Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: knighthawk
The commie replys;
Ahh.. Another post hoping its readers won't dig deeper.
You are right that my post did not dispute Husseini's connection to Hitler. However, your evidence (the meeting notes) are by no means proof of Husseini's unquestioning support. They merely note that Hitler ASKED for the Mufti's support. My claim was that Husseini's relationship with Hitler was less substantial/detrimental to Jews than the relationship American businessmen had with Hitler.

"You say he is somewhat right about the Mufti's views about the Jewish immigration, while 'forgetting to mention' that
Jews lived in that area long before Arabs did. Well, since the Arabs have been there since 635 AD and Jews well before 1300 BC"

Prior to 635AD the area of Israel and Palestine was ruled not by Jews, but by the Sassanian Empire (whose official religion was Zoroastrianism not Judaism). They had taken the land from the Roman Empire. Surveys of the area by the Ottoman Empire 1878 showed that there were 462,465 subject inhabitants of the Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre districts: 403,795 Muslims (including Druze), 43,659 Christians and 15,011 Jews. In addition, there were perhaps 10,000 Jews with foreign citizenship (recent immigrants to the country), and several thousand Muslim Arab nomads (bedouin) who were not counted as Ottoman subjects. By the outbreak of World War I (1914), the population of Jews in Palestine had risen to about 60,000, about 33,000 of whom were recent settlers. The Arab population in 1914 was 683,000.

Your claim that Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years prior to Arabs and thus have more right to the land is interesting. Native Americans have lived in Canada and the US since thousands of years before 1300BC while Europeans have only lived here since 1492AD. So are you suggesting Native Americans should be permitted to take the same liberties with the non-indigenous populations as the state of Israel does? To set curfews on Canadians, hold hundreds of thousands of them without trial or conviction of a crime, torture them, force them from the land they've lived on for over 1300 (oops Europeans have only been in Canada for slightly more than 400 years) years, and eliminate their political rights?

Do you believe Canada and the US should be given back to the Native Americans (or taken back with force)?

In response to Husseini's uproar against Jewish immigration you pose the question:

"Why would immigration cause such an uproar?
As a Canadian we welcome immigrants why counldn't the arabs of transjordan?"

The Zionist movement began in 1882 with the first wave of European Jewish immigration to Palestine. The World Zionist Organization, established by Theodor Herzl in 1897, declared that the aim of Zionism was to establish "a national home for the Jewish people secured by public law." A second form of Zionism was the Revisionist movement led by Vladimir Jabotinsky. They earned the name "Revisionist" because they wanted to revise the boundaries of Jewish territorial aspirations and claims beyond Palestine to include areas east of the Jordan River. In the 1920s and 1930s, they differed from Labor Zionists by declaring openly the objective to establish a Jewish state (rather than the vaguer formula of a "national home") in Palestine. And they believed that armed force would be required to establish such a state. Thus, immigration of European Jews into Palestine became the source of Arab "uproar." Not because they disliked Jews, as they had been living with Jews ever since 635AD, but because they knew the Zionist immigrants intended to take over their land.

Immigrants to Canada are not a threat to Canada's control of the land. And when they do become a threat (not even to sovreignty but to profits) Canada responds. In April, Citizenship and Immigration Canada announced that it is backing out of its policy which allowed Algerians residing in Canada without legal status to remain in the country for their own safety. As a result, hundreds of Algerian refugees residing in Canada will be deported within the next six months. While the Canadian government claims that the deportees will be safe in Algeria, it advises Canadian citizens against traveling there, warning of "continuous terrorist activity." Human rights organizations widely regard the situation in Algeria to be dangerous, leading many to question the real motives behind the deportations: a visit to Algeria by Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien in the name of NEPAD has $1 billion in trade implications, and a $141 million deal between Canadian company SNC Lavalin and the Goverment of Algeria to build water-supply infrastructure was officially announced shortly afterward.

In the "free" US, Attorney General John Ashcroft has expanded the power of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to detain immigrants. Authorities can now keep detainees behind bars even after a federal immigration judge has ordered the individual released for lack of evidence. According to the latest figures released by the Justice Department, more than 1,100 immigrants have been rounded up and detained by the US government. Unfortunately in December of 2001, having come under criticism for refusing to release the identities of the detainees, where they were being held, and what charges, if any, had been brought against them, Ashcroft announced that the government would simply suspend giving out any figures on the detainment.

Israel itself has been more than anti-immigrant, it has even caused the exodus of many of the Arabs who had been living on the land it annexed. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into two states, one Jewish and the other Arab. The UN partition plan divided the country in such a way that each state would have a majority of its own population, although some Jewish settlements would fall within the proposed Palestinian state and many Palestinians would become part of the proposed Jewish state. The territory designated to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively) on the assumption that increasing numbers of Jews would immigrate there. According to the UN partition plan, the area of Jerusalem and Bethlehem was to become an international zone. Fighting began between the Arab and Jewish residents of Palestine days after the adoption of the UN partition plan. In 1949, the war between Israel and the Arab states ended with the signing of armistice agreements. The State of Israel now encompassed over 77 percent of the Palestine territory. As a consequence of the fighting in Palestine between 1947 and 1949, over 700,000 Arabs living in the land Israel claimed became refugees. Israeli military intelligence indicates that at least 75 percent of the refugees left due to Zionist or Israeli military actions, psychological campaigns aimed at frightening Arabs into leaving, and direct expulsions.

On June 5, 1967 Israel preemptively attacked Egypt and Syria, destroying their air forces on the ground within a few hours. Jordan joined in the fighting belatedly, and consequently was attacked by Israel as well. The Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian armies were decisively defeated, and Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, and the Golan Heights from Syria

Israel established a military administration to govern the Palestinian residents of the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Under this arrangement, Palestinians were denied many basic political rights and civil liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of political association.

After the 1967 war, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242, which notes the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by force," and calls for Israeli withdrawal from lands seized in the war and the right of all states in the area to peaceful existence within secure and recognized boundaries. The grammatical construction of the French version of Resolution 242 says Israel should withdraw from "the territories," whereas the English version of the text calls for withdrawal from "territories." (Both English and French are official languages of the UN.) Israel and the United States use the English version to argue that Israeli withdrawal from some, but not all, the territory occupied in the 1967 war satisfies the requirements of this resolution.

Since 1967, Israel has built hundreds of settlements and permitted hundreds of thousands of its own Jewish citizens to move to the West Bank and Gaza, despite that this constitutes a breach of international law. Israel has justified the violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other international laws governing military occupation of foreign territory on the grounds that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not technically "occupied" because they were never part of the sovereign territory of any state. Therefore, according to this interpretation, Israel is not a foreign "occupier" but a legal "administrator" of territory whose status remains to be determined.

The Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles (the Oslo Accords) was signed in Washington in September 1993. The Declaration of Principles established that Israel would withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Jericho, with additional withdrawals from further unspecified areas of the West Bank during a five-year interim period.
The Oslo accords set up a negotiating process without specifying an outcome. The process was supposed to have been completed by May 1999.
During the protracted interim period of the Oslo process, Israel's Labor and Likud governments built new settlements in the occupied territories, expanded existing settlements and constructed a network of bypass roads to enable Israeli settlers to travel from their settlements to Israel proper without passing through Palestinian-inhabited areas. These projects were understood by most Palestinians as marking out territory that Israel sought to annex in the final settlement. The Oslo accords contained no mechanism to block these unilateral actions or Israel's violations of Palestinian human and civil rights in areas under its control.

In July 2000, President Clinton invited Prime Minister Barak and President Arafat to Camp David to conclude negotiations on the long-overdue final status agreement. Barak proclaimed his "red lines": Israel would not return to its pre-1967 borders; East Jerusalem with its 175,000 Jewish settlers would remain under Israeli sovereignty; Israel would annex settlement blocs in the West Bank containing some 80 percent of the 180,000 Jewish settlers; and Israel would accept no legal or moral responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. The Palestinians, in accord with UN Security Council resolution 242 and their understanding of the spirit of the Oslo Declaration of Principles, sought Israeli withdrawal from the vast majority of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, including East Jerusalem, and recognition of an independent state in those territories.

As for Ford and GM plants becoming German property when the war began, this is only partially correct. As I quoted previously a 1974 report printed by the US Senate Judiciary Committee stated, "The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion BY GM and Ford of THEIR Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks. On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored 'mule' 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as 'the backbone of the German Army transportation system.'" Ford lost control of it's Werke plant in Cologne, which used slave labor from the Buchenwald concentration camp WHILE Ford controlled it, after the US entered the war in 1941, when the Nazi government seized the factory's assets (Not when WWII began in 1939). The same is true of the GM plant in Berlin. It was while these factories were controlled by US businessmen that they manufactured war machines for the German Army. Henry Ford accepted the Grand Cross of the German Eagle in 1938, five years after Hitler's passing of Anti-semitism laws and three years after the Nuremberg Race laws.

You speak as if license to build plants alleviates moral responsibility for the management of them. Slave labor, Jewish slave labor, should not have been used by American businessmen to build German weapons. This doesn't mean Americans in general should be ostracized. Al Husseini shouldn't have been in a meeting with Hitler. Likewise, This doesn't mean Palestinians in general should be ostracized. Period. Enough for this evening.

-For liberation.
47 posted on 08/06/2002 7:38:02 PM PDT by freeforall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies ]

To: freeforall
He is beating around the bush again to promote his commie views. My claim was that Husseini's relationship with Hitler was less substantial/detrimental to Jews than the relationship American businessmen had with Hitler.

What does that all have to do with the story? The Mufti admired what Hitler did to the Jews, unlike Ford. The story is about what the Mufti thought and how Arafat looks at him.

Tell the commie that Stalin, his great leader, made a deal with Hitler and therefor in his views we need to treat the commies as bad as he wants to treat Ford. Thanks to that deal Hitler could start invading Europe, so in his view, thanks to Stalin the Jews could be massacred. The Stalin-deal did far more damage that anything he can come up with.

He won't like that and will come up with lengthy stuff or try to dodge it by saying it's irrelevant to the discussion.

49 posted on 08/06/2002 8:21:05 PM PDT by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson