Netanyahu slammed for 'inaccurate' Holocaust comments

[arfurcrown]

UlyssesG post # 204.

None of your cherry-picked examples nullify the fact that those passages are in the Koran and the term "anti-Semitic" ONLY applies to Jews. Arabs speak Semitic LANGUAGES. They are not the same genetically.

That comment above is indeed the most blatant piece of ethnic and racial discrimination I have ever had the misfortune to read.

To compound the offensive comment further it was made by a person who screams loudly about the discrimination his or her people have they claim endured over time.

It clearly demonstrates that the poster considers that non Jews are genetically totally different from the Jews themselves.

Does he or she consider that the Jews are a chosen race? I sincerely hope not, we had that theory before and look at the trouble that caused in the last century.

Are we to be led to believe that racial superiority via Eugenics is in fact favoured by the poster and those peoples he or she supports concerned?

[dexterm]

It's not idealistic at all. It's a seemingly intentionally distorted cynical narrative designed to place all of the blame on Israel and none on the "Palestinians".

No, I don't buy it.

So now you want to blame the Palestinians for a 22 year year delay in peace negotiations because they wrote in 1993 in black and white that

"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."...but somehow you unilaterally decide..they didn't really mean it.

...while Israel in return made absolutely no reciprocal commitments whatsoever and have since continued to build settlements illegally on land intended for a Palestinian state, stealthily ethnicallly cleansed more of East Jerusalem intended as the Palestinian capital, provoked several wars, and inflicted daily repressions via an illegal occupation.

It's the same old Israeli hoax: the Israelis are the aggressor/invader that somehow try to morph themselves into being the victim.

Give us a break.

The above would possibly have merit if one considered your views as synonymous with Palestinian positions.

Since this is not the case, the criticism was apparently specifically directed at your interpretation, rather than aimed at the Palestinians themselves.

The ongoing spin exemplifies this - the Palestinian side did not make an issue of the above at the time, nor is it a main feature in Palestinian claims nowadays.

Israel recognized the PLO as the Palestinian representative, and accepted UN resolutions as basis for permanent agreement. So claiming "absolutely no reciprocal commitments whatsoever" is another misleading statement..Obviously, there was no Palestinian state to recognize at the time. Both sides had their fair share of agreement violations - that you focus solely on Israel's transgressions simply a one-sided narrow view.

A very neat sweeping under the carpet of Israel's reciprocal obligations...

Israel recognized the PLO as the Palestinian representative, and accepted UN resolutions as basis for permanent agreement.

...and what did those UN resolutions say

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

...and what did Israel do to fulfil this requirement?....absolutely nothing except build more settlements on occupied land which continues to this day..

So the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, and get nothing in return. QED my original post..

"The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and to fulfill the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".

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

The mods have been very indulgent so far allowing us to wander off discussing Arafat's letter and the Oslo Peace Accords, when the topic is Netanyahu, the Holocaust and the Mufti.

I only mentioned Arafat's recognition of Israel because the Israeli apologists continue with the myth that Palestinians refuse israel's right to exist. If they persist in that falsehood, you can expect the same rebuttal.

Edited October 27, 2015 by dexterm

[Ulysses G.]

To compound the offensive comment further it was made by a person who screams loudly about the discrimination his or her people have they claim endured over time.

Huh? I was raised a Christian in America. The only discrimination that I have suffered is the War on Christmas and Bill O'Reilly seems to have that in hand.

[Ulysses G.]

I only mentioned Arafat's recognition of Israel because the Israeli apologists continue with the myth that Palestinians refuse israel's right to exist. If they persist in that falsehood, you can expect the same rebuttal.

The only one repeating falsehoods is you. HAMAS refuse Israel's right to exist and they govern much of what might become Palestine some day. No peace deal can be struck without them.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[dexterm]

I only mentioned Arafat's recognition of Israel because the Israeli apologists continue with the myth that Palestinians refuse israel's right to exist. If they persist in that falsehood, you can expect the same rebuttal.

The only one repeating falsehoods is you. HAMAS refuse Israel's right to exist and they govern much of what might become Palestine some day. No peace deal can be struck without them.

I fear we are drifting off topic. See links re your query in thread above.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't have a "query" - just relating the FACTS. Hamas refuse to recognize Israels right to exist.

[plaid]

how can someone who is or was christian believe that the jewish or islamic faith boys are going to let them carry on there their religion?

there all killer bozoos

[Seastallion]

I don't have a "query" - just relating the FACTS. Hamas refuse to recognize Israels right to exist.

Hamas has agreed to a truce, and that is all that is needed for peace.

To refuse peace on the grounds of "But you also have to like us. We don't like your thoughts/opinion" is disingenuous and results in more Israeli Jew deaths.

The Israeli right-wing government is ultimately responsible for every Israeli death because they do not want peace. Peace means no more land-grabs and loss of much water resources. Peace also means loss of potential oil revenues.

[Seastallion]

how can someone who is or was christian believe that the jewish or islamic faith boys are going to let them carry on there their religion?

there all killer bozoos

Is that you, Harry?

plaid, you are new here.....bring yourself up to speed before commenting.

[Steely Dan]

IMO, getting all worked up about who inspired Hitler to do what he did is just plain foolish. There is no way to know for sure and I could care less anyway. Both Hitler and the Mufti were hateful war criminals who would have been happy to kill every last Jew if given the chance. They were both scum. Who thought of it first does not really matter to me.

It matters to those who have been accused of being holocaust deniers. It renews their opportunity to have a voice in the matter. Just one of many laws I don't like but it is a law none the less and when in countries where the law exists, I observe it to the letter. I have always maintained that the truth does not need protection. It also does not need sarcasm and condescending language to protect it.

Although Netanyahu's comments appear at first to have backfired the Pro-Palestinian lobby are in danger of scoring an own goal if the role of the (still venerated) Mufti becomes common knowledge. The incitement we see from the Palestinian leaders echoes the views and tactics of the Mufti.

King Hussein of Jordan just told Abbas to cool it and the world is starting to wake up to the cynicism, racism and fanaticism of the Palestinian leaders. UNRWA have just sacked or suspended several of their workers due to racist incitement on social media. The more people look into the history of the Palestinians and their supporters the worse it looks for both of them.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/10/an-inconvenient-history-the-grand-mufti-hitler-and-the-knife-intifada/

Claims that Israel is intending to destroy the al-Aqsa mosque persist in Palestinian propaganda to incite violence — and have since before the current knife attacks, as David Horvitz writes in The Times of Israel:

The message that “the Jews are plotting against Al-Aqsa” has been pushed for months by Palestinian political chiefs, spiritual leaders, mainstream and social media: Mahmoud Abbas in speeches to his people (he finally lost the Israeli middle ground with his false accusation last week that Israel executed the teen Pisgat Zeev stabber); Fatah in leaflets and Facebook posts; Hamas in videos; the Islamic Movement agitating inside Israel; Arab Knesset members… all these and others have been throwing fuel onto the fire.
How very convenient to conjure up a diversionary shit storm when the evidence of Palestinian incitement is overwhelming.

A general comment -

Posters seem to be having a hard time accepting that both sides engage in incitement against each other. Claiming, correctly, that "they" do it, does not mean that the pointing side is not doing the same. Both try to divert attention to the other side's sins, faults and transgressions - big surprise. As for all the endless they-started-it, it's-all-their-fault, they-did-more-than-us etc....kinda sounds ridiculous when put like that. Think we all know better than that.

Yes, BUT. You can argue equivalence concerning just about every facet of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, but trying to apportion blame or responsibility down the middle achieves nothing. Whatever incitement there is on the Israeli side is minute compared to the cradle to grave from the top down incitement the Palestinians are subject to, which poisons their psyche and prevents them functioning as moral reasoning adults. Vigilantism and so called price tag attacks are very few and far between compared to Palestinian violence, there is your equivalence or lack of it. Even the right wing Israelis get worn down by constant whining and belligerence, for example where is the equity in religious Jews being banned from worshipping at the most holy site in Judaism to placate Muslims who insist on EXCLUSIVE right to pray at their third most holy site? This sounds like the apartheid so many of our esteemed members whine about. Incidentally I could show you a photo from over a century back showing a deserted Al-Aqsa in a state of disrepair and surrounded by weeds. It only becomes 'holy' to keep the Jews away.
Nope, equivalence does not cut it, Israel is far closer to right than wrong here, middle ground is meaningless to the river to the sea mob, so Israel has IMHO the right, nay duty to stand its ground and to hell with world opinion.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Scott

[Morch]

The biggest fascist leader of our time? Hardly, though I can concede some may feel this way, its just not factually correct, What is factually accurate, however, is the role the Arabs played in insinuating into Hitler's design for the Jews, This is an uncontestable fact, and the Grand Mufti was the vital face of this relationship. Hitler even had considerable praise for the Arab/Muslim ability to raise and justify their hatred for jews with the koran. That Netanyahu chooses to discuss this now should raise questions of motive or intent, but it is entirely factual. Having emotive disdain for him does not make one's position sound only... dubious.

Can you elaborate what you call : "the ability to raise and justify their hatred for Jews with the Koran" ?

If not, forum rules should be applied...

Your post 9/11 agenda is once again too transparent !

Are you denying that passages from the Koran and Hadith are used by Muslims to justify animosity and violence toward Jews? Israelis? This is not a question regarding the the correct interpretation of religious texts, but rather pertains to use made of such passages.

I understand completely with your question that you have difficulties to understand the historical background from Islam towards Jews.

I won't elaborate your request towards Israeli's because the nation covers the main Abrahamic religions : Judaism, Christianity and Islam: all 3 share well known common Prophets. To start it's ridiculous to consider that Jewish Prophets are discriminated in the Koran. Islam can't be antisemitic because Arabs are also semitic.

Moreover, Islam and Christianity are not based on ethnicity. Judaism is based on ethnicity. And Israel is with its Declaration of Independency a Jewish state.

Furthermore you limit any possible reply by extracting the question regarding the correct interpretation of Koranic religious texts. Resulting in a too transparent fallacy. Perhaps 300 of these fallacies are documented somewhere on the internet and are even available in Latin, you've just fabricated a cluster that didn't really work.

You've also forgotten to mention the notion of time and place. Islamic text sources and historical facts proves the contrary of your assumptions. Here again I recognise a repetitive lack of academical and intellectual arguments. Coded slogans are not advisable in any debate.

Too many historical facts are pointing that Muslim efforts and sacrifices were made and were favourable towards Jews in general :

- Jews and Muslims fought together against Christian crusaders for the multiple sieges of Jerusalem ;

- Muslims defeated the Byzantine Empire and liberated the Jews ;

- Note : in case you attempt to aim at Shia Islam : Persians (non-Muslims) liberated the Jews and allowed the Jews to build the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem ;

- Jews were liberated by the Muslims after the conquest of Spain ;

- Jews were integrated into Muslim Ottoman Empire whereas they were prosecuted all over Europe;

- Muslims fought during WW1 for France and Britain in Europe and for the conquest of the Ottoman Empire remained important for Palestine and Jews with the Balfour declaration ;

- Muslims fought for France and Britain during WW2 in Europe and North Africa and contributed to early liberation of Jews in concentration camps ;

- Only Muslim country under Nazi occupation was Albania. More Jews were present at the end of WW2 than at the beginning. No single Jew has been deported ;

- After creation of State of Israel and Palestinians were expulsed, all Arab countries provided liasons with Zionist agents to provide repatriation to Israel ;

And I can continue...

Just have a look on the map in the link and acknowledge your lack of historical correctness in this matter :

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/the-long-data-of-european-jewish-expulsions/

There are lists on internet available of Jewish persecutions in history which I won't provide due to forum rules. Which ones are not-politically related to Muslims ? Which ones are based on Jihad and Fitna ?

By the way, the Mufti of Jerusalem from OP was not elected by any Muslim scholar to this important religious position. In fact, he was elected by Sir Herbert Samuel, a crypto Jew. The Mufti was hated among the Palestinians because he served previously in Ottoman Empire army as artillery officer.

Moreover he belonged to the Salafist scholar with strong ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and neighbouring countries.

Israel never liked the idea that Al Husseini was owner of a chanote of 1 million dunhams in Palestine alone. 1 dunham is 1000 square meters...so he could decide without the British occupiers who could live on it...

His relationship with Hitler and Himmler were pure geo-political, not religious.

History proved that Muslims have a long tradition in being favourable towards Jews. It stopped more or less after the 1st Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 and all previous Muslim efforts and sacrifices were never even considered from 1947 till today...to make peace in the ME...

Peace treaty between Muslims and Jews started in 622 CE when the Jews didn't even had any army...

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html

Got to admire the effort invested in compiling this pseudo-historical account just to avoid addressing a rather straightforward issue.

Either you understood my post and attempted to deflect, or you did not, and went on a rambling diatribe. Choose wisely.

To reiterate - my post was simply to do with the use of religious imagery (ie passages from the Koran and Hadith) as context to statements directed against Jews and Israel. It was not aimed a a general statement on Islamic perceptions of Jews and Israel, and was not related to ancient history.

If anything, some of the creative-interpretation and nonsensical bits in the post above are a good example of the ease in which ancient texts (history, religion) lend themselves to support revisionist presentations. Al-Husseini's appointment being political, and the ways he applied his position are yet another example. Thanks for making the point.

Al-Husseini was not "hated among the Palestinians because he served previously in Ottoman Empire army". His commission was relatively brief (a bit over a year), and it was by no means a singular case. If he was indeed "hated", it would not have been possible for him to play such a motivating role in related events.

The accounts of al-Husseini's supposed real estate holdings sounds like an exaggeration. While the clan was powerful and rich, their core holdings were more correctly counted tens of thousands dunam's. The whole clan numbered hundreds if not more, which might drive figures up some, but assuming it was all under the Mufti's thumb is incorrect. Most of the land in their possession was in Jerusalem and Jericho (some lovely architecture for those interested).

[arjunadawn]

Are you denying that passages from the Koran and Hadith are used by Muslims to justify animosity and violence toward Jews? Israelis? This is not a question regarding the the correct interpretation of religious texts, but rather pertains to use made of such passages.

I understand completely with your question that you have difficulties to understand the historical background from Islam towards Jews.

I won't elaborate your request towards Israeli's because the nation covers the main Abrahamic religions : Judaism, Christianity and Islam: all 3 share well known common Prophets. To start it's ridiculous to consider that Jewish Prophets are discriminated in the Koran. Islam can't be antisemitic because Arabs are also semitic.

Moreover, Islam and Christianity are not based on ethnicity. Judaism is based on ethnicity. And Israel is with its Declaration of Independency a Jewish state.

Furthermore you limit any possible reply by extracting the question regarding the correct interpretation of Koranic religious texts. Resulting in a too transparent fallacy. Perhaps 300 of these fallacies are documented somewhere on the internet and are even available in Latin, you've just fabricated a cluster that didn't really work.

You've also forgotten to mention the notion of time and place. Islamic text sources and historical facts proves the contrary of your assumptions. Here again I recognise a repetitive lack of academical and intellectual arguments. Coded slogans are not advisable in any debate.

Too many historical facts are pointing that Muslim efforts and sacrifices were made and were favourable towards Jews in general :

- Jews and Muslims fought together against Christian crusaders for the multiple sieges of Jerusalem ;

- Muslims defeated the Byzantine Empire and liberated the Jews ;

- Note : in case you attempt to aim at Shia Islam : Persians (non-Muslims) liberated the Jews and allowed the Jews to build the 2nd Temple in Jerusalem ;

- Jews were liberated by the Muslims after the conquest of Spain ;

- Jews were integrated into Muslim Ottoman Empire whereas they were prosecuted all over Europe;

- Muslims fought during WW1 for France and Britain in Europe and for the conquest of the Ottoman Empire remained important for Palestine and Jews with the Balfour declaration ;

- Muslims fought for France and Britain during WW2 in Europe and North Africa and contributed to early liberation of Jews in concentration camps ;

- Only Muslim country under Nazi occupation was Albania. More Jews were present at the end of WW2 than at the beginning. No single Jew has been deported ;

- After creation of State of Israel and Palestinians were expulsed, all Arab countries provided liasons with Zionist agents to provide repatriation to Israel ;

And I can continue...

Just have a look on the map in the link and acknowledge your lack of historical correctness in this matter :

http://www.wired.com/2013/03/the-long-data-of-european-jewish-expulsions/

There are lists on internet available of Jewish persecutions in history which I won't provide due to forum rules. Which ones are not-politically related to Muslims ? Which ones are based on Jihad and Fitna ?

By the way, the Mufti of Jerusalem from OP was not elected by any Muslim scholar to this important religious position. In fact, he was elected by Sir Herbert Samuel, a crypto Jew. The Mufti was hated among the Palestinians because he served previously in Ottoman Empire army as artillery officer.

Moreover he belonged to the Salafist scholar with strong ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and neighbouring countries.

Israel never liked the idea that Al Husseini was owner of a chanote of 1 million dunhams in Palestine alone. 1 dunham is 1000 square meters...so he could decide without the British occupiers who could live on it...

His relationship with Hitler and Himmler were pure geo-political, not religious.

History proved that Muslims have a long tradition in being favourable towards Jews. It stopped more or less after the 1st Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 and all previous Muslim efforts and sacrifices were never even considered from 1947 till today...to make peace in the ME...

Peace treaty between Muslims and Jews started in 622 CE when the Jews didn't even had any army...

http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/treaty22.html

Got to admire the effort invested in compiling this pseudo-historical account just to avoid addressing a rather straightforward issue.

Either you understood my post and attempted to deflect, or you did not, and went on a rambling diatribe. Choose wisely.

To reiterate - my post was simply to do with the use of religious imagery (ie passages from the Koran and Hadith) as context to statements directed against Jews and Israel. It was not aimed a a general statement on Islamic perceptions of Jews and Israel, and was not related to ancient history.

If anything, some of the creative-interpretation and nonsensical bits in the post above are a good example of the ease in which ancient texts (history, religion) lend themselves to support revisionist presentations. Al-Husseini's appointment being political, and the ways he applied his position are yet another example. Thanks for making the point.

Al-Husseini was not "hated among the Palestinians because he served previously in Ottoman Empire army". His commission was relatively brief (a bit over a year), and it was by no means a singular case. If he was indeed "hated", it would not have been possible for him to play such a motivating role in related events.

The accounts of al-Husseini's supposed real estate holdings sounds like an exaggeration. While the clan was powerful and rich, their core holdings were more correctly counted tens of thousands dunam's. The whole clan numbered hundreds if not more, which might drive figures up some, but assuming it was all under the Mufti's thumb is incorrect. Most of the land in their possession was in Jerusalem and Jericho (some lovely architecture for those interested).

Earlier post removed for response.

I was lost in the previous response to Morch. I will not line item response other than to say that the argument that islam had diplomatic/other relations with jews at various points in times is deceitful. It overlooks the fact that all these treaties, arrangements, etc., take place solely within the context of the sharia, therefore they are hardly worthy of comment as if equals met with ideas and agreements- it was always coercion. Within the sharia a world is carved for "people of the book," but it is a subordinate world where taxes must be paid simply to exist in the manner of their forebears. Besides "the tax" they are required to be made to feel "subjected" and humiliated when paying it. It is within this framework of sharia that incomplete observations are occasionally made regarding how well the jews had it under islam, or that there was any quarter at all. Wholly fictitious. Sharia is the greatest hate speech/print in the history of the world. It is predicated upon supremacy and subordination. That jews found a niche to survive in such a framework does not constitute the point suggested.

One can compare and contrast both jews and muslims all day long but finally it produces nothing. These past observations can really only serve to inform the foundation for the current morass. Qualitatively, it would be difficult to assert oppressor or oppressed. However, were a quantitative formula to be used= time, for instance, without question jews have been oppressed by islam for the greater part of history, and all of islamic history from Medina onward. Otherwise, it is a projection to indict one poster for a diatribe while doing so within your own diatribe. Perhaps this blind-spot reflects best the inability for some to acknowledge the unique pressures of islam upon the jewish people as they seek to simply survive- those who oppose them simply refuse to see them as having any legitimacy. This is the context in which the Holocaust comments take place, irrespective of their accuracy or not.

[arjunadawn]

A general comment -

Posters seem to be having a hard time accepting that both sides engage in incitement against each other. Claiming, correctly, that "they" do it, does not mean that the pointing side is not doing the same. Both try to divert attention to the other side's sins, faults and transgressions - big surprise. As for all the endless they-started-it, it's-all-their-fault, they-did-more-than-us etc....kinda sounds ridiculous when put like that. Think we all know better than that.

Yes, BUT. You can argue equivalence concerning just about every facet of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, but trying to apportion blame or responsibility down the middle achieves nothing. Whatever incitement there is on the Israeli side is minute compared to the cradle to grave from the top down incitement the Palestinians are subject to, which poisons their psyche and prevents them functioning as moral reasoning adults. Vigilantism and so called price tag attacks are very few and far between compared to Palestinian violence, there is your equivalence or lack of it. Even the right wing Israelis get worn down by constant whining and belligerence, for example where is the equity in religious Jews being banned from worshipping at the most holy site in Judaism to placate Muslims who insist on EXCLUSIVE right to pray at their third most holy site? This sounds like the apartheid so many of our esteemed members whine about. Incidentally I could show you a photo from over a century back showing a deserted Al-Aqsa in a state of disrepair and surrounded by weeds. It only becomes 'holy' to keep the Jews away.

Nope, equivalence does not cut it, Israel is far closer to right than wrong here, middle ground is meaningless to the river to the sea mob, so Israel has IMHO the right, nay duty to stand its ground and to hell with world opinion.

Yes, yes; agreed! I just referenced this elsewhere. It is like a blind-spot where there is some unspoken formula used to indict one side without due observation for the other side's point of view. I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around. History, however, does inform every stone in the Levant, and sadly all actions seem unable to shake this fact. I think this fact is best illustrated by those of us with the sternest admonishment for the Arabs in this area also readily admit that Israeli is hardly without blame; I have rarely noted an opposing poster on TV admitting this point.

There is only one outcome agreeable to those who oppose Israel, whether they follow their beliefs through to its logical conclusion or not, and that is the total destruction of Israel and its people. There is no mechanism, no middle ground, no real goal that does not include this end. There is also no recognition by the outside world that should Israel capitulate that the problems will be solved. They will not. Israel simply must cease to exist in order for this wound to be resolved. The palestinians have no desire to live in peace with the jews.

[Morch]

As I've said, I agree that Netanyahu voiced significant historical inaccuracies.

Some people are now questioning his sanity based on that. I think that might be a reasonable concern.

However, I suppose a silver lining is that more people are becoming aware of the activities of that great and supremely important historical leader of the Palestinian Arab political identity movement and his UNDENIABLE ties/active collaboration to the Nazi regime and UNDENIABLE knowledge of the death camps and Nazi intentions of TOTAL GENOCIDE of the Jewish people.

So a big problem that still exists today towards any hope of peace between the Jews of Israel and Arab/Muslim world (localized there as "Palestinian Arabs") is a SEVERE lack of trust ... on both sides.

This documentary explores the question of the roots of Arab/Muslim Jew hatred, asking is it really rooted in the Koran or is IMPORT of European style/Nazi style Jew hatred into the Middle East a more important factor.

Keeping in mind of course, that the Nazis certainly didn't invent European style Jew hatred, rather they took something that was already there and became unspeakably EXTREME about it.

You mention the Koran and some sort of imported European/Nazi style pathological anti semitism as a source of Muslim hatred of Israeli Jews, but ignore the enormous elephant in the room...well how about the 100 years of Zionist colonialism, ethnic cleansing, occupation, and thousands of Palestinians killed including over 500 children in Gaza last year alone, over 120 univestigated attacks by fanatical Jewish settlers this year alone, and the daily humiliations, beatings and murders at checkpoints in the occupied West Bank to name but a very small list of possible reasons for Palestinians to dislike occupying Zionists.

Let's have a semblance of reality checking here.

The Mufti and most Palestinians would probably not have given a hoot about Hitler and the Nazis, if they had been given their own nation as promised by the British for helping them defeat the Ottomans in World War 1, and if the waves of illegal Zionist immigrants intent on establishing a Jewish state by displacing Palestinians had never arrived.

Al-Husseini joined the Ottoman Army when WWI broke. He switched sides in 1917, when Jerusalem was captured. The Participation of Palestinian Arabs in the war against the Ottoman Empire was not widespread. There were but a few hundred with the Sharifian Army near the end of the war.

Al-Husseini's politics at the time, and until the late 1920's, were not focused on Palestinian nationalism, rather supporting Pan-Arabic notions (mostly to do with variations of Greater Syria). In the same vein, promises made by the British, were more along the lines of a unified Arab state in the region - not specifically a Palestinian one. Whether intentionally or not, the British became involved in three conflicting propositions - the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, The Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Deceleration.

You forgot to mention a more important 4th conflicting proposition: the Faisal-Weizmann agreement of 1919.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal–Weizmann_Agreement

Original Sykes-Picot agreement was made secretly in 1916 between France and Britain. It was only made publicly in 1919 through a Russian embassy employee.

The Balfour declaration was in fact composed by Lloyd George in 1917.

The Balfour declaration was in fact merged in the original Sykes-Picot agreement but only indirectly released to France end of November 1918, short after the end of WW1. French Clemenceau visited Lloyd George in London. George asked for 2 important changes of the Sykes-Picot agreement to Clemenceau :

- return of Mosul to Britain after the Germans discovered in 1915 the huge quantities of oil reserves

- return of Palestine to Britain due to the Balfour declaration : so far your assumption of a unified Arab nation...

Your assumption that British occupancy aimed a creation of the Greater Arabic nation after the Balfour declaration is false. Check the Arab demographics in that time vs the Jewish...

You're confusing with King Faysal...the Mufti supported the Arab Kingdom of Syria just after WW1.

France separated Greater Lebanon and gived away Hatay State back to the Turks. Syrian-Arab government was removed after the French came in. What you called 'variations'.

The relevant part of my post was a comment on the view that the Arab Palestinians were promised independence by the British - which was not the case.("The Mufti and most Palestinians would probably not have given a hoot about Hitler and the Nazis, if they had been given their own nation as promised by the British for helping them defeat the Ottomans in World War 1").

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was not a commitment taken by the British, and as such, did not directly bear on the discussion.

The reference to a unified Arab state (or kingdom) was with regard to what the British promised the Arabs (or how the Arabs interpreted certain promises). There was no claim that the British actually intended to fulfill such promises.

[Morch]

As I've said, I agree that Netanyahu voiced significant historical inaccuracies.

Some people are now questioning his sanity based on that. I think that might be a reasonable concern.

However, I suppose a silver lining is that more people are becoming aware of the activities of that great and supremely important historical leader of the Palestinian Arab political identity movement and his UNDENIABLE ties/active collaboration to the Nazi regime and UNDENIABLE knowledge of the death camps and Nazi intentions of TOTAL GENOCIDE of the Jewish people.

So a big problem that still exists today towards any hope of peace between the Jews of Israel and Arab/Muslim world (localized there as "Palestinian Arabs") is a SEVERE lack of trust ... on both sides.

This documentary explores the question of the roots of Arab/Muslim Jew hatred, asking is it really rooted in the Koran or is IMPORT of European style/Nazi style Jew hatred into the Middle East a more important factor.

Keeping in mind of course, that the Nazis certainly didn't invent European style Jew hatred, rather they took something that was already there and became unspeakably EXTREME about it.

Or...is it simply that after 3 generations of oft-times brutal occupation and stealing of lands and demolition of homes,, an oppressed people hate their oppressors?

I think that is the most reasonable and likely scenario. To always try to make it something to do with Jew-hatred is just playing the Jew victim card again....YET again.

SS, you are not incorrect, but it is a lopsided observation. After x generations, yes, people in the current age are aghast and often need little scripture or history to hate, or be angry, etc, because their grievances are very real, very near. But this kind of observation simply cannot exist without context. Jews have been brutalized by Arabs/muslims for millennia. Right, the present is all that matters; I agree. Yet in the ME the past is interwoven with every act. Not sure a population that have been consistently demonized and hunted and killed and raped and slaughtered and maligned for 1,400 years by the divine mandate of their avowed enemies can actually play a victim card. It is evident, the jews are victims in the larger context; 70 years is a hiccup in time.

Jew Hatred? One has to intentionally avoid noting every stone of history crying out that there is a "Jew behind me, come and kill him" in order not to see that jews are victims as well. This is the background in which mindset's like Netanyahu speak, in this case not smartly either. But this is the background and it cannot be conveniently divorced from the present to sterilize arab/muslims as victims alone.

It is not lopsided. 1400 years of being hunted, and 70 years a hiccup in time are indeed continuing with the victim card when you consider that for the past 70 years, Israeli Jews have been the aggressor.

Do you expect a youth who is witnessing his home being demolished to shrug his shoulders and console himself, "Oh well, I understand the bulldozer driver's need to do this, after all, his great grandfather was gassed at Dachau. And I don't blame the IDF officer overseeing the destruction, because his great great great grandfather was driven out of Russia."

Every single Palestinian living today in Palestine has been and is a victim of Jewish aggression. Their hatred does not need any holy scripture to make it violent.

It's today that matters.

The sins of the father can quite aptly be converted to the transgressions against the great great grandfather. Do today's Palestinian youths have to pay for the transgressions against today's Israeli's ancestors in another land?

There is no argument (at least not from me) that Palestinians have more than enough reasons to hate Israel. That the distinctions between "Israelis" and "Jews" may not always be clearly expressed when hatred explodes, is a given. Some may trace the underlying motivations to being entrenched in Islamic views, illegal settlers being mostly religious Jews, or to ethnic and cultural divisions. There is no shortage of causes for why this is so, harder to agree on the main ingredient.

The thing is that regardless of what is considered to be the reason for this marriage of religious rhetoric and political goals, it certainly plays a major part in shaping attitudes and perceptions. Chicken and egg question aside, the combination of the two rarely produces much that is positive - at least from a Western perspective,

Making al-Aqsa the focal issue of the conflict lends it a decisively religious aspect, even if the more meaningful background is of a political nature (and fair enough, some may say its the other way around). For anyone wishing for a peaceful resolution of the conflict, bringing the religious aspect to the front is bad news. Politics are pragmatic by nature, religions less so.

The sins of the fathers (or forefathers and so on) should not be visited on their decedents. That said, outcomes of past actions and decisions have a way of effecting the lives of following generations. Two of the things people learn as they grow up is that life is not always fair, and that ultimately, there comes a time when the past needs to be acknowledged and accounted for.

[Morch]

Do today's Palestinian youths have to pay for the transgressions against today's Israeli's ancestors in another land?

Today's Palestinians are paying because their fathers and grandfathers picked a fight with a superior foe that they can never best. They brought all their troubles on themselves. Time to realize that and make peace.

You are saying they have to pay for the sins of the father. This is widely accepted as immoral and unjust.

There is only one side that refuses peace, and that is Israel.

I cannot speak for UG, but the way I see it - to an extent, we all pay for some of our forefathers' sins, one way or another. With "we" standing for "public". not necessarily as individuals. Past actions by leaders effect generations to come, fairness notwithstanding. Palestinians rejecting the Partition Plan back in 1947, Israelis reaping the bitter fruits of occupation - and the dual lists goes on, of course.

Put quantitatively - how far back can a nation be held accountable for its past. Put qualitatively - what does accountability entail.

I think that the level of emotion associated with the former is (at least in part) a consequence of the latter's uncertainty. If accepting responsibility for the past implies a too high a "price" to be paid, denial and rejection of the past will be stronger. The "price" does not have to be tangible, sometimes letting go of myth and well-rehearsed narratives is hard enough.

The last sentence in your post is a good example - obviously not correct as such, but serves the narrative accepting no Palestinian accountability whatsoever. The underlying sentiment is that accepting (even limited) responsibility for the past presents a major threat that could undermine current ambitions and goals.

Sure enough, there ARE those who will attempt to take advantage of such a move. They might use it to discredit future claims, or it may be applied to confer such guilt that no future concessions associated will be deemed enough. Whatever. But, perhaps, on some level, what many people on both sides want is more akin to closure. Or maybe that's what Oban thinks...

[Ulysses G.]

I meant that the Palestinians are paying for their forefathers stupid decisions because they CHOOSE to keep fighting - only they can make peace and stop the Merry-Go-Round. After almost 70 years of LOSING on every front, it should be obvious that they outgunned, outbrained and outmatched.

Edited October 27, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Morch]

UlyssesG post # 208.

Today's Palestinians are paying because their fathers and grandfathers picked a fight with a superior foe that they can never best. They brought all their troubles on themselves. Time to realize that and make peace.

Today's Palestinians are paying because their fathers and grandfathers were terrorised slaughtered and had their land stolen from them in a fight with a terrorist led xenophobic jingoistic group of professional victims who still do carry on their abhorrent activities in order to justify their barbaric and dictatorial actions.

Truth be known the average Israeli wants peace but those Zionists in power do not want peace they want ethnic cleansing so as to be able to walk into a racially sterile area.

Historical revisionism aside -

Truth be known that you probably have no idea what the "average Israeli", nor who this "average Israeli" is. The suggested disassociation between "Israelis" and "Zionists". lends support to this feeling.

As for them "racially sterile areas" and that "ethnic cleansing" - how do they fit with Israel's 20% Arab minority, or with the Palestinians still very much present? Or were you referencing the Jewish population in the Gaza Strip?

[Morch]

No, I don't buy it.

So now you want to blame the Palestinians for a 22 year year delay in peace negotiations because they wrote in 1993 in black and white that

"The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security."...but somehow you unilaterally decide..they didn't really mean it.

...while Israel in return made absolutely no reciprocal commitments whatsoever and have since continued to build settlements illegally on land intended for a Palestinian state, stealthily ethnicallly cleansed more of East Jerusalem intended as the Palestinian capital, provoked several wars, and inflicted daily repressions via an illegal occupation.

It's the same old Israeli hoax: the Israelis are the aggressor/invader that somehow try to morph themselves into being the victim.

Give us a break.

The above would possibly have merit if one considered your views as synonymous with Palestinian positions.

Since this is not the case, the criticism was apparently specifically directed at your interpretation, rather than aimed at the Palestinians themselves.

The ongoing spin exemplifies this - the Palestinian side did not make an issue of the above at the time, nor is it a main feature in Palestinian claims nowadays.

Israel recognized the PLO as the Palestinian representative, and accepted UN resolutions as basis for permanent agreement. So claiming "absolutely no reciprocal commitments whatsoever" is another misleading statement..Obviously, there was no Palestinian state to recognize at the time. Both sides had their fair share of agreement violations - that you focus solely on Israel's transgressions simply a one-sided narrow view.

A very neat sweeping under the carpet of Israel's reciprocal obligations...

Israel recognized the PLO as the Palestinian representative, and accepted UN resolutions as basis for permanent agreement.

...and what did those UN resolutions say

Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_242

...and what did Israel do to fulfil this requirement?....absolutely nothing except build more settlements on occupied land which continues to this day..

So the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, and get nothing in return. QED my original post..

"The Oslo Accords marked the start of the Oslo process, a peace process that is aimed at achieving a peace-treaty based on the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338, and to fulfill the "right of the Palestinian people to self-determination".

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

The mods have been very indulgent so far allowing us to wander off discussing Arafat's letter and the Oslo Peace Accords, when the topic is Netanyahu, the Holocaust and the Mufti.

I only mentioned Arafat's recognition of Israel because the Israeli apologists continue with the myth that Palestinians refuse israel's right to exist. If they persist in that falsehood, you can expect the same rebuttal.

There was no suggestion that Israel fully accepted, nor complied with all relevant UN resolutions, but that UN resolutions would be the basis for negotiations on

permanent agreement. If the difference is not clear, lets try again - UNSC Resolution 242 is widely recognized as a baseline for most negotiation efforts, but at

the same time, it is acknowledged that fully applying the stipulated conditions it specifies, without regard to current conditions and changing circumstances is not a viable proposition. UNSC resolutions do not have the power to freeze time, and their actual relevance is limited to certain time frames - they will never be a true replacement for sides reaching mutual agreement.

Of course, no mention is made of the Palestinian rejecting 242 back when, as it does not fit argument.

Once again, not true that the Palestinians "got nothing in return", and once again - this is not even something that the Palestinians claim, but one of your own. The Palestinians got the PA, and a limited measure of control over people and territory. They did not have it before, so "absolutely nothing" is incorrect. Rather, prior to the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians had nothing, and after the Oslo Accords they had something. The "something" may seem inadequate to you, but it is still not "absolutely nothing", and as can be observed, the Palestinians are in no rush to let go of their limited national achievements. That things did not mature into a permanent agreement and generally went pear shaped is, perhaps, another example of how "idealistic" agreements fare when meeting harsh reality.

The "myth" is only partially so. Not all the Palestinians subscribe to the two-state solution as a permanent fixture, not all accept Israel's right to exist.

Arafat signing a letter more than 20 years ago, does not reflect later events and current trends.

[Morch]

I don't have a "query" - just relating the FACTS. Hamas refuse to recognize Israels right to exist.

Hamas has agreed to a truce, and that is all that is needed for peace.

To refuse peace on the grounds of "But you also have to like us. We don't like your thoughts/opinion" is disingenuous and results in more Israeli Jew deaths.

The Israeli right-wing government is ultimately responsible for every Israeli death because they do not want peace. Peace means no more land-grabs and loss of much water resources. Peace also means loss of potential oil revenues.

A truce is not the same as accepting neighbors as a permanent fixture or recognizing Israel's right to exist. A truce is not peace offer or a peace agreement. Even the Hamas does not say that, in fact, they make the distinction clear.

There was never a conditions set that "you also have to like us...etc", other than in you mind. There was, however, a commitment by the Palestinians to nullify sections of the Covenant which included denial of Israel's legitimacy, denial of the historical-religious connection of the Jews to Palestine, defining Zionism as colonialism, imperialism and racism. Not much love lost when it comes to Israel's relationship with Egypt and Jordan, and yet the peace agreements in place hold. That you should make this claim and use "disingenuous" is rich.

There is an obvious issue with not being able (or not willing) to see things from another angle. Try this for size: Refusal by Hamas to enter peace negotiations (including a recognition of Israel's right to exist) will probably result in more Palestinian lives lost. The Hamas leadership is responsible for every Palestinian death because they do not want peace. If to take this argument a step further - were Israeli governments perusing peace efforts responsible for deaths of Israelis in Palestinian terrorist attacks? Disclaimer: before you (or others) go off on one - this is not quite the position I personally subscribe to, it is simply meant to illustrate the narrowness of your own stated position.

[Morch]

Morch (hat's me!) original post:

A general comment -

Posters seem to be having a hard time accepting that both sides engage in incitement against each other. Claiming, correctly, that "they" do it, does not mean that the pointing side is not doing the same. Both try to divert attention to the other side's sins, faults and transgressions - big surprise. As for all the endless they-started-it, it's-all-their-fault, they-did-more-than-us etc....kinda sounds ridiculous when put like that. Think we all know better than that

Yes, BUT. You can argue equivalence concerning just about every facet of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, but trying to apportion blame or responsibility down the middle achieves nothing. Whatever incitement there is on the Israeli side is minute compared to the cradle to grave from the top down incitement the Palestinians are subject to, which poisons their psyche and prevents them functioning as moral reasoning adults. Vigilantism and so called price tag attacks are very few and far between compared to Palestinian violence, there is your equivalence or lack of it. Even the right wing Israelis get worn down by constant whining and belligerence, for example where is the equity in religious Jews being banned from worshipping at the most holy site in Judaism to placate Muslims who insist on EXCLUSIVE right to pray at their third most holy site? This sounds like the apartheid so many of our esteemed members whine about. Incidentally I could show you a photo from over a century back showing a deserted Al-Aqsa in a state of disrepair and surrounded by weeds. It only becomes 'holy' to keep the Jews away.

Nope, equivalence does not cut it, Israel is far closer to right than wrong here, middle ground is meaningless to the river to the sea mob, so Israel has IMHO the right, nay duty to stand its ground and to hell with world opinion.

Messed quotes edited out.

Saying that incitement from the Israeli side is "minute" on a topic discussing the Israeli Prime Minister attempts to link the Palestinians with the Holocaust is baffling. It would take some serious creativity from the Palestinians to top that (not that I doubt this will happen, mind). In addition, consider that the prolonged Israeli occupation, with all of its accompanying instances and influences, is by itself an ongoing generator of incitement (with same-same-but-different effects on Israelis and Palestinians).

This was not so much about measuring out blame and responsibility in equal measure, but rather addressing the futility of the endless the tallying effort. It would have been better if both sides accepted responsibility for respective words and actions, even if they were to further pursue them. Complete (or almost complete) denial of any wrongdoing is a recipe for having more of the same. Sides not conceding a single point seems to have become an obsession, which serves to warp positions and cement them at extremes. If "we" are the righteous, and always and completely so, there is no room to accept the other as anything but evil.

There are "river-to-sea" mobs on both sides, that are convinced in their absolute righteousness. Finding a middle ground between these two groups seems all but impossible, indeed. But if one is willing to accept that his side of choice is not a single-minded Borg-like entity, why assume that of the other?

Most Jewish religious authorities do not support, and even prohibit, Jewish prayers on Temple Mount. Aside from objections raised on religious grounds, these also incorporate a school of thought in Judaism which rejects zealotry balanced with its probable adverse results. As far as I recall, Non-Muslim prayers were not allowed on Temple Mount for ages. How would Jewish rights be worn down if they were not in existence? Would Jews be open to Muslims praying at the Wailing Wall? Methinks not.

[Morch]

Morch's:

A general comment -

Posters seem to be having a hard time accepting that both sides engage in incitement against each other. Claiming, correctly, that "they" do it, does not mean that the pointing side is not doing the same. Both try to divert attention to the other side's sins, faults and transgressions - big surprise. As for all the endless they-started-it, it's-all-their-fault, they-did-more-than-us etc....kinda sounds ridiculous when put like that. Think we all know better than that.

Yes, BUT. You can argue equivalence concerning just about every facet of the Israel-Palestine conundrum, but trying to apportion blame or responsibility down the middle achieves nothing. Whatever incitement there is on the Israeli side is minute compared to the cradle to grave from the top down incitement the Palestinians are subject to, which poisons their psyche and prevents them functioning as moral reasoning adults. Vigilantism and so called price tag attacks are very few and far between compared to Palestinian violence, there is your equivalence or lack of it. Even the right wing Israelis get worn down by constant whining and belligerence, for example where is the equity in religious Jews being banned from worshipping at the most holy site in Judaism to placate Muslims who insist on EXCLUSIVE right to pray at their third most holy site? This sounds like the apartheid so many of our esteemed members whine about. Incidentally I could show you a photo from over a century back showing a deserted Al-Aqsa in a state of disrepair and surrounded by weeds. It only becomes 'holy' to keep the Jews away.

Nope, equivalence does not cut it, Israel is far closer to right than wrong here, middle ground is meaningless to the river to the sea mob, so Israel has IMHO the right, nay duty to stand its ground and to hell with world opinion.

Yes, yes; agreed! I just referenced this elsewhere. It is like a blind-spot where there is some unspoken formula used to indict one side without due observation for the other side's point of view. I agree, there is plenty of blame to go around. History, however, does inform every stone in the Levant, and sadly all actions seem unable to shake this fact. I think this fact is best illustrated by those of us with the sternest admonishment for the Arabs in this area also readily admit that Israeli is hardly without blame; I have rarely noted an opposing poster on TV admitting this point.

There is only one outcome agreeable to those who oppose Israel, whether they follow their beliefs through to its logical conclusion or not, and that is the total destruction of Israel and its people. There is no mechanism, no middle ground, no real goal that does not include this end. There is also no recognition by the outside world that should Israel capitulate that the problems will be solved. They will not. Israel simply must cease to exist in order for this wound to be resolved. The palestinians have no desire to live in peace with the jews.

Edited quoted post for clarity.

As stated earlier - I do not subscribe to a point of view seeing an entire people as having one opinion. Simply does not fit with everyday experience and historical data. People are not ants.

There are certainly parts of Palestinian society which reject peace with Israel, or even Israel's existence. Whether or not they form a majority is immaterial, if this sentiment widely spread. That all Palestinian are on board with these propositions is not true.

The question is more to do with what "peace" means, in realistic terms, to either side. The rejection of opposing interpretations of "peace" is almost a given, considering respective attitudes and positions. Without defining what "peace" stands for, it is easy to to pin accusations on the opposition.

[Andaman Al]

I meant that the Palestinians are paying for their forefathers stupid decisions because they CHOOSE to keep fighting - only they can make peace and stop the Merry-Go-Round. After almost 70 years of LOSING on every front, it should be obvious that they outgunned, outbrained and outmatched.

It is evident that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the value of freedom is, how ironic coming from the land of the free (or was it the land of the North American Indians - damn more forefathers sins you should all bear responsibility for, what an inconvenient truth). It just goes to show when you are given something on a plate it has zero value and meaning. I am sure if I were Palestinian I would fight until my last breath for freedom. What a good job our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy. We paid in blood -lots of it so that your forefathers could hand you their legacy of freedom. They would be dismayed that you attach no value to it - "just give up why don't you and live in a prison camp while we take more and more of your land as we please". Why don't you exercise choice and stop choosing to accept that we should live in such a horrid world. At the end of the day they are not Palestinian, they are human, and some things are simply wrong no matter which side you think your loyalties lie.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Andaman Al

[Seastallion]

I meant that the Palestinians are paying for their forefathers stupid decisions because they CHOOSE to keep fighting - only they can make peace and stop the Merry-Go-Round. After almost 70 years of LOSING on every front, it should be obvious that they outgunned, outbrained and outmatched.

It is evident that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the value of freedom is, how ironic coming from the land of the free (or was it the land of the North American Indians - damn more forefathers sins you should all bear responsibility for, what an inconvenient truth). It just goes to show when you are given something on a plate it has zero value and meaning. I am sure if I were Palestinian I would fight until my last breath for freedom. What a good job our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy. We paid in blood -lots of it so that your forefathers could hand you their legacy of freedom. They would be dismayed that you attach no value to it - "just give up why don't you and live in a prison camp while we take more and more of your land as we please". Why don't you exercise choice and stop choosing to accept that we should live in such a horrid world. At the end of the day they are not Palestinian, they are human, and some things are simply wrong no matter which side you think your loyalties lie.

Bravo. Nicely said.

[Ulysses G.]

our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy.

During WWII, our forefathers did not purposely target women and children and blow up public buses and cafes to sow terror among civilians. Our forefathers were not Islamic terrorists and you dishonor their memories by such a foolish and dishonest comparison.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Seastallion]

our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy.

During WWII, our forefathers did not purposely target women and children and blow up public buses and cafes to sow terror among civilians. Our forefathers were not Islamic terrorists and you dishonor their memories by such a foolish and dishonest comparison.

Dishonest spin and diversion.

Palestinian freedom fighters are not Islamic terrorists.

The comparison was in answer to your claim that they should simply give up to the fascists.

What was Nagasaki and Hiroshima if not knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of women and children to set an example of what you can do and try to win!

Edited October 29, 2015 by Seastallion

[Ulysses G.]

You constantly pretend that criminal Islamic terrorists are "freedom fighters". That says everything that needs to be said.

[Jingthing]

Back to the topic, predictably Netanyahu after a time delay has gingerly walked back his verbal blunder.

Better he didn't have anything to walk back of course.

I didn't mean to let Hitler off the hook for the Holocaust, Netanyahu says
"Hitler and the Nazi leadership are responsible for the murder of six million Jews," the premier wrote. "The decision to move from a policy of deporting Jews to the Final Solution was made by the Nazis and was not dependent on outside influence. The Nazis saw in the Mufti a collaborator, but they did not need him to decide on the systematic destruction of European Jewry, which began in June 1941."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/I-didnt-mean-to-let-Hitler-off-the-hook-for-the-Holocaust-Netanyahu-says-430575

[Morch]

I meant that the Palestinians are paying for their forefathers stupid decisions because they CHOOSE to keep fighting - only they can make peace and stop the Merry-Go-Round. After almost 70 years of LOSING on every front, it should be obvious that they outgunned, outbrained and outmatched.

It is evident that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever what the value of freedom is, how ironic coming from the land of the free (or was it the land of the North American Indians - damn more forefathers sins you should all bear responsibility for, what an inconvenient truth). It just goes to show when you are given something on a plate it has zero value and meaning. I am sure if I were Palestinian I would fight until my last breath for freedom. What a good job our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy. We paid in blood -lots of it so that your forefathers could hand you their legacy of freedom. They would be dismayed that you attach no value to it - "just give up why don't you and live in a prison camp while we take more and more of your land as we please". Why don't you exercise choice and stop choosing to accept that we should live in such a horrid world. At the end of the day they are not Palestinian, they are human, and some things are simply wrong no matter which side you think your loyalties lie.

Fair enough that many posters would feel differently about things if they were involved, one way or another. Even Israel's Ehud Barak was quoted expressing a similar sentiment - "If I were a Palestinian at the right age, I would have joined one of the terrorist organizations at a certain stage". I somehow doubt, though, that this applies to every keyboard warrior out there.

As mentioned earlier, many posters had family members fighting in WWII, hardly seems to correlate in a meaningful way with current political positions. Would be better if people stop appropriating the entire war effort and sacrifices made by our forefathers in order to score a few points on an internet argument.

The Palestinians have been trying violence for many years, and without much to show for it. Most of their achievements on the road to self-determination were the results of diplomatic maneuvers, negotiations garnering global public opinion and support. Palestinian violence sole contribution to the Palestinian cause lies with the inevitable Israeli response (the chicken and egg question is immaterial) - which cements the underdog status as far as global public opinion goes.

I do not think that the Palestinian ought to "give up", or that such a proposition is even a fair statement. Giving up violence, though, would probably act in their favor. It would also be much harder for Israel to counter. Sadly, given current Palestinian leadership and public opinion trends - this is not really on the cards.

[Morch]

our forefathers did not give up when they were out gunned and out matched at Pearl Harbour or the Beaches of Normandy.

During WWII, our forefathers did not purposely target women and children and blow up public buses and cafes to sow terror among civilians. Our forefathers were not Islamic terrorists and you dishonor their memories by such a foolish and dishonest comparison.

Dishonest spin and diversion.

Palestinian freedom fighters are not Islamic terrorists.

The comparison was in answer to your claim that they should simply give up to the fascists.

What was Nagasaki and Hiroshima if not knowingly killing hundreds of thousands of women and children to set an example of what you can do and try to win!

Hamas terrorists are not Islamic terrorists?

The motivation behind many of the current stabbing attack, and indeed, making al-Aqsa the current focal point - are not Islamic in nature?