Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Netanyahu claims Hitler didn't want to kill Jews. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr JB)
    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.
    loooooool
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Don't respond on two different posts in the same thread - it gets confusing so do them both in one post if possible.
    My apologies, I'll try to keep it more streamlined.

    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.
    Everything you've said there is true. But what I was drawing attention to was Corbyn's assertion that the Nazis persecuted other groups "first" and that the persecution of the Jews only came later.

    I do feel there is some justification to highlight Hitler's attacks on the Jews, not just from the persective that there were more of them and so more died... hatred of Jewish people and racist depictions of them was absolutely fundamental to Nazi ideology in a way that persecution of, say, homosexuals and trade unionists was not.

    If one goes back to Mein Kampf and other Nazi writings, the hatred of the Jews really was the central, defining feature of Nazism and the touchstone of their worldview. That is why one may say, I think, that his persecution of them was in unique; not just in scale (though the genocide of European Jewry did exceed the kiling of others). It was unique in how Jewish people were viewed in Nazi ideology as essentially being the source of all evil in the world. The killings of other groups was often a means to an end (to kill of enemies, to purify/homogenise society), whereas for them the killing of Jews was an end in and of itself.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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)
    I agree that many anti-semites may have used anti-zionism as a public face for belief. I'm glad you're not one of those foolish people that believe anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, which is what many Zionists try to argue.

    However, I strongly disagree with you comment on Palestinian leaders in regards to the holocaust. Can you recall any deniers or doubters?

    In fact President Mahmoud Abbas called the holocaust "the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era" and I agree with him. Simply because my anti-Zionist stance targets Zionists, not Jews.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr JB)
    Hilarious considering Zionists funded Nazism as the persecution of Jews across Europe and the wider world actually helped push Jews towards both political Zionism and relocating to Israel to avoid that persecution. People also like to forget the fact that Zionists funded many of the gulags in the USSR. The fact is, people get rich from creating war, intervening and creating mass panic, whether its socially or financially in the markets, as they capitalise on events they have orchestrated to play out. This is hardly anything new.


    Don't tell the truth. People don't like it.


    The Jews is a daft term. There's a world of difference between a Zionist and a typical Jewish person just wanting to get on with their life. There are plenty of Jews who don't go to Israel and have no wish to be politically involved with Zionism or Israel.

    Its funny because Zionists like to band out the 'anti-Semitism' nonsense when you criticise political Zionism yet really its nothing of the sort. You can be completely critical of Zionism whilst having nothing against Jews. Zionism has become an untouchable horrible political movement that you can barely speak out against any more because people instantly jump to label you an anti-Semite.

    Even WW2 was orchestrated all to help people get rich and impose financial control upon nations for years to come. Everything is about money, power and control. Look up the history of the Rothschild's from 1890-1935.
    True when I said Jews I meant Israeli jews and their American supporters. They use the holocaust as an excuse for all their war crimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    I agree that many anti-semites may have used anti-zionism as a public face for belief. I'm glad you're not one of those foolish people that believe anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, which is what many Zionists try to argue.
    I do not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-semitic, but I do believe that it is often anti-semitic in practice. The way that Israel is singularly demonised, that it is depicted to be somehow uniquely evil and uniquely (amongst nations) an abuser of human rights, is deeply unsettling and where people obsess over Israel to the exclusion of all other nations that engage in human rights abuses, it does raise legitimate questions about what motivates it.

    There is no doubt in my mind that many in the Middle East are opposed to the idea of a Jewish state because it's Jewish, and that if Israelis were Muslims then they would not be fundamentally opposed to it in the way they are (I would assume you accept that many oppose it on the belief that Israel is "Muslim land" rather than on political/nationalistic grounds?)

    But I do take the position that there are people who are opposed to Zionism because they are opposed to all such forms of ethnic/religious nationalism, that they believe it is wrong for a state to have come about in the way Israel did, and that they are equally critical of other nations who engage in similar behaviour (and that they are equally active in criticising both, not just saying they are opposed to others as much as Israel but then spending 100% of their time on Israel).

    In fact President Mahmoud Abbas called the holocaust "the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era" and I agree with him.
    President Abbas' record on that is murky, to say the least. I am certainly pleased he made those comments, which I've seen before. On the other hand, his PhD thesis which he completed in the Soviet Union in the 1980s essentially posited that the Holocaust was a conspiracy between Nazis and Jews to bring about a Zionist state, and that the death toll had been greatly exaggerated.

    In 2009, Hamas exploded with outrage when they discovered that UNRWA schools would be teaching a module on the Holocaust, labelling it a "Zionist lie".

    The number of times Hamas and Fatah leaders have questioned the historicity of the Holocaust are too numerous to mention, but I'd encourage you to go and look them up on Google as they are freely available.

    Surely you cannot seriously dispute that Holocaust denial is pretty common in the Islamic world?

    Simply because my anti-Zionist stance targets Zionists, not Jews.
    Are you opposed on principle to any Jewish state in the Levant, no matter how small, even if it was only made up of Jewish majority areas / groups of Jewish people who had always lived in Israel/Palestine and never left?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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?
    You're giving him the botd when there really isn't one to give. He was clear and nuanced in what he said and meant. The language issue seems a bit desperate - he's been speaking very good English for tens of years - it didn't just fail him today.
    He said clearly and unequivocally that Hitler only wanted to expel Jews, not to kill them and that he only killed them and drew up the final solution after being persuaded to by Mufti. This seems dangerously close to aspects of Holocaust denial. There is not a shred of evidence for his suggestion and it has been rubbished by every credible Holocaust historian, many of them Jewish/ Zionist,/ Israeli and often a mixture of the three.

    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.
    Glad you agree this was a racially motivated accusation made to smear 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,
    No one is really saying it does, but rather he is engaging in the language and some of the arguments of Holocaust deniers.

    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.
    Glad you agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Glad you agree this was a racially motivated accusation made to smear the Palestinians.

    Glad you agree.
    If you're going to be like that then I should probably head off to bed. It's too late for silly point-scoring. You made a thread putting your point of view, I made comments offering mine.

    You are good to debate with when you are being respectful, and I know you are not maliciously-motivated, but you have a tendency to cross the line sometimes and say things that seem designed to provoke or insult. I'm sure you're aware you have a way with words and can express yourself well; you can also be very cutting, and I think you should be more considerate of using that talent to hurt or provoke other people when said person is genuinely trying to have a respectful, reciprocal debate

    Anyway, good night.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    If you're going to be like that then I should probably head off to bed. It's too late for silly point-scoring. You made a thread putting your point of view, I made comments offering mine.

    You are good to debate with when you are being respectful, and I know you are not maliciously-motivated, but you have a tendency to cross the line sometimes and say things that seem designed to provoke or insult. I'm sure you're aware you have a way with words and I think you should be more considerate of using that talent to hurt or provoke other people.

    Anyway, good night.
    Being like what? Those two comments were genuine. I genuinely was glad you agreed about Netanyahu and his motives - nothing provocative used there at all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    I do not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently anti-semitic, but I do believe that it is often anti-semitic in practice. The way that Israel is singularly demonised, that it is depicted to be somehow uniquely evil and uniquely (amongst nations) an abuser of human rights, is deeply unsettling and where people obsess over Israel to the exclusion of all other nations that engage in human rights abuses, it does raise legitimate questions about what motivates it.

    There is no doubt in my mind that many in the Middle East are opposed to the idea of a Jewish state because it's Jewish, and that if Israelis were Muslims then they would not be fundamentally opposed to it in the way they are (I would assume you accept that many oppose it on the belief that Israel is "Muslim land" rather than on political/nationalistic grounds?)

    But I do take the position that there are people who are opposed to Zionism because they are opposed to all such forms of ethnic/religious nationalism, that they believe it is wrong for a state to have come about in the way Israel did, and that they are equally critical of other nations who engage in similar behaviour (and that they are equally active in criticising both, not just saying they are opposed to others as much as Israel but then spending 100% of their time on Israel).



    President Abbas' record on that is murky, to say the least. I am certainly pleased he made those comments, which I've seen before. On the other hand, his PhD thesis which he completed in the Soviet Union in the 1980s essentially posited that the Holocaust was a conspiracy between Nazis and Jews to bring about a Zionist state, and that the death toll had been greatly exaggerated.

    In 2009, Hamas exploded with outrage when they discovered that UNRWA schools would be teaching a module on the Holocaust, labelling it a "Zionist lie".

    The number of times Hamas and Fatah leaders have questioned the historicity of the Holocaust are too numerous to mention, but I'd encourage you to go and look them up on Google as they are freely available.

    Surely you cannot seriously dispute that Holocaust denial is pretty common in the Islamic world?



    Are you opposed on principle to any Jewish state in the Levant, no matter how small, even if it was only made up of Jewish majority areas / groups of Jewish people who had always lived in Israel/Palestine and never left?
    I accept that many people oppose the State of Israel for kicking my grandfathers out of their homeland and denying them the right to return. That is the core principle. This is the root of all the problems occurring in that region.
    For those who oppose Zionism because they are anti-Semites, I don't agree with. Although it seems odd as I would imagine many anti-semites would be in favour of a Jewish state in order to "get rid" of the Jews from their countries.


    By Holocaust denial, in this context, do you mean literal denial of the holocaust? Or do you mean preposterous claims regarding the Holocaust that are untrue (which is actually the full, complex meaning of Holocaust Denial)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Netanyahu is claiming that Hitler didn't want to kill Jews and that he was persuaded into the final solution by the Palestinians.
    There is no a jot of evidence for that.
    This is a clear attempt to try and blame the Palestinians for the holocaust to suit his narrative and he doesn't even seem to care that he is sympathizing with Hitler.

    I'm Jewish and i'm utterly embarrassed and ashamed of Netanayhu. What an awful, awful person.
    Shifting the blame from a racist tyrant to the very people that sheltered Jews from such discrimination (1930s-1945).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    We know why.

    Because those who were part of it were not allowed to deny their crimes
    I don't understand your post can you elaborate? And do you have any evidence for the holocaust?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.681525

    Yes he actually said it. He is claiming that Hitler did not want to kill Jews and it was the idea of the Palestinian mayo of Jerusalem.
    He is saying it was the Palestinians that persuaded Hitler to adopt the final solution.
    This is coming from the PM of Israel.

    It is an outrageous attempt to try and blame Muslims for he Holocaust and in doing so has become a Hitler sympathizer.


    Imagine if some nut job said Hitler didn't want to kill Jews - they'd be accused of being an anti-semite.
    You are overreacting. He did abolish Hitler from the guild nor did he accused the Palestinians. He only accused this particular one mufti for persuading Hitler to comit holocaust.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Islam is dangerous, we from Bosnia-Herzegovina are trying to warn you British to not through the same horors.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by JanetJohnson321)
    Nobody is ever told about the Madagascar plan.
    I distinctly recall being taught that in a level history. I also remember seeing it at also holocaust museum exhibit.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 73
Size:  27.1 KB
    Srs
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    BREAKING NEWZ GUIZ



    “Anderson I’m not saying the Palestinians actually hunted down each individual dinosaur to extinction,” Netanyahu replied, “Of course that didn’t happen. That’s ridiculous. That makes no sense at all.

    “What I am saying is that Palestinian Hamas fighters traveled back in time to 65 million years ago and set off a large series of explosives that knocked the Earth off its orbit and straight into the path of an oncoming asteroid.

    “This operation was intended to wipe out the Dinosaurs, so that humanity could rise and Islam could take over the planet. Reptiles don’t believe in God, Anderson. So if you want to create an Islamic Caliphate you have to get rid of the reptiles. That’s just logic 101.

    “This was no laughing matter. It was a barbaric act that destroyed an entire civilization. Millions of innocent Dinosaur families perished as a result of Hamas’s disgusting actions. Women. Children. Even unborn eggs. All were burnt to a crisp when Islamic time travelers rammed Earth into that asteroid.

    “And that’s why keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of Muslims is so important. They’ve destroyed life on Earth before, so we know they’ll do it again.”

    http://dailycurrant.com/2015/10/22/n...the-dinosaurs/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Why are people calling him a Holocaust Denier? He never said it didn't happen, he said it was influenced by a "Palestinian".

    Given that "Palestines" government was voted in because they basically said they wanted to kill all Jews and wipe Israel off the map, it's not a huge leap of faith.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

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

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