Nothing is necessarily as you thought it was, and you should never believe what you're told until you've had a chance to study it for yourselves
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationThe World
Our writersPopular Articles |
 |
Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Sometimes I wonder what would happen if it was all a lie. I mean, if there were no gas chambers. If there was no systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Wouldn't that mean that the Jewish state was based on a lie?
Having grown up in post-war Germany, I can still feel the shame to learn about the awful things that were performed in the name of the German people. I can still feel the tears in my eyes, the pain, the empathy with the victims, especially the Jews. Doesn't that justify all the things they have been doing to the Palestinian people for the past 60 years? Or at least explain?
The recent 'Holocaust Myth' controversy, started by a number of middle-eastern politicians, has been an "Emperor's new clothes" experience for me. At first, I started researching on the Internet, what could possibly make educated, 21st century people - who clearly are no neo-Nazis - think that the Holocaust has been a hoax. I was soon amazed by the wealth of information and research there was actually available on the matter. And I also realised that it was true what those middle-eastern politicians claim, that the Jewish Holocaust over the years has developed to a belief of its own, which cannot be publicly doubted, without the severest punishment. What became evident in my research is that facts exists that give sufficient reason for a historic debate, whether there has been a systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six Million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. You don't have to be a trained historian to realise that, just a bit of common sense suffices.
This debate is about historic truth. And it is about the honour of the people who were possibly wrongly accused of the most horrible crimes in human history. The Jewish Holocaust is not a religion. Applying the same historic or forensic rigor as with any other suspected major crime committed by a government is not blasphemy.
For anyone interested, to find out more about the 'other side of the story', I suggest reading the two classics of Holocaust revisionism: 'Lectures on the Holocaust' and 'The Hoax of the Twentieth Century'. Both books can be downloaded in PDF format from the review section of www.therebel.org. The authors examine the historic facts behind the Jewish Holocaust and claim that it is a fabrication. They base their conclusions on a number of reasons:
Until the end of the war, nobody knew anything about a systematic extermination programme: not the Red Cross, not the Vatican, not the numerous Jewish organisations operating in Europe, not the German Military Intelligence Service (headed by British spy Admiral Canaris) nor any of the Allied intelligence services. The only extermination claims made during the war were some unsubstantiated accusations (based on anonymous testimonies) by the World Jewish Congress, in an effort to gain support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Both the US and the UK government refused to provide support for the resettling of Jews from Europe to Palestine or elsewhere, as offered by the German government and its allies. It is unconceivable that they would have done so if they had taken the extermination claims for more than baseless propaganda.
Given the strategic importance of Auschwitz as the biggest and technologically most advanced German rubber and petrol production facility and the considerable flow of clandestine information in and out of Auschwitz, Roosevelt and Churchill would have known of any large scale extermination activities there. However, at no stage during the war, did either of them make any such claims, in spite of the propaganda value such claims would have had for the Allied war effort.
The number of six milion killed Jews is solely based on unsubstantiated estimates by communist Soviet Union and Zionist organisations. The actual reduction of the world-wide Jewish population during World War II, based on verifiable sources, was between 900,000 and 1,500,000.
The highest independently confirmed death rate at Auschwitz (Netherlands Red Cross report) was 160-179 per day in late 1942 during a particularly bad outbreak of Typhus, causing Himmler to order an examination of the reasons for the 'unacceptably high' death-rate amongst the desperately needed workers.
After the war, no proof of any systematic killings of Jews was provided, apart from hearsay testimonies and dubious affidavits provided by the prosecution. Confessions were the regular result of torture, blackmail, mock trials, false promises of indemnity and plea bargains.
The affidavit of star-witness of the prosecution, Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess, was not only full of so many errors of fact that it would have been thrown out by any self-respecting court of law. What is more, the affidavit was in English; given the importance of the affidavit, Hoess would have insisted on a translation, if it was a genuine confession.
Given the size of the suggested operation, the killing of six millions Jews within a period of 3 years, Butz suggests that there should have been additional proof like supporting documents, orders, plans, logistical paperwork, gassing devices, exhaust fans, design plans and mounting holes for those devices and more, but none of the above was ever found.
Leading figures in the US War Crimes Branch, in charge of running the war crimes tribunals, soon after reappeared as top Zionists in charge of Jewish forces in the war against Palestinian locals, giving doubt to their judicial independence.
I leave it to the individual reader to make up their mind, which side makes more sense. Personally, I haven't studied the matter sufficiently yet, to come to a final conclusion, however my gutt instinct is telling me, that the revisionists might be right with their suggestion that the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax designed to help the Zionist movement fulfill their vision of a Jewish State in Palestine. Either way, we owe it both the Palestinian and the German people to get to the bottom of this. Search for historic truth is not blasphemy, no matter what we get told by the Zionist lobby and those who are afraid of their influence.
[Andrew Winkler is the Editor/Publisher of The Rebel Media Group. He can be contacted under editor@therebel.org.]
Submitted on Wed, 2006-01-25 13:00
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Would like to do some more research? Research Poland under German occupation. You will find 6 million Poles died -- 3 millions Christians and 3 million Jews. There is a huge amount of research on Polish Jewish history and how the Polish Jewish population simply was wiped off the map.
And, what about the 3 million Christian Poles??? Are their deaths also to be denied? Are we to forget about the ethnic cleansing? The stealing of over 100,000 blond children and their adoption in Germany never to be found again? The forced labor? The summary executions -- including my own uncle? What about the total destruction of Warsaw before the final German pull-out? Also invented???
And finally, the Holocaust has nothing whatsoever to do with the Palestinians, they played no role and have no reason to pay for it.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Varayoc, may I ask how you got to that figure of 6 million Poles killed during German occupation? Counting bodies? Unsubstantiated hearsay? Or by censi before and after World War II? If it's the latter, did you take into account in which years those censi occured and which territory change Poland endured in between those years? As you might know, Poland lost large parts of its territory to the Soviet Union and with it large parts of its polulation. The territories it received in return - e.g. Silesia - didn't make up for those losses. The majority of its ethnic German polulation had fled of the advancing Red Army. And did you account for the Jews that migrated to the US and other countries, even before Germany attacked? As you might know, until November 1938 Poland was considered as being more anti-Semitic than Germany.
Don't get me wrong. Nobody is claiming that there weren't any Jews (or Poles) killed during World War II. And nobody disputes the existence of labour and deportation camps, in which many people died, a lot of them by typhus and malnutrition. What they are disputing is the alleged systematic killing of Jews by the use of gas.
Summary executions? Yes, they happened, a lot of them in retaliation for attacks by resistance fighters. Nobody is condoning them, although they were, according to international law, perfectly legal. The Americans have been killing 3000-4000 Iraqi each month since they invaded Iraq. What's the difference? Scale? Maybe. In my opinion, every person killed by invading forces - no matter what the reason - is one too many. This applies equally to Germans, Americans and Israelis.
The total destruction of Warsaw? Yes, that happened and it is a horrible war crime. As was the deliberate destruction of 90% of civilian buildings in Germany by Allied strategic bombing, killing over 600,000 civilians.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to enter in some 'who has done more evil' kind of competition. The point I am trying to make is that a number of historians have come up with numerous arguments giving reason to considerable doubt, that Nazi Germany engaged in a large-scale extermination campaign, killing 6 million Jews through the use of gas and other methods. Instead of engaging in a historic/forensic debate of those arguments, Israel and the 'Holocaust industry' have chosen to viciously attack anybody doubting the 'Holocaust myth'. To me - and other people - it's highly plausible that the two main reasons for this aggressive approach towards Holocaust revisionism are the central role of the Holocaust for the creation and continued existence of the Jewish colony in Palestine, and the fear that the Holocaust allegations might not be able to withstand rigorous scientific examinations.
Andrew Winkler
Editor/Publisher
TheRebel.Org
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
you didn't "research" the Holocaust , and reached conclusions ..
i have a strong sense of a neo nazi trying to hide behind a "research" . why?
a. because the only links you are giving is to the books support this theory that there was no systematic killing of 6 million jews . you don't give any other links to any other historic research that show the opposite .
b. all those lies that hint that 90% of my family did not died in gas chambers , but was vanished into the air without germany interference, are use to create anti-israeli propaganda , not for pure research .
by the way , the numbers are more then 6 million jews . most serious researchers belive that the numbers are higher , some say even 7 Milton .
this is a shame
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
It's amazing how most of those Holocaust allegations come to the same magic 5-6 million number, inspite of differing by as much as 1 million victims when listing how many people got killed in individual concentration camps. Hilberg for example claims 1 Mio. victims in Auschwitz and 50,000 in Majdanek. Dawidovicz claims 2 Mio. victims in Auschwitz and 1.38 Mio. in Majdanek. Sounds all very suspicious, doesn't it?
What most people don't realised is that the magic 6 million isn't based on anything but comparing census data from countries like Poland from before and after the war, not taking into account the considerable territory changes that occured during the war. Nor do they take into account refugees and immigration.
Once you take those things into account, the actual number of killed Jews during World War II is more like 500,000, in line with official concentration camp records of Jews killed by typhus and other deseases.
Last but not least, it doens't matter how many Holocaust books are claiming that there has been gas chambers and 6 million Jews killed, as long as there is one book or two that prove that this is an impossibility, and their rational hasn't been proven wrong by anybody else. So far those historians have only been subjected to an international witchhunt, but their arguments and results have not been proven wrong.
Andrew Winkler
TheRebel.Org
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
I thought these issues had finally been dragged out by the David Irving trial, where he attempted to sue booksellers for not stocking his 'expose' of the lie of the Holocaust. The evidence was painstakingly raked over on both sides. I assume you're aware of it. If not, you might want to study some of the transcripts. Here's a short article:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial/Guardian050200.html
You can pore in detail over all the counter arguments that the court found convincing in believing that the Holocaust was historical fact. But even assuming that you are right, I still don't get your point.
Are you implying that if Jews were gassed this makes Israel justifiable, but that if they were simply worked to death in appalling and diseased circumstances, this does not? Does the Holocaust even impact on the justification for the Jewish state? Even apart from it there is 2000 years of prejudice and exclusion against Jews to make them desire a homeland and political representation.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Kerry, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with that article on the Irving trial? Irving has lost a lible case. Apart from that the case only proves that there are a lot of historic questions that are open to debate.
One question that particularly bugs me is how Stalin and the Zionists came to the number of 6 million Jews (plus minus 1 million) murdered by Nazi Germany. I mean, it's not like that the Red Cross or the World Jewish Congress had delegates 'embedded' with the SS, counting bodies. The official death tallies of the concentration camps are no help because they only list prisoners who died of typhus and similar and the official German records for the fuel purchased to run the crematories don't imply any higher numbers either.
So where does this alleged 6 million figure come from? For all I know, having studied that subject for many years now, the number is simply derived from pre- and post-war censi, which don't take into consideration the massive territory changes, population movements, immigration, military losses that occured in between. Poland for example lost huge proportions of its territory - including population - to the Soviet Union. It was compensated with considerable parts of Eastern Germany, however those territories were widely deserted by their original German population who had either fled from (around 15 million) or got killed by (around 2 million) the Red Army. Under such circumstances it is not difficult to come to a reduction of the Polish population by 6 million, many of them Jews, without the need of gas chambers or other methods of genocide. How do you explain that argument away?
The other problem with the gas chamber allegations is a more technical one. If there had been gas chambers for the purpose of killing hundreds of humans in one go, at a rate as claimed by Holocaust supporters, the gas chambers would have required massive ventilations, to be safely entered shortly after the gassing. According to the testimonies of Holocaust survivors, the gas chambers were emptied only minutes after the gassing occured, by smoking and laughing guards. Doesn't sound like they were wearing gas masks; but strangely enough there are no signs of any ventilation devices in any of the the alleged gas chambers, not even mounting holes, in case they were removed before the arrival of the Red Army.
The other problem with the gas chambers is that there were no pressure devices to transport the gas into the gas chambers, meaning that the Zyklon B gas couldn't have entered the gas chambers quickly enough to do any damage to the people inside.
These are the reasons why the leading US execution expert Leuchter came to the result that the 'gas chambers' couldn't have possibly been used for the alleged purpose.
How do you beat these arguments? By calling anybody who uses them a Nazi and Jew-hater? Claiming - without proof - that someone else has proven them wrong? That's not good enough. We are dealing here with extremely serious allegations, with massive implications for a lot of people, Germans, Palestinians and Jews.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Perhaps it's not a matter of either denying or confirming how many Jews died. Those were utterly brutal times. Stalin wiped out more millions of people than Hitler. Silesia/East Prussia were ethnically cleansed using the most brutal and violent means including rape and mutilation of women. So millions of people died in Europe.
However most of those people were killed for their land and resources. The argument from Jews is that they were killed simply for being Jewish. Along with other undesirables such as disabled people and gay people. As a pacifist I deplore any violence but I would still suggest that in terms of *internal* politics the extermination of large groups of people simply because they are undesirable is morally indefensible and should be condemned at every opportunity and I support Jews, disabled people and gay people and the rest's right to do so.
But the important thing is that there isn't a comparison between what Hitler did to the Jews and what Israelis are doing to Palestinians. That is an *international* political issue. A much better comparison would be to compare Israelis to Stalin or any other land grabbing imperialists. That would be much harder for Israelis to refute. The emphasis on the Holocaust is a red herring which Israel uses to its advantage and the Arabs generally fall into their trap by thinking that Holocaust denial will turn the world against Israel.
I say that Israeli expansionist policy should be exposed for what it is - the violent taking of another people's land and ethnic cleansing of areas it has taken. Simple as that.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Perhaps I should have added this to the other thread. A) I heard that all the gas chambers were destroyed by the nazis before the Allies arrived... i.e. found with caved in ceilings, and not a single remained intact. True or false?
B) and more pressingly, people came up with the figure of 6 million in the years after the war following the painful searching of relatives desperate to be reunited, or to establish the truth, who logged the names of those who were missing. Not just numbers but names. To do a credible investigation into this figure, a list of these names would be required, a random sample of them picked (say 100-1000) and then an extensive search made to find evidence of those people being alive at the end of the war. If as many as 10 were found to have survived the war, it is reasonable to cast doubt on the Holocaust figure. But this quibbling over redrawn boundaries and censuses without dealing with the actual realities of the people involved, their relatives and their lives, says nothing. I doubt that Ahmadinejad, or David Irving for that matter has the balls to undertake or commission such a search.
C) I agree that the Holocaust cannot be used to defend human rights violations in Palestine. Indeed, memories of how far the disenfranchising of a people can go should only render one more cautious about tolerating such things. But Holocaust denial is not good history. The Irving trial chose to intimidate those who upheld the truth of the Holocaust by threatening them with libel action. What it did not do was undertake any meaningful, historically credible way to settle the truth of the matter. In the absence of such an attempt, all Holocaust denial is supposition, circumstantial evidence and nitpicking.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
An alternative version of the original posting:
"I grew up ashamed, but then I found that by selective reading, i could abandon my shame and actually enjoy hating Jews like any normal neo-Nazi!"
Reads like an evil parody of some self-help counseling literature.
Don't bother replying to this anti-semitic troll. Whether or not you believe in the Israeli state's right to exist, and whatever position you take on the relationship between that state and the Palestinians, the Holocaust has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fundamental moral basic of Israel. It certainly had importance in the historical circumstances for teh actual creation of the state, but both Zionism and European anti-semitism predate the Holocaust. Opposing Israeli state actions, or indeed the Israeli state more generally should not imply any connection to Holocaust denial or neo-Nazi views. Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who like to cloak their anti-semiticism this way, at least we can see this nasty man for what he is.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
>What became evident
> in my research is that facts exists that give
> sufficient reason for a historic debate, whether
> there has been a systematic, bureaucratic,
> state-sponsored persecution and murder of
> approximately six Million Jews by the Nazi regime and
> its collaborators. You don't have to be a trained
> historian to realise that, just a bit of common sense
> suffices.
It would probably be better to modify this into 'it's easier not to be a trained historian to realise that, just a bit of common sense is best'.
But I'm disturbed that your reaction, David Wood, is to immediately say 'Don't reply to this neo-Nazi troll'... There are some very clever and meticulous researchers who struggle to represent the Holocaust as a 'myth', and I won't judge whether Andrew is one of them, or simply taken in by them, but as long as our response is 'don't reply' rather than presenting the counter-argument and upholding the values of history, it only adds fuel to the 'conspiracy theory' angle... "You never hear my opponents reply to me, do you? Haven't you thought why that might be? Because they know they have nothing to reply!"
It's important that the vulnerable not be taken in by surface logic, and that detailed, historically credible counter-arguments be available for their perusal. Perhaps I am not the most qualified person to give counter-arguments, I have some experience of the study and methodology of history, but have undertaken no detailed research on the Holocaust, but still, you do what you can.
At least, in principle, you should agree that reasoned rebuttle is desirable?
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
> But I'm disturbed that your reaction, David Wood, is
> to immediately say 'Don't reply to this neo-Nazi
> troll'...
> At least, in principle, you should agree that
> reasoned rebuttle is desirable?
In principle, yes. But in practice, this guy has no desire to really take into account views other than ones which support his own already established and deeply prejudiced views (have a look at his other postings and his website). Replying in cases like these can simply make the person concerned think that his views are taken seriously by intellgient people which therefore further legitimises his beliefs. Mind you, with prejudice like this, almost any response can do this...
For what it's worth I have copies and translations of the original documents realting to the 'Final Solution' - it's historical existence is not a matter of dispute at all, and it really doesn't matter to me whether 1 million, 4 million or 6 million Jewish people were actually killed (although credible and meticulous research over many years by hundreds of different academics indicates somewhere in the latter range) - what matters is the genocidal intent and practice.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Well, supposing it's so, what about those who read posts like these of Andrew's and wonder at the deafening silence that meets his accusations?
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Sir,
You are wrong on two levels. Your doubts about the Holocaust are one level and how this has anything to do with some sort of justification for the Jewish State is wrong in a different way.
You have a right to hold your own opinions but not to make up your own facts.
David Irving learned this the hard way, after first British court, and now an Austrian court both found his arguments questioning the Holocaust to be nothing but lies. The fact that you can quote books that question historical facts is meaningless as books could be found questioning anything you may think of. Just sighting a source makes you as bogus as the source is.
Such a vast conspiracy, hundreds of thousands of survivors, I have yet to hear of one old man or woman who on their deathbed admitted to etching his tattooed number himself on their arm, of leaving most of his family behind never to see them again, as part of a large plot, in hope that a Jewish state will come out of this effort.
The Jewish Holocaust, unfortunately fits in a 20th century pattern, it stands out not because of it being the most extreme, but because it got the most attention as it dealt with Jews. Six million six hundred thousand Jews murdered by the Nazis and their minions pale next to the estimated 50 million Russians killed, the number of Russian dead is so large the question of whether they are military or civilian is mute. Roma people, aka ‘Gypsies’, suffered much the same treatment and perhaps were killed at a larger proportion than the Jews; others living under the 3rd Reich were also killed systematically, handicapped, known homosexuals, those suspected of being Communist. All these do not attract doubt. I’m sure there are many Germans alive today who have missing relatives who were victims of the Nazi culling of the ‘misfits’.
The WWII horror has its counter part in Asia, under the Japanese, was perceived by another well known genocide, that of the Armenians living under the Ottomans. Even after WWII, when the world vowed ‘never again’ genocides occurred in Cambodia (by their own leadership) and most recently a very well documented genocide: April- July 1994 in Rwanda in three months, 800,000 people were killed using no high tech tools. Another declared genocide, in Sudan, has, or still is occurring.
You admit yourself that these theories come from Middle Eastern academics and leaders; these all have a motive, to de-legitimize Israel. Research with an agenda, like they have, is doubly suspect. Why single out the Jewish Holocaust? Do they research other holocausts or Genocides?
Leaving aside the Holocaust issues, the Jewish State owes no one an apology for its existence. Every country on earth has a history, this history includes migrations. England was once Celtic, perhaps it should be returned to the Irish, or at the least to the Welsh; The French, or Franks, took over from the Gallic peoples, Slaves are also newcomers, Istanbul is conquered Constantinople; and Iraq are only superficially Arab, having much longer pre-Arab histories. Tunisia and Algeria are both city-states carved up by France, putting lands in the Sahara that never were controlled by the coast into their boarders. Asiatic Russia, Australia, New Zeeland and the whole Western Hemisphere are all conquered lands taken from oppressed peoples. The Jewish claim to the land of Israel, in comparison looks very good, unless, like in the holocaust case, you make up your own facts and disregard over one thousand years of Jewish inhabitance of the land, before being expelled by the most archetypical of empires, the Romans who also changed the name of the conquered province from Judea to Palestina. You could bring sources questioning this as well; Arafat was not convinced that a temple ever existed in Jerusalem, for much the same reasons that the Holocaust is questioned by Middle Eastern leaders.
The Jewish attempt to establish a Jewish State predates the Holocaust in any event (see the Balfour Declaration, 1917). No Holocaust excuse was seen needed by either the Zionist leadership, nor the British.
You could dismiss historical claims all together, but in this case, once more Israel need not explain its existence, with a population of over six million, most of which are born in Israel, these people are native of the land, more so than the ‘Palestinian Refugees’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of people born outside of the boarders they claim are theirs.
Boarders change as a result of wars, the fact that no Palestine Political entity was established in 1948, alongside Israel, should be put to the Jordanians and Egyptians who occupied land that never was part of their territories before, in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Before accusing Israel of being born in sin, look at the country you are in and be sure it is without sin.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Robert - you stated:
.................................................................
"....with a population of over six million, most of which are born in Israel, these people are native of the land, more so than the ‘Palestinian Refugees’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th generations of people born outside of the boarders they claim are theirs."
.................................................................
So do we just ignore recent history? The Palestinians were in a similar position in 1920 (less than 15% Jews in Palestine at that time). How can you think it acceptable for Israel to prevent Palestinians returning to their (destroyed) villages in Israel whereas only 80 years ago it was apparently quite OK for European Zionists (who had had no connection with Palestine for the past few centuries) to demand a right to immigrate there?
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
The point is, Israel doesn’t owe an explanation for its existence. The Arabs who lived in the Ottoman empire were, with only a few exceptions, not divided into nations. There is name in Arabic for the Saudi Peninsula, for example.
The term ‘Arabs’ is used to describe people who speak the Arabic language as a mother tongue. The term ‘Palestinian’ was used to describe primarily the Jews living in Palestine up to the time when, in 1948, they declared the state of Israel. In 1925, Abdallah I almost called his kingdom ‘Palestine’ and not Trans-Jordan (later Jordan). In 1949 Jordanian citizenship was given to all those now living in the West Bank.
You’re critique of Israel, as if this is unique is hypocritical. The war in 1948 was a defensive war, from the Israeli vantage. The battles were all on the areas that are now Israel proper with armies from neighboring Arab countries.
Have you taken a look at maps of Germany from 100 years ago? Boarders change, Germany lost two wars, lost territory. Mexico lost wars, the wars it lost were much more defensive than the wars the Arab countries waged against Israel.
In the 20’s millions of Turks and Greeks moved across the boarders, in 1948-1949 a few hundred thousand Arabs left what is now Israel, and, close to one million Jews left Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Yemen and other Arab and Muslim countries.
What of the Jewish property in lands in those countries?
Before 1939 the Jewish Agency bought vast tracts of land in what is now Syria. Other land was also owned in what is now north eastern Jordan. These lands were confiscated by those two countries… but your double standard ignores that.
1886 First modern Jewish settlement is established when Jews from Tiberias and Safed purchase land from the Ramtaniya village and found Golan BeBashan east of the Sea of Galilee.
1887 Jews from Tiberias and Safed purchase land from Bedouin town of Bir Ashkum.
1891 Baron Edmund de Rothschild purchases 18,000 acres of land to found a Jewish settlement. Not until the end of the French Mandate are the Jews stripped of official title to land in the Golan.
1899 The Pasha of Damascus expels the Jews from Rothschild's settlement, but even after the 1923 Anglo-French Accord the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association administers the Baron's property.
1908 Jews settle in the Bet-Zayyada Valley.
1920 The Jews are forced out of Golan in the face of Arab rioting. Britain and France divide up the former Ottoman Empire giving France a mandate over Syria. The French order Faisal to leave Syria.
1944 The Golan becomes part of the Republic of Syria. Sunni Muslims, Circassians, Druze, Alawites, a small Christian minority and other small groups live in the region. With the end of the French Mandate, all Jewish land ownership on the Golan is nullified.
Source for the dates events
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=27&x_article=204
But don’t let your double standards get in your way.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Source for the dates events
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=27
> x_article=204 Robert Tilden
It's significant that you should rely on CAMERA, an Israeli advocacy organisation, very lightly disguised as an outfit concerned with 'accuracy'.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Can you disprove anything he's just said? Does anything he's just said affect the human rights of Palestinians? The conclusions we draw from data is one thing. The facts themselves are another. It's a sad symptom of the modern world that attacking the source of facts seems to have replaced the need to actually disprove them.
I admire the fact that Robert uses facts and historical claims to drawn his conclusions and add depth and new information to the debate. I personally believe in the two-state solution with Palestine, but it seems hypocritical not to acknowledge the way that the Palestinian cause has been used as a political football to advance the goals of a number of Islamic states, many of whom have made little effort to accomodate and/or provide practical support to the Palestinians in question.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Can you disprove anything he's just said? Does anything he's just said affect the human rights of Palestinians? kerrygoulde
Propaganda is to be dismissed out of hand. Let's have impartial presentation of the facts and we can have a discussion on that basis.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
QUOTE ERIC_5> Propaganda is to be dismissed out of hand. Let's have an impartial presentation of the facts and we can have a discussion on that basis.
Who is the mystic 'impartial' force that will give ALL the facts? To me it is dangerous to search for some 'impartial' 'all knowing' type we can surrender our judgement to. Who cares whose mouth it comes from? The most vile or the most pure, but a fact is either true or it isn't.
Can you disprove anything Robert has said? Or are you simply unwilling to take it on board as any possible counterargument to the assertions of Israel's critics? From my perspective, I don't think Robert has committed himself to any concrete statements against Palestinian's right to human rights or to a state of their own, yet you seem to assume that he denies both those things, and to attack him from that basis. Better to wait until he makes such a statement himself.
By the way, what is the difference between 'propaganda' and an 'argument'... I was always given to understand that 'propaganda' was either a means of denying the counterargument to express itself, or deliberately false/misleading statements. Since Robert is not silencing counter-arguments, your assertion of 'propaganda' must therefore be based on the assumption that his information is false. Yet you seem unwilling to research and/or prove this. Why?
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
Who is the mystic 'impartial' force that will give ALL the facts? To me it is dangerous to search for some 'impartial' 'all knowing' type we can surrender
our judgement to. kerrygoulde
Impartial sources, obviously, don't include an Israeli advocacy group, even if, or especially if, it is masquerading as an organization concerned only with 'accuracy'.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
In reply to the origional post, only the most naive of naive people can say that they have gained knowledge from researching the internet. You have to be able to sift between the neo-nazi sites and the more reputable sites for any background on this. LOL! Use your brains man.
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
kayecy
I found the following regarding the Weizman-Faisal agreement. Article IV is quite interesting
ARTICLE IV
All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlement and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmes shall be protected in their rights and shall be assisted in forwaxiiing their economic development.
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~samuel/feisal1.html
Re: Questioning the moral base of the Jewish state
"Sometimes I wonder what would happen if it was all a lie. I mean, if there were no gas chambers. If there was no systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Wouldn't that mean that the Jewish state was based on a lie?"
Trust a German neo-Nazi to question the reality of the Holocaust ...
Israel is based on the truth that it is the national homeland of the Jewish nation. Now bugger off, Adolf.
Post new comment |
|
Elections Most discussed articles... |
Posts: 18
Joined: 2006-01-25