So Bibi Wants To Begin The "Final Solution."

[Loren Pechtel]

They explicitly say they want to purge the Jews. Why do you think they wouldn't do exactly that?

'They' say it? Every single one you propose murdering in a nuclear firestorm? Or are you just making sweeping generalizations about inherent character of an ethnic/religious group based on your fear and hatred of them, and trying to justify your endorsement of mass murder by accusing them of planning to do what you yourself are proposing?

Once again, quit mis-stating my position!

 

[Arctish]

They explicitly say they want to purge the Jews. Why do you think they wouldn't do exactly that?

'They' say it? Every single one you propose murdering in a nuclear firestorm? Or are you just making sweeping generalizations about inherent character of an ethnic/religious group based on your fear and hatred of them, and trying to justify your endorsement of mass murder by accusing them of planning to do what you yourself are proposing?

Once again, quit mis-stating my position!

I asked four questions in that post. If you feel the need to further explain what you mean, you can answer them.

Who are 'they'?

Did every single person you're talking about killing explicitly say they want to purge the Jews?

Are you making sweeping generalizations about the inherent character of an ethnic/religious group based on your fear and hatred of them?

And most importantly, are you trying to justify your endorsement of mass murder by accusing the intended victims of planning to do what you yourself are proposing?

 

[repoman]

Once again, quit mis-stating my position!

I asked four questions in that post. If you feel the need to further explain what you mean, you can answer them.

Who are 'they'?

Did every single person you're talking about killing explicitly say they want to purge the Jews?

Are you making sweeping generalizations about the inherent character of an ethnic/religious group based on your fear and hatred of them?

And most importantly, are you trying to justify your endorsement of mass murder by accusing the intended victims of planning to do what you yourself are proposing?

There is a phrase "The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you."

But it can be generalized to everyone of course.

In fact, it was likely a double reverse to accuse Jews of doing this before launching a pogrom against them.

 

[angelo]

Something important isn't on that list, probably because including it would completely refute the point that video creators are trying to make. I wonder if you know what it is.

And that would be..........................................................?

The Oslo Accords.

It takes two to tango.
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/oslo-accords

 

[Arctish]

The Oslo Accords.

It takes two to tango.
https://www.history.com/topics/middle-east/oslo-accords

Yes it does, a fact the Oslo negotiators recognized which is why the Accords laid out a series of steps each partner in the peace process would take. We can discuss the Oslo Accords in depth if you'd like. But for now I want to focus on the video you presented.

At the 4:15-4:30 mark the narrator says "Israel and the international community have endorsed Palestinian national aspirations through repeated peace offers based on a Two State solution. Unfortunately for everyone in the region, Palestinian and Arab leaders have rejected all of these offers." As the narrator speaks, a list of four proposals is presented:

1937 Peel Commission
1947 UN Partition Plan
2000 Camp David Summit
2008 Annapolis Process

Tone of voice seems to indicate the narrator means the Palestinians and Arabs have rejected all offers of a Two State solution, which is false. But if you read it this way, "Palestinian and Arab leaders have rejected all of ^these^ offers", it's true in the sense that these were not accepted but it's not true that all of them were actually peace offers. For example, the 1937 Peel Commission report recommended partition but didn't include a plan much less an offer, it was written more than 10 years before the 1948 War of Independence broke out, and anyway it wasn't presented to the Palestinians. The Palestinians heard about the report and objected to having their land divided and half of it handed over to European immigrants. They wanted a single State in which the rights of all Palestinians would be upheld, the one the British had promised to support.

The British were double dealing and IMO it fed the early strife. Some rioting and terrorism probably would have happened anyway due to the tremendous upheaval following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but I think it could have been less bloody and the outcome could have been more fair if the One State solution had been implemented or if the Jewish State had been limited to the area around Tel Aviv, not spread out over half the region. Also IMO, criticizing the Palestinians for objecting to a plan that guaranteed they would be forced out of their homes and off their land is beyond unreasonable. It's ridiculous.

 

[Derec]

angelo and I were talking about the indigenous people of Palestine,

How do you define "indigenous people of Palestine". You cannot just assume the Arabs that call themselves "Palestinian" since 1960s are it.

Regarding the Palestinian Arabs, first of all, many are not originally Palestinians at all. They are immigrants who came to the Land of Israel from all over the Arab world during the British Mandate in order to find employment in the cities and on the farms the Jews had built. These immigrants still have names such as "Al Hurani (from Huran in southern Syria)", "Al Tzurani (from Tyre in Southern Lebanon)", "Al Zrakawi (from Mazraka in Jordan)," "Al Maztri (the Egyptian)" and many other names that point to the actual, geographically varied origins of the so-called Palestinians.

Why do the Arabs hate the Palestinians so?

That is the same point made by that Hamas leader Fathi Hammad about the origin of so-called "Palestinians".

and you jumped in with a ridiculous assertion about the UN defining 'indigenous' as someone who lived in a place for less than 2 years.

That's how the perpetual refugee status is defined. These fakefugees then claim they have a "right of return" because they are "indigenous" when it reality many of their ancestors only immigrated during the British Mandate.

Either you see the error you made when you used wording that describes the refugees UN Resolution 302 was intended to help as a substitute for 'indigenous', or you really don't understand how categories work.

I do know how categories work, but the categories of the Israeli-Arab (aka Fakestinian) conflict are hopelessly muddled, resulting in idiotic claims such that Jesus was a Palestinian and not a Jew.

Also, I suspect that once again you used a mined quote you found somewhere and didn't bother to check it for accuracy or context, with predictable results.

BS. The UNRWA definition of "refugee" is very important for this conflict. I would say it is the key. And it defines those Arabs who now, 70 years after Israel's war of independence see themselves as "indigenous" to Israel proper and demand to be allowed to migrate there en masse.

 

[Derec]

By the way, speaking of real "Final Solutions" and the like:

 

[Derec]

More real "Final solution" stuff.

Muslim SS officer (Untersturmführer aka 2nd lieutenant) wearing the fez of the Handschar Division.

Fakestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini inspects SS Handschar troops

Same mufti sitting down with Hitler and Himmler.

 

[Derec]

Original partition plan of the British Mandate Palestine.

This partition could have avoided many problems had it been implemented.
I mean, Arabs already got the by far biggest portion with Transjordan. Why should they get a big part of Cisjordan too?

 

[Derec]

Islamofascists!

 

[Arctish]

How do you define "indigenous people of Palestine".

'Indigenous' is a word that's usually used to make distinctions between long established communities and recent arrivals. For example, when someone is talking about Hawaiians they might mean the people who live on the Hawaiian Islands nowadays, or they might mean the Polynesian people who lived on the Hawaiian Islands before Europeans arrived and/or their descendants. In that situation the word 'indigenous' can be used to make that distinction. In our discussions of Israel and Palestine I use the word 'indigenous' to refer to the communities of people who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years. I'm not making a distinction between Jews and Christians and Muslims, because members of those faith groups (and others) are indigenous Palestinians.

Nablus, Jericho, Jenin, and Jerusalem were established thousands of years ago and have been continuously inhabited by indigenous Palestinians ever since. They are currently inhabited by immigrants as well, especially Jerusalem. Israel's citizens are mostly immigrants and the children of immigrants who arrived in Palestine over the past 80-90 years, i.e. not indigenous despite their ancient ancestral link to the area.

You cannot just assume the Arabs that call themselves "Palestinian" since 1960s are it.

I don't, and I have no idea what gave you the idea that I would.

Regarding the Palestinian Arabs, first of all, many are not originally Palestinians at all. They are immigrants who came to the Land of Israel from all over the Arab world during the British Mandate in order to find employment in the cities and on the farms the Jews had built. These immigrants still have names such as "Al Hurani (from Huran in southern Syria)", "Al Tzurani (from Tyre in Southern Lebanon)", "Al Zrakawi (from Mazraka in Jordan)," "Al Maztri (the Egyptian)" and many other names that point to the actual, geographically varied origins of the so-called Palestinians.

Why do the Arabs hate the Palestinians so?

That is the same point made by that Hamas leader Fathi Hammad about the origin of so-called "Palestinians".

I'm unable to open that page which might be due to a slow connection. I'll try reading it later. But I agree with Dr. Keder that not all current Palestinians were born into the long established communities in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Some of them are recent arrivals or the children of immigrants. BTW, changing family names to fit in with the new neighbors is nothing new. A lot of Ashkenazi Jews did it when they emigrated to Israel. My grandfather did it when he came to America. I'm pretty sure it's commonplace. And in Israel it was required of Jews who wanted to work in government service, so there's that.

and you jumped in with a ridiculous assertion about the UN defining 'indigenous' as someone who lived in a place for less than 2 years.

That's how the perpetual refugee status is defined. These fakefugees then claim they have a "right of return" because they are "indigenous" when it reality many of their ancestors only immigrated during the British Mandate.

Either you see the error you made when you used wording that describes the refugees UN Resolution 302 was intended to help as a substitute for 'indigenous', or you really don't understand how categories work.

I do know how categories work, but the categories of the Israeli-Arab (aka Fakestinian) conflict are hopelessly muddled, resulting in idiotic claims such that Jesus was a Palestinian and not a Jew.

If you don't understand how someone can be a refugee without being a member of an indigenous population that was made refugee at the same time and in the same place, or how someone can be both a Jew and a Palestinian, or that someone can be a citizen in one place and also a member of an indigenous population from another place, then you really don't understand how categories work.

Also, I suspect that once again you used a mined quote you found somewhere and didn't bother to check it for accuracy or context, with predictable results.

BS. The UNRWA definition of "refugee" is very important for this conflict. I would say it is the key. And it defines those Arabs who now, 70 years after Israel's war of independence see themselves as "indigenous" to Israel proper and demand to be allowed to migrate there en masse.

Where did you find that quote? Did you look for the source material or did you just assume it was accurate and complete without looking at context?

 

[Arctish]

By the way, speaking of real "Final Solutions" and the like...

... did you have a word with Loren about that

vile anti-semitic slander!

he keeps posting?

 

[Arctish]

More real "Final solution" stuff.

<pictures of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and captions about his association with Nazis>

As I said the last time we were discussing the Grand Mufti, I haven't really researched this guy. I posted the Times of Israel link to what he said to Hitler, and I knew a little bit about his time in Nazi Germany, but this is the first time I've seen the allegation that he played any sort of role in the decision making process of the Nazis. So I went looking for more information and found this article, Fabricating Palestinian Responsibility for the Nazi Genocide, on Tablet Magazine's webpage. Tablet is an award winning American Jewish magazine and frankly, I trust its reporting more than I trust your sources.

I still haven't done enough research on the Grand Mufti to say much about him with confidence except that he was an staunch ally of Nazi Germany and a friend of Adolf Eichmann, that he hated Jews and Zionists (which he may have considered one and the same), and that he favored a One State solution resulting in an independent Palestinian State in Palestine.

Since this thread is about Bibi and not the Grand Mufti, I don't see a need to do more research at this time unless someone wants to make a direct comparison between their worldviews and their proposals for eliminating 'undesirables'.

 

[Arctish]

Original partition plan of the British Mandate Palestine.

This partition could have avoided many problems had it been implemented.
I mean, Arabs already got the by far biggest portion with Transjordan. Why should they get a big part of Cisjordan too?

That's a shit plan. You do realize that it gives cities like Jenin, Nablus, Jericho, and Jerusalem to immigrants, right? You realize that people from those places are unlikely to give up their homes and livelihoods to immigrants just because you want them to, right?

Seriously, if you want to f**k people over, a plan like that'll do nicely. But if you're actually interested in avoiding problems like ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses, that plan is garbage.

Why should the indigenous people of the region be forced out of their homes by newly arrived immigrants? Even if you suppose the immigrants have a Right to live there, why should they be given complete control of the entire area from the Jordan River Valley to the Mediterranean Sea, far more land than their percent of the total population justifies? And why should they be allowed to impose their version of Sharia law on everyone else?

Why can't the people of Palestine, all of them, remain in their homes and participate in the government that dictates the conditions under which they live?

 

[Derec]

'Indigenous' is a word that's usually used to make distinctions between long established communities and recent arrivals.

But it is applied in practice to mean "not of Eurpean descent" and to give certain groups special privileges. For example, a small group of very loud "indigenous" Hawaiians have been able to block the Thirty Meter Telescope for years.

For example, when someone is talking about Hawaiians they might mean the people who live on the Hawaiian Islands nowadays, or they might mean the Polynesian people who lived on the Hawaiian Islands before Europeans arrived and/or their descendants. In that situation the word 'indigenous' can be used to make that distinction.

People have settled on these islands in separate waves. Why should the arrival of Europeans be the deciding line as to who is considered "indigenous". Especially on the Hawaiian islands where polynesian settlement does not long predate European settlement. It seems an arbitrary and political distinction. You never hear reference to indigenous Europeans for example.

In our discussions of Israel and Palestine I use the word 'indigenous' to refer to the communities of people who have lived in Palestine for thousands of years. I'm not making a distinction between Jews and Christians and Muslims, because members of those faith groups (and others) are indigenous Palestinians.

But how do you know that the people calling themselves "Palestinian" today descent from people living in "Palestine" for 1000s of years?

Nablus, Jericho, Jenin, and Jerusalem were established thousands of years ago and have been continuously inhabited by indigenous Palestinians ever since.

Those places being inhabited for a long time does not guarantee that the people living there now are descendants of people living there in 1000 BCE.

They are currently inhabited by immigrants as well, especially Jerusalem. Israel's citizens are mostly immigrants and the children of immigrants who arrived in Palestine over the past 80-90 years, i.e. not indigenous despite their ancient ancestral link to the area.

If their ancestors lived in the land of Israel in the 1st millennium BCE why are they less "indigenous" than the "Palestinian" Arabs who are actually indigenous to Arabia? That exposes the political nature of the term.

I don't, and I have no idea what gave you the idea that I would.

Because you ALWAYS take the side of these Arabs.

I'm unable to open that page which might be due to a slow connection. I'll try reading it later. But I agree with Dr. Keder that not all current Palestinians were born into the long established communities in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Some of them are recent arrivals or the children of immigrants. BTW, changing family names to fit in with the new neighbors is nothing new.

But that would mean changing the name the other name. Your point is well taken. Surely many Al-Masris etc. changed their names, so the number of new arrivals is even higher than a survey of family names would reveal.

A lot of Ashkenazi Jews did it when they emigrated to Israel. My grandfather did it when he came to America. I'm pretty sure it's commonplace. And in Israel it was required of Jews who wanted to work in government service, so there's that.

I know. But they do not pretend that their great¹⁰-grandfathers planted the olive groves they are tending to or some other Fakestinian mythology.

If you don't understand how someone can be a refugee without being a member of an indigenous population that was made refugee at the same time and in the same place, or how someone can be both a Jew and a Palestinian, or that someone can be a citizen in one place and also a member of an indigenous population from another place, then you really don't understand how categories work.

I understand all too well. I do not think you don't understand how "Palestinian refugees" are qualitatively different than any other refugees. In definition and political significance. Also, you do not seem to understand that PLO changed the meaning of the word "Palestinian" in the 1960s.

Where did you find that quote? Did you look for the source material or did you just assume it was accurate and complete without looking at context?

What quote? The UNRWA definition of refugee? On UNRWA's official website.

 

[Derec]

By the way, speaking of real "Final Solutions" and the like...

... did you have a word with Loren about that

Israel vowing to use their nukes in case they are about to be overrun and destroyed (Samson Option) is not all like the Final Solution. It's closer to Mutual Assured Destruction.

 

[Derec]

As I said the last time we were discussing the Grand Mufti, I haven't really researched this guy. I posted the Times of Israel link to what he said to Hitler, and I knew a little bit about his time in Nazi Germany, but this is the first time I've seen the allegation that he played any sort of role in the decision making process of the Nazis.

I think he was certainly influential. I would not go as far as calling him THE driving force of the holocaust, but I think it is beyond dispute that he was A riving force.

So I went looking for more information and found this article, Fabricating Palestinian Responsibility for the Nazi Genocide, on Tablet Magazine's webpage. Tablet is an award winning American Jewish magazine and frankly, I trust its reporting more than I trust your sources.

I skimmed it. He ackolowledges the quoted I posted being real, but he downplays evidence of mufti's influence.
Also, the author, Michael Sells, seems to be an apologist for Islam.

Since this thread is about Bibi and not the Grand Mufti, I don't see a need to do more research at this time unless someone wants to make a direct comparison between their worldviews and their proposals for eliminating 'undesirables'.

It's about the vile slander that Bibi is seeking a "Final Solution" when there is zero evidence he wants to exterminate the Fakestinians.
I just wanted to point out which side in this conflict played a role in the actual Final Solution and which side still traffics in Nazi sympathies and symbols.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, quit mis-stating my position!

I asked four questions in that post. If you feel the need to further explain what you mean, you can answer them.

Who are 'they'?

Did every single person you're talking about killing explicitly say they want to purge the Jews?

Are you making sweeping generalizations about the inherent character of an ethnic/religious group based on your fear and hatred of them?

And most importantly, are you trying to justify your endorsement of mass murder by accusing the intended victims of planning to do what you yourself are proposing?

I was pointing out the alternatives to the status quo were worse than the status quo. That doesn't mean I favor the other alternatives.

Are you perhaps confused here because I am saying that what you want amounts to genocide? Are you mistaking that for my favoring genocide?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Tone of voice seems to indicate the narrator means the Palestinians and Arabs have rejected all offers of a Two State solution, which is false. But if you read it this way, "Palestinian and Arab leaders have rejected all of ^these^ offers", it's true in the sense that these were not accepted but it's not true that all of them were actually peace offers. For example, the 1937 Peel Commission report recommended partition but didn't include a plan much less an offer, it was written more than 10 years before the 1948 War of Independence broke out, and anyway it wasn't presented to the Palestinians. The Palestinians heard about the report and objected to having their land divided and half of it handed over to European immigrants. They wanted a single State in which the rights of all Palestinians would be upheld, the one the British had promised to support.

A technicality that's irrelevant. Rejecting things that aren't peace offers doesn't mean they didn't reject all peace offers.

The British were double dealing and IMO it fed the early strife. Some rioting and terrorism probably would have happened anyway due to the tremendous upheaval following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but I think it could have been less bloody and the outcome could have been more fair if the One State solution had been implemented or if the Jewish State had been limited to the area around Tel Aviv, not spread out over half the region. Also IMO, criticizing the Palestinians for objecting to a plan that guaranteed they would be forced out of their homes and off their land is beyond unreasonable. It's ridiculous.

One state = suicide. You sure are enthusiastic about the Jews committing suicide.

You don't want Palestinians to lose land but you don't care one bit if Jews are thrown off their land.

Do you consider Jews to be people?

 

[Derec]

That's a shit plan.

I think it would have been plan far preferable to what we got. For one, there are logical, natural (Jordan River) defensible borders. The partition plan and the 1949 Armistice lines are very messy and haphazard. And again, trans-Jordan has a much bigger area than cis-Jordan. Arab Palestine should have been located there.

The borders issue is especially important. Judea and Samaria being in Arab hands makes Israel very skinny in the middle. If Israel were to give full sovereignty to Arabs there like they did in Gaza, eastern suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be in range of even the short range (but plentiful) Qassam rockets like Ashkelon and Sderot are today.

You do realize that it gives cities like Jenin, Nablus, Jericho, and Jerusalem to immigrants, right? You realize that people from those places are unlikely to give up their homes and livelihoods to immigrants just because you want them to, right?

As if the Arabs living in those towns aren't largely immigrants too! And there were many Jews expelled from Arab countries during those time. An UN-brokered exchange of land between Jews and Arabs could have worked. And besides, how much worse could it have gotten than the situation we have today?

Seriously, if you want to f**k people over, a plan like that'll do nicely. But if you're actually interested in avoiding problems like ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses, that plan is garbage.

The Arabs felt fucked over anyway. So much so they waged a war against Israel as soon as they proclaimed independence. So much so they waged wars against Israel in 1967 and 1973 again. So much so that terrorist organizations and the Islamic Theocracy of Iran still want to destroy Israel.
I think the Arabs would have been pissed off, like they are anyway, but this plan would have offered better conditions for a long term peace.

Why should the indigenous people of the region be forced out of their homes by newly arrived immigrants? Even if you suppose the immigrants have a Right to live there, why should they be given complete control of the entire area from the Jordan River Valley to the Mediterranean Sea, far more land than their percent of the total population justifies?

Because Arabs already have much more land. Even the piece of the British Mandate that is across the Jordan River is much bigger. And again, many Arabs moved to the area during the Mandate.

And why should they be allowed to impose their version of Sharia law on everyone else?

What Sharia Law? Are you confusing Israel with Gaza?

Why can't the people of Palestine, all of them, remain in their homes and participate in the government that dictates the conditions under which they live?

Because Arabs would dominate more and more because they have a lot of children. Something like an average of 5 per woman today but it used to be as much as 8-10 during the Mandate.
Aren't the dozens of Arab and even more Islamic countries enough? Can't Jews have even one sliver of land for their own state? It reminds of Nathan's parable of the lamb.