The Student Room Group

Netanyahu claims Hitler didn't want to kill Jews.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Bornblue
He's not a holocaust denier but he has just sympathised with Hitler.


I think you are misunderstanding the intent behind it. I hope not deliberately. There is clearly no way in which Bibi sympathises with Hitler.

That Netanyahu might believe that Hitler hadn't considered murdering all the Jews as a final solution until the Mufti suggested it is simply not the same as having some kind of sympathy for him.

Netanyahu has been widely condemned, especially by Jews


Some Jewish people have condemned him, yes. Others have swung behind him to support him. The fundamental question is whether he has a historical basis for saying what he did; I don't think he does, but on the other hand it is entirely possible that that is in fact what happened. We really don't have very much documentation on Hitler's involvement in ordering the final solution, he was clearly very careful to avoid putting his name to anything (and had his thugs make the formal decision at Wannsee)

It's a disgrace to victims of the holcoaust and he is absolving hitler of blame. Imagine if corbyn said 'hitter didn't want to kill Jews'- you'd be up in arms.


I think he did say something like that. I'm going to go dig it up, iirc he said something vaguely similar in parliament in the early 1990s. I'll be back with details.
Original post by Bornblue
he has just sympathised with Hitler.

That's what you want. You definitely have a political issue with Israel and now you express it using as pretext the BS of Netanyahu.
Original post by Mr JB
Oh yes, America, the last bastion of truth on this planet.

:rofl:


If you prefer a more localised nation to carry out an investigation then it should be Saudi Arabia. They are the one country in the Middle East without an Agenda, with an immaculate record on fair and humane proceedings and most importantly are not biased.
Original post by Bornblue

Netanyahu has been widely condemned, especially by Jews. It's a disgrace to victims of the holcoaust and he is absolving hitler of blame. Imagine if corbyn said 'hitter didn't want to kill Jews'- you'd be up in arms.


I found the comment. Corbyn said

The history of this century in Europe is one of appalling prejudice against people with a different life style. Whom did the Nazis go after first in 1933? It was not the Jews


Can you imagine if Netanyahu had said that? You people would be up in arms. It does look as though Corbyn is downplaying the very singular Nazi obsession with Jewish people, and minimising the uniqueness of their persecution.

It's also historically inaccurate; the Jews were absolutely the first people the Nazis went after. On 1 April 1933, Hitler declared a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses.
He is the modern day Hitler.
Original post by Bornblue
He's not a holocaust denier but he has just sympathised with Hitler.
There's no question mufti was a nasty individual but it's just factually and historically wrong to make out that hitler did not want to kill Jews and was only persuaded to by mufti. It's wrong - it's been discredited by every credible historian - many of them Jewish or Israeli.

There's an ulterior motive and that's to paint the Palestianins as responsible for the holcoaust in some way.
The killing of Jews had started far before the meeting and the final solution has been shown to have had nothing to do with mufti.

Netanyahu has been widely condemned, especially by Jews. It's a disgrace to victims of the holcoaust and he is absolving hitler of blame. Imagine if corbyn said 'hitter didn't want to kill Jews'- you'd be up in arms.


Corbyn also blamed the behaviour of the Western allies at the end of World War 1 for the Holocaust, and claimed that the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred if not for the "triumphalism" of the Allies. To me the two comments I've raised sound just as dodgy historically and could just as well be interpreted in the most hysterical, cock-eyed way to say that he is "sympathising with Hitler" etc
Original post by SignFromDog
I think you are misunderstanding the intent behind it. I hope not deliberately. There is clearly no way in which Bibi sympathises with Hitler.

That Netanyahu might believe that Hitler hadn't considered murdering all the Jews as a final solution until the Mufti suggested it is simply not the same as having some kind of sympathy for him.



Some Jewish people have condemned him, yes. Others have swung behind him to support him. The fundamental question is whether he has a historical basis for saying what he did; I don't think he does, but on the other hand it is entirely possible that that is in fact what happened. We really don't have very much documentation on Hitler's involvement in ordering the final solution, he was clearly very careful to avoid putting his name to anything (and had his thugs make the formal decision at Wannsee)



I think he did say something like that. I'm going to go dig it up, iirc he said something vaguely similar in parliament in the early 1990s. I'll be back with details.


No, there is no historical basis for what he said - hence every single credible historian has called bs on this. The idea that hitter disnt want to kill Jews and only did after being persuaded by mufti is nothing short of ludicrous.
It is absolving some of the blame on hitter and it is disgusting. He has no evidence whatsoever. And the only people who think as he does tend to be holcoaust deniers.
Funny how you've jumped to his defence after pretending to be balanced.
Original post by Faisalshamallakh
Shows your ignorance. Holocaust denial extends far beyond simply 'denying' the existence of the Holocaust.

No, not really. A Holocaust denier is someone who denies the Holocaust occurred.

A Holocaust denier is not someone who takes known historical facts such as that the Palestinian Grand Mufti was a huge Nazi sympathiser and that he proposed the murder of all Jews in Europe, and then twisting it (as Netanyahu clearly did) into an unjustified historical interpretation (that Hitler would not have decided to murder all the Jews of Europe but for the Grand Mufti's suggestion)

There is so much clear blue water between the two that the bleating by the anti-Zionist crowd calling him a Holocaust denier (ironic given many anti-Zionists are Holocaust deniers) comes across as desperate and cheap
Original post by SignFromDog
I found the comment. Corbyn said



Can you imagine if Netanyahu had said that? You people would be up in arms. It does look as though Corbyn is downplaying the very singular Nazi obsession with Jewish people, and minimising the uniqueness of their persecution.

It's also historically inaccurate; the Jews were absolutely the first people the Nazis went after. On 1 April 1933, Hitler declared a nationwide boycott of Jewish businesses.

you do know 11 million people died in the holcoaust , not 6 million.
Original post by SignFromDog
No, not really. A Holocaust denier is someone who denies the Holocaust occurred.

A Holocaust denier is not someone who takes known historical facts such as that the Palestinian Grand Mufti was a huge Nazi sympathiser and that he proposed the murder of all Jews in Europe, and then twisting it (as Netanyahu clearly did) into an unjustified historical interpretation (that Hitler would not have decided to murder all the Jews of Europe but for the Grand Mufti's suggestion)

There is so much clear blue water between the two that the bleating by the anti-Zionist crowd calling him a Holocaust denier (ironic given many anti-Zionists are Holocaust deniers) comes across as desperate and cheap


Many scholars would argue rewriting basic history & trying to excuse Hitler is a form of Holocaust denial, actually.
Original post by Bornblue
The idea that hitter disnt want to kill Jews and only did after being persuaded by mufti is nothing short of ludicrous.

It is absolving some of the blame on hitter and it is disgusting. He has no evidence whatsoever. And the only people who think as he does tend to be holcoaust deniers.

Funny how you've jumped to his defence after pretending to be balanced

I'm sorry but you need to calm down and be less aggressive if you want to have a conversation. We had a good, respectful conversation the other day and I'd like to think we can do so again even on a charged topic such as this.

I think it is absolutely fair to say that while Netanyahu's claim is wrong, and even cheap, that it also does not in any sense amount to sympathy for Hitler or Holocaust denial. I think it's also reasonable to point out that Netanyahu does not speak English as his native language, and thus may not have expressed himself as we would wish.

I am not "defending" his choice of words; I would never have used them. But the way anti-Zionists are attacking him comes across as incredibly desperate and exceptionally ironic given how many Holocaust deniers there are in the anti-Zionist movement. It doesn't seem entirely legitimate for them to harbour so many Holocaust deniers in their movement and then blow up in confected outrage when they perceive there is an opportunity to accuse someone else of it. The accusation simply doesn't fit the facts; Netanyahu did not claim the Holocaust never happened.
Original post by Faisalshamallakh
Many scholars would argue rewriting basic history & trying to excuse Hitler is a form of Holocaust denial, actually.


Was he trying to excuse Hitler? Or was he making (an admittedly unjustified) assertion that Hitler did not consider to murder all the Jews as a final solution until the Grand Mufti suggested it, and doing so with less than artful precision perhaps due to the fact he does not speak English as a first language?

Historically, it is entirely possible that is what occurred, although we will never know as Hitler was careful to avoid putting his name on the Holocaust orders and we do not have any documentation about his thought processes leading up to the decision (which occurred after the Mufti made the suggestion). What we do know is that it was not Nazi policy to kill all the Jews until after the Mufti suggested it. Whether the two were linked I cannot say for sure. I suspect not, and I don't think as a matter of history it was a justified statement.

But that is clearly different from sympathy for Hitler, and it is highly ironic that the anti-Zionist movement which has been a haven for Holocaust deniers is now affecting to be extremely upset by an instance of not-actually-Holocaust-denial
Original post by Faisalshamallakh
Many scholars would argue rewriting basic history & trying to excuse Hitler is a form of Holocaust denial, actually.


It's also clear that in the confected outrage of the anti-Zionist movement, that the intensity of their hysteria over this remark is equally motivated by their being mortified that the Grand Mufti's actions as a major supporter of the Nazi regime, and his desire for a total genocide of the Jews, is being publicised.

It is clear they want to change the subject, and quick.
Original post by SignFromDog
I'm sorry but you need to calm down and be less aggressive if you want to have a conversation. We had a good, respectful conversation the other day and I'd like to think we can do so again even on a charged topic such as this.

I think it is absolutely fair to say that while Netanyahu's claim is wrong, and even cheap, that it also does not in any sense amount to sympathy for Hitler or Holocaust denial. I think it's also reasonable to point out that Netanyahu does not speak English as his native language, and thus may not have expressed himself as we would wish.

I am not "defending" his choice of words; I would never have used them. But the way anti-Zionists are attacking him comes across as incredibly desperate and exceptionally ironic given how many Holocaust deniers there are in the anti-Zionist movement. It doesn't seem entirely legitimate for them to harbour so many Holocaust deniers in their movement and then blow up in confected outrage when they perceive there is an opportunity to accuse someone else of it. The accusation simply doesn't fit the facts; Netanyahu did not claim the Holocaust never happened.

Don't use the English excuse - Netanyahu speaks very good English and was absolutely clear in what he said - using that as an excuse seems desparate. And no ok not saying he's a holocuast denier.

What he said however goes against what every credited historian has said about the holocaust. Including the head researcher at yad vashem and the head holocuast researcher at bar Ilan university. Herzog have a very good rebuttal.

There is no evidence for bibis claim whatsoever, and the only people who claim hitter did not want to kill Jews or absolve blame do tend to be people with an ulterior motive - namely holcoaust deniers. While Netanyahu isn't one, by saying this stuff he is giving some of Their views credence.

The motive was clear, blame the Palestianins for the holcoaust to suit your narrative. He's done this before.
I don't think it was done with the intention of sympathising with hitler but that's what he's done. It's incredibly disrespectful to victims of the holocaust and also lacking in any evidence at all. There is far more evidence to the contrary such as the fact the killings had begun before this meeting.


Why do you need to defend him? Why not slate him for a a stupid and disgusting comment made for the purpose of demonising Palestinains?
Original post by Bornblue
you do know 11 million people died in the holcoaust , not 6 million.


I do. That's not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is Corbyn's claims that the Nazis didn't go after the Jews first, that they pursued other groups first and only later persecuted the Jews. As a matter of history, it's wrong. And I think it minimises the degree to which, while other groups suffered terribly in the Holocaust, that it was not wholly comparable to the scale and qualitative character of the German attempted genocide of European Jewry

My primary point here is to point out that Corbyn has also made a historically dodgy claim that could be construed as minimising Nazi crimes against the Jews. I am not seeking to pursue that point, I am merely pointing out that he too has said things that could be misinterpreted in that way. No-one has taken him up on those comments so I don't think you can really say that if Corbyn said something like that, people would be up in arms
Original post by SignFromDog
I do. That's not what is in dispute. What is in dispute is Corbyn's claims that the Nazis didn't go after the Jews first, that they pursued other groups first and only later persecuted the Jews. As a matter of history, it's wrong. And I think it minimises the degree to which, while other groups suffered terribly in the Holocaust, that it was not wholly comparable to the scale and qualitative character of the German attempted genocide of European Jewry

My primary point here is to point out that Corbyn has also made a historically dodgy claim that could be construed as minimising Nazi crimes against the Jews. I am not seeking to pursue that point, I am merely pointing out that he too has said things that could be misinterpreted in that way. No-one has taken him up on those comments so I don't think you can really say that if Corbyn said something like that, people would be up in arms

Don't respond on two different posts in the same thread - it gets confusing so do them both in one post if possible.

But the nazis persecuted Jews , gypsies, gays and others from a start. The reason so many more Jews died was mainly that there were so many more Jews.
To him they were all enemies of the state, less than human- arguing which one he hates more is unnecessary - they all perished under his rule.
Original post by SignFromDog
Was he trying to excuse Hitler? Or was he making (an admittedly unjustified) assertion that Hitler did not consider to murder all the Jews as a final solution until the Grand Mufti suggested it, and doing so with less than artful precision perhaps due to the fact he does not speak English as a first language?

Historically, it is entirely possible that is what occurred, although we will never know as Hitler was careful to avoid putting his name on the Holocaust orders and we do not have any documentation about his thought processes leading up to the decision (which occurred after the Mufti made the suggestion). What we do know is that it was not Nazi policy to kill all the Jews until after the Mufti suggested it. Whether the two were linked I cannot say for sure. I suspect not, and I don't think as a matter of history it was a justified statement.

But that is clearly different from sympathy for Hitler, and it is highly ironic that the anti-Zionist movement which has been a haven for Holocaust deniers is now affecting to be extremely upset by an instance of not-actually-Holocaust-denial



Israeli historian Moshe Zimmerman: "Netanyahu joins a long line of people that we would call Holocaust deniers"

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/world/middleeast/netanyahu-saying-palestinian-mufti-inspired-holocaust-draws-broad-criticism.html?_r=1&referer=https://www.google.com/

This is a man who's academic research focuses on the social history of Germany in the 20th century, as well as the history of German Jews and anti-semitism.

I think you should take it up with him.

Also the anti-Zionist movement is not a haven for Holocaust deniers. Many Jews themselves are part of such movements.
Reply 137
Avatar for Mr JB
Mr JB
2
Original post by Gears265
If you prefer a more localised nation to carry out an investigation then it should be Saudi Arabia. They are the one country in the Middle East without an Agenda, with an immaculate record on fair and humane proceedings and most importantly are not biased.


A comparison against another negative doesn't legitimise your argument. Nowhere did I suggest any other nation, never mind someone like Saudi Arabia, should carry out such an investigation. I think you should stop living in fantasy and take some time out to observe the real world for what it is.
Original post by Bornblue

There is no evidence for bibis claim whatsoever, and the only people who claim hitter did not want to kill Jews or absolve blame do tend to be people with an ulterior motive - namely holcoaust deniers. While Netanyahu isn't one, by saying this stuff he is giving some of Their views credence.


I'm not sure Netanyahu meant it in the way it came out. I think what he meant was that prior to the Grand Mufti's suggestion, that Hitler did not intend a final solution genocide as the answer to the "Jewish question". Of course the way he said it was utterly idiotic, and I would never say what he did. But I think the true debate has to be over what he meant, not how it came out. And I do think it is fair to draw attention to the linguistic issue; while he does speak English well, sometimes people may not understand all the nuances of what they said. I think this really comes down to whether when he said "Hitler did not want to kill the Jews", did he actually mean "Hitler did not intend to pursue a genocide of European Jewry as the final solution". Do you think that if Netanyahu did mean the latter that it is reasonable to draw attention to the distinction?

The motive was clear, blame the Palestianins for the holcoaust to suit your narrative. He's done this before.
I don't think it was done with the intention of sympathising with hitler but that's what he's done. It's incredibly disrespectful to victims of the holocaust and also lacking in any evidence at all. There is far more evidence to the contrary such as the fact the killings had begun before this meeting.


It is true that killings had begun before, but I think the question is whether Hitler intended a final solution prior to the Mufti's suggestion. You are absolutely right to say that Netanyahu's intention was astonishingly vulgar, offensive (to Palestinians, not to Holocaust victims) and that his intention was to smear the Palestinians. On the other hand, I think there is a legitimate area of historical dispute where Palestinians say, "Why should we pay for the Holocaust? We had nothing to do with it" to point out that historically speaking there was a connection between the Palestinian leadership and the Nazi regime.

That's not to say that I believe that this would justify any sort of revenge, or even that I believe that the creation of Israel was justified by the Holocaust. But I think it is a legitimate historical question in terms of the link between the Palestinian leadership and the Nazis, and how comfortable many in the Arab elite were both in associating with the Nazis and also in using genocidal language both in World War 2 and in 1947.

Why do you need to defend him? Why not slate him for a a stupid and disgusting comment made for the purpose of demonising Palestinains?


I don't feel comfortable with how you are characterising my position. I think you are being unfair. I am not defending him, and for the record I reject his disgusting comments which were clearly made for the purposes of demonising the Palestinians.

What I am rejecting is the response from anti-Zionists in saying this makes him a Holocaust denier; he clearly is not. It also piques my anger given that the anti-Zionist movement has long had associations with Holocaust deniers and thus it seems hypocritical for them to then affect utter outrage at this comment, as if they are somehow the keepers of defenders of the memory of the Holocaust. I don't say that to imply that all or most anti-Zionists are Holocaust deniers, but to point out that there are many in the movement who are, and that they have many-a-time been tolerated by the broader movement.

Finally, I feel that people like Mehdi Hasan are being in many ways as dishonest as Netanyahu (the Holocaust denial accusation), and I feel that they are attempting to imply by their words that none of the accusations about the Mufti are true, whereas in fact everything that was said about the Mufti is true. It was what he said about Hitler's intentions that has no foundation. The fact that the Palestinian leadership was strongly tied to the Nazis does not justify any action against the Palestinians of today, of course the idea is abhorrent and I can see that Netanyahu is trying to make that connection in order to justify his policies.

But equally, I feel the historical truth is important and the Grand Mufti's Nazi associations (not just in being a strong supporter of the Reich and advocate of genocide, but in actually raising battalions of Muslim soldiers to kill Jews) should not be swept under the carpet. I hope that makes sense. I understand we are clearly going to come to different conclusions about this, but I think my position is reasonably fair from where I'm sitting. I do utterly condemn Netanyahu for what he said, and for what he was trying to do. I also condemn the cheap use of the Holocaust denier label by groups who have often been less than conscientous in rooting out such ideas in their own movement
Original post by Faisalshamallakh

Also the anti-Zionist movement is not a haven for Holocaust deniers. Many Jews themselves are part of such movements.


Of course it has been. The fact that Jewish people are part of the movement has no actual bearing on the question of Holocaust denial. There are gay people who are among the most aggressive homophobes when they are in the closet.

Indeed, Gilad Atzmon who is a darling of the BDS movement is a Jewish Israeli and is also without a doubt one of the most virulent anti-semites and Holocaust deniers around today. And Palestinians leaders and the Iranian government have regularly questioned the actualite of the Holocaust

Anti-Zionism is not inherently anti-semitic, and most anti-zionists are not Holocaust deniers. But there are many anti-semites who use anti-zionism as an acceptable public face for their beliefs. The anti-Zionist movement has been less than conscientious in rooting them out (hence Atzmon is still regularly welcomed to speak at such events. Stephen Sizer, while thrown out of BDS, still enjoys the support and attendance at his yearly DYR event of BDS/anti-Zionist luminaries)
(edited 8 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you