@newtboy

I believe the quote you were looking for from me was:
What is more, upon the UN mandating a two state solution to the whole mess, the Jewish Palestinians immediately accepted. The Arab Palestinians though appealed to the Arab league, and many of the leaders within it that stood alongside the Nazi's pontificating solutions to 'the problem'.

The word stood being in the past tense. Guys like the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, leading the fight in Palestine in the 30's and coming back to fight during 1948.

You said:
The few actual refugees there that the axis created were absorbable by the Palestinians.

In which time frame did those few refugees arrive that you would count legitimate and absorbable? IMO it has to predate the Grand Mufti's uprising in the late 1930s, simply because tensions between Jewish and Arab Palestinians at this point were bad enough that Arab Palestinians already wanted negative immigration numbers for Jews.

Also maybe re-read you last paragraph. You come dangerously close to stating that the European Jews had the choice between living in camps and doing what the folks led by Haj Amin al-Husseini told them to do, or being considered invaders themselves. That's about the closest we've come to agreeing on something in fact, and I hardly blame the refugees for not choosing camps under the rule of a guy that stated:
Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

@newtboy,

Why do you insist on trying to contort things?

The stats I found showed 8% in mid 1930's....Before the war.
Provide a source then, I did and it's over 16% as of 1931.

You said the Palestinians stood alongside the Nazis....in 47?....so.....what Nazis?
I observed that the Arab revolt between 1936 and 1939 was led by the grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. Who later found himself in Germany talking with Hitler and advocating a 'solution' for Palestine ala Italy and Germany. I didn't present an opinion for you to disagree with. I presented a statement of fact which stands regardless of whether you refuse to believe in it or not.

As for partition, stop trying to win points or something, it's inescapable that the partition agreement that the Jewish Palestinians accepted when they declared independence in 1948 was the 1947 UN Partition Plan, on account of the other partition agreements having not yet come into existence yet and all.

I didn't say the tensions didn't begin when Nazis existed, I said they were gone when the events you describe happened.
I think that was addressed earlier what with Arab uprising in the 30s, and the conflict between Arab and Jewish Palestinians continuing on from then all the way till it hit an all out civil war.

Nothing I'm saying here has to justify, forgive or declare Israel a saint and Arabs the sinners. I AM however pointing out some very basic facts that refute the argument that Jewish invaders just came in from Europe and seized Palestine from the Arabs as payback for the holocaust. That simply was not what happened.

Jews were unwelcome and persecuted in Europe long before WW2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in 1925, and he wasn't exactly putting pen to brand new ideas nobody had been circulating in Europe already. The Zionists for their part were also busy and in action long before WW2, in no small part for reasons above. The Zionists were absolutely looking to take back 'their' homeland and by invasion if need be. That doesn't mean every Jew in Palestine was a Zionist anymore than the above makes every European and Arab nazi sympathizers. The reality was a lot more muddled and complex.

In the end, the big events driving the Arab-Jewish civil war in Palestine was as you say, an inability of the immigrants to live together with the natives. So on that front we are well agreed. You seem content to place 100% of the blame on the immigrants(which I must insist we refer to as refugees given they are largely European Jews between 1940-1947). I disagree. I believe I've given adequate evidence to demonstrate that the inability to live together was as much to blame on the Arab Palestinians as it was on the Jewish. If we want to blame anyone in the whole mess, the strongest blame still lies with the Axis powers for creating the refugees in the first place.

You are factually wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Palestine_(region)

What to you count as "before" the war? Jewish population in Palestine at set times looks as below:

1890 had 43,000 making your 8%
1922 had 94,000 making 13.6%
1931, still before WW2 broke out in 39 had 175,000 making almost 17%

As for the nazi's being long gone by 1948, most obviously Hitler was still alive 3 years earlier which is hardly most people's idea of a long time. I'm afraid that even that is but the gentlest error in your statement. Palestinian tensions and revolts were ongoing in the 1930s already. Those tensions broke out into a full blown civil war in 1947.

Th 1970s two state UN mandate is obviously NOT the mandate accepted by Jewish palestinians in 1948. I can not fathom how you honestly make such a mistake? Plainly the UN Partition Plan for Palestine from 29 November 1947 as a proposed resolution to the civil war there is the mandate I meant. Given that it was a proposed resolution to a conflict that was simmering on and off throughout WW2 it hardly seems a conflict in which the Nazi's were "long gone".

Read up on Haj Amin al-Husseini, he led the Arab revolt in 1930's Palestine. He later bounced his way to Nazi germany and in 1941 declared
Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.

So no, I don't believe you can really honestly say that the Arab-Jewish tensions that led civil war in Palestine occurred in an environment were the Nazi's were a distant memory.

When Aminals Silence The Drones - CNN has been added as a related post - related requested by mintbbb on that post.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by mintbbb.

The description was getting awfully long - but here's the additional context, worth reading this:

"Moments after the Star published the video online, Ford emerged from his office and apologized.

"The Toronto Star just released a video that I was very, very inebriated."

"All I can say is, again, I've made mistakes. I just wanted to come out and tell you I saw a video. It's extremely embarrassing. The whole world's going to see it. You know what? I don't have a problem with that."

"I hope none of you have ever or will ever be in that state. Obviously, I was extremely, extremely inebriated."

The target of the mayor's anger in the video is not in the room and is not known to the Star.

"I'll rip his f--king throat out. I'll poke his eyes out . . . . I'll make sure that motherf--ker's dead," Ford says, then hitches up his pant legs as if bracing for action.

His ire appears to be directed at someone who has called him, and brothers Doug and Randy, "liars, thieves."

The Star purchased the video from a source who filmed it from someone else's computer. The person with the computer was there in the room, the Star was told.

Wednesday, Ford's chief of staff Earl Provost said he could not speak to the Star about the video. "I am sorry I cannot talk to you about this," Provost said.

Also on Wednesday, the Star sent a transcript of the video, a description of the video's contents and an offer to show it to the following people in the mayor's circle: Ford, his brother Councillor Doug Ford, Provost, deputy chief of staff Sunny Petrujkic, spokesman Amin Massoudi, and to Ford's lawyer Dennis Morris.

The Star invited all of them to view the video, either at their office or the Star's office, and provide an explanation for Ford's behaviour. None of them took the Star up on its offer as of Thursday.

Last week, Police Chief Bill Blair announced that investigators recovered two video clips relevant to extortion charges laid against the mayor's "close friend" Alexander "Sandro" Lisi. One of those videos is of the mayor smoking what appears to be crack, which two Star reporters viewed in May.

There is no suggestion that this video is the second video Blair referred to in his press conference."

@Stillhere...are you amin s?

My standard is absolute as well. Any deity that would command it's people to do evil things in the name of order (as opposed to 'good') is evil...

God's old testament law is not about being good, it's about following the rules. Even if the rules are inherently evil (ownership and (mis)treatment of slaves for example).

Your charactisation of your god is as a slave master who demands absolute obedience, not as a loving father protecting his flock... Further, god changes his mind on the punishment and decides suddenly that the one must sacrifice for the all... Sin didn't disappear, but all the drastic measures you claim are needed to combat it sure did. Mebbe he finally woke up to the fact that commanding people to commit atrocities is.. ya know, WRONG... Gee, convenient for those born AD right? X D

How about you SB? If your god commanded it would you stone your child to death for talking back?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html

Yeah, your god is loving and kind... Like Idi Amin or Pol Pot was... If any human did what god ordered back then, we would condemn them.. Sharia law and all that right? Pro tip, if us flawed humans can see that something is morally wrong, how can the almighty not?

>> ^shinyblurry:

The proof that you're not is that you give no regard to the sin itself. You are using a relative standard to judge his crime, whereas God uses an absolute standard. There is no such thing as a minor sin in Gods eyes. God is holy and His standard is moral perfection. Moral perfection is what God calls good, and everything short of that is evil. He has also ordained the death penalty for all sin.
Neither was the crime itself picking up sticks. The actual crime was rebellion. It is not a minor thing to break Gods law, which the man knew full well he was doing. God punished Him not only for rebellion, but also as a public example to the rest of Israel that His laws were to be taken seriously. You have to remember that the Jews were His chosen people, and that they had entered into a covenant with God willingly. They agreed to follow His laws and adhere to His standards, and His standard was that they would be holy as He is holy. This meant that they would obey His law unceasingly with no exceptions. They also agreed with God that if they did not obey His law, they would incur the penalties He laid out.
I will agree that stoning is a particularly harsh punishment, but while you don't think the punishment fits the crime, that is because you don't understand how bad sin really is. Consider for a moment that what I said earlier is true, that one sin led to all of the madness that we see in the world today. If you can comprehend that, maybe you'll start to get the idea why God would use such a punishment as a deterrent.
You say there is no way a loving God would ever do that, to which I reply, that a loving God would do everything possible, including invoking extremely harsh punishments, to prevent as much sin as possible and protect His creation from the greatest amount of harm. To not take extreme measures against sin would actually be a point against Him, and not for Him.

For those wondering (totally forgot I have this song on my computer, just realized it was the backing track here), the song is Baths - Aminals.

>> ^dag:

When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.


That only works if the viewers of Glenn Beck know enough to get those comparisons -- I doubt it.

If the Lib Dems grow balls, how the hell will they ride their bicycles?

>> ^Deano:

>> ^Gallowflak:
Snore.
>> ^Deano:
>> ^dag:
When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.

Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg.


Oh come on, I thought mentioning Nick Clegg was funny. Apparently he's embracing his new role as treacherous little git. Always good to see a Liberal Democrat grow some balls...

>> ^Gallowflak:

Snore.
>> ^Deano:
>> ^dag:
When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.

Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg.



Oh come on, I thought mentioning Nick Clegg was funny. Apparently he's embracing his new role as treacherous little git. Always good to see a Liberal Democrat grow some balls...

Snore.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^dag:
When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.

Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg.

>> ^dag:

When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.


Tony Blair.
Nick Clegg.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

When will Hitler and his cronies stop being the go to comparison for any extreme negative comparison in politics? There's such a rich history of nasty leaders who could be used in place - Pol Pot, idi amin, Caligula, Andrew Jackson.