[pugsville]

Netanyahu claims in speech that Haj Amin al-Husseini was responsible for talking Hitler into killing Jews, a truly ludicrous historical fallacy.

It's sad commentary on affairs that Netanyahu believes that telling this outright lie will garner him more support than he will lose from disgusted by such an obvious lie.

[Noelnada]

That awkward moment when Netanyahu has more liberty to discuss European history than European citizens themselves

[skinster]

Why is Benjamin Netanyahu trying to whitewash Hitler?

[Rich]

[youtube]XnXS146cxLE[/youtube]

Netanyahu is to be praised for this courageous contribution to the debate. Germany's collaboration with Muslim terrorists in world war I and II was certainly an evil. It is time though that France, Britain, Belgium and America recognised their responsibility for pushing Germany into alliance with the Muslims by their wicked alliance with Tsarist reaction and their perpetration and collaboration in the encirclement.

[wat0n]

Disgusting, this attempt to rewrite history is truly disgusting.

The Mufti was a bastard and participated in the recruitment of SS forces in Bosnia, but he most certainly didn't come up with the idea of physically destroying the Jews.

[skinster]

His schtick was to oppose the Transfer Agreement tho, no? That agreement where Zionists collaborated with Hitler to get Jews out of Germany and into Palestine.

Netanyahu is to be praised for this courageous contribution to the debate. .

Rich is probably the only person in the world who supports Nethanyahu on this.

[skinster]

Germany: We are responsible for the holocaust.

[TerryOfromCA]

Netanyahu claims in speech that Haj Amin al-Husseini was responsible for talking Hitler into killing Jews, a truly ludicrous historical fallacy............

How do you know? Do you have a transcript of their private talks? The people in that region referred to as "Palestine" have always been no better than Nazis in their hatred of Jews. That's why I don't give a crap about their crying. I have no doubt that Amin al-Husseini told Hitler to kill them all. Whether or not Amin al-Husseini was the one who made Hitler decide to, who knows.
Read:

............al-Husseini requested German assistance with the Arab independence movement and Nazi support in the extermination of any Jewish homeland. For his part, Hitler promised to aid that liberation movement, but went still further, promising that the aim of Nazi Germany would be the elimination of all Jews living under British protection once such territories had been conquered. This was described by al-Husseini in his own memoirs:

Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

Source: LINK

Germany: We are responsible for the holocaust: http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/it ... ocaust_201

Learn to read English. You can be goaded into doing something by someone else and still be responsible for doing it. Sheese.

[Lightman]

Netayanhu's claim is particularly ludicrous because the timing doesn't line up. Hitler met with the Mufti in November, 1941. The invasion of the Soviet Union had begun a few months earlier, and the Einsatzgruppen had already begun the mass murder of Jews in the occupied territories (the Babi Yar, which was the single biggest massacre during the Holocaust, had already happened). The Final Solution wasn't formalized as a policy until 1942, yes, but it was already being carried out.

Further, there's a lot of evidence that Hitler at least had the idea of Jewish extermination relatively early. In 1939, he said: "Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

Even if the Mufti encouraged him to commit genocide (which is not impossible), the fact remains that Hitler did not need the encouragement: he had already been moving in that direction for some time.

[Rich]

Netanyahu is right the Nazis showed no interest in exterminating the Jews. Quite the reverse they encouraged the Jews to leave Germany, which is the last thing you'd do if you wanted to genocide a people. This is very different from the Soviet union or Saddam's regime which went to great lengths to stop their dissidents escaping. Its notable that Martin Niemollahs:

First they came for ...
And then then came for ...
....
until there was no one left

is actually for more descriptive of the Soviet Union than of Nazi Germany. Anyway I digress. It is often forgotten that Jews were under threat in Central Eastern Europe without any intervention from the Nazis. Take the Nazis out of the question. Imagine the Nazis never came to power in Germany, anyone who imagines that the Soviet Union could be overthrown in the 1930s, 40s or 50s without that leading to mass killing of Jews was living in cloud cuckoo land. They'd already been genocide of the Armenians, there had been the Holdomor genocide. Prior to this Serbian behaviour in Albania was at least semi genocidal. There was likely more genocide to come with or without the Nazis.

Netanyahu's thought provoking comments, do inevitably raises the interesting question, was Britain and France's declaration of war in September 1939 really the best way to help the Jews of central Europe as it cut off their route to escape?

Germany: We are responsible for the holocaust.

They were quick off the mark. Yes God forbid that anyone should lay any blame on Muslims.

[Lightman]

Netanyahu is right the Nazis showed no interest in exterminating the Jews.

Ridiculous. If the Nazis had no intention of exterminating the Jews, why did they start? Surely it was not a war necessity.

[Rich]

Ridiculous. If the Nazis had no intention of exterminating the Jews, why did they start? Surely it was not a war necessity.

Prior to world war II. Please note I have no time for the Nazis anti Jewish drivel. An old mate of mine has got well into the Jews are evil thing, so I get to here what passes for arguments, as well as stuff I see on the internet, and I find it utterly vacuous nonsense. However given that the Nazis had decided to ghettoise the Jews feeding them could be considered an unaffordable luxury in total war.

The starting point for this anti Jewish conspiracist stuff seems to be that Bankers are the cause of all war. Again it seems utterly absurd to me and completely lacking in evidence, but I feel its the

"Bankers cause wars" meme

that needs to be vigorously attacked.

[skinster]

Germany: We are responsible for the holocaust.

[Zamuel]

If the Nazis had no intention of exterminating the Jews, why did they start? Surely it was not a war necessity.

The reasons for early - mid 20th century events in Europe are deeply hidden and cannot be conclusively proven. The rationalized explanations used to obscure them, are fairly easy to identify and penetrate, as they're inconsistent, illogical, convenient, and most of all, manageable.

However, penetrating the screen and finding the truth doesn't help much. Proving it is both impractical and impossible at this time. I will tell you that the architect was the Vatican.

Zam

[Lightman]

I will tell you that the architect was the Vatican.

Take this garbage to the conspiracy theories forum.

[Zamuel]

I will tell you that the architect was the Vatican.

Take this garbage to the conspiracy theories forum.

As I said, the truth doesn't help much when confronting the thoroughly conditioned mind.

As for conspiracies : Lenin's return to Russia, under papal seal, began one. It's well documented and AFAIK undisputed. The Vatican had been trying to eliminate the orthodox church for centuries. The 4th crusade being the 1st outright attack in 1203, when Constantinople was sacked in a Christian on Christian siege. In 1917 they tried again, using the Bolsheviks as their assassins. "The climax of the Vatican-Bolshevik negotiations was reached in 1922, when the Conference of Genoa offered the most incredible spectacle of the Bolshevik Foreign Minister, Chicherin, and the Pope's representative, the Archbishop of Genoa, toasting one another in public. Vatican diplomacy thought it had scored a triumph, or, at least, was about to score". http://www.reformation.org/vatican_against_the_orthodox_chu.html

The Catholic church and the western powers expected the Russia revolution to fold up fairly quickly. The Roman Catholics prepared to inundate the region and integrate 90 million orthodox believers. They literally began training priests to speak Russian and invested several former Russian diplomats as Papal advisers.

As usual, expectations take unexpected turns, plots breed sub plots, and inspire other interested parties. The Jews happened to be a convenient target for several of their old enemies.

Zam

[ThirdTerm]

It was Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz who originally came up with the theory that Haj Amin al-Husseini was actually responsible for the Holocaust, by instigating Hitler to commit the mass murder of the Jews in Europe. "Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East" (2014) was published by Yale University Press, a university press associated with Yale University, and Barry Rubin was a notable historian as far as I know, which makes it difficult to debunk their theory. Rubin and Schwanitz came up with the thesis after some extraordinary research using a lot of new archive material, from which the Grand Mufti's incriminating quotes were sourced. Binyamin Netanyahu simply repeated what he read in his controversial speech.

During the 1930s and 1940s, a unique and lasting political alliance was forged among Third Reich leaders, Arab nationalists, and Muslim religious authorities. From this relationship sprang a series of dramatic events that, despite their profound impact on the course of World War II, remained secret until now. In this groundbreaking book, esteemed Middle East scholars Barry Rubin and Wolfgang G. Schwanitz uncover for the first time the complete story of this dangerous alliance and explore its continuing impact on Arab politics in the twenty-first century. Rubin and Schwanitz reveal, for example, the full scope of Palestinian leader Amin al-Husaini’s support of Hitler’s genocidal plans against European and Middle Eastern Jews. In addition, they expose the extent of Germany’s long-term promotion of Islamism and jihad. Drawing on unprecedented research in European, American, and Middle East archives, many recently opened and never before written about, the authors offer new insight on the intertwined development of Nazism and Islamism and its impact on the modern Middle East.
http://www.amazon.com/Nazis-Islamists-M ... 0300140908

[pugsville]

How do you know?

Because the whole Idea the Hitler was actually going to listen to some Arab is totally ridiculous for starters. I would also be VERY leary about taking religious sites for historical answers.

[wat0n]

Netanyahu, Abbas and the death of historical truth

Israelis and Palestinians are fighting a war of post-modern political fictions, where truth has been mortgaged to collective mobilization.

Sara Hirschhorn
22.10.2015 | 01:24

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The courtroom climax of the film "A Few Good Men" could be the new rallying cry of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Colbert-style ‘truthiness’ abounds: Just this week, in a blatant revision of Holocaust history, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opined that wartime mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husayni, and not Adolph Hitler, was responsible for formulating the Final Solution. In another highly publicized act of misinformation (or disinformation), Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbbas condemned Israel for executing terrorist Ahmad Mansara, while the teenager was defying death eating hospital jello in Jerusalem.

These recent cases only follow on months of conspiracy theories on both sides - from right-wing Israelis alleging that the arson-murder of the Dawabsheh family was perpetrated by Palestinians and not Jewish terrorists to insinuations that Israel intends to blow up Al-Aqsa and replace it with a third holy temple. As Hebrew University Professor Hillel Cohen suggested recently, “the way to understand people’s narratives is to add the words ‘I wish that’ before what they say…At some point, they start believing themselves.”

However, as a fellow historian, I believe that we aren’t in a war of narratives today. Nowadays a feud based on ‘facts’ seems to belong to a distant, irretrievable past, and narratives seem like a relic of a bygone era. No longer does the conflict dwell in the realm of differing interpretations of lived experience, rather it has passed into a new phase, in the words of Eric Hobsbawn and Terance Ranger, of “the invention of tradition.” Israelis and Palestinians are fighting a war of post-modern political fictions, where truth has been mortgaged to collective mobilization.

Sadly, this reality is not new to struggles for indigenous rights and independence. In 1992, the Quiche-Maya activist Rigoberta Menchú won the Nobel Peace Prize for her campaign for Indians in Guatemala. In 1999, an inconvenient truth in the form of a revisionist biography by anthropologist David Stoll alleged that Menchú fabricated important details to serve her political agenda and that Western audiences acquiesced in these lies (or at very least, did not attempt to verify her story), ‘romanticizing the guerrilla’ in Guatemala and beyond.

While this case remains contested in historiographic controversy, the Menchú affair brought the debate on the dangers of extreme historical relativism into the public sphere. Moreover, it seemed to confirm that the left - and perhaps also the extreme right - saw fit to sacrifice nuance to the national struggle, evidence for empowerment, technicalities for territory, information for ideology, and veracity for a vision of the future across the globe.

It is a tragic mistake in looking at Israel-Palestine to fight force with fabrication. There is more than enough real terror and tragedy in this region that Israelis and Palestinians do not need the “invention of tradition.” The horrors that have occurred on both sides do not need hasbara theatrics or “Pallywood” scripting. We may have become immune to the disaster of the everyday, the routinization of racism, the triviality of living with terror — but the mundanity and banality of evils and wrongs in Israel/Palestine don’t require special effects.

The Israel-Palestine morass needs empathy and energetic resolution. If the turn towards uber post-modernist thinking has any use at all it would be for Israelis and Palestinians to walk a day in the other’s shoes and to understand their identity, circumstances, and needs. That is unlikely to happen when the post-modernist turn isolates each side ever more in their own self-righteousness. Moreover, as Hillel Cohen asserts, self-fulfilling prophecies have not only political, but moral implications, where acts of violence can be easily overlooked or even justified.

This third intifada poses not only an immediate danger to individuals, but to the possibility of any end to the conflict. While practical solutions to the political problems in Israel/Palestine have been on the table for years, there can never be a claims-ending agreement without a coinciding ‘truth and reconciliation’ process that aims to resolve underlying ideological tensions. If ‘truth’ has simply been replaced by convenient truths, those antiquated ideas historians used to call ‘facts’ and ‘authority’ replaced by stirring manipulations and powerful deceptions, and the past incessantly reinvented to suit contemporary agendas, how can there ever be peace? How can there ever be a final status agreement if the building blocks of a shared history are simply a constantly mutable fiction?

We should keep near the warning by George Orwell in his 1943 essay on the Spanish Civil War: “The truth it is felt…becomes untruth when your enemy utters it…history being written not in terms of what happened, but of what ought to have happened according to various party lines…the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written…This prospect frightens me much more than bombs – and after our experiences of the last few years, this is not a frivolous statement.”

Dr. Sara Yael Hirschhorn is University Research Lecturer and Sidney Brichto Fellow in Israel Studies at the University of Oxford. She is the author of the forthcoming City on a Hilltop: American Jews and the Israeli Settler Movement Since 1967 (Harvard University Press). Follow her on Twitter: @SaraHirschhorn1.

Daily reminder that post-modernism is cancer.

[pugsville]

Simply not Credible. Anyone swallowing this clump of crap is simply either really gullible or highly bias. Binyamin Netanyahu was lying he's smart enough to know better. He just judges that there ut would play ok in domestic politics which shows exactly how degraded the debate is in Israel.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 87755.html

Yad Vashem’s chief historian Prof. Dina Porat
“The mufti had nothing to do with fomenting or developing the Final Solution.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Netany ... ans-428670

And lets be clear Haj Al Husseni was a despicable nasty piece of work. His appointment by the British was a bad error (he came 4th in the election).