Hanan Ashrawi a military leader?
Israeli - Palestinian Conflict
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Hanan Ashrawi a military leader?
Not directly linked to the current exchanges, but let's avoid revisionary history
Here is a good link that explains the Mufti's relationship with Adolf Hitler. Plus, not only that, but a number of years ago, "Mein Kampf", was a bestseller in Palestine too.
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/arabnazi.html
Thankfully the Germans were stopped before they got to Mandatory Palestine. God knows what the peaceful Palestinian Arabs would have done if they didn't.
Well I don't think it was a great choice of location either, but that choice was made about 130 years ago. It's there now.
Lots of Muslim countries are Muslim because the Arabs conquered and converted them. Then there's Pakistan whose foundation involved ethnic... let's say relocation, on a vast scale.
Not military, misinformation. But my point still sticks, she was still a senior figure at around the time of the first intifada.
Yes but that's a response to 1948 not 2012. Israel seems to want it all ways up:
- recognise the historic claim to 2000-year-old rights over the land
- ignore the demographics of the early 20th-century
- accept the de facto 2012 Greater Israel
- ignore that the need for a Jewish homeland has gone post-1960
Indeed Plech, the very idea of the extermination of the Jewish people in Europe goes as far back as the 16th Century when Martin Luther wrote a piece called "On the Jews and their lies."
I'm not sure what you are suggesting, there is no longer a need for Israel so lets not bother any more?
That the entire population should pack up & go home (well they are home so I'm not sure where they should be going)?
What point are you trying to make?
There was a recent documentary about the Mufti Al-Husseini as part of the Nazi Collaborators series. Quite interesting. Seemed pretty much like a demented fecker to be honest.
Indeed he was Flawless, here is a quote from a site that spoke of him visiting Auschwitz:
Seemed like a demented lunatic to me who wanted equal footing with Adolf Hitler. Or perhaps was he scared that Hitler might go after the Arabs instead, since they are Semitic people too.
This is an interesting site about the Mufti and the Nazi's, especially the photos of Palestinians doing Nazi salutes. The mind boggles.
I agree with your first three, I don't really see where (4) is coming from... it seems optimistic, given the history. Though I don't think Israel solves the problem either... if anything, in a nuclear world it makes it easier.
Canada is my bolt-hole of choice if the shit hits the fan again. How bad could things get in Canada? Though the Iroquois might have something to say about that.
In fairness, it's a cracking title.
It is a bit late for using a conditional, but if Martin Luther hadn't wrote that piece, do you think the world would have been a better place for it? At the end of the day, Hitler read his work and thus decided to use these ideas and put them into action.
Raoul is seeing US policy to Israel from a purely electoral point of view, and I'm not sure he is entirely correct. At some point, the president can try to do what he thinks is right as opposed to courting domestic opinion. Netanyahu is the kind of extremist politician that most Americans would loathe, and Fox news would love, so maybe Obama can afford to take a tougher approach with Israel.
The USA might benefit from having a more neutral middle east policy, as it could go a long way to dampen anti-Americaism in much of Europe, Africa and Asia. There are many Americans who are very pro-Israel and there are also many who don't see how the US interests are advanced by being so partial. They see what Israel gets out of it, but they don't see what the US gets out of it.
The USA might benefit from having a more neutral middle east policy, as it could go a long way to dampen anti-Americaism in much of Europe, Africa and Asia. There are many Americans who are very pro-Israel and there are also many who don't see how the US interests are advanced by being so partial. They see what Israel gets out of it, but they don't see what the US gets out of it.
Well, the Jews are subject to the viscissitudes of history like everyone else: the Irish may be invaded and terrorized by the Brits, south Americans may be slaughtered by Spaniards...
It was going to be Uganda. Come to think of it there might need to be a new homoland.
I'm getting the feeling that you're a bit lost there.. You can't articulate a good reason why there should be a Jewish state in Palestine. You can't be serious about Amin Al-Husseini being an excuse to create Israel in Palestine. In fact! If it was sooooo unsafe for the Jews in Palestine which makes it practically as dangerous as Germany, well then I don't even need to answer this:
This doesn't make any sense now. You're giving reasons that contradict themselves by themselves.
I suppose so, though there was no shortage of that sort of stuff. The Jews gave as good as they got too, I remember seeing some mediaeval Jewish polemic about Christ and the Virgin Mary that was, er... well it made the Satanic Verses seem pretty tame.
Netanyahu is, genuinely, scum. But he's scum that speaks flawless English in an American accent and is very good at seeming reasonable. If yanks didn't balk at watching him publicly lecture their President like a schoolboy, I don't see them turning on him now.
The Irish had their own country last time I looked, as do the South Americans.
The Jews are subject to the tides of fate, but the Israelis decided to take some control over them, rather than hoping someone else would. They've been there 65 years now, and they've got nukes, so like it or not they're going to be hard to shift.
I don't mean to sound triumphalist, I know it sticks in the craw if you think the injustice to the Palestinians outweighs Jewish injustices. And personally I think they're fecked long-term, as a Jewish state anyway. But discussion of whether they should be there is now history or futurology, it's irrelevant to the what Hamas or Israel or 'the West' should do now.
Where's the contradiction?
Has anyone suggested rock paper scissors? I've solved many a dispute with that tried and true method.
So its boiled down to my religion is better than yours.
The victors write history.
The victors write history.
With what Holyland_red said.
It sounds cold, but it is kind of true. In historical context, Muslims have done remarkably well. Most empires end up losing it all, but the Arab/Muslim conquests have only really had to abandon Spain, Portugal, a bit of Israel (and Iran, sort of). That's not bad going really.
That's exactly what I'm saying in recognising a de facto Israel and looking to a two-state solution whereas you're using history to justify a Jewish homeland.
Move Israel to 10,000 uninhabited square miles of Alaska: away from moslems, bigger than Israel, and only 2% of Alaska, so the US could easily afford to do it.
Nah, religion's a factor, but not nearly as big a factor as nationalism.
A lot of wishful thinking in your post. I doubt Netenyahu is loathed much in the US - if anything, he's sufficiently admired and courted to make speeches before the Congress. If constituents loathed him, they wouldn't tolerate their elected officials allowing him such broad latitude. Whether the US would benefit from a "more neutral" policy is up for debate.
Alaska? Not even Hamas would want to wish Sarah Palin upon them.
I completely support a two state solution, you know that. If it was up to me Israel would close the settlements and negotiate withdrawal from the WB tomorrow.The Frozen Chosen. I nominate you to suggest it to Avigdor Lieberman. I will be on hand to wipe the phlegm out your hair.
Well I dunno what he said, but we are different people, you know? With very different views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. If what I say differs from what he says, that doesn't constitute a self-contradiction.
the fairest solution would have been to force the Germans to look for another homeland and leave Germany to the Jews. Maybe send them all to South America....and the US...
You can't have a solution that allows for a state that is predicated on ethnic/religious superiority. New Israel has to be a secular inclusive democracy not a Jewish homeland.
Would only make sense if you're also making the same call for all the countries constitutionally defined as Islamic (or Christian).
Not sure that would have been all that fair. Drag eighty million war-shattered people across the Pacific, rather than let half a million Jews go to a country they wanted to go to that was already a third Jewish.
hmmm.. ideal...not realistic is it?
The Arabs would soon outnumber them...err in more ways than one if you know what I mean.
I increasingly think you're right about that (or, more accurately, that Mike's right about that). Not that it's actually predicated on superiority, in principle. But yes, an ethnically defined state does seem to have an obvious tension with being a democracy.
What I'm saying is that Israel as a Jewish state is here, firmly rooted, and barring a nuclear holocaust not going anywhere soon.
I can't believe I got sucked into another Israel thread. Or that pete did - he's usually got more willpower than me on this.
Right... shalom, salaam, Salem, witches, bitches, goodnight.
Right... shalom, salaam, Salem, witches, bitches, goodnight.
What? Before the holocaust?! I thought they only created Israel because of the holocaust.
The converted the same people to Muslims. They didn't bring new masses of Muslims to replace them and kick them out of their homes.
BUT, the crucial thing is, if I don't have any Jewish ancestors, but want to convert to Judaism (the religion), I will also be let it based on my religion.
I already mentioned this contradicts the other arguments that holyland_red put forward, but even in itself, does it really make sense? Europe is REALLY concerned about the Jews, so they send them to Palestine, because Europe itself might kill them all!
I was actually quoting you to reply to holyland_red, I wasn't replying to you. Read my full post and you'll see what I mean.
Interesting tv appearance by a 28 year old Bibi in 1978. Excepting the introduction of Iran into the equation, not much seems to have changed since then.