimal. Finland made it clear to Nazi Germany that this was their game and were only interested in claiming land the Russians seized in the Winter War. Thus: Finns only served in Finland. Germany, in no position to force Finland, agreed. So even as Leningrad failed, the Finns just sat in their trenches. And when the BIG push came, they quickly made a separate peace with the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile: this is a lark...Finland isn't trying to form a Nazi terror state in the Middle East.

[SpankyMcFarland]

38 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The number of Jews in Finland were minimal. Finland made it clear to Nazi Germany that this was their game and were only interested in claiming land the Russians seized in the Winter War. Thus: Finns only served in Finland.

That would depend on a rather liberal interpretation of the national territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_military_administration_in_Eastern_Karelia

Notice the lingo used to justify this:

The Continuation War and a trust in a quick German victory over the Soviet Union once again gave rise to Finnish irredentism.^[2] The legality of the Finnish claims on Eastern Karelia was justified by both ethno-cultural and military security factors.^[2] During the spring of 1941, when the Finnish political leadership understood the full extent of the German plans concerning the Soviet Union, president Ryti commissioned professor of geography Väinö Auer and historian Eino Jutikkala to demonstrate "scholarly" that Eastern Karelia formed a natural part of the Finnish living space.^[3] The resulting book Finnlands Lebensraum ("Finland's Living Space") was published in the autumn of 1941, and was intended to legitimize Finnish claims and actions to the international audience.^[3] A similar book by historian Jalmari Jaakkola, Die Ostfrage Finnlands ("Finland's Eastern Question") was published in the summer of the same year.^[4]

 

[DogOnPorch]

Not sure where this is going.

Look: you're free to supports the Nazi Palestinian Cause...just don't expect me to. You can use whatever slice of history you deem appropriate to justify said support for al-Husseini's efforts.

[SpankyMcFarland]

48 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Not sure where this is going.

Look: you're free to supports the Nazi Palestinian Cause...just don't expect me to. You can use whatever slice of history you deem appropriate to justify said support for al-Husseini's efforts.

This is one place it is going:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yrjö_von_Grönhagen

And as for the 'Nazi Palestinian Cause' which I of course support wholeheartedly, I don't expect you to support them too. Each to his own. 

The Finns did not confine themselves to fighting on Finnish soil and they definitely assisted the Nazi war machine. I'm sure I'm about to be accused of thread drift here so I will bid adieu. 

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland

[DogOnPorch]

8 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Ah yes, the Nazi Palestinian cause which I of course supports wholeheartedly. 

The Finns did not confine themselves to fighting on Finnish soil and they definitely assisted the Nazi war machine. 

 

None of the above I disagree with.

The Palestinian Cause was started by a Nazi and Finland fought for the Nazis in WW2. Sweden even pitched-in and Norway went Quizling...Denmark rolled over and showed its tum-tum. It was all pretty sordid. The last ember of that mess that still exists is the so-called Palestinian Cause.

I don't support it. I don't care if you do.

Edited January 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[SpankyMcFarland]

29 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

None of the above I disagree with.

The Palestinian Cause was started by a Nazi and Finland fought for the Nazis in WW2. Sweden even pitched-in and Norway went Quizling...Denmark rolled over and showed its tum-tum. It was all pretty sordid. The last ember of that mess that still exists is the so-called Palestinian Cause.

I don't support it. I don't care if you do.

Good man.

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

None of the above I disagree with.

The Palestinian Cause was started by a Nazi and Finland fought for the Nazis in WW2. Sweden even pitched-in and Norway went Quizling...Denmark rolled over and showed its tum-tum. It was all pretty sordid. The last ember of that mess that still exists is the so-called Palestinian Cause.

I don't support it. I don't care if you do.

From what I've read, virtually the whole of Europe assisted the Nazis. Eastern Europe as well. Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech. They may have done so for these reasons:
- Europeans hated the diaspora Jews for over 1000 years. Jews were accused of horrific crimes and attacked in large numbers many times. For example, during the Black Plague.
- It was considered better to be occupied by the Nazis (Hitler) than the Communists (Stalin).

Given that they faced imminent invasion, the easiest thing to do was surrender rather than fight to the bitter end. Nazis were preferred because they did not want to completely transform the people and their culture to the extent that Communists did. The blitzkrieg prevented major damage to the precious European infrastructure. Once occupied, there wasn't a lot of resistance to the idea of putting the Jews in boxcars and shipping them off to an internment camp. Nazis offered a solution to the long-standing "Jewish question". The sad truth is that most countries were complicit in the crimes of the Holocaust.

Although the Holocaust was planned and directed by Germans, the Nazi regime found willing collaborators in other countries, both those allied to Germany and those under German occupation.

Link

 

[DogOnPorch]

5 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Good man.

 

Oh please...you're not my teacher.

 

4 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

From what I've read, virtually the whole of Europe assisted the Nazis. Eastern Europe as well. Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech. They may have done so for these reasons:
- Europeans hated the diaspora Jews for over 1000 years. Jews were accused of horrific crimes and attacked in large numbers many times. For example, during the Black Plague.
- It was considered better to be occupied by the Nazis (Hitler) than the Communists (Stalin).

Given that they faced imminent invasion, the easiest thing to do was surrender rather than fight to the bitter end. Nazis were preferred because they did not want to completely transform the people and their culture to the extent that Communists did. The blitzkrieg prevented major damage to the precious European infrastructure. Once occupied, there wasn't a lot of resistance to the idea of putting the Jews in boxcars and shipping them off to an internment camp. Nazis offered a solution to the long-standing "Jewish question". The sad truth is that most countries were complicit in the crimes of the Holocaust.

Although the Holocaust was planned and directed by Germans, the Nazi regime found willing collaborators in other countries, both those allied to Germany and those under German occupation.

Link

 

 

SS units came from every occupied country as well as Axis Minor nations. This isn't some new revelation brought to us by modern historical muses.

The Mufti is somewhat different simply due to scale. He got to be right inside the highest levels the Third Reich...being Hitler's Middle East propaganda chief as well as a high ranking SS man in order to recruit fresh units in the Balkans...the 13th SS being the most infamous. He walked off the street into Ribbentrop's office after fleeing his revolt in Iraq and demanded a meeting with Hitler...which he got...and history records the minutes of. Unheard of...one doesn't just meet The Fuhrer. Normally a prospect would have to deal with Martin Borman...not this time.

He is responsible along with his close friend, Eichmann, for the final horrific act of the Holocaust, the destruction of the Jews of Hungary and the Balkans. Plenty of Serb, Roma and other undesirables  met their fates at the same time...1944. And let's be clear...we knew about the Mufti and what he did...but didn't hunt him down with the passion of the other top Nazis. He was captured at the end of WW2 and was due for a meeting with the noose...but escaped back to the Middle East to start the Arab-Israeli War we all enjoy to this very day.

This fairly sympathetic video covers his major life events...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy3aDIatrY0

Edited January 23, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[SpankyMcFarland]

One fact I know. Take a man's land and he will hate you. 

[DogOnPorch]

28 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

One fact I know. Take a man's land and he will hate you. 

 

Zionists bought their land.

Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo.

[SpankyMcFarland]

52 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Zionists bought their land.

Yasser Arafat was born in Cairo.

Can you really buy a nation's land like that, though? Doesn't it sound a bit dodgy? It's not a simple question and reminds me of an attempt by a Newfoundlander to sell the water in a lake to the Americans which might have opened up all lakes to similar sales in the country under NAFTA. Fortunately, Chretien stepped in and stopped the deal.

Is Yasser Arafat the only Palestinian? Why was he born in Cairo? Weren't many Jewish settlers born abroad as well? Stables and horse come to mind.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland