Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    :console: Aww, poor baby.
    Maaate it was a complimenttttt

    I would like to know why you had nothing to say though
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Maaate it was a complimenttttt

    I would like to know why you had nothing to say though
    Ahh sorry. I thought you were saying you escaped from the Ireland discussion from me, and that I was too "intense"

    What do you mean about me having nothing to say? What are you referring to
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Ahh sorry. I thought you were saying you escaped from the Ireland discussion from me, and that I was too "intense"

    What do you mean about me having nothing to say? What are you referring to
    Nah I was saying you didn't respond to me clarifying myself about the religion, etc
    If you disagree cool you just seem knowledgeable and I was curious about your feedback tbh
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    What were you two even arguing about, you've got him all wound up now
    ArtofProtest claimed that an agreement between the Jewish Zionist movement and the German government in 1933, known as the "Haavara Agreement", which allowed Jewish people to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, was an act of collusion with Hitler by the Zionists, and that the Zionists were "tacitly supporting" the ideology and actions of the Nazi Party and Hitler in contracting this deal.

    KingBradly queried this asking him whether he was calling it a conspiracy, and ridiculing that notion; the agreement saved Jewish people's lives given most of the world was not accepting Jewish refugees at that time. AoP responded that those two words he used to describe it, "collusion" and "tacit support", were the only words to describe it (or words in a similar vein of disparagement and acquired moral culpability on the part of the Jews). He challenged KingBradly to produce an accurate descriptive word that didn't have the same implications as the ones he had offered. I pointed out that it could be described very simply as we already had the word; the name was the "Haavara Agreement" and that's precisely what it was. "Agreement" is a word that describes what occurred, there is no inherent moral culpability or tacit support by the Zionists for the Hitler regime in it.

    AoP has offered no actual analysis of the context and terms of the agreement itself, offered nothing substantive to evidence his claim that it is a conspiracy and generated serious moral culpability on the part of the Zionists who struck the deal.

    It's particularly strange to argue that this deal was a great scandal given it occurred in 1933 which was the first year of the Nazi's reign and long they had committed the worst of their excesses and before the world was aware of precisely how evil it was, and six years before the war started. It's not like Zionist leaders turned up in Berlin in 1942 as part of some sordid conspiracy with the Hitler regime (so in that way, very unlike the Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem al-Husseini who was a close ally of Hitler and raised as Bosniak Muslim battalion for service in the SS)



    In short, ArtofProtest's position is complete bunk and the agreement is a red herring designed to distract attention from the fact AoP advocated for genocidal forced deportations of millions of Jews from Israel
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Nah I was saying you didn't respond to me clarifying myself about the religion, etc
    If you disagree cool you just seem knowledgeable and I was curious about your feedback tbh
    Ah sorry I didn't see that comment. I'll go respond to it now

    I've also clarified (quite comprehensively lol) what the ArtofProtest and I were arguing about.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    ArtofProtest claimed that an agreement between the Jewish Zionist movement and the German government in 1933, known as the "Haavara Agreement", which allowed Jewish people to emigrate from Germany to Palestine, was an act of collusion with Hitler by the Zionists, and that the Zionists were "tacitly supporting" the ideology and actions of the Nazi Party and Hitler in contracting this deal.

    KingBradly queried this asking him whether he was calling it a conspiracy, and ridiculing that notion; the agreement saved Jewish people's lives given most of the world was not accepting Jewish refugees at that time. AoP responded that those two words he used to describe it, "collusion" and "tacit support", were the only words to describe it (or words in a similar vein of disparagement and acquired moral culpability on the part of the Jews). He challenged KingBradly to produce an accurate descriptive word that didn't have the same implications as the ones he had offered. I pointed out that it could be described very simply as we already had the word; the name was the "Haavara Agreement" and that's precisely what it was. "Agreement" is a word that describes what occurred, there is no inherent moral culpability or tacit support by the Zionists for the Hitler regime in it.

    AoP has offered no actual analysis of the context and terms of the agreement itself, offered nothing substantive to evidence his claim that it is a conspiracy and generated serious moral culpability on the part of the Zionists who struck the deal.

    It's particularly strange to argue that this deal was a great scandal given it occurred in 1933 which was the first year of the Nazi's reign and long they had committed the worst of their excesses and before the world was aware of precisely how evil it was, and six years before the war started. It's not like Zionist leaders turned up in Berlin in 1942 as part of some sordid conspiracy with the Hitler regime (so in that way, very unlike the Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem al-Husseini who was a close ally of Hitler and raised as Bosniak Muslim battalion for service in the SS)



    In short, ArtofProtest's position is complete bunk and the agreement is a red herring designed to distract attention from the fact AoP advocated for genocidal forced deportations of millions of Jews from Israel
    Oh so he just doesn't like Jews then. Understood. But you know apart from this historical stuff, I'll say it's hard and sometimes foolish to pick sides between Israel and Palestine, unless you're an Israelite, or a (practicing) Jew, or a Palestinian, or a (practicing) Muslim. All of which...I ain't, thankfully. There's "collusion" on both sides of the court, even if not in this specific instance. I personally cannot cry for either group I'm afraid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Oh so he just doesn't like Jews then. Understood. But you know apart from this historical stuff, I'll say it's hard and sometimes foolish to pick sides between Israel and Palestine, unless you're an Israelite, or a (practicing) Jew, or a Palestinian, or a (practicing) Muslim. All of which...I ain't, thankfully. There's "collusion" on both sides of the court, even if not in this specific instance. I personally cannot cry for either group I'm afraid.
    I have views that correspond with both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue. I want the occupation of the West Bank to end and see most of the settlements dismantled. I want to see a deal that provides some financial recognition to those Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948.

    On the other hand, I believe Israel is indisputably legitimate and has iron-clad rights to its position within the pre-1967 borders + Golan. I believe Israel has legitimate grievances regarding the way it made the enlightened decision to withdraw all their troops and settlers from Gaza to test the waters. They did what the Palestinians wanted in respect of Gaza, pulled out completely. And their reward was for Hamas to turn it into a fortified rocket base from which to launch missiles into Israel. I believe Israel makes considerable efforts to avoid civilian casualties and that Hamas bears primary responsibility for the 2014 war.

    Both sides have legiitimate grievances, and both sides have areas where they have behaved unjustifiably.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I have views that correspond with both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue. I want the occupation of the West Bank to end and see most of the settlements dismantled. I want to see a deal that provides some financial recognition to those Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948.

    On the other hand, I believe Israel is indisputably legitimate and has iron-clad rights to its position within the pre-1967 borders + Golan. I believe Israel has legitimate grievances regarding the way it made the enlightened decision to withdraw all their troops and settlers from Gaza to test the waters. They did what the Palestinians wanted in respect of Gaza, pulled out completely. And their reward was for Hamas to turn it into a fortified rocket base from which to launch missiles into Israel. I believe Israel makes considerable efforts to avoid civilian casualties and that Hamas bears primary responsibility for the 2014 war.

    Both sides have legiitimate grievances, and both sides have areas where they have behaved unjustifiably.
    Yea but whyyy? It's got nothing to do with you has it? :s
    Everyone's got grievances lol as long as you're alive you'll be grieving about something, but I believe not so plainly in what goes around comes around but definitely in you get what you give, tit for tat, life will deal with you. For both Israel and Palestine and every single human being alive. I really should back out of this conversation because I don't have anything horrible to say but I don't have nothing nice to say either...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The biggest question - what loser is reading tweets from 2 years ago written by an unknown MP ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Which was the only way to make both states politically sustainable.
    Except it failed even on those terms. As I noted, the UN ad hoc subcomittee set up to consider the UNSCOP proposal said that UNSCOP had used outdated stats which undercounted the Bedouin population, and that as such, Arabs were actually a slight majority in the area of the proposed Jewish state.

    Even if they were wrong, it's hard to believe that the Jewish majority would be stable long-term. Assuming population rates would have been the same as those of Jewish and Arab Israelis turned out to be post-1949, the Jewish majority would have likely vanished at some point during the 1960s. Even Ben-Gurion said at the time that he didn't think the demographics would be viable in the long term.

    Why should those Arabs who found themselves in the Israel-assigned area find that so objectionable? Are they, as a matter of principle, opposed to being under a government composed of Jews?
    This is the Balkan argument that appears in every ethnic conflict and partition - "Why should I be a minority in your state when you can be a minority in mine?"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The thread title is extremely misleading; she did no such thing because she made no mention of "Jews", just Israel.

    Not all Jews in the Middle East live in Israel. For example, around 20,000-25,000 Jews remain in Iran. Jews in Iran have a seat reserved in the Parliament, a Chief Rabbi, the largest charity hospital of any religious minority in Iran, and have consistently rejected cash incentives to move to Israel, opting to remain in Iran.

    Therefore, your threat title is sensationalism at its best.

    Sources:

    http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2009/127347.htm
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...12/israel.iran
    http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...e-plan-to-stay
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Actually it's not. The Akkadian name for Jerusalem was "uru-salim". Jerusalem comes from the Hebrew "Yarushalem".
    Which comes from the pre-Hebrew Akkadian name. Unless you're positing that the early Hebrews coincidentally and completely independently came up with such a similar name?

    So the hard left either have to accept that Jews are native to the Israel/Palestine area and that their claim predates that of the Arab Muslim invasion and waves of immigration that followed its conquest in the 7th century.

    Or you have to accept that the Jews claim predates that of the Arab Muslims but that many groups have come and gone through that area, including Jews, Samaritans, Hellenised Christians, Arabs and others, in which case the Jews' return to Israel in 1948 is no different from any of the other major waves of immigration and demographic change that have occurred continuously in that region. The Arabs have no more of an ironclad claim in perpetuity to that land than any other group including those groups they displaced.
    There are a few arguments against this, but for now I'll just go with a simple one - that norms of acceptability change over time. If you want to define it quite narrowly, some might argue that there is a cut-off point at some point in time (for the kind of issues we're talking about here, some might say 1945 and the creation of the UN and its charter, some might put it back to a bit earlier and say the post-WW1 period, plus many might say there are different points for different norms).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The threat title is extremely misleading; wanting Israel to 'relocate' ≠ wanting "all Jews in [the] Mid East to be deported'. :facepalm2:

    This may be news to OP, but not all Jews in the ME live in Israel, e.g. around 20,000-25,000 live in Iran. The Jewish community is well protected and although not completely free from discrimination (name a group other than men/Shias that are in Iran...), they are not seen as outsiders and Iran is, according to the ADL, the least anti-Semitic country in the region (with a long history of peaceful co-existence with the Jews, e.g. Cyrus the Great liberating the Jews at the time).

    Jews in Iran also have an MP, a Chief Rabbi, dozens of synagogues in Tehran alone, and the largest religious hospital of any minority in Iran (Dr. Sapir Hospital). Iranian Jews have consistently rejected cash incentives to move to Israel, opting to affirm their national identity as Iranian Jews and stay in Iran (http://www.theguardian.com/world/200...12/israel.iran & http://www.npr.org/sections/parallel...e-plan-to-stay).

    Therefore, your thread title is extremely misleading and pure sensationalism. You do not need to misrepresent what she said; it needed no sensationalism to be (rightfully) seen as ignorant and hateful.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toblerone eater)
    This may be news to OP, but not all Jews in the ME live in Israel, e.g. around 20,000-25,000 live in Iran.
    In 2011 Iran's official census reported 8,756 Jewish citizens.
    http://amar.org.ir/Portals/1/Iran/census-2.pdf
    How many today?
    Yeah, as yet not all Jews in the ME live in Israel.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Mhmmm. And what does all that have to do with Hamas' own charter calling for all Jews worldwide to be exterminated?
    I think that makes them terrorists doesn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toblerone eater)
    This may be news to OP, but not all Jews in the ME live in Israel, e.g. around 20,000-25,000 live in Iran. The Jewish community is well protected
    That must be why Iranian Jews have been fleeing the country for years and the population is a fraction of what it was 100 years ago.

    If all Jews were deported from Israel then their community would for all practical purposes be gone from the ME. But it's nice to see you want to play little rhetorical games to distract from the outrageousness of this proposal
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.