Community archive
by jaqui
is going on.
It could be Israel being pissed at the millions of jewish people killed by the palestines since the end of WWII because they didn't like creating a country that was publicly known to have existed in the same geographic area.
after all, a reasonably estimate for the deaths directly caused by the battles with the palestines would be equal or greater than the deaths caused by the N.A.Z.I. attempt at genoicide.
by jdclyde
by bfilmfan
by jaqui
45 years of war [ or so ] with the palestine there haven't been a few million jews killed?
[ I do count terrorist bombings as act of war in this ]
naturally been a lot of killed on the other side in the war as well.
by jamesrl
The UN did not create the state of Israel.
The land had been part of the Ottoman empire until that Empire fought and lost in WWI. During the war the Balfour declaration(British) stated the intention of creating the state of Israel.
The Arabs who fought with the British to throw out the Turks were also promised a state, and so the problems begin.
Britain had two "mandates" or colonies, one in Palestine (west of Jordan river) the other Transjordan (east of the Jordan). Jewish immigration to Palestine increased tensions, riots and figting broke out, the arabs resented the British for letting the Jews immigrate. In 1939, Britain sought to limit Jewish immigration to ease the tensions in the region and appease the arab neighbours, and this started zionist actions against the British.
After world war II, the guerilla war against the British by the zionists escalated and Britain sought to wash their hands of it, so they asked the UN to come up with a solution.
It should be noted that these zionists had been using terror bombing (King David hotel) of innocent civilians before the PLO even existed. This is not to say that anyone is justified in using terrorism, and I am not suggesting that zionism is itself bad or that the desire to create a state of Israel was a bad thing. There were many moderate zionists who did not approve of the tactics.
The UN came up with a plan, the British left on schedule, the zionists declared the state of Isreal and the arab neighbours attacked.
Its not a simple answer. Too bad people try to make it too simple.
As for the original poster, what I have read from the news re the Iranian president has been very specifically Holocaust denial.
James
by john.a.wills
by amcol
"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at a news conference in Saudi Arabia, denied that the Holocaust happened. "Some European countries insist on saying that Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces," Mr. Ahmadinejad said. "We don't accept this claim," the Iranian president said, adding that if Europeans want to believe in the Holocaust, then they should make room for the state of Israel to move to Europe."
This is a cut and paste from a news service.
How exactly did you intepret this to mean that he "explicitly accepted the Holocaust story"?
"He is now being accused of Holocaust Denial." Yeah. As he should be. Because that's what he did.
"Something strange is going on." Yeah. Your misinterpretation of the facts.
by john.a.wills
by amcol
And presenting a skewed, baseless, specious argument.
What exactly is a Palestinian? The vast majority of people living in the area who identify themselves as Palestinians are fairly recent arrivals to the region, brought in to establish an artificial nationality. Their claim to the area, while not entirely without merit, is far less valid than other groups...including Jews, Christians, and Moslems.
As far as Jews having a state, or Israel being the Jewish state, it may interest you to know that demographically speaking the population of Israel is only about 65% Jewish. The rest are Moslem and Christian. It may also interest you to know that 95% of the Jewish population of Israel is entirely non-observant. They have as about as much in common with other Jews as they do with Buddhists.
It may also interest you to know that the Jewish claim on the territory is not based on European WWII holocaust guilt but the fact that Jews were the original settlers of that area and have been living there continuously for thousands of years.
You're buying the hateful sputterings of a demented lunatic who happens, unfortunately, to be a head of state...a rogue state, at that. Wise up.
by smorty71
I don't want to get in on the debate; however, in order to match the 6 million estimated jewish casualities in the Holocaust, 365 people would have to have been killed every day for the past 45 years in order for your estimation to be correct.
45*365 = 16425
6,000,000 / 16425 = 365.2
by jaqui
so if we add the 11 days for leap years it isn't going to alter that number much.
if it was even 2 million over the 45 years or so of war, then it would be 122 people a day on average.
not quite such a stretch... since some days would see 300+ other wouldn't see any.
a bombing of a bus in rush hour 60 dead and 200 wounded, I do remember news stories like that being all to common for a long time... makes 60 or so soldiers on average for days like that.
I was just pointing out why the Iranian President would want to deny the existance of the Holocaust, the generation of war to rid the area of these "invaders" needs to deny it to be justifiable.
by jdclyde
your source for this acceptence of the Holocaust "story".
Also please state who is accusing him falsely as you are implying here.
Third, what strange thing do YOU THINK is going on?
by john.a.wills
by puppybreath
by jamesrl
I am not in any way trying to say that both sides don't have things to regret in what happened in 1948.
But lets face it, the Jewish forces were armed gangs, with no central leadership, whose goals and strategies were varied. Some vary well may have crossed the borders before partition day. But the arab states invaded with a real army with the intent of wiping out the jewish state.
Can I ask - do you believe the holocaust happened?
James
by john.a.wills
1. I am quite sure that the Holocaust happened: 5.1 million people were murdered for being Jews and 0.8 million for being Gypsies. This has nothing to do with the Palestinians.
2. The Zionists were very well organized for the Nakba; they followed the Hagganah's Plan Daleth (there must have been at least 3 earlier concrete plans for that name to have been chosen). The plan of the Arab states - or at least of the so-called "Government of All Palestine" - was to prevent the Jewish state expanding until some accomodation could be reached. Of course, they did not want to give up any part of their country to a group of misbehaving immigrants, but they did not invade the territory the UN had assigned to those immigrants. If the "non-Jewish" inhabitants of the Jewish state had not been driven out they would have been a majority and the first democratic election would have meant a unified Palestine.
by john.a.wills
I don't think you know what the word means. As to facts, the Palestinians are quite an old nation, being referred to as a nation (Greek: ethnos) in Jn 11:48,50,51,52, written towards the end of the 1st Century. There has of course been migration in and out over the centuries, but the people of Palestine have been a nation continuously for a long time. They were the first majority-Jewish nation and from ca. 200 for over a thousand years a majority-Christian nation, perhaps the first such. The Zionist claim to the Holy Land surely does not depend on former religion of the Palestinians?
I am not buying into Ahm.'s hate: I have merely pointed out one anomaly in reactions to him.
by protiusx
Other than being willing and even eager allies of Nazi Germany during the time of the holocaust the Muslim nations had very little to do in WWII. It was not the Muslim nations that persecuted the Jews during this time. They didn't have any problem with it in fact from their point of view the were grateful to Hitler for attempting to eradicate an entire race from the face of the earth.
Being somewhat close to Iran I can say that I to was aware of the story and he did in fact say those words. He also called for the outright destruction/annihilation of Israel. This is not uncommon and happens quite often. A friend of mine explained it this way: When an Muslim country (Arab, Persian or otherwise) wants to deflect the national attention from internal troubles they whip up the people to an external common foe. In this case it is Israel and of course the Great Satan - USA.
While on certain levels I believe his comments can be discarded as a whole load of propaganda tosh I also recognize that the Jews and Muslims have had enmity between them for thousands of years. I am not surprised he made those statements. Disgusted, revolted and angered maybe but not surprised.
by amcol
But I've never been able to understand the enmity between Moslems, Christians, and Jews.
We are all from one common ancestor, Abraham, who founded Judaism and was the first person to posit monotheism. It so happens he was born in the area that became Iraq, BTW. One of his sons was Ishmael, from whose family line Mohammed descended. Jesus Christ was Jewish.
All three religions are basically the same under the covers. The differences essentially are in the liturgies and rituals, but the underlying philosophies of faith are pretty much the same. If you study religion from an intellectual perspective and not as a matter of spirituality this becomes clearer.
Why can we not all accept this common ancestry and recognize that at the end of the day we're all brothers?
BTW, one small correction to your comments. Judaism is not a race, it's a religion. There are only a handful of racial divisions among human beings, but there's a large number of religions. Perhaps if more people realized that there would be less division, if you'll pardon the pun.
by jamesrl
Personally, I believe all humans to be of one race and by extension we are all "brothers". Skin colours are pretty irrelevant.
We humans have constructed race, and it started long before recorded history. Other than some diseases which afflict some genetic strains more than others (Tay Sachs etc), we are much more alike than we are different, at least physiologically.
We set ourselves apart through culture and history. Lots of things shape our culture including our geography, history, language etc.
Religions have often more reflected the cultural norms and values than high minded spiritual ones. Even among the various christian denominations, there is a lot of variation based on local or regional norms, as opposed to differences in biblical interpretation.
There have been times when we have all got along. There were times in the older Muslim empires that both Jews and Christians were allowed to hold any and every position except for the top ruler, and many Muslim rules relied on Jewish citizens to help administer their countries. Likewise, Jewish banking was at one time vital to the economies of Europe in the Middle ages(anyone read Ivanhoe?).
Virtually every religion has a version of the Golden rule. All religions seem to have forgotten it at some time or another.
James
by protiusx
Wow! Where to begin? You are correct in saying that Islam, Christianity and Judaism have commonality in their beginnings but to say the are the same under the covers can be no further from the truth. While there are similarities between the religions they are extremely different on a fundamental level. Yes Neil I wrote the "F" word. Form what I understand, Judaism believes in A single God and in a coming Messiah. Judaism believes in a place called Sheol (hell) and in Heaven (Abrahams Bosom). They believe in sin and the redemption of sin by works of penance and contrition. Christians believe in the same God but differ in that they believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Christians believe in a Heaven and an Hell and that the only way to enter into Heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ. Muslims differ in that they believe in a single God (Allah) which they will quickly point out is not the same God worshipped by the Jews. Like the Jews though they believe that they keep a ledger of deeds and can only attain paradise by works. Islam is a constantly changing religion which bends to the Fatuas issued by Mullahs all over the world.
If you were to suggest to a Muslim that he Jew is his brother he would be highly offended and become angry. Jews being human have a difficult time offering love to a group of people who constantly talk about and plan ways to kill them and their children for no other reason than they are Jews. Christians are to bless those that curse them and in the tradition of the Samaritan help those who would not reciprocate the gesture. We are all human and this becomes difficult at times.
I agree with you that there are probably more religious groups than racial groups but even here in Islam you have Persians, Kurds, Arabs, Egyptians, etc... Within the Arab community you have Sunnis. Shiites, and a whole slew of others that I can't pronounce let alone spell.
who conjure up an external enemy to deflect attention from domestic difficulties. That's being going on since Adam & Eve stripped God's apple tree.
Not me guv' that devil fellow really responsible. Come now Adam, that's a lie. OK boss it was the bint's fault.
To be quite honest I've never heard anyone blame palestinians for the holocaust, I have heard many different anti-semitic racist f'wits deny it happened though.
by amcol
Well said.
To your point about genetic diseases...Tay-Sachs tends to manifest itself primarly in Ashkenazic Jews (those from Eastern Europe). Sickle cell anemia tends to manifest principally in blacks. These genetic diseases appear to be racially or religiously oriented because people of the same fill-in-the-blank tend to stay together and procreate together, perpetuating the genetic strain within a defined group. It's statistically significant but non-correlative.
by jamesrl
You have to remember it was a different time back then.
The area of Israel/Palestine had been part of the Ottoman Empire for many hundreds of years.
The Ottoman empire was on the brink of defeat, and the British, who were in control of Egypt and working from there to aide the Arabs in overthrowing the Turks (Lawrence of Arabia) had some expectation that as the "victor" they would have the right to determine. Before anyone complains about British colonialism, America did the same thing in the Phillipines.
The problem was that some promises had been made by the British forces to the Arabs as well. The British foreign office was obviously confused - the right hand not knowing what the left was doing.
Something similar happened in WWII when the Americans promised the Vietnamese that if they fought the Japanese, they would not go back to being a French colony afterwards. One has to wonder what would have happened if the Americans had been able to keep that promise.
James
by john.a.wills
Minimally, no shrine to John Kerry in Ho Chi Minh city. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040604194804799
Maybe no VietNam war. Maybe no Korean war. Quite possibly, no assasination of JFK.
by jamesrl
was trained by the OSS, forerunner of the CIA, in guerrilla warfare. http://www.landings.com/_landings/reviews-opinions/our-ho.html
I saw a documentary where they interviewed OSS agents who had worked with Ho. There had been promises made to support him if he was going to go democratic. It was a general pledge to support self determination in SE Asia. It died with Roosevelt it seems.
I don't think it would have had an impact on Korean war. I don't see the dominoes the way that was posited at the time. How would it have impacted JFK's assasination - do you believe Oliver Stone?
from http://www.gingerb.com/vietnam_text_orchestration_for_war.htm
Early in World War II President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had made United States policy clear toward the independence of Indochina. He and his cabinet had repeatedly acknowledged that after nearly a century of French colonization the Vietnamese were worse off than before. This sentiment from the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world endeared Ho Chi Minh to America. During the later years of World War II, Ho Chi Minh worked closely with the Office of Strategic Services (the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency) to rescue Allied servicemen from the grasp of the Japanese. Ho Chi Minh's pro-western attitudes and political brilliance had been admired and well-documented by the Office of Strategic Services.
On March 9, 1945, the Japanese violently ended French colonialism. They arrested Vichy French political leaders and attacked French military outposts. Many French units caught completely unaware surrendered. Others fought. Those survivors who escaped the vicious treachery of the Japanese found refuge with the Vietminh, who honored a promise to help any French soldier willing to fight the Japanese. By 1945 the Vietminh had a superb organization in place to rescue and shelter downed Allied airmen, they now used their resources to ally with the French to defeat the Japanese in Vietnam.
After the Japanese unconditional surrender in August 1945, Indochina was left without a government. Ho Chi Minh sized this opportunity to declare the formation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. In his September 1945 declaration to the world community, Ho Chi Minh used the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence to declare Vietnam's independence. The United States had a blatant admirer in Southeast Asia who, unfortunately, was also a Communist.
Vietnam's independence was short-lived. British and Chinese occupation forces arrived to accept the surrender of the Japanese and to insure the political stability of Indochina. Although there was no political unrest, the majority of the population supported the nationalist stature of the Vietminh. To bolster their ranks, the British utilized defeated Japanese soldiers. This incredulous insensitivity both insulted and infuriated the Vietnamese. It was all too obvious that the British and Chinese were there to pave the way for the return of the French.
In response, Ho Chi Minh appealed to the United States for assistance several times throughout 1946. The administration of the new president, Harry S. Truman, was not sympathetic to the nationalistic demands of the Communist Vietminh. Their benefactor, President Roosevelt, had died in office near the end of World War II. Now the chill of cold war hysteria gripped American's leaders and rendered them fearful of Communist aggression. Ho Chi Minh's Communist background overshadowed all favorable analyses concerning the Vietminh's political motivation from the Office of Strategic Services and their successor, the Central Intelligence Agency. The leadership of America desired a non-Communist buffer in Southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh's pleas were ignored. The world's greatest arsenal of democracy turned their backs on Indochina. The century long oppression of the people of Vietnam would continue, and the seeds of America's future involvement with war in Asia were sown.
French forces began returning to Vietnam during 1946. Although they quickly attempted to reestablish control in Cochin China, pockets of local resistance compromised their rule. Relations between the French and Vietminh steadily worsened. By the end of 1946 the uneasy peace ultimately failed. The Vietminh attacked French forces in Hanoi on December 19, 1946, heralding the beginning of the First Indochina War.
by john.a.wills
by jdclyde
to see two people from different sides of a story, each claiming the side they believe in is the true victim to the other.
Although it does seem dishonest to claim that "Muslim hatred for Jews" is a new thing.
The only way this will ever be resolved is when one or the other is dead.
Except the Jews in Southern Europe from the 15th Century onwards...
Oh, and the Muslims from that period as well.
by jamesrl
By a lesbian feminist socialist muslim woman no less, that went into the roots of anti-semitism in the muslim faith. Indeed, for centuries Jews lived peacefully in Muslim countries in the middle east and many were even in positions of great power and influence (but not rulers of course). Irshad Manji:The Trouble with Islam: A Wake-Up Call for Honesty and Change (Random House) or her website http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/
There were occasions when anti-jewish backlashes threatened them of course. But compared to the spanish inquisition, the pogroms in Christian Russia, the expulsion of jews from England - overall until the waves of jewish migration into palestine/Isreal, things were pretty peaceful. There were synagogues in Baghdad until the first Gulf War.
Dishonest no - its a matter of perspective.
James
by jardinier
Recently I have been participating in theological discussions at two christian websites:
meetchristians.com
christianmingle.com
Your description of the three religions is exactly in keeping with what Christians in general believe.
I have copped heaps of flak by suggesting that all three religions have the same god. However as they are all monotheistic religions which branched off from the same original source, I think they do worship the same god, but with different understandings of the nature of the God, and the role played by God in each religion.
You rarely hear any favourable comments about Islam these days for obvious reasons, but many years ago a Muslim gentleman suggested that Mohammed/Islam had done a wonderful service in bringing some unity to the previously warring Arab tribes.
by jdclyde
by john.a.wills
by protiusx
You stated that "...they are all monotheistic religions which branched off from the same original source, I think they do worship the same god,..." I would like to know if this is just your personal belief or if you've read this somewhere. I can't argue with your own notions or conceptions but I ca disagree with you.
It is true that the God of the Jews is the God of the Christians but the God of Islam is NOT Yahweh or Jehovah. What do you suppose the Islamic crescent signifies?
by john.a.wills
by jardinier
by jardinier
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran
http://etext.virginia.edu/koran.html
by john.a.wills
... as the CIA's war. JFK was ready to pull the plug on the whole thing "advisors" and all.
Not that I think the CIA had anything to do with it. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I do belive that (a) Oswald was a fall guy (b) the Model 91/38 Carcano is the absolute worst weapon ever produced and (c) JFK was actually killed by someone on the grassy knoll, shooting a pre-production Remington XP-100 (chambered in .221 Fireball).
Korea might be tangential, tho we may have had an easier time of it had we been highly regarded as a nation able to keep our promises in Indochina.
This discussion is closed to new replies.
Sort by Trending