Furious reaction to accurate advertisement calling out Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust lies
Led by James Zogby, who calls the ad “a dishonest & dangerous assault …. It’s not an ad, it’s incitement” — But the ad is accurate.
Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib attempted to rewrite history recently by claiming that the Arabs of the British Mandate for Palestine (they would not be called “Palestinians” until decades later) provided “safe haven” to Jews before, during, and after the Holocaust.
Here’s the controversial quote from Tlaib (emphasis added):
“There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports. And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.”
In reality, the Palestinian Arabs tried to prevent Jews fleeing Nazi persecution from arriving, cooperated with the Nazis, persecuted, boycotted, and attacked Jews (including communities centuries old), and helped lead a self-described Jihad to massacre and expel the Jews when Israel declared independence. But because many critics focused on the “calming feeling” term, Democrat and media supporters of Tlaib claimed she was taken out of context.
We explored Tlaib’s historical fabrication in detail in Rep. Rashida Tlaib Falsely Claims Palestinian Arabs Created “a Safe Haven” for Jews During and After The Holocaust and again in Top Democrats’ defense of Rashida Tlaib’s Holocaust inversion and revisionism is unforgivable:
Putting aside the “calming feeling” wording, the Tlaib statement contains two themes: First, the Palestinians are the true victims of the Holocaust because it forced the Jewish survivors on them causing loss of land, property and lives; and Two, Palestinians helped create a safe haven for the Jews at much personal and national sacrifice.
The first point, portraying Palestinians as the true victims of the Holocaust, is a historically perverse and malicious claim. Six millions Jews died, Jewish communities throughout Europe were wiped out, yet it is the Palestinians — who backed the Nazi effort — who are portrayed as the victims. It is fair to consider this an offshoot of Holocaust Inversion, the attempt to portray the Jewish victims of the Nazis as the Nazis. It’s also a historical theft, an attempt to deprive Jews of their history and to repurpose that history to attack Jews.
The second point, that Palestinians supposedly helped provide safe haven to Jews during and after the Holocaust, is a historical falsehood of immense magnitude. We explored this falsehood in our prior post, pointing out that the Arabs of the British Mandate (who did not refer to themselves at that time as Palestinians, a more recent term), boycotted, slaughtered, and discriminated against Jews throughout the time period, and did everything they could to prevent Jews from finding a safe haven. The Grand Mufti was a strong supporter of Hitler and the extermination of the Jews.
Rabbi Schmueli Boteach, both personally and through groups he runs, is very high profile on issues related to Israel and anti-Semitism. Because he has defended Trump against accusations that Trump is anti-Semitic and has praised Trump’s actions towards Israel, Boteach is particularly hated by anti-Israel activists, particularly from the American Jewish Left. Boteach and Corey Booker were once close friends, but now they don’t get along in large part over Booker’s support for the Iran deal.
Boteach’s group took out an advertisement that ran yesterday in the NY Times taking Tlaib to task:
The advertisement is accurate. It accurately debunks Tlaib’s historical fabrication, making many of the same points we made in our coverage:
The advertisement has brought out a who’s-who of Israel haters, led by James Zogby, a Bernie-Democrat known for trying to realign U.S. policy on Israel (second from right in image below, appearing on panel during 2016 Democratic Convention, alongside Keith Ellison and Linda Sarsour).
Zogby is obsessive about Israel, including accusing it of culinary “genocide”:
So it’s not surprising that Zogby is leading the charge against the advertisement, accusing Boteach of trying to incite violence against Tlaib:
This is a dishonest & dangerous assault on @RashidaTlaib by far-right Shmuley Boteach. He funnels dark money into attack ads like this that distort the truth & put people’s lives at risk. It’s not an ad, it’s incitement. Shame on @nytimes for running it. #handsoffRashida.
Boteach responded:
Thanks James for highlighting our ad. I understand you are extremely uncomfortable w/ Jews who challenge anti-Semites like @RashidaTlaib & would deny our people the right to defend ourselves. What puts lives at risk is the demonization of the Jewish people which all must condemn.
Many others made a similar point, the advertisement was accurate:
“If Not Now” – an anti-Israel front group, chimed in:
Absolutely disgusting attack on @RashidaTlaib from Shmuley Boteach. Terrible that @nytimes published it. Rashida, we will fight back against this and have your back when extremists on the right weaponize antisemitism against you.
The Mullah-supporting anti-Zionist lunatics at Code Pink are trying to build their email list off of the advertisement:
Israel haters can’t handle the truth.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Mass delusion/hysteria. What can be done to make these people see and admit the truth? The scary part is that these people are noted “activists.” They will not stop pushing their lies and propaganda.
Good luck with trying to cleanse the hatred out of their souls Elric. They wallow in their hatred and can’t live without it.
Zogby is a Muslim. taqyia
Small problem: He isn’t a Moslem, he’s Catholic.
They don’t care about the truth. They somehow intrinsically hate Jews. If Jews did not settle in Israel but in Madagascar, they’d have people there trying to prevent and disrupt it, with lots of energy and aggression too. Or anywhere else they could, which is a reason for concern as Muslims have immigrated to USA.
Okay. let’s put this into perspective once again.
First of all. Tlaib was not claiming that the Palestinian Arabs welcomed Jewish settlers, especially the Zionists [the radical Jewish organization that bombed the King David Hotel in 1946]. What Tlaib was saying was that the world community, mainly Europe and the US, saw establishing the state of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews. And, that the establishment of the State of Israel was detrimental to the interest of the majority of the people living in the territory, the Palestinian Arabs. Now, whether anyone likes it or not, This is historically accurate.
Now, if we accept the fact that the main reason why the State of Israel was established was because of the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust, then it is fair to say that the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs made them the victims of the Holocaust as well.
What happened here, is that someone made two assumptions for which no evidence exists, The first was that Tlaib was referring to the Palestinian Arabs and not the greater world community when she was speaking of the establishment of a safe haven for the Jews by establishing the State of Israel. And the Jewish community ran with it. The second is that the Jews somehow have a greater claim to the area known as Palestine, than did the residents of the territory in 1946. Historically, this is inaccurate, and totally subjective on the part of the Jewish community.
So, to continue to beat the drum that Tlaib was speaking of the Palestinians as anything other that victims in the establishment of the State of Israel, is propaganda. And, when the propaganda is so transparent, it undermines your position.
The facts are that the British, under tremendous pressure from the international community agreed to the partitioning of Palestine according to the UN mandate of 1947. In so doing, the current residents of the area, which was to become the State of Israel, were disenfranchised and they lost property. And, no one asked their opinion.
Now, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is analogous to an Archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church. He is not a head of state. It is interesting to note that people do not make any mention of the fact that the Vatican, as well as archbishops and bishops within that organization, supported NAZI Germany. This was largely due to the fact that the Axis, led by NAZI Germany was fighting Russia, the home of the Godless Communists. Also, the Grand Mufti allied with Germany when he led a revolt against British, who were enemies of the Germans, at that time. The world community cared little or nothing for the Jews. In fact, the “Jewish Question” was an active debate, mainly in Europe, even prior to the American Civil War. The Holocaust was the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, in Europe.
Tlaib has proven to be anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian and probably anti-Semitic. But, trying to spin her statement, as pro-Israel interests are doing, does not help their cause very much.
Edit:
“Now, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is analogous to an Archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church. He is not a head of state. It is interesting to note that people do not make any mention of the fact that the Vatican, as well as archbishops and bishops within that organization, supported NAZI Germany. This was largely due to the fact that the Axis, led by NAZI Germany was fighting Russia, the home of the Godless Communists. Also, the Grand Mufti allied with Germany when he led a revolt against British, who were enemies of the Germans, at that time. The world community cared little or nothing for the Jews. In fact, the “Jewish Question” was an active debate, mainly in Europe, even prior to the American Civil War. The Holocaust was the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, in Europe.”
This should read:
“Now, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a political post enacted by the British. He is not a head of state. Amin al Husseini was the scion of a very powerful Arab family as well as a rabid Palestinian Arab nationalist. He wanted the Arabs of Palestine to gain independent control of the region [he fought against the UN Partition Plan as well as King Abdullah’s attempt to annex parts of the territory]. While he may have also been anti-Semitic, he was, at the least, an ardent anti-Zionist. The Grand Mufti allied with Germany when he led a revolt against the British, who were enemies of the Germans, at that time.
The world community cared little or nothing for the Jews during that time. In fact, the “Jewish Question” was an active debate, mainly in Europe, even prior to the American Civil War. The Holocaust was the “Final Solution” to the Jewish Question, in Europe.
OK so your final post was that Grand Mufti was a political post under the British who had the Mandate there and the easiest access to weapons. In other words, the Grand Mufti was a powerful Islamic figure with a lot of political control in Jerusalem.
So what are all the contortions about? He was exactly what people say he was.
No. What has happened here, is that you chose to believe the propaganda, not the facts. What they are saying is that al-Hussein was strictly a rapid anti-Semitic. This is far too simplistic. The man was a rabid supporter of independent rule of the Palestine territory by the Palestine Arab inhabitants. He was appointed to the post, by the British, in the hopes that it would somehow mitigate his desire for Palestine Arab independence. He even engaged in a coup/revolution against the British. And, Great Britain can hardly be described as a Jewish state, or even as having a love for the Jewish people. He also actively fought against the absorption of Palestinian territory by Jordan, again not a Jewish stronghold. Of course, it is interesting that certain people seem to forget the Zionist Movement and the terror tactics which to employed or that the Vatican actively worked with the Germans during WWII.
Here was the problem in many parts of the world, including most of Western Europe. The Jews were viewed as a cultural and political problem, largely because the powers that be in those countries had been using them as political scapegoats for decades, if not centuries. They created the Jewish Question. And, there was really no way to deal with it, as it was all a figment of the imagination. Fast forward to the Treaty of Versailles, 1918. Germany, perennial European bad boy, is devastated by the terms of the armistice. Who to blame? Of course, the Jews. Enter the NAZI [short for German National Socialist Worker’s party] and their socialist competitors, the Communist Party. The Communists blamed the wealthy Jews and the NAZIs blamed all Jews, as well as other minority groups. They were pretty much equal opportunity discriminators. So, once the NAZIs had solidified power, they began a cultural cleansing. This swept up Jews, Gypsies, certain ethnic groups such as Serbs and Slovaks, homosexuals and pretty much anyone that they didn’t like. This was the Holocaust, and, while the Jews comprised the bulk of the victims of that program, they were not alone.
At the end WWII, there existed a huge [problem. What to do with the European Jews? As the horror of the Holocaust unfolded and pressure from nations having an influential Jewish population increased for some kind of reparation for the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, as well as a general feeling of guilt for not stopping the Holocaust in the first place, the Jewish Question still remained. The answer was grant the Jews the State of Israel. As no one thought much of Palestine [it had almost no exploitable natural resources nor was it in a strategic location], or its current inhabitants [Islamic Palestine Arabs], it was decided to reestablish the State of Israel in its historic local. This was fine, except for the effects on the people currently inhabiting the area. This, of course, is nothing new in human history. Even in the US, our nation has disenfranchised local inhabitants of various areas, either by conquest or by obtaining territory from other governments. Very often these local inhabitants found their existing claims to land and resources vacated and their property given to others.
There are always two sides to these things. In the case of the establishment of the State of Israel, the Jews felt that they were simply regaining territory to which they had a right because of ancient habitation. The current inhabitants, the Palestinian Arabs, felt that they were being deprived of territory to which they had a right due to current habitation and a centuries ling period of habitation. So, who actually had the stronger claim? Each side believes that they are in the right, based upon their point of view.
“What they are saying is that al-Hussein was strictly a rapid anti-Semitic. This is far too simplistic.”
When some people tried to ransom Jewish children from the Nazis, al-Hussein sent a letter to Himmler telling him to keep the kids under “active control”. It is not at all simplistic to say al-Hussein was an antisemitic genocidal monster.
If as the Muslims claim that the British and Israeli conquest don’t give them the right to occupy Israel then the Muslims need to return the land that they won by conquest. Just about every Muslim country was obtained thru war. Otherwise, the Muslims should accept Israel.
Mac45 said: First of all. Tlaib was not claiming that the Palestinian Arabs welcomed Jewish settlers, especially the Zionists [the radical Jewish organization that bombed the King David Hotel in 1946].
Irgun, a small, radical group of Zionists, did indeed bomb the King David Hotel. But certainly “Zionists” were not a radical Jewish organization. That term only means all those who supported the reestablishment of the nation of Israel in their former homeland from which they had been driven out by Muslim invaders.
Secondly, those Arabs who lost their homes, properties, etc., largely lost those because they fled as the new Israeli nation was coming into existence (despite being asked to stay by Jewish leaders and assured of safety) because they were told to by Arab leaders. These same leaders assured them that they would immediately attack and destroy the new Jewish state and then those who fled would be free to return home. This never happened, the Arabs never returned (or weren’t permitted to return), nor did the countries to which they fled try to settle them, but kept them in permanent refugee camps for propaganda reasons (I assume).
Ms. Tlaib does not say who “wiped out their existence,” but says that it was done “to provide a safe haven for Jews” thereby wittingly or unwittingly implying that it was either Jews or persons unknown (your larger international community perhaps?) who perpetrated this. Then she says that “I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that” which is frankly a bizarre statement in the context of the rest of her statement.
I am not saying it is impossible to interpret what she said in the way you have, but it is not the only possible interpretation, and her confusing gabble makes it difficult to figure out exactly what she did mean to say.
If you are aware of any clarifying follow-up statement she made, feel free to post it. I can’t be bothered to look it up.
The Irgun blew up the King David, which was the British military HQ, at the direct request of the Jewish Agency, which was the mainstream zionist leadership, the future state in the making.
And, because it’s a small world, one of the Zionist terrorists later went on to write several books about Sex and hosted a television show about it: Dr. Ruth Westheimer.
Scott Roeder assassinated Tiller – the 3rd trimester Abortionist.
I’d be more sympathetic to Israeli terrorist extra-judicial slaughter if Jews were consisten on the use of violence and assassinations in advancement of the pro-life cause.
As I recall, it was related to me in my childhood 70+ years, that the major reason the Irgun set a bomb in the King David was to advise the British Army (they were terribly clueless) that people were finally getting somewhat annoyed with the Home Office directing assassinations (and arrests followed by subsequent disappearances) of unarmed, uninvolved Jewish civilians.
The reason was that the British had raided the Jewish Agency offices and seized documents that would endanger its leadership and the whole Jewish community, so the leadership, through the Hagana, asked Etzel to take care of it. When it went wrong, they washed their hands of the whole thing, let Etzel take the blame, and eagerly joined the British in declaring “open season” on the Etzel “terrorists”.
So, the Zionist were not composed of Jews who wished to recreate the State of Israel? Wow, that is such an incredible point of view that I am unable to even respond to it. Perhaps they were secretly papists?
As to reclaiming land that they had been driven out of by Muslim invader, the States of Israel and Judah, were instituted by invaders from Egypt. They both ceased to exist before the birth of Christ and LONG before the birth of Mohamed. They area was part of several nations or empires including Macedonia, Babylon, Assyria and Egypt. So, that justification sort of vanishes in the mists of time. If it was valid, then the US would cease to exist as it was carved up into territory controlled by various Native American tribes and others of foreign decent whose ancestors inhabited the region prior to 1778. Should we try that on for size?
I’m sorry, but though a number of Palestine Arabs did lose land by fleeing when Israel was established, some did lose property afterwards. And, given the animosity between the groups in the early 20th Century, it is not a stretch to expect that the Palestinian Arab population expected to be actively discriminated against. After all, where were the millions of Jews expected to immigrate to Israel going to live? One of the main reason why neighboring Arab states opposed Israel and supported the Palestinian Arabs was because of the refugees streaming into their territory.
Tlaib’s statement that her ancestors provided the safe haven for the Jews can be easily be explained by the fact that the property and potential political future of the Palestine Arabs was used to provide that safe haven. She never said that her ancestors provided it willingly.
Interpreting Tlaib’s statement as being that of the pov of the Palestinian Arabs inhabiting the region in 1948 makes the most sense. That it engendered the amount of blow-back that it did lends credence to an inherent truth within the statement, that certain interested parties were frantic to offset. The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a messy affair. There were winners and losers. But, it happened. And, due in large measure to the efforts of the Jewish inhabitants of that nation it has survived for 70 years. It is not likely to go anywhere in the foreseeable future. And, the activities of the Palestinian Arabs, and others, to remove it is simply wheel spinning.
Nobody suggested that. But there was absolutely nothing radical about it.
And property rights don’t “disappear in the mists of time”. If something is stolen from me it remains mine for as long as I maintain my claim, and serve notice on any potential buyer that it doesn’t belong to the seller.
Contrary to your claim, the Jewish nation did not cease to exist, and it has been serving notice on the world, openly and notoriously, three times every single day for the entire period in question, that it intends to return. No squatter can possibly claim not to have been aware of this, and history shows that they were all well aware of it.
Had the Arabs behaved rationally and like civilized people none of them would have been harmed in any way. You ask where were the millions of Jews expected to immigrate to Israel going to live? On empty land they would claim from the state, or on settled land they would buy or rent, just as actually happened with those Arabs who remained. In the last 70 years, not a single Arab has lost his property, other than through eminent domain with full compensation just as happens in any other country. None of them had any reason to fear anything else. Their opposition to Jewish immigration came from one source only: their deep vicious antisemitism.
“then it is fair to say that the displacement of the Palestinian Arabs made them the victims of the Holocaust as well.”
The influx of Jews into Mandatory Palestine did not “displace” Arabs.
First, the British exercised an option over Mandatory Palestine. Having determined that there weren’t enough Jews to populate the entire mandate, they split the mandate into two parts. One of those parts was reserved for the Jews and became Israel. The other (larger) part became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and was reserved for Arabs.
If the Jews had, in fact, “displaced” the Arabs in the Jewish sector of the mandate, they had somewhere to go – Jordan, the Arab portion of the mandate. But this is not what happened.
Today’s “Palestinians,” and, in particular, that portion of them who consider themselves “refugees,” are the descendants of Arabs in Israel who fled their lands at the request of the invading Arab armies during the 1948 war. The Arabs in the Jewish mandate were told the Arab armies needed a free fire zone from which they could push the Jews into the sea, after which the returning Arabs could seize their land. Unfortunately for the people who became known as “Palestinians,” it didn’t go as planned. They became trapped in enclaves of their own creation, with their erstwhile allies refusing to take them into their own countries as displaced persons. (While Israel absorbed the bulk of the 840,000 Jews ejected from Muslim middle eastern and north African countries.)
Israel is probably the only country in history blamed for a refugee crisis that was created (and is maintained) by its enemies.
In 1922, when the Palestinian Mandate was established, under British rule, there was no split. Later, the area which would become Jordan was established, east of the Jordan River. As the Arab, and much smaller Jewish communities, were cohabiting the same areas, the British granted independent “community control” to the separate communities. The British entered into a formal negotiations with the Zionist movement leadership over the Balfour Deal, but excluded the Palestinian Arab leadership. The purpose was to provide a place for Jews to go to reduce the pressure of the Jewish Question in Europe. And, as many a 30,000 Jewish immigrants were being imported every year, until Arab backlash saw that reduced to around 10-12,000.
The point is that the international community, in the person of Great Britain in 1922, arbitrarily and without consulting with the current majority inhabitants of Palestine, decided to begin the settlement of the area with a specific religious group which was making claims to political as well as physical control of the area. It would be analogous to the US moving large numbers of La Raza members into New Mexico and Arizona with the ultimate goal of allowing these areas to become independent nations controlled by La Raza.
There was nothing radical about zionism, which is simply the idea that the indigenous people of Israel should go home and govern themselves there. And there was nothing radical about bombing the British military HQ, which was waging war on the Jews, and had just raided the main Jewish organization, the Jewish Agency, and seized hundreds of sensitive documents that would endanger the whole Jewish community.
No, it was not. On the contrary, it was the best thing that could have happened for them. If they’d accepted and helped it, they would have prospered immensely. Instead their insane hatred of the Jews meant they couldn’t accept prosperity if it meant the Jews would be free.
That is not true at all. The state of Israel was established by the Jewish Agency, which had been working towards that goal since the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference. The opportunity to establish it came because the British, impoverished by WW2, had decided it wasn’t worth fighting the Jews any longer, and left (though not before arming and training the Arabs and giving them every support possible so they could wipe the Jews out). Nobody else played any role, and the Holocaust had nothing to do with it.
BS. The land belongs to the Jewish nation. It is our property. We never renounced or gave up on our title, and for 2000 years we have been serving notice on all squatters that we intended to come back and reclaim it. Title in property does not come with an expiry date. The Arabs who had only just recently moved in to the area knew very well that it wasn’t theirs.
Wrong. It was the British who announced that they were done with the place and were leaving. The UN General Assembly proposed a partition plan to the Jewish and Arab residents. The Arabs did not agree to it, so nothing ever came of it.
More BS. Not a single Arab lost a single square foot of property due to the partition proposal — nor would any have if it had been implemented. The only Arabs who lost property were those who abandoned it to give their armies a clear field to massacre the Jews, intending to return when the Holocaust was over and reclaim not only their property but that of the dead Jews.
He was the political leader of the Arabs of Palestine; the only reason he was not a head of state is that they had no state.
There is no difference
No, he allied with the Germans because they were enemies of the Jews. But it really doesn’t matter why; the fact is that he and the Arabs of Palestine whom he led were Hitler’s allies, and therefore partners in the Holocaust. That is enough to condemn them.
Indeed. I don’t understand how this exonerates the Arabs.
Thank you, Milhouse. Your excellent rebuttal is supported by documented history, whereas Tlaib’s story is just that – a story (or fabrication).
I am sorry to say that Tlaib’s story is in part true. The Arabs gave many Jews a safe haven and the Arabs, including Tlaib, still get a warm feeling of calm thinking about it. Those safe havens were six feet deep, 6 feet long and about 1.5 feet wide, and the Arabs living in the Mandate filled as many of these safe havens as they could!!
Milhouse
Thank you for taking the time to correct Mac45.
Excellent post, M, truly excellent. One other bit of totally wrong info in Mac45’s post was when he wrote “the Vatican, as well as archbishops and bishops within that organization, supported NAZI Germany.”
No, that is absolutely and historically wrong. There has been a 75 year long debate as to whether Pope Pius XII did as much to oppose Nazism as he could have (many think the did not), but he certainly did NOT support it, and it’s a matter of record that during that time, most of the Vatican’s material and financial assets were transferred to the US and other allies for safekeeping. Rightly or wrongly, Pope Pius XII saw his mission as being one to ensure the survival of his Church at a time of great danger.
To say that the Grand Mufti was the equivalent of a Roman Catholic Cardinal is so gob-smackingly ignorant as to defy belief. If the Mufti was analogous to anything, it’s to a Kommandant at one of the Death Camps.
Indeed, Tom, I meant to cover exactly that point, but Mac’s post and my response were so long I forgot about it.
Pius did not support the Nazis (though some Church officials unfortunately did). But his primary responsibility was to his own people, and he could not endanger them. He had no special duty to the Jews, and it would have been wrong for him to endanger his own people in order to (futilely) oppose the Nazis publicly.
“There was nothing radical about zionism, which is simply the idea that the indigenous people of Israel should go home and govern themselves there. And there was nothing radical about bombing the British military HQ, which was waging war on the Jews, and had just raided the main Jewish organization, the Jewish Agency, and seized hundreds of sensitive documents that would endanger the whole Jewish community.”
I love it when you try to split hairs. While there is nothing radical about zionism, the Zionists were documented radicals, who resorted to terrorist acts when necessary. Now, as Britain officially controlled the Palestinian Mandate, they got to set the rules. some of the actions of the Zionists, in Palestine, constituted violations of those rules. Therefor, enforcing those rules was not an act of war, but an exercise of civil authority. Sort of like raiding the headquarters of the Minutemen or the Black Panthers in the 1970s.
“No, it was not. On the contrary, it was the best thing that could have happened for them. If they’d accepted and helped it, they would have prospered immensely. Instead their insane hatred of the Jews meant they couldn’t accept prosperity if it meant the Jews would be free.”
Two BIG problems with this statement. When the modern State of Israel was established in 1948, the Jews WERE free. They just did not have their own independent country. And, at that time, the majority of the inhabitants of that territory lost their chance at self determination. remember, Israel was set up as theological state. No, maybe the Palestinian Arabs would have prospered if they had not opposed the establishment of Israel. Then again, Jews might have benefited from living in a Palestine controlled by Palestine Arabs. However, due to the tensions in the region leading up to 1948, no one really believed either was possible.
“That is not true at all. The state of Israel was established by the Jewish Agency, which had been working towards that goal since the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Conference. The opportunity to establish it came because the British, impoverished by WW2, had decided it wasn’t worth fighting the Jews any longer, and left (though not before arming and training the Arabs and giving them every support possible so they could wipe the Jews out). Nobody else played any role, and the Holocaust had nothing to do with it.”
Really??? So, for 26 years, Great Britain was so invested in establishing a homeland for the Jews that it denied them that? Balfour was in 1922. Israel was established, not by Great Britain but by a UN plan in 1948. Are you really going to try to maintain that the Holocaust had nothing to do with the establishment of the State of Israel? Wow. Just Wow.
“BS. The land belongs to the Jewish nation. It is our property. We never renounced or gave up on our title, and for 2000 years we have been serving notice on all squatters that we intended to come back and reclaim it. Title in property does not come with an expiry date. The Arabs who had only just recently moved in to the area knew very well that it wasn’t theirs.”
Well, this statement is total BS. The Jews invaded what is today Israel from Egypt. They lost control way back in 1000-680 BC to a succession of other kingdoms, nations and empires. Oops. This is nothing more than propaganda. So, the Jews had no more “right” the territory than does any other group of people who have lost their territory to another group. I suppose that Great Britain has a legal claim on the territory held by the original 13 colonies? Give me a break.
“More BS. Not a single Arab lost a single square foot of property due to the partition proposal — nor would any have if it had been implemented. The only Arabs who lost property were those who abandoned it to give their armies a clear field to massacre the Jews, intending to return when the Holocaust was over and reclaim not only their property but that of the dead Jews.”
Once again you are attempting to parse words. Though the “proposal” did not strip any property from Arab residents, it would essentially strip all existing political control from them, by establishing Israel as a religious state. And, the majority Arab residents were completely opposed to any partition or the establishment of a Jewish state. So much for the “will of the people”.
“He was the political leader of the Arabs of Palestine; the only reason he was not a head of state is that they had no state.”
Exactly. He was the leader of the Arab population, not any political subdivision. He was analogous to Thomas Paine prior to the American Revolution. Was an ardent supporter of Palestine Arab independence and anti-Zionist. He also engaged in acts of rebellion against Britain. It is no surprise that he would align himself with the Germans during WWII.
“‘While he may have also been anti-Semitic, he was, at the least, an ardent anti-Zionist.’
There is no difference”
Only in your mind. As long as you see no difference in the the practice of Judaism and the terrorist acts of the Zionist movement, then your statement makes sense.
“No, he allied with the Germans because they were enemies of the Jews. But it really doesn’t matter why; the fact is that he and the Arabs of Palestine whom he led were Hitler’s allies, and therefore partners in the Holocaust. That is enough to condemn them.”
Its ALWAYS about the Jews. LOL. Of course, the fact that al-Hussain was an ardent supporter of Palestinian Arab independence and the establishment of an Arab state in Palestine could not have been the reason. The fact that he led a filed coup/revolt against the British, who were enemies of the Germans, is irrelevant. It was only be cause he HATED Jews that he allied himself with Germany. Well, everything in the world is always all about the Jews.
“‘ The world community cared little or nothing for the Jews during that time.’
Indeed. I don’t understand how this exonerates the Arabs.”
Exonerates the Arabs of what? Being upset that what they considered their territory was arbitrarily given away to a minority against their expressed wishes? My statement was in regard the fact that the greater international community cared little about the Jews as a group, except how their presence impacted the internal politics of various nations. Make no mistake the Jewish Question had become the Jewish Scandal, following the Holocaust. So, the international community finally acquiesced Zionist demands for a Jewish state and gave them one in Palestine. And, the majority Palestinian Arab population, who arduously objected to that, got hosed. That’s life.
What on earth does that even mean?
They engaged in legitimate military action, just like George Washington did. The British government became illegitimate the moment it restricted Jewish immigration in 1938.
Then in what sense were they free? They were a subject nation, and unless they established a state they would become the Arabs’ dhimmi.
<splutter> What?????!!! That is one of the stupidest and most ignorant statements I have ever heard in my life. What could possibly have prompted it? The Zionists were anti-religious; the whole point of Zionism was a rebellion against religion, and a determination that the Jews should stop waiting for a God to rescue us — because in their view that was never going to happen — and take our fate into our own hands.
How is that even remotely possible?
The UK was never invested in establishing a homeland for the Jews. It got its mandate on the basis of that promise, but it never intended to fulfill it. And in 1938 it outright repudiated it.
You lie. Israel was not established by any UN plan, it was established by its own people, exactly the same way the US was established.
My laptop battery is running out, and work calls, so I can’t deal with the rest of your ranting.
The British proposed a two state solution in 1937 with the Peel Commission so “Now, if we accept the fact that the main reason why the State of Israel was established was because of the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust” isn’t a fact, it’s an out right lie.
Israel exists in spite of the Holocaust not because of it.
”
The British proposed a two state solution in 1937 with the Peel Commission so “Now, if we accept the fact that the main reason why the State of Israel was established was because of the persecution of the Jews during the Holocaust” isn’t a fact, it’s an out right lie.
Israel exists in spite of the Holocaust not because of it.”
In 1937, the Peel Commission PROPOSED a partition of Palestine to end acrimony among the majority Arab residents over the British plan to establish a Jewish Homeland in Palestine which would likely see Jewish domination of the area. It was a two state solution. The Palestinian Arabs were overwhelmingly opposed to this. So, it never occurred.
It was not until 1947, when the UN plan was passed that Palestine was partitioned and the State of Israel proclaimed. Whaty happened in between? Oh, yeah. The Holocaust. I’m sure that had NOTHING to do with the UN vote.
Wrong again. The 1947 partition proposal was no different from the 1937 proposal; both were rejected and therefore neither was implemented. The State of Israel was not proclaimed as the result of a partition; it was proclaimed as the result of the British giving up and leaving.
“The second is that the Jews somehow have a greater claim to the area known as Palestine, than did the residents of the territory in 1946. Historically, this is inaccurate, and totally subjective on the part of the Jewish community.”
Can you please provide facts and data that support this?
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel”
I provided that in previous thread. So, now you will have to do it yourself. have fun.
You’re absolutely correct: because it’s written in Wikipedia, it must be correct; doesn’t have to be true, though, doesn’t even have to be what actually happened.
I worked closely with numerous high profile professionals, and had access to a great deal of detailed information about them. Several times I made attempts to correct inaccuracies in Wikipedia.
Eventually, I came to understand that it is routinely hijacked by by people with a vested interest in warping the truth, much like we see Rashida Tlaib.
Also, it is important to not that palestinian numbers we low when Israel was created, most of them were landless, in that the land they lived and worked on was owned by wealthy Arabs, and that they reproduced at a very high rate in a futile and self destructive attempt to overrun Israel.
I think that it is time to drive palestinians into the sea.
Typos:
Also, it is important to note that palestinian numbers were low
Mac, I believe your premise is incorrect. She states quite specifically “I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that”. She is clearly giving credit to her “Palestinian” ancestors for the beneficial treatment of the Jews post Holocaust.
Hee is the relevant quote, in its entirety.
Tlaib: “Absolutely. Let me tell you — I mean, for me, I think two weeks ago we celebrated, or took a moment I think in our country to remember, the Holocaust. And there’s a kind of a calming feeling, I always tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust in the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways had been wiped out, and some people’s passports — I mean, just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right?, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away, right, and it was forced on them.”
[From; https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/rashida-tlaib-holocaust-comments-its-probably-not-what-you-think/%5D
What the ad does is omit the last sentence. Once that is added, it changes the entire meaning of her statement. If you want to read the rest of the transcript as provided by the Jewish Times, read the article.
The Times will apologize. Truth may be a defense in court but not at the NYT.
Everyone knows Zogby is a Muslim plant. A Brotherhood agent in the midst of the DNC.
On the other hand, Zogby may just be a DNC plant in the middle of the Brotherhood.
No, he’s not Moslem, he’s Christian. He hates Moslems, but not as much as he hates Jews.
I find the “calming feeling” comment to be absolutely chilling.
The ‘fury!’ Oh no!
What a piece of garbage tlaib is.
Her bigotry is life-threatening abroad, but worse, she (are we sure?) is inciting violence in America against Jews. She deserves nothing but the worst. Those defending her are just as disgusting, and will one day have to eat their just deserts.
I would like to see her receive an old fashioned tar and feathering, with hot melted tar which becomes hard when it cools 🙂
Look, in an incident where there is muslim terror, there will be the “Explainers” who will tell the compliant msm that what their lying eyes have seen is not the real story. And then they will mix in enough historical truth with the islamic lies so that the gullible like the msm and liberals believe their crap. They are murdering monsters in the name of their pedophile profit! They will win in the end because of the West becoming PC and not wanting to pass judgment on anyone of color or perceived to be a minority. Look at our Sothern border to see the future of this once great nation!
Blah blah blah! We in Israel are stronger, happier, and wealthier than ever before, while those that hate us are mainly concerned with murdering their own. Islam in the USA is on the move!! If that gives you a “calming feeling,” then I suggest you study sharia and learn Arabic before you are forced to do so.
I love when the anti-semites (who claim they are no such) point out the truth. They all get involved, and we can clearly see who they are. Some have very innocent-sounding names.
I used to date one of Zogby’s cousins. Never met either of the brothers, but I met a passel of their other relatives. Every one of them was a raging antisemite down to their shoetops. (Including the ex, which is one reason she’s an ex.) The stuff these people say in private would curl your hair. Oddly, they’re not Muslims. They’re Maronite Catholics, which always suggested to me antisemitism is a Mideastern rather than Islamic thing.
Eastern Christians have always been antisemites; they used to say that the only thing worse than a Turk is a Jew. It derives from the antisemitism of the ancient Greeks, before Christianity. When Paul opened up Christianity to gentiles without requiring them to become Jews first, he got a lot of Greeks who liked the idea of the Jewish religion but weren’t keen on circumcision or a restricted diet, and couldn’t stand Jews. They quickly became the majority in the new religion and took it over, which is why from the 2nd century the writings of of the Church fathers are full of vicious Jew-hate. Hence the Marcionist heresy, which by denying Jesus’s human nature altogether managed to avoid the disturbing idea that he was a Jew.
Not only is every word in the ad coreIt , but is amply documented that the Grand Muftti after fleeing Palestine when his revolt sas suppressed was active in raising troops for the Nazi army in the Balkans–there is even a picture of him reviewing his recruits.For full details not only about the Grand Mufti, but Muslim support for and collusion with the Hitler regime more generally, see David Motadel, ISLAM AND NAZI GERMANY”S WAR (HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS, 2014
If I have to choose between LGBTQ Shumley Boteach who says Bruce – oh I mean Caitlyn – Jenner is a hero of Israel, and some Muslim like Omar which will insure the cesspool of pornography, and Drag Queen Storytime will be banned, I will go with Omar, because I love my children and don’t want them indoctrinated with LGBTQ evil.
Boteach? Really?
I am wondering if the porn industry is working on finding an Omar lookalike?
Sorry, if your point is that if Rabbi Shumley Boteach represents “The Jews” that want CPS to take my children away to give them hormones and surgery because they think they are transgenger, I’m not on the side of those who say the Holocaust was anything wrong.
You really need to be clear if you support anything resembling Christian (With posts like this I don’t even want to try saying “judaeo-christian” any more than “lgbtq-christian”) values and morals.
As to Talib, I’m a “racist” or something-o-phobe because I don’t want people like here in the USA, much less given citizenship.
But HAIS does.
Maybe Jared can get peace by letting all the Palestinians in refugee camps over there into the USA (what could go wrong?), so Israel can have their one state solution, and the refugee resettlement cities can enjoy their new arrivals.
It would be better for most of us if they are resettled in the ocean.