[chaostrivia]

arthur buddy.
Wikipedia, is - if properly used and generally speaking - a good fast cheap reliable source.
You stopped debating on jews-arabs-nazis and started debating against wikipedia not forgetting to mention your academic achievements.
Your academic acheivements, as glorious as they might be, are not on the history of the british mandate in palestine, so I guess? they are hence irrelevant to this thread, just as my achievements in the magnetism of solid state microdevices and intermetallic compounds ....

So I will put a stop here. I will not debate wikipedia with you, it is boring. If you have new interesting to say about WWII in palestine, maybe some new information (and not interpretation based on lack of thereof) you could share with us, please do.

My sole objective was not to debate Wikipedia but to convince you that the jews were much more pro-brits than the arabs in WWII. Mentioning the insignificant stern gang and forgetting about the paratroopers, the 8th army and the munition factories to prove otherwise, like tailz did, is an intellectual sin and/or evil propaganda.

If you write two posts with no stern gang nazis zionists and arabs in it, this means for me: mission accomplished.

And If you would have given me some credit in first place, then it would have saved you a lot of embarrassment (esp' on the transjordanic issue and the arab legion, the structure of the arab leadership, the fifth aliyah the saison the ME theater and other small or not so small pieces of the story which were revealed as big gaps in your knowledge of the very complicated conflict). but again for an "amateur" who live far away from the middle east, do not speak the languages nor understand the societies and the cultures (which in the ME case play a greater role than in European history, for example): It is still very impressive.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Chaostrivia wrote:

You stopped debating on jews-arabs-nazis and started debating against wikipedia not forgetting to mention your academic achievements.

I have never mentioned my academic achievements as proven by you not having a clue what they are.

Your academic acheivements, as glorious as they are, are not on the history of the british mandate, so I guess?

Yet another assumption.
Yet again, wrong

Mentioning the insignificant stern gang and forgetting about the paratroopers, the 8th army and the munition factories to prove otherwise, like tailz did, is an intellectual sin and evil propaganda.

You have spent this entire thread pointing the finger at the Grand Mufti yet omitting any mention of jewish terrorists killing Brits in ww2 even tho that information was on a page you quoted.

Evil propaganda indeed.

If however you would have given some me credit in first place, then it would have saved you a lot of embarrassment, esp' on the transjordanic issue and the arab legion

What do you want me to talk about?
Sykes-Picot? Balfour? Sevres? Lausanne? Gaurard?

the structure of the arab leadership

Woah there.
Didn't you write this?:

After many warm affectionate meetings between both leaderships, the Arab leadership cut a deal with Hitler and the nazis.

the fifth aliyah

Would that be the fifth aliyah where you said no german jews emigrated to Palestine?
Try 5000 during the 1920s and before Hitler came to power.

the saison

Which happened after British deaths at the hands of jewish terrorists in ww2

the ME theater and other small (or not so small) pieces of the story which you revealed yourself to be totally ignorant of.

And we finish with a flurry by repeating your earlier ignorant drivel.


You want to criticise the Mufti but minimise the lehi killers as 'insignificant'. I'd say more British personnel died at the hands of jewish terrorists in WW2 than at the hands of Palestinian arabs and I'd further explain that the idea for a Muslim SS was Himmlers idea which only became a reality after Hitler approved it in the last two years of the war.

The idea of the Mufti visiting Auschwitz is not one entertained by any serious historian (see Laurence Rees book on Auschwitz) but that doesn't mean he wasn't sympathetic to the Nazis anti-semitic policies.

I can't see any mention of the Grand Mufti when I do a search through the Eichmann transcript either, see for yourself http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eic ... /Sessions/

[chaostrivia]

So, to summarize.
Here is a list of all the known facts that relate to this issue.

• 27,000 jews served in the Roayl 8th army under the command of brigadier Ernest F. Benjamin.
• More than 50,000 jews (20%-25% of the overall jewish population during WWII) were robbed by the Nazis and escaped Hitler. It was out of the question that they will have any sympathy to him.
• The jews produced ammunition and helped the allied war effort
• Some 240 jewish paratroopers, including women, were trained to jump behind Nazi enemy lines and fight them in europe.
• The grand Mufti of Jerusalem, an arab palestinian leader (see p.s.), had affectionate meetings with Nazi officials and was positive toward such a cooperation.
• 12,000 arabs served in the UK armed forces. Considering that their population was 4 times bigger than the jewish at the time, this means that in Palestine, the average arab was 8 times less eager to volunteer to the british army than the average jew. Nevertheless, unlike in the Jewish case, Arabs never directly attack the British.
• After a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi was established. A radical group which amounted to no more than a few hundred members, continued to attack UK forces after the Irgun decided to cease the attack. I don't know exactly how "proficient" they were. Do you have any data regarding how many British soldiers and personnel did the Lehi kill in during (not after) WWII? Even in this book I couldn't find it.

I sum up the above facts to : "Jews were more pro-UK during WWII than the Arabs."
If I left out an important fact or twisted one of the facts, please point it out.
It the conclusion I arrived at from the above comprehensive list of all important facts is wrong, explain why.

Your academic acheivements, as glorious as they are, are not on the history of the british mandate, so I guess?

Yet another assumption. Yet again, wrong

I said your knowledge is impressive. Do share your academic achievements with us, any new knowledge I haven't heard of? (a link to a publication would be very appreciated)
or does taking a list of facts and arriving at the wrong conclusion is called "academic achievements"?


p.s.
I saw that you tried to ridicule couple of times that I call AlHusseini "an arab leader".
The only ridiculous thing I can think of is saying that the stern gang had some substantial historical impotant....
AlHusseini was definately an "Arab leader". Because:

• his social/tribal/family status puts him as what the west would define as "Arab leadership" (not "leadership" as a western would see it today! and this what preventing you from understanding! the arab society and cultural structure is different. Not only in WWII but also in 2009 the Palestinian arabs still have no leadership with 1 voice, 1 rule of law and 1 armed forces.....).
• He was in bitter personal rivalry Abdullah of Jordan (Abudullah ibn al-Hussein, the arab leader of the transjordanian district of the Mandate, and also a close friend of Rahid Ali, of the Iraqi district). So if he was not an "Arab leader", neither was King Abdullah...... He wouldn't be a rival of a common man from Palestine, right?
• According to Nazi Ideaology, the arabs were inferior even to the blacks (I remind you that Hitler won't shake owens hand in the 1936 olympics). Hitler & Himmler won't meet with a simple German farmer, needless to say a common Arab. The mere existence of the meeting and the letter exchange clearly shows beyond any doubt that Husseini was considered to be an "Arab leader".

You have anything else to add?
If you claim that AlHusseini can not be defined as "an Arab leader" this means that your "academics" are actually politics. You started out from the conclusion and not from the facts, which you tamper to make them suit your predefined conclusion. Like a religious person proving that his holy book contains scientific proofs...
Maybe you should look if there is a job opening at the UN's "human rights council"

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Chaostrivia wrote:

So, to summarize.
Here is a list of all the known facts that relate to this issue.

* 27,000 jews served in the Roayl 8th army under the command of brigadier Ernest F. Benjamin.
* More than 50,000 jews (20%-25% of the overall jewish population during WWII) were robbed by the Nazis and escaped Hitler. It was out of the question that they will have any sympathy to him.
* The jews produced ammunition and helped the allied war effort
* Some 240 jewish paratroopers, including women, were trained to jump behind Nazi enemy lines and fight them in europe.
* The grand Mufti of Jerusalem, whose social/tribal/family status puts him as what the west would define as "Arab leadership" (but not "leadership" as a western sees it. Not only in WWII but also in 2009 the Palestinian arabs still have no leadership with 1 voice, 1 rule of law and 1 armed forces.....), had affectionate meetings with Nazi officials and was positive toward such a cooperation.
* 12,000 arabs served in the UK armed forces. Considering that their population was 4 times bigger than the jewish at the time, this means that in Palestine, the average arab was 8 times less eager to volunteer to the british army than the average jew. Nevertheless, unlike in the Jewish case, Arabs never directly attack the British.
* After a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi was established. A radical group which amounted to no more than a few hundred members, continued to attack UK forces after the Irgun decided to cease the attack. I don't know exactly how "proficient" they were. Do you have any data regarding how many British soldiers and personnel did the Lehi kill in during (not after) WWII? Even in this book I couldn't find it.


I sum up the above facts to : "Jews were more pro-UK during WWII than the Arabs."
If I left out an important fact or twisted one of the facts, please point it out.
It the conclusion I arrived at from the above comprehensive list of all important facts is wrong, explain why.

I'd sum it up as "both arabs and jews helped fight the nazis in ww2 though each side had a small minority that aided the nazis."
I feel that would be more balanced than your summary.

Go back through my posts Chaos you will see I have engaged zionists on this particular issue several times when they have railed against the Mufti yet rush to excuse the actions of Lehi when their activities have been pointed out.

To your credit you haven't tried to rubbish Lord Moyne as part of your tactics which is what zionists usually do.

I said your knowledge is impressive.

Where did you say that?


.

[chaostrivia]

I'd sum it up as "both arabs and jews helped fight the nazis in ww2 though each side had a small minority that aided the nazis."
I feel that would be more balanced than your summary.

U're stubborn. I do not agree. see below.

Go back through my posts Chaos you will see I have engaged zionists on this particular issue several times when they have railed against the Mufti yet rush to excuse the actions of Lehi when their activities have been pointed out.

To your credit you haven't tried to rubbish Lord Moyne as part of your tactics which is what zionists usually do.

I called them "terrorists" straight on from the beginning, just as most zionists of their time did.
I never said that their actions are excusable. I just pointed out that if you look at proper scale, they are of minor importance. A serious historian can NOT use them to counterweight affectionate kissing and letter exchange between the Arab and Nazi leaderships, including Hitler, der Fuehrer himself in flesh and blood.
I am certain that had the UK lost el-Alameyn, the Arabs would have switched sides.
The jews did the same in WWI, from being great friends of the turks for centuries, when they saw that a British occupation of the land starts to look very likely, they switched sides.

(p.s. how many palestinians today will say that Hamas suicide bombings in the heart of Tel aviv at the peak of the euphory days of Oslo (1993-1996) were "terrorist actions"?.. )

I said your knowledge is impressive.

Where did you say that?

one time was there.

So, we forget all about the "Arab Legion" thing? that's good. Your apology is accepted. Your knowledge is still very impressive I must say, for an amateur

This is not the first and not the second time in which makes it obvious that you do not take the time to read my posts

And out of real interest, not in order to nag:
You said that you have academic achievements in the field history of the british mandate of Palestine. If you were not shitting us, a link to one of your publications not this subject will be appreciated. Also write in private. Any good piece of work, new facts or new interpretation on this topic are of interest to me.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Chaostrivia wrote:

I called them "terrorists" straight on from the beginning, just as most zionists of their time did.
I never said that their actions are excusable. I just pointed out that if you look at proper scale, they are of minor importance.

The deaths of British personnel during a World War is never of minor importance.

A serious historian can NOT use them to counterweight affectionate kissing and letter exchange between the Arab and Nazi leaderships, including Hitler, der Fuehrer himself in flesh and blood.

So it's emotion vs logic, that's your case?
Because the Mufti actually touched Hitler (shudders) he's somehow worse than someone who killed allied servicemen at the same time as Hitler?
That is pathetic.


As for serious historians I suggest you get a copy of "The Third Reich At War" by Richard J Evans.
I'll quote from page 151:

Thus frustrated Hitler was reduced to making promises that he had at the moment no chance of fulfilling. The Islamic cleric Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Berlin on the defeat of the uprising in Iraq and Hitler greeted him on 28 November 1941 with an empty promise to destroy the Jewish settlements in Palestine

Richard J Evans is Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University.........................


Now I'll answer your points in the ps to the previous post I somehow missed.

p.s.
I saw that you tried to ridicule couple of times that I call AlHusseini "an arab leader".
The only ridiculous thing I can think of is saying that the stern gang had some substantial historical impotant....
AlHusseini was definately an "Arab leader". Because:

* his social/tribal/family status puts him as what the west would define as "Arab leadership" (not "leadership" as a western would see it today! and this what preventing you from understanding! the arab society and cultural structure is different. Not only in WWII but also in 2009 the Palestinian arabs still have no leadership with 1 voice, 1 rule of law and 1 armed forces.....).
* He was in bitter personal rivalry Abdullah of Jordan (Abudullah ibn al-Hussein, the arab leader of the transjordanian district of the Mandate, and also a close friend of Rahid Ali, of the Iraqi district). So if he was not an "Arab leader", neither was King Abdullah...... He wouldn't be a rival of a common man from Palestine, right?

All totally irrelevant because you said:

Extreme, small, and negligible Lehi who merely offered a deal is not equivalent to the affectionate relationship between the Arab leadership of Palestine and the nazis, who were to work in close cooperation if the Germans would come near Palestine, as been agreed upon

That's the, not an arab leader.

According to Nazi Ideaology, the arabs were inferior even to the blacks (I remind you that Hitler won't shake owens hand in the 1936 olympics). Hitler & Himmler won't meet with a simple German farmer, needless to say a common Arab. The mere existence of the meeting and the letter exchange clearly shows beyond any doubt that Husseini was considered to be an "Arab leader".

1 The nazis say arabs are inferior to blacks? Link?
2 See what Jessie Owens had to say about the incident then name me the athletes Hitler did shake hands with
3 Hitler with Himmler as part of his entourage met with simple German farmers constantly before the war, read Speers book
4 Did I ever say he wasn't 'an' arab leader?

If you claim that AlHusseini can not be defined as "an Arab leader" this means that your "academics" are actually politics.

And if you can show me where I said that you win a bar of chocolate.
For the last time I took issue with you labelling the Grand Mufti as the arab leadership.
Geddit?

For the record my summary is far more even handed and balanced than yours.


.

[danholo]

Thus frustrated Hitler was reduced to making promises that he had at the moment no chance of fulfilling. The Islamic cleric Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, fled to Berlin on the defeat of the uprising in Iraq and Hitler greeted him on 28 November 1941 with an empty promise to destroy the Jewish settlements in Palestine

Could this be put into proper context, please?

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Certainly Daholo. Hitler was frustrated by the failure of the coup in Iraq and Nazi attempts to stir the arabs up in Syria. El Alemein was still a year away so the Afrika Korps had barely got going.

Incidentally it would have been surprising had Hitler not tried to use the arabs as a counterweight to the British.

Germany had an interest in the Middle East since the first mention of the Berlin-Baghdad railway in the late 19th Century. The Kaiser even proclaimed to the then 300 million muslims around the world that they would always have a friend in Germany when he toured the area in 1899*


*Organised by Thomas Cook no less

.

[chaostrivia]

A serious historian can NOT use them to counterweight affectionate kissing and letter exchange between the Arab and Nazi leaderships, including Hitler, der Fuehrer himself in flesh and blood.

The deaths of British personnel during a World War is never of minor importance.

by then, immediately after we have....

A serious historian can NOT use them to counterweight affectionate kissing and letter exchange between the Arab and Nazi leaderships, including Hitler, der Fuehrer himself in flesh and blood.

So it's emotion vs logic, that's your case?

'an' arab leader indeed, not 'the' arab leader. Up until today, the Palestinians don't have 'the' leader.......

Do you have any data regarding of how much British soldiers&personnel were murdered by the Lehi during WWII? 5? 10? 15? 100? I have no idea. What is the "importance" threshold in your eyes? 2? 200?

even if I accept that husseini was just as minor as the Lehi (which was clearly of minor importance), you still have something to make up for:
*) statistics say that the average jew of Palestine under the British mandate was much more (hundreds of percentages more) eager to serve the British military than the average arab
*) jews who did not directly serve took part in the war effort: ammunitions production mostly.
*) direct military assistance behind Nazi german lines in occupied Europe.

you can't counterweight this? I thought you can't.

so we end up with:
both jews and arabs of palestine were not helping the Nazis, but the jews were more helpful to the British


thank you for the good chat

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Chaostrivia wrote:

'an' arab leader indeed, not 'the' arab leader. Up until today, the Palestinians don't have 'the' leader.......

Which makes it all the more puzzling as to why you'd use the term 'the arab leadership' in the first place

Chaos:

A serious historian can NOT use them to counterweight affectionate kissing and letter exchange between the Arab and Nazi leaderships, including Hitler, der Fuehrer himself in flesh and blood.

Me:

So it's emotion vs logic, that's your case?

Chaos:

That's really not much of an answer, care to expand it somewhat?
It's simply a case of words vs deeds.
The Mufti and Hitler talking shite about the settlements in fantasy land is nothing compared to dead Brits in wartime.
Not only does this mean less personnel to fight the Nazis but also that greater troops are kept in Palestine to combat any 5th columnists.
How many more jewish lives could have been saved by the presence of just 1 extra soldier when the camps were liberated, because that's what Lehi's activities cost - manpower.

so we end up with:
both jews and arabs of palestine were not helping the Nazis, but the jews were more helpful to the British

Which is quite a distance from:

"Jews were more pro-UK during WWII than the Arabs."

And is much closer to:

"both arabs and jews helped fight the nazis in ww2 though each side had a small minority that aided the nazis."

So I'll take that as a victory.
Thank You


ps Do you think Richard J Evans is a serious historian?


.

[chaostrivia]

Lets start with the most .... unfortunate, propaganda-level.... statements of:

Not only does this mean less personnel to fight the Nazis but also that greater troops are kept in Palestine to combat any 5th columnists.

How many more jewish lives could have been saved by the presence of just 1 extra soldier when the camps were liberated, because that's what Lehi's activities cost - manpower.

1) Many jewish lives could have been saved if the allies would have bombed the death camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate
2) The most "proficient" death camps were liberated by soviet forces including the deadliest Auschwitz.

For the 3rd time. Do you have any Data? how many forces were in Palestine to fight 5th columnists? how many victims did Lehi cause in overall during WWII? or you're just "talking in the air", as we say in Israel when somebody talks about something he doesn't have a clue about?

Which makes it all the more puzzling as to why you'd use the term 'the arab leadership' in the first place

in most cases it was "an arab leader". i.e. see my list of facts.

That's really not much of an answer, care to expand it somewhat?

You claimed that my emotions as for friends of Hitler play a role in the importance I attribute to events.
And you said that immediately after this:

I called them "terrorists" straight on from the beginning, just as most zionists of their time did.
I never said that their actions are excusable. I just pointed out that if you look at proper scale, they are of minor importance.

The deaths of British personnel during a World War is never of minor importance.

get it?


"both arabs and jews helped fight the nazis in ww2 though each side had a small minority that aided the nazis."
Is not enough. It "erases" a part of HISTORY, not fiction, that I think should be remembered:

"The jews of Palestine were more eager to help the allied foces than the arabs. 27,000 jewish soldiers enlisted to the British army vs. 12,000 arab soldiers (the an arab population was at least twice as large at the time), and they also manufactured ammunition. All that, despite of the white book of 1939 which they interpret as betrayal. Plus, there was a special elite squad of paratroopers who went on heroic suicide missions behind Nazi enemy lines focused on saving jewish lives."

I don't know why you insist to leave the 2nd comment, which is factual truth, outside of the story.

I have never read any of Evans' works. His Wikipedia page describe him as "a British historian of Germany" and as a "Marxist historian". Not exactly the definitions you would expect to find in the bio of a Palestine/Middle Eastern expert, like mansfield, for example. Nonetheless, "The Third Reich At War" is already in my amazon shopping cart, but it will take some time until I read it. I am now focusing on Islam and the middle east. Read too many WWII books already. (p.s. my grandfather participated in the battle of Stalingrad )

[danholo]

(p.s. my grandfather participated in the battle of Stalingrad )

That's cool.

"talking in the air"

It seems like the proper Zeitgeist is ignorantly omitted from historical analysis. Things are not put into perspective properly.

Comprende?

No. I really am wondering about your defiance to read Wikipedia when suggested.

[Dempsey]

chaostrivia

I am today at the closing chapter of this book. The 1st edition by Peter mansfield. The 2nd edition (2003) by Nicolas Pelham, his student, living in Amman. Believe me, the last thing that you can say on the book in general is that it is a pro-US or pro-Israeli book. I bought it while waiting to catch a flight from Amsterdam to Zurich a year ago. I page back to chapter 10 of 12 (The Second World War and Its Aftermath) for you, and from there I quote Pages 231-2 with own commentary in italics for beginners:

"While Arabs and Iranians in their overwhelming majority sought the removal of European tutelage and domination in the aftermath of the war, there was one group in the Middle East which had different priorities: the Zionist Jews. When the war began, their dream of an independent Jewish state in Palestine had faded as a result of the change in British policy embodied in the 1939 White Paper. Their anges and bitterness were deep. Yet there could be no question of not helping Britain in the war against the Nazis. David Ben Gurion, the Zionist leader who was to become Israel's first prime minister, coined the slogan that the jews would fight the White Paper as if there were no war and the war as if there were no White Paper. Some 27,000 Palestine Jews Enlisted in the British forces during the war, despite criticism that they could best serve their cause by building up the Haganah, the semi-secret Zionist army in Palestine. The war gave a powerful impetus to the development of a Jewish munitions industry, which supplied the British forces in 1942-3 but could strengthen the Zionists in the future. The British continued to reject Zionist demands for the formation of a Jewish army, flying the Zionist flag, to fight alongside the Allies.
As the danger of German invasion passed with Rommel's defeat at Alamein, and at the same time news began to leak out from Europe of Hitler's unspeakable atrocities against the Jews, some of the Palestine Zionists turned decisively against Britain. .... A spliter group from the mainstream Hagannah joined hands with the most radical Stern Gang in widespread attacks which culminated in the murder of Lord Moyne, British minister of state in Cairo, in November 1944. An outraged Churchill, a close friend of Moyne, temporarily abandoned his long-standing pro-Zionism. ."


"The Palestine Arabs, on the other hand, remained largely quiescent during the war. Some 12,000 joined the British forces . Hajj amin al-Husseini escaped from Baghdad after the fall of Rashid Ali where he tried to mobilize Muslim world opinion for the Axis cause. But he had little success."

Thanks

[Dempsey]

I have a thread about

The Arab world and Nazism


viewtopic.php?f=63&t=111409

Blut und Boden, the Zionist way

viewtopic.php?f=45&t=111696


http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3381

Nazi Party philosopher Alfred Rosenberg, wrote in his "Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts" ("Myth of the Twentieth Century").[2 At the same time Rosenberg was worried about the increasing number of Muslims ("Mohammedaner") in Africa and Asia:

Yet, Rosenberg's "Mythus" was translated into Arab – initially in abridged form – and even enjoyed a certain popularity in the Arab world. Bernard Lewis notes that "the Arabs, though classsed as Semites in Nazi literature, were accorded a very different treatment by the rulers of the Nazi state."

"Despite some initial reluctance and continuing uncertainty, due more to political than ideological considerations, the Nazis decided that the Arabs might be useful to them, and made some effort to win Arab sympathy for Nazi ideas and to mobilize Arab support for German purposes."[4

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini who was the closest Arab ally the Nazis ever had, pressed Rosenberg in 1943 to instruct the Nazi press to drop the term "anti-Semitism," because this term had a negative connotation affecting the Arab world which sympathized with the Nazi cause. One year later, Al-Husseini said it is better to replace the term "anti-Semitism" by "anti-Judaism." Thus, it becomes clear it is about a struggle against the Jews, and not against the Arabs.[5

During his stay in Baghdad the Mufti was very anxious to deepen his relations with Nazi Germany. In 1940, he wrote two obsequious letters to Franz von Papen, the German ambassador in Turkey. And in January 1941, he wrote a letter to Hitler himself stressing the common struggle against the Jews and "the very warm sympathy of the Arab peoples for Germany and the Axis countries."

"The Arab peoples everywhere are prepared to act against the common enemy and give enthousiastic support to the Axis countries with a view to contributing to the defeat of the English-Jewish coalition."[42

. Hitler was favorably impressed by Al-Husseini's "blond hair and blue eyes," and believed "that in more than one case the Mufti's ancestors must have been Aryan, he probably had the best Roman blood streaming through his veins.[45 This had also been noted in December 1937 by a writer in Rosenberg's Nazi newspaper "Völkische Beobachter." The Arabs are not pure semites, this Nazi says. Look, for example, at "the Mufti of Jerusalem, whose red beard and blue eyes reveal the dominant Circassian strain of this mother."[46


* Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites. An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999). p. 28.




While in Berlin, Rashid Ali was apparently disquieted by the language and, more especially, the terminology of anti-Semitism. His concerns were authoritatively removed in an exchange of letters with an official spokesman of the German Nazi Party. In answer to a question from Rashid Ali as to whether anti-Semitism was also directed against Arabs, because they were part of the Semitic family, Professor Walter Gross, director of the Race Policy Office of the Nazi Party, explained with great emphasis, in a letter dated October 17, 1942, that this was not the case and that anti-Semitism was concerned wholly and exclusively with Jews. On the contrary, he observed, the Nazis had always shown sympathy and support for the Arab cause against the Jews. In the course of his letter, he even remarked that the expression “anti-Semitism, which has been used for decades in Europe by the anti-Jewish movement, was incorrect since this movement was directed exclusively against Jewry, and not against other peoples who speak a Semitic language.”

This apparently caused some concern in Nazi circles, and a little later a committee was formed that suggested that the Führer’s speeches and his book Mein Kampf should be revised to adopt the term “anti-Jewish” instead of “anti-Semitic” so as not to offend “our Arab friends.” The Führer did not agree, and this proposal was not accepted. There was still no great problem in German-Arab relations before, during, and even for a while after the war.

The Nazi propaganda impact was immense. We see it in Arabic memoirs of the period, and of course in the foundation of the Ba’ath party. We use the word “party” in speaking of the Ba’ath in the same sense in which one speaks of the Fascist, Nazi, or Communist parties—not a party in the Western sense, an organization for seeking votes and winning elections, but a party as part of the apparatus of government, particularly concerned with indoctrination and repression. And anti-Semitism, European-style, became a very important part of that indoctrination. The basis was there. A certain amount of translated literature was there. It became much more important after the events of 1948, when the humiliated Arabs drew comfort from the doctrine of the Jews as a source of cosmic evil. This continued and grew with subsequent Arab defeats, particularly after the ultimate humiliation of the 1967 war, which Israel won in less than a week.

The growth of European-style anti-Semitism in the Arab world derived in the main from this feeling of humiliation and the need therefore to ascribe to the Jews a role very different from their traditional role in Arab folklore and much closer to that of the anti-Semitic prototypes. By now the familiar themes of European anti-Semitism—the blood libel, the protocols of Zion, the international Jewish conspiracy, and the rest—have become standard fare in much of the Arab world, in the schoolroom, the pulpit, the media, and even on the Internet. It is bitterly ironic that these themes have been adopted by previously immune Muslims precisely at a time when in Europe they have become an embarrassment even to anti-Semites.


Anti-Semitic misnomer

In 1879, the German journalist Wilhelm Marr, the author of a book called "The Victory of Judaism Over Germanism," in step with the swelling tide of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany, founded his Bund der Antisemiten or "Anti-Semitic League." By 1882 there was an official Anti-Semitic Party in Germany that won several seats in the Reichstag. "Anti-Semitism" is a sort of a misnomer or euphemism for "anti-Jew-ism," which was adopted by Zionism as well. There is no "Semitic" race, nor is it an ethnic term. There are only Semitic languages and anti-Semitic racists. Haman was an anti-Semite, as Persian is an Indo-European language. In theory, Arabs cannot be anti-Semites, as their language, Arabic, is a Semitic language. In practice, some of my best friends are Jewish anti-Semites.


Curiously, in 1935 the Reichspropagandaministerium of the National Socialists--who put into practice anti-Jewish measures surpassing even the wildest dreams of German conservatives in 1879--attempted to officially phase out <antisemitisch> in favor of <antijdisch>. External political considerations may have provided some of the motivation for this shift: the foreign policy planners of the Third Reich must have realized that the Arabs of North Africa and the Middle East, chafing under French and British rule, could have been potential allies of Germany in the event of conflict with France and Britain. The continued use of a policy label that seemed to imply hostility toward all Semitic peoples would not have won the Arabs' favor.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Chaostrivia wrote:

1) Many jewish lives could have been saved if the allies would have bombed the death camps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate
2) The most "proficient" death camps were liberated by soviet forces including the deadliest Auschwitz.

Aha the old Auschwitz tactic, I wondered when this one would pop up.
1)Auschwitz could only have been bombed after most of the killings had taken place.
2)It's a strawman to bring into this argument as it was liberated by the Soviets as you say, so why mention it?

I'm specifically talking about the camps the Brits liberated because that's where British troops were deployed...................duh

For the 3rd time. Do you have any Data? how many forces were in Palestine to fight 5th columnists? how many victims did Lehi cause in overall during WWII? or you're just "talking in the air", as we say in Israel when somebody talks about something he doesn't have a clue about?

What I'm talking about is one single solitary extra British soldier, how many extra lives could he have saved here?

Even you must concede the deaths of British personnel during wartime meant more troops had to be kept in the Middle East, thus meaning less troops to tackle the horrific conditions shown above in the youtube link.

in most cases it was "an arab leader". i.e. see my list of facts.

I'm finished arguing over this. You said 'the arab leadership' and I've pointed that out several times. If you've forgotten what you said simply go back a page.

I just pointed out that if you look at proper scale, they are of minor importance.

Hitler said a lot of things to a lot of people including the Grand Mufti that did not result in the death of a single allied soldier.
Lehi's actions did.

I'm glad you find this funny.

"both arabs and jews helped fight the nazis in ww2 though each side had a small minority that aided the nazis."
Is not enough. It "erases" a part of HISTORY, not fiction, that I think should be remembered:

"The jews of Palestine were more eager to help the allied foces than the arabs. 27,000 jewish soldiers enlisted to the British army vs. 12,000 arab soldiers (the an arab population was at least twice as large at the time), and they also manufactured ammunition. All that, despite of the white book of 1939 which they interpret as betrayal. Plus, there was a special elite squad of paratroopers who went on heroic suicide missions behind Nazi enemy lines focused on saving jewish lives."

I don't know why you insist to leave the 2nd comment, which is factual truth, outside of the story.

Everything above in bold is utterly biased and a result of your own propaganda.

Take this statement:

Both Britain and the USA fought the Nazis though both states contained a minority that had traded with the Nazis

Is that an invalid statement because I haven't broken it down into each country's population size and the amount of trade with the Nazis?Of course it isn't.
Again you are promoting your own view.

I have never read any of Evans' works. His Wikipedia page describe him as "a British historian of Germany" and as a "Marxist historian".

Actually his wikipedia page starts with

He was born in London, of Welsh parentage, and is now Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Gonville & Caius College.

But you've dishonesty skipped that the way you describe him. You've also omitted his role in the Irving case and his opposition to the Nazi apologists, just to make a shitty point. The question was is he a serious historian, the answers a patent yes yet you don't have the honesty to admit this and try to twist the facts. Have you actually heard of Cambridge?

Read your beloved wikipedia link again why don't you?

The rest of your answer is based on this crappy premise so it's unworthy of reply.

Respect to your grandfather tho.


.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

Danholo wrote:

No. I really am wondering about your defiance to read Wikipedia when suggested.

I'll read it, I just won't educate myself with it.
If you go back and stop playing dumb you'd see that's the problem I have.
It's my second post on page 3 of this thread and the second part I quoted, just in case little old you can't find it.


.

[chaostrivia]

I have never read any of Evans' works. His Wikipedia page describe him as "a British historian of Germany"

Actually his wikipedia page starts with: "He was born in London, of Welsh parentage, and is now Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Gonville & Caius College." But you've dishonesty skipped that the way you describe him.

Seeing the points on which you already debated with me......... I'm pretty certain that you will be willing to debate also on how his wikipedia page begins.... but before, you might want to have another look.

And after you do that you might want to have another look if mentioning 27,000 soldiers fighting for the Brits is "utterly biased propaganda", whereas "extra forces to Palestine" which are semi-fictitious as you can not quantify or have nothing factual to say about, and the effects of "the death of a single British soldier" are "academic achievements". I thought that leaving some of the important facts out is called: "bias".


If he was still alive, Peter Mansfield and would just love to know that you called his pro-Arab book an "utterly biased zionist propaganda". He worked and lived in the middle east, and was an expert on the middle east. not on Germany, and not on "Marxist history"....

I suggest you stop now before you put yourself further to laughter.....

My grandfather passed away at 95 some 2 years ago. I will become a father in 2 weeks and my daughter will be name after him (with a little change to suit a girl... ). A great man and a great Zionist !

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

If you are going to quote yourself quote the full sentence like I did, it looks even more dishonest when you start omitting key parts from your own posts.
You have just posted:

I have never read any of Evans' works. His Wikipedia page describe him as "a British historian of Germany"

Then quoted my supposed response to this as:

Actually his wikipedia page starts with: "He was born in London, of Welsh parentage, and is now Regius Professor of Modern History at the University of Cambridge and a fellow of Gonville & Caius College." But you've dishonesty skipped that the way you describe him.

You then say:

Seeing the points on which you already debated with me......... I'm pretty certain that you will be willing to debate also on how his wikipedia page begins.... but before, you might want to have another look.

However what you really wrote was this:

I have never read any of Evans' works. His Wikipedia page describe him as "a British historian of Germany" and as a "Marxist historian".

You omitted those final 5 words of both your post and the sentence I quoted - naughty naughty.So where exactly does it say he's a 'Marxist historian?
Is it after the bit where it tells you he's a professor at Cambridge? Did you somehow manage to bypass this vital information in your rush to discredit him?

And after you do that you might want to have another look if mentioning 27,000 soldiers fighting for the Brits is "utterly biased propaganda", whereas "extra forces to Palestine" which are semi-fictitious as you can not quantify or have nothing factual to say about, and the effects of "the death of a single British soldier" are "academic achievements". I thought that leaving some of the important facts out is called: "bias".

The strange thing is I've just been looking at the 'Basic/Usual Israel/Palestine thread and a week ago you were posting the wikipedia Irgun page into the forum. That page details Irgun (as opposed to Lehi's) terrorist actions in WW2 and you are also informed that the Brits had an extra 20,000 troops there in 1939 to keep the peace. Yet you have mentioned non of these highly relevant facts, have you forgotten them already?
A renewal of the terrorist campaign in wartime obviously kept a greater number of troops there as opposed to the front line, that is a complete no-brainer.
You obviously don't want to think what difference the presence of a single extra soldier could have made to the starving inmates of Belsen when it was liberated.

Pity

BTW you never answered my question about the US/UK statement about fighting and trading with the nazis.
Why?

If he was still alive, Peter Mansfield and would just love to know that you called his pro-Arab book an "utterly biased zionist propaganda". He worked and lived in the middle east, and was an expert on the middle east. not on Germany, and not on "Marxist history"....

No its your use of his book that is biased, you are pushing forward how much the jews did in ww2. Again refer to my previous UK/USA quote, is it invalid?
Edit - explain where the word in bold came from.

PS good luck with your daughter.
Mine is 11 years old on the surface but 5478309870586 years old underneath


.