The Student Room Group

Labour MP forced to resign over call for all Jews in Mid East to be deported

Scroll to see replies

Original post by TheArtofProtest
Dude. I'm not here to argue whether the agreement was justified. I'm here to refute your point that collusion between the Zionists and the Reich did not occur.

Stick to the points made, not points which you imagine have been made in an effort to move the goalposts.



'Were the Zionists in collusion, or at the very least tacitly approve of Hitler's actions because it would strengthen their hand and their claim to the land of Palestine? Of course.'

This quite clearly suggest some kind of Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis. I never claimed that the Zionists didn't make a single agreement with the Nazis. I was refuting your claim of Zionist collusion with the Nazis. There is no evidence to suggest that Nazi persecution was a cunning plan to generate sympathy for Jews, so as to regain Israel, so your claim of collusion is a nonsense.


Original post by TheArtofProtest
And perhaps Muslims in Tower Hamlets can annex it for the Islamic State?
Or the Jews in Golders Green can annex that on behalf of Israel?
Or how about Chinatown for China?

The fact is that you do not come into another man's country, and demand your own state, and then subjugate and oppress the original inhabitants because they resist your attempts to do so.


Are you being willfully ignorant to argue your point? You know as well as I do that the Jews did not annex any land in 1948. The UN said that the region ought to be split between Jews and Arabs, according to the areas where those groups were in the majority. The Jews honoured this, the arabs took exception to it and engaged hostilities. So any comparison to annexation is ridiculous.



Original post by TheArtofProtest
Better than 6 million of them being murdered.

Hitler really had an itch to get rid of Jews (and other degenerates) but no-one wanted to take all of them. Not European superpowers, not America, no-one.

What do you do to a problem that won't go away? You try and kill it and Hitler did that.


At least someone tried to find solutions for the Jews, the other "degenerates" (5 million of them) didn't stand a chance.


'As for the Madagascan project, I think it would have worked much better than the mess that we are in right now. Would it have resulted in Arab Jews uprooting their lives and fleeing their homes that they have lived for generations? Probably not.'

You didn't compare the Madagascar project to the Holocaust, you compared it to the current state of Israel. You pretty much said it would be better if we'd forcibly moved the Jews to Madagascar than to let them set up in Israel. Which is pretty abhorrent imo.

Also, even if this is just poorly worded and you meant that the Madagascar project was okay as an alternative to the Holocaust, you're still defending a war crime on the basis that it ain't quite so bad as another war crime. Pretty deplorable.

I'll trust that you aren't willfully describing Jews as degenerates, which is what the rest of your comment would appear to suggest :/
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Whataboutery. Favourite tactic of supporters of Israel. Not playing. Stick to the topic.


It's not really whataboutery, but a little ad-hominem I suppose. I was just interested to know if you were hypocrite. I'll take that as a yes.
Original post by TheArtofProtest

Despite your "no-platforming threat", you can't resist replying to me. Empty hollow threats? What a surprise.


Don't worry, it'll definitely be no platform in the future.

But tonight I'm enjoying too much watching you get pummeled from three directions.

Argue the points, put me on your ignore list or send one of your buddies in the IAF to bomb my house.


Argue the points? Says the man who raises the point about illegal immigration then refuses to defend it when queried about it? You're a gross troll and an intellectual lightweight
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Yes. Whataboutery.

e.g: Israel bombs a school. People decry their actions. Cue Israeli response:

What about America who bombed a school last week?
What about France who bombed a school 2 years ago?



Umm I think the issue is more "Israel bombs a school that was housing weaponry and was specifically chosen as the location for that cache of weapons because people knew it would look bad when Israel bombed it. Then Palestinians die at much higher rates in part because they use cement to build tunnels, rather than rebuild infrastructure, and Israel's spent money on things like Iron Dome to protect its citizens rather than using them as human shields and pawns in the propaganda game."
Original post by BeastOfSyracuse
Except that her proposed forced deportations of Jews from Israel would be the last Jews expelled from the region. The million or so Mizrahi Jews who moved from countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Yemen and Tunisia to Israel in the 1950s to escape anti-semitic persecution... they'd also be deported. So it would be the final and total Jewish deportation and cleansing from the middle east.


The 1948 Arab-Israeli War killed hundreds of Arabs, Jews and British. Some 700,000 Palestinians caught up in the turmoil fled or were driven from their homes. On June 11, a truce was accepted by all parties. Israel used the lull to undertake a large-scale reinforcement of its army. In a series of military operations, during the war it conquered the whole of the Galilee region, both the Lydda and Ramle areas, and the Negev. It also managed to secure, in the Battles of Latrun, a road linking Jerusalem to Israel. In this phase, 350,000 more Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the conquered areas.

And actually, a majority of Israelis are descended from the Middle Eastern Mizrahi Jews who fled the Arab countries in the 1950s to escape anti-semitic persecutions. Weren't even there in 1948.
Not to mention the fact that it was the Arabs who rejected the partition plan and declared war on the Jews in 1948.


That does not detract from the fact that this State of Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing:
During the 1948 Palestine War, Israel overran far more territory than was proposed by the Partition Plan. In what is known as the Nakba, hundreds of Palestinian villages and over 70,000 Palestinian homes were ruined and destroyed. 700,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes by the Zionists. On June 11, a truce was accepted. Israel used the lull to undertake a series of military operations, since it had conquered the whole of the Galilee region, both the Lydda and Ramle areas, and the Negev. In this phase, 350,000 more Arab Palestinians fled or were expelled from the conquered areas.

The State of Israel is a sectarian one, in which religion and state are fused, and in which any Jew from any country, even if a convert, can come to Israel and be given citizenship and land for free in illegal settlements, while Palestinians are being thrown out of the same areas.

The "Arabs" did not declare war. War was declared by various Arab states and Palestinian groups over the conflict, but the 1948 war was the fault of both sides.
Original post by DMcGovern
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War killed hundreds of Arabs, Jews and British. Some 700,000 Palestinians caught up in the turmoil fled or were driven from their homes. On June 11, a truce was accepted by all parties. Israel used the lull to undertake a large-scale reinforcement of its army.

Actually both sides used that truce to resupply and rearm. The UN proposed a Jewish state in Jewish majority areas, and an Arab state in Arab majority areas. The Arabs rejected that and declared all-out war, and they lost. You can't be the first to resort to violence then complain about the outcome

That does not detract from the fact that this State of Israel engaged in ethnic cleansing:


Even if that were true, which I do not accept, your response to that fact is to propose your own ethnic cleansing on the basis of some achingly barbaric concept of inherited guilt. So old testament
Let's not forget they've built on land that breaks international law

Jews dont deserve special treatment, we dont criticise them after the holocaust. Positive discrimination at its finest.
Original post by TheArtofProtest

Please. Educate yourself. I'm tired of telling all the ignorant people.


All I see is Zionists supporting an agreement to help Jews emigrate to their holy land, at a time when Jews were hated by many in Germany. Hardly the most shocking thing ever. I'm sure the Zionists were not aware of what the Nazis were going to do later.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Luke Kostanjsek
'Were the Zionists in collusion, or at the very least tacitly approve of Hitler's actions because it would strengthen their hand and their claim to the land of Palestine? Of course.'

This quite clearly suggest some kind of Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis. I never claimed that the Zionists didn't make a single agreement with the Nazis. I was refuting your claim of Zionist collusion with the Nazis. There is no evidence to suggest that Nazi persecution was a cunning plan to generate sympathy for Jews, so as to regain Israel, so your claim of collusion is a nonsense.


No-one has brought up conspiracy. What we have are agreements showing that the Zionists sought Jews to be transported to Palestine in an effort for their claims of an "ancestral homeland" be recognised more readily and when the time came, sufficient land (relating to population size) for a state would be granted (or taken).

The collusion happened not to generate sympathy, but to make a viable and future Israeli state (by the transportation and emigration of Jews to Palestine). Honestly, where do you get your statements from?

The agreements were not working fast enough for Hitler's itchy trigger finger, so he upped the ante and suddenly, they all started fleeing.

The German Jews did not want to move but they were forced to because Hitler was going to kill them.

Are you being willfully ignorant to argue your point? You know as well as I do that the Jews did not annex any land in 1948. The UN said that the region ought to be split between Jews and Arabs, according to the areas where those groups were in the majority. The Jews honoured this, the arabs took exception to it and engaged hostilities. So any comparison to annexation is ridiculous.


What right or legitimacy has the UN got to split the land? None whatsoever.

If you want to talk about the legitimacy of the UN, then be prepared to talk about the resolutions that Israel stands in violation of because you can't pick and choose when you want to listen to the UN.

'As for the Madagascan project, I think it would have worked much better than the mess that we are in right now. Would it have resulted in Arab Jews uprooting their lives and fleeing their homes that they have lived for generations? Probably not.'

You didn't compare the Madagascar project to the Holocaust, you compared it to the current state of Israel. You pretty much said it would be better if we'd forcibly moved the Jews to Madagascar than to let them set up in Israel. Which is pretty abhorrent imo.


Which is a position I stand by. At that moment in time, who gave a **** about Madagascar? Who even knew where Madagascar was?

Also, even if this is just poorly worded and you meant that the Madagascar project was okay as an alternative to the Holocaust, you're still defending a war crime on the basis that it ain't quite so bad as another war crime. Pretty deplorable.


I would rather defend relocations rather than murder, and I can't speak for the Jews who died at the concentration camps, but I suspect they would be of the same view.

I think you would too if you had a choice between moving or being killed.

I'll trust that you aren't willfully describing Jews as degenerates, which is what the rest of your comment would appear to suggest :/


I'm using the terminology that Hitler used, because we are examining this from a German viewpoint. It brings into sharp focus of the hate Hitler had for the Jews.

If you could stop trying to read too much into things, that would be appreciated.
[QUOTE=Youngmetro;64417611Jews dont deserve special treatment, we dont criticise them after the holocaust. Positive discrimination at its finest.

You think Jews receive "special treatment"? Do tell.
Original post by KingBradly
It's not really whataboutery, but a little ad-hominem I suppose. I was just interested to know if you were hypocrite. I'll take that as a yes.


You can't even recognise your own fallacies.

It's whataboutery.

[QUOTE="BeastOfSyracuse;64417445"]Don't worry, it'll definitely be no platform in the future.

But tonight I'm enjoying too much watching you get pummeled from three directions.



Argue the points? Says the man who raises the point about illegal immigration then refuses to defend it when queried about it? You're a gross troll and an intellectual lightweight

Wow. Quite the ad-hominem trip you've been on this evening.

Original post by sjohnson98
Umm I think the issue is more "Israel bombs a school that was housing weaponry and was specifically chosen as the location for that cache of weapons because people knew it would look bad when Israel bombed it. Then Palestinians die at much higher rates in part because they use cement to build tunnels, rather than rebuild infrastructure, and Israel's spent money on things like Iron Dome to protect its citizens rather than using them as human shields and pawns in the propaganda game."


That statement is too long for the Israeli propaganda office, to disseminate to the fickle and idiotic Americans. Try and condense it down and re-submit it for approval, or try turning it into a picture.

Original post by KingBradly
All I see is Zionists supporting an agreement to help Jews emigrate to their holy land, at a time when Jews were hated by many in Germany. Hardly the most shocking thing ever. I'm sure the Zionists were not aware of what the Nazis were going to do later.


Exactly my point. I'm glad that you are starting to get it.
Original post by BeastOfSyracuse
Actually both sides used that truce to resupply and rearm.


Interesting how you cut my sentence in half and only answered the bit that you can argue with.

Israel used the lull to undertake a series of military operations, in which they expelled 350,000 more Arab Palestinians from the conquered areas.

The UN proposed a Jewish state in Jewish majority areas, and an Arab state in Arab majority areas. The Arabs rejected that and declared all-out war, and they lost. You can't be the first to resort to violence then complain about the outcome


They did not reject it. It was passed. A war erupted but nobody declared one.
This does not somehow approve their actions of ethnic cleansing and illegal occupation of land that was not theirs according to the proposal they approved.

Even if that were true, which I do not accept, your response to that fact is to propose your own ethnic cleansing on the basis of some achingly barbaric concept of inherited guilt. So old testament


So you do not accept the existence of the Nabka, which you conveniently cut out of that quote.
You also do not accept clear facts.

Interesting.

Again, using this argument is false because I have not proposed ethnic cleansing.
Original post by TheArtofProtest

That statement is too long for the Israeli propaganda office, to disseminate to the fickle and idiotic Americans. Try and condense it down and re-submit it for approval, or try turning it into a picture.


Well then I guess as an American, there's no way I could have learned it from the "Israeli propaganda office"! Nice try hun. You can go on anti-Semitic rants all day, but when it comes down to it, you're just a hateful, cruel person who's following the path that millions of people have followed for millennia. You don't have to like Jews. Most people don't. But you really should try to learn some facts first. After all, most anti-Semitism has stemmed from a complete lack of knowledge!!
Original post by TheArtofProtest
You can't even recognise your own fallacies.

It's whataboutery.


In this instance whataboutery and ad-hominem mean pretty much the same thing.
Original post by sjohnson98
Well then I guess as an American, there's no way I could have learned it from the "Israeli propaganda office"! Nice try hun. You can go on anti-Semitic rants all day, but when it comes down to it, you're just a hateful, cruel person who's following the path that millions of people have followed for millennia. You don't have to like Jews. Most people don't. But you really should try to learn some facts first. After all, most anti-Semitism has stemmed from a complete lack of knowledge!!


I'm not anti-Semitic, I have Jewish friends...
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I'm not anti-Semitic, I have Jewish friends...


Do they know you think they're degenerates?
Original post by KingBradly
In this instance whataboutery and ad-hominem mean pretty much the same thing.


No they don't.

Whataboutery- Usually recognisible by the use of words "what about" or within the context of discussing similar actions in other geographical locations.

Ad-hominem - Usually characterised as a personal attack, instead of addressing the arguments made. For reference, please refer to your pal @BeastOfSyracuse who has been engaging in it all evening.
Original post by TheArtofProtest

Exactly my point. I'm glad that you are starting to get it.


Your point was that the Haavara agreement shows that zionists were in cahoots with the Nazis, which isn't really true. They simply made an agreement with them in that one instance, under the impression that it would benefit Jews who wanted to emigrate to Palestine. I don't see how that can be considered as them being in "collusion" with the Nazis and their actions.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
No they don't.

Whataboutery- Usually recognisible by the use of words "what about" or within the context of discussing similar actions in other geographical locations.

Ad-hominem - Usually characterised as a personal attack, instead of addressing the arguments made. For reference, please refer to your pal @BeastOfSyracuse who has been engaging in it all evening.


Whataboutery - Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse faults.

Ad-hominem - Directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


In this instance it could be considered both of those.
Original post by KingBradly
Your point was that the Haavara agreement shows that zionists were in cahoots with the Nazis, which isn't really true. They simply made an agreement with them in that one instance, under the impression that it would benefit Jews who wanted to emigrate to Palestine. I don't see how that can be considered as them being in "collusion" with the Nazis and their actions.


Not in cahoots, not a conspiracy but a mere expression of support for Palestine to be filled with Jews, German Jews in this instance.

The agreement was the manifestation of that support but many German Jews did not take it seriously, because no-one could have imagined that Hitler would start actually murdering people.

My point stands, validated.

Original post by sjohnson98
Do they know you think they're degenerates?


They think I'm gassed.

Original post by KingBradly
Whataboutery - Protesting at hypocrisy; responding to criticism by accusing one's opponent of similar or worse faults.

Ad-hominem - Directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.


In this instance it could be considered both of those.


I said your question was whataboutery, You then proceeded to ad-hominem me.

My point stands, validated again.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you