Really not going to dance to your tune Clair.
And I’ll use an object lesson to show why there’s no point in pretending that your argument is going to get any better than it has been up to now.
I’ll just point out this one instance as it really does highlight the quaility of your argument through all its many distortions and permutations.
Not only have I addressed your point, I have done so no fewer than four times.
Once in the post you’re now responding to.
And of course, when it’s pointed out that no, Israel didn’t solely cause the situation and that the war was largely brought about by the Nazi-Arab alliance’s attempt at genocide, you again try to shift the discussion and get all annoyed that I had the audacity to bring up facts. How dare I mention that someone started the war, or tried to commit genocide, or was allied with the Nazis. How dare I mention history when you’re trying to blame Israel for everything! Why, you are, with intellectual honesty, trying to lay the blame for the Palestinians’ leadership’s action on Israel’s leaders, how dare I get in the way with facts???
There is simply no chance of me getting your argument to adhere to basic standards of intellectual integrity. None. You are rationalizing at full tilt in support of your pre-judged house of cards. I’ve done my best, but I can’t change how you’re arguing.
And I’m going to stop trying.
I don’t even remember what post you’re referring to here, or what thread, so I’m not going to dig it up. Feel free to quote it to show the extent of my bad faith. I’m not particularly worried. Meanwhile, I would mention that indeed I’m certainly going to believe what an UN envoy said rather than believing what one of the party in the conflict said. And as for you applying critical thinking to Israel’s stance, that also has to be a joke.
Maybe it’s my English skills, but I don’t even understand what you’re saying here.
I brought in Palestinian victims in a thread concerning a site devoted to Palestinians victims???
I grasped at straws and tried to obfuscate by referring to Palestinian victims in a thread concerning a site devoted to Palestinians victims???
I fallaciously accused you of having a double standard when in the same thread, you first condemn a comparison between Palestinians children and victims of the nazis and jump at the first chance you have to compare a random Israeli girl with victims of the nazis???
And finally : NO! Definitely NO! This girl writing on the bomb is not, absolutely not the same as a girl who died in an extermination camp. Except of course if you’re saying that every person who is part of a population that is deliberately targeted by someone somewhere is, similarly, the same as a person who died in an extermination camp. That’s what you meant?
And we’re on again with attacking me for things I never said. But at this point, it’s becoming more than simply irritating, it’s becoming insulting.
When exactly did I say that Israel was trying to exterminate the Palestinians?
When did I make comparisons between Israeli checkpoint and death camps?
And I said that Israel=Nazis where?
What are “Serbian death camps” doing here?
So, both the Hezbollah and the nazis targeted civilians. And targeted civilians are justified in wishing a military response. Thanks for the informations, I would never have known that without this lengthy explanation.
So, since the nazis and the Hezbollah were both targeting civilians, or both used weapons, or were both living in the northern hemisphere, it’s perfectly logical to equate a random Israeli girl with a girl who died in a death camp. Right, it’s exactly the same thing. Also, both the Israelis and the nazis shelled cities, and children were killed in both cases. So, it’s perfectly logical to equate dead Palestinian children and children who died in death camps.
And because civilians might want a military response, it’s perfectly sensible to let little girls write messages on bombs. Obviously, it logically ensues : “we want a military response=let’s send our daughter write on bombs”. I can’t even begin to understand why you’re writing page after page just to support the right of little girls to write messages on bombs.
And since I never said it’s surprising that little girls might want revenge, you could have spared your time. And after your lengthy explanations, I still :
-Think that the comparison with Anne Frank is not acceptable, especially in a thread where you condemn comparisons of Palestinian kids with victims of nazism.
-Think that little girls shouldn’t write messages on bombs.
I’ve read it, now. And as you can see, I still reject the comparison between this girl and Anne Franck.
The Nazi-Arab attempt at genocide? In what alternate reality did it happen? And no, pointing at a mullah who lauded Hitler isn’t going to let me accept this “Nazi-Arab genocide” nonsense.
If you want me to take your post seriously, you might want to remove your genocidal Arabo-Nazi alliance in 1948 theory from the table.
I blamed Israel for everything? I blamed Israel for not letting back the Palestinians. That’s not a fact, maybe? And I stated that it’s Israel responsibility, and that as a result Israel should indemnify them. The newly discovered Arabo-Nazis won’t change my mind on this issue.
My response to you would be identical, word for word.
Christopher Browning and Jürgen Matthäus point out in The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, pointed out that Htiler guaranteed the Mufti that:
The Nazis, with the Mufti’s cooperation, had planned on extending the Holocaust to the Middle East:
During the war, the Grand Mufti helped recruit Muslim troops for the Nazis in Bosnia. After the war he was convicted by a Yugoslavian military court of war crimes but went on to escape and found refuge in Egypt. He was also responsible for the conduct of Al-Futwa, a militant organization dedicated to fighting the Jews in Palestine.
In the runup to the war and in its prosecution itself, the same factors had their impact. The Syrian army, for instance, had a number of Nazi officers who led it in 1948. Part of the ceasefire terms, in fact, demanded that “European Nazis will be delivered to [the British] Military [authorities].”
The Secretary General of the Arab League stated their position plainly by describing their goals as:
In short, anybody who tells you that there was not an Arab-Nazi alliance, and that it wasn’t a significant factor in the events of 1948, is either ignorant of the facts or pushing an agenda.
I already told you that mentioning a mullah who supported Hitler wouldn’t be sufficient to justify your “Arabo-Nazi” genocide stance. Sorry, I should have said a mufti, instead of a mullah.
If we apply your rules to every people who had during WWII some well-know leader or group who was antisemite and supported Hitler, why don’t you write “Polish-Hungarian-Romanian-Yugoslavian-etc, etc,…Arab-Nazi” genocide? or just “European-Arab-Nazi genocide” to keep it simple? Certainly, many European countries, political groups, and individuals did more to support the genocide than the Arabs. Why is that that the genocide became an Arab-nazi affair? Apart from the fact that it’s convenient for the cause you’re crusading for to paint the Arabs as nazis?
Or, if the action of a single group is enough to paint a whole population as genocidal, how comes we don’t talk about the genocidal Jews, or genocidal Israel, on the basis of the massacre of Deir-Yassin?
But I see your point : if you throw enough propaganda at the wall, some of it will stick. And some people are going to walk out remembering your Arabs=Nazis meme. You’re abandoning any pretence of subtlety here.
And again, it’s you who are accusing others of having an agenda? That’s becoming a farce.
Oh, while I’m at it, the claim that what went on in the Mandate period is improperly mentioned in a discussion of the 1948 war is also counter-factual. It’s the essential context.
The British Mandate created the territory we now know as Palestine, for example, as was largely due to the Balfour Declaration.
Arab nationalism, which in large part was led by Mohammad Amin al-Husayni was also, in part, a reaction to the Mandate. As I’ve already proven as well, the Palestinian political leadership at that time, in particular, had allied with the Nazis in order to carry out the genocide of the Jews in the Middle East. It is unlikely that such an alliance would have formed if, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, European powers had not become the sovereigns over the region.
During the Mandate period, proposed compromises were also floated and, in general, rejected .
Later, Arab opposition to the Mandate allowed Al-Husseini to help inflame passions and instigate pogroms and riots, which in turn led to the formation of the Haganah.
Events would then lead to the Arab Revolt, which was again partially directed by Al-Husseini and possibly financed by Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. It was also during this period that a large part of Husseini’s political influence was consolidated
The British administration of the mandate, in large part, contributed to the Jews’ becoming political opponents of the British, as the British had caved to Arab demands and prohibited Jewish immigration while Jews were being butchered by the Nazis.
However, the assassination of Lord Moyne led the Haganah to re-evaluate its stance, and it began to crack down on Irgun and Lehi.
It was during the Mandate that the Partition was introduced.
I already pointed out in my previous post that the Palesitnian political leadership’s goal was genocide and that the Arab League shared this goal.
A note on terminology by the way. The Mufti’s nme is sometimes given as Haj, sometimes Mohamad. It’s due to cultural conventions. The most accurate nomenclature would probably be Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini.
Also during the Mandate period, Al-Husseini was known for the use of Arab ‘irregulars’.
In fact, the British withdrawal from the Mandate occurred roughly at the exact time as the declaration of independence of the state of Israel. It was the British act of relinquishing their Mandate over the area which allowed for the declaration of independence in the first place. And, in part the end of the Mandate shaped how the conflict played out, including the fact that a Palestinian state was, in part, not established due to the actions of Egypt and Jordan.
In any case, as I hope is clear, talking about the 1948 war without discussing the Mandate strips the discussion of much of its factual content and historical context.
The irony, it burns. It’s quite funny that you talk of fighting ignorance as to the differance between a rocket and a missile, when you don’t know either. Hint: the Grad is a rocket, not a missile.
I cited and quoted the difference between a rocket and a missile. If you want to argue that I don’t know the difference, that’s your call.
You are correct, however, that I mis-identified the Grad as a missile when it is in fact a rocket. I should have used Hamas anti-aircraft missiles, for instance, as an example. Ah well.
I said I know the difference between a missile and a rocket not that I’m infallible and that I remember every munition’s designation. It’s rather disingenuous of you to claim that because I mistakenly identified one particular weapon in specific as a missile that I don’t know the difference in general… especially considering that I have now explained and quoted the difference several times.
Although, to be fair, in mocking your posts I should make clear that you weren’t claiming that Israelis are Nazis, merely that the defensive conduct sanctioned by the Geneva convention and with no genocidal goals at all had any significant parallels to the Nazis conduct.
You just want to demonize legitimate self defense as sanctioned by international law as Nazi-like practices.
As I’d hope was obvious, I was mocking your silly comparison using hyperbole. I wasn’t engaging in the sort of argument whereby if one posts facts about the alliance between Palestinian/Arab leaders and the Nazis and their mutual plans for genocide in the Middle East, that one must be saying all Arabs = Nazis and be operating on an evil agenda of, er, facts. And those facts must be opposed lest someone learn something and come to a more balanced understanding of the context and causes of the situation due to the evil of historical knowledge.
Just so there’s no confusion.
You can resume talking about why the 4th Geneva Convention is a Nazi-esque document if you really want.
I think it’s interesting that you read “Mutual antagonism would make it impossible for either community to tolerate the other.” as “those evil Arabs hated the Jews”. Both groups wanted the other out, by force if necessary. Aggressive fundies and genocidal terrorists existed on both sides of the fence. Or was Lehi a peacenik organization ? Were the Irgun girl scouts ?
It’s also amusing that you paint Syrian and Iraqi alliances with Nazi Germany as proof of the inherent evil of all Arabs, when during the 30s and 40s Zionist organisations were in talks with the German regime and the SS to solve the “Jewish question” by relocating Jews to Israel, and offered alliance provided the Germans helped against the British and Arabs. Strange bedfellows to be sure, but that’s politics for you.
You can’t paint either side all white or all black.
It’s also quite dishonest to portray Al-Husseini as a proeminent leader, or that his anti-semitic views were shared by the Arab League. He was a kook who led a band of kooks about a 100 strong.
Simply to point out what you’re doing (God, I wish you’d stop this shit, who do you think you’re fooling anyway?), you’re making that up.
You ignored the content of hundreds of lines of text I cited in order to quote only one about mutual antagonism that had developed by 1948.
It is a massively deceptive argument that deliberately ignores all the evidence I gave of strong anti-Semitic currents in Arab society and among their leadership, and pretends that the support I gave for my claims was really just one phrase about mutual antagonism. You know full well I cited numerous examples of some Arab leaders and/or some Arab citizens were virulently racist against the Jews. Up to and including the fact that the driving force behind Arab Nationalism at the time and the de facto leader of Palestinian politics had an explicit agreement with the Nazis to commit genocide in the Middle East.
That you can’t address my actual posts and are instead forced to fabricate non-truths is just par for the course.
I’ve never said anywhere that Arabs are evil. And you couldn’t find any such quote, because you made it up. I have not suggested, implied, tacitly argued or hinted via smoke signals that all Arabs are, were, or will be evil.
In fact, one of the quotes I posted talked about how Husseini had to murder other Palestinians in order to enforce his will. If all Arabs agreed, why would that have been necessary? And I can’t believe you’re honestly confused about that rather than disingenuously trying to score rhetorical points via a deceptive argument.
A good clue as to the utter bankruptcy of your argument should be the fact that you were forced to fabricate my use or implication of the word “all” when in fact I quoted objective facts about the behavior of some Arab leaders and citizens.
That there was an Arab-Nazi alliance dedicated to genocide is objective fact. That you won’t address that and instead choose to pretend that someone who notes that fact must be a racist is, also, objective fact.
Your threadbare and deceptive argument is the same as someone saying that if anybody states that there was a political alliance between America and Pinochet, that they’re saying that all Americans were evil and loved Pinochet.
Your argument, in short, is an attempt to demonize the truth and objective fact. To make them unspeakable and unknown. To bury accurate history with the threat of disingenuously sliming someone with the false-to-facts claim of racism.
But of course, you can’t, or even more worrisome, won’t address the objective facts I cited. Instead you sling slime by fictionalizing what actually was said in order to claim I said anything racist, at all. And then you try to equate the Arab-Nazi alliance dedicated to genocide with Jewish attempts to get the Nazis to spare some Jews from its campaign of genocide.
Classy.
Even your further claims of improper argument on my part are based on the requirement that you have to distort history. The fact that the Arab league put out an statement saying that a “war of extermination” was their goal might be a hint about their goal, regardless of whether or not by 1948 anybody tried to marginalize Husseini.
Speaking of which, you’re making shit up shit up when you claim he wasn’t a prominent leader. From your own damn cite:
Your own fucking cite clearly states that:
That you point to that leadership waning in 1948 is a pathetic dodge to avoid recognizing the fact of its existence for roughly a quarter of a century.
It says a lot that your argument cannot stand on the facts and must be based on creative writing instead.
Precisely. What about evidence of anti-arabic currents implied by the term “mutual antagonism” ? Ooops, forgot to cite those. Here, you’re saying “I acknowledged the feelings were mutual, I listed every count of arab nastiness I could find !”.
I don’t ignore the evidence, I point out the cherry picking of facts.
Because of course “some” is totally implied in your “Arab-Nazi alliance” buzzword. The term is not at all an attempt to broadbrush every Arab state in the meme, and you are rightfully indignant that you could be accused of that !
How is bringing historical facts you conveniently forgot “demonizing the truth” ? Is mentionning the existence of Zionist terrorism demonizing the truth and burying history ? I didn’t deny anything you stated. You merely forgot to mention the existence of extremism and nationalism on the other side of the fence. Who’s burying history ? Who’s demonizing ?
It’s not the first time you’ve accused everyone else of using your tactics.
Bull. There was no campaign of genocide in the 30s. And the “Arab-Nazi alliance” is a bullshit concept, as has been pointed to you repeatedly already - might as well talk about the European-Nazi alliance, or the Asian-Nazi alliance.
In Palestine. In the Arab league. Different levels, see ? You insinuate that the fact there were strong anti-semitic sentiments in Palestine proves the Arab league as a whole is anti-semitic. Well that’s a load of tosh.
No, what’s disingenuous is you berating someone over their lack of knowledge of the distinction between rockets and missiles as used solely in military nomenclature, and is not even universally used, particularly with regards to Russian hardware. What the western military considers a missile, the Russians consider a rocket, guided or not. Here, you can order your own copy of Soviet Rocket Forces in which the author
Oh, I see, so it’s disingenuous of me, on an American message board where English is the official language, to use American terminology and not allow for Russian terminology. You going to carry that through? After all, if someone said that property was a right, you could point out how very “disingenuous” they were being since communists don’t consider it a right at all.
Sorry, no. If you’re speaking English and discussing military matters it’s not “disingenuous” to expect you to use the conventions in English for discussing those military matters. Especially if the distinction is contextually important, like smoke being able to negate the IR tracking of an anti-tank missile spotting scope or laser guidance beams of an anti-tank missile, but not doing jack against an RPG.
If we were speaking Russian, you might have a point.
We aren’t.
You don’t.
Kobol:
I’ll start with the biggest whopper first. Who the fuck you think you’ll be able to trick is really beyond me.
Indeed, your evasion is bullshit. And indicative of how your argument works. I quoted the fact that the Secretary General of the Arab League stated that the 1948 war would be a “war of extermination”. In order to claim that is false, you produce a politely worded communication to the UN. You didn’t even attempt to rebut the actual claim, you just tried to change the subject and hoped nobody would notice.
Another bit of deception to hide an earlier bit of deception. Houses of cards suck.
Your argument’s original bit of deception was that I “read “Mutual antagonism would make it impossible for either community to tolerate the other.” as “those evil Arabs hated the Jews”.”
You used that bid of deception to avoid acknowledging the fact my argument clearly stated that the Palestinian leadership’s goal and the Arab League’s goal was the genocide of the Jews. You then went on to equate “aggressive fundies and genocidal terrorists” with the official position of the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League, obfuscating and drawing a bogus equivalency with all your might.
At no point did I claim that because there was mutual antagonism, that the Arabs were evil or all hated the Jews.
Which, of course, was your original smear.
When I pointed out that the Palestinian leadership and Arab league were committed to genocide, you responded by saying that I didn’t base that claim off of the facts of the matter, but off of a reading of “mutual antagonism”. That means, quite simply, that you denied all the evidence I put forward by dishonestly pretending that my evidence was a single phrase about “mutual antagonism” and how that made all Arabs evil.
And your claim of ‘cherry picking’ is also deceptive. I specifically quoted facts about Irgun’s terrorism. Why make this shit up when the thread falsifies your fiction?
You show me the individual nation that the pan-Arab nationalism movement resided in, and I’ll change my statement. Other than that, you just have bullshit about fictional racism because you can’t actually present a cogent argument in rebuttal.
Reminds me of the old joke.
Q: what do you call someone who has just eviscerated your argument with facts?
A: you call him a racist!
Of course it would also be accurate to point out that within the context of the greater Arab nationalist alliance with the Nazis, there was a Palestinian-Nazi alliance, but I can’t even imagine the bullshit charges of racism that would cause you to spew.
I’d be willing to bet that the bit evasion you’d use at that point was that it wasn’t a Palestinian-Nazi alliance either, because it was their leadership that made the alliance and if we don’t demonize the truth, then all Palestinians=Nazis,or some such rubbish.
Of course, native speakers of the English language aren’t confused by these points. We know that when someone talks about the American-British alliance during WWII, that they’re not stating that Brits=Ameicans or that Brits and Americans are fungible. Or that when someone states that there was an American alliance with Pinochet, that they’re not saying all Americans loved Pinoceht and supported his evil. Native English speakers understand that when two governments are in alliance, that as a shorthand we can say that two nations are in alliance without meaning that all of the people therein support it.
And something tells me that you wouldn’t honestly be up in arms about how Brit=American if someone talked about the British-American alliance.
But in Double Standard Theater, maximum outrage over faux racism must be maintained.
I specifically provided quoted some facts about Zionist terrorism. Anybody can go back and read the relevant post and find them. Your argument isn’t even good at being deceptive.
All anybody would have to do to see that you’re again making shit up is hit control -F and enter “random terror and bombings of Arab civilian targets.”
They’d find my post.
Who do you think you’re going to be able to trick?
Yet more deception. To begin with, your own words were “30’s and 40’s”
Now, conveniently, it’s only the 30’s.
As early as the publication of Mein Kampf, Hitler made clear that his inspiration for his plans included men like Karl Leuger. Men who continually referred to Jews as a “disease”. Even an argument as intellectually dishonest as your should make note of what one does to treat a disease.
As early as 1939, Hitler stated that the Jews would be destroyed if they ‘caused another war’ for Germany. World War II started in 1939, and it was clear to many that it was coming before it actually happened. Again, even an argument like yours should be able to recognize what Hitler’s promise to ‘destroy the Jews if they start another war for Germany’ meant once it was clear that war was inevitable. It was also clear to many others what was happening with the Jews long before WWII started.
Your claim that those Zionists who tried to get Jews out of Germany weren’t doing it in large part to protect them from the Nazis, simply because Hitler had merely made clear his vicious and violent racism and not yet implemented it in the 30’s, is laughable.
And the fact remains that you tried to paint a Jewish attempt to spare Jews from Nazi butchery as somehow equivalent to the Arab nationalists’ alliance with the Nazis to butcher the Jews.
I do indeed see the deception.
Your original claim was that it was "quite dishonest to portray Al-Husseini as a proeminent(sic) leader, or that his anti-semitic views were shared by the Arab League. "
When it was proven that your argument was full of shit and he was indeed a prominent leader, you’re now trying to change the subject and argue that he wasn’t a prominent leader in the Arab League. Luckily, your claim was simply that he wasn’t a prominent leader, period. Your absurd distortion went even further and you claim that the man who had dominated the Palestinian political scene for nearly a quarter of a century was a powerless kook.
If I said something as absurd and didn’t have an argument that was intellectually honest enough to retract it, I’d try to change the subject too.
And, of course, as already demonstrated the Arab League did indeed share that anti-Semitism, as they declared that the war would be one of extermination. I guess you could argue that wanting to exterminate the Jews in a region isn’t anti-Semitic.
Wouldn’t surprise me if you tried.