12
   

EU's Hostile Fixation on Israeli Settlements

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 29 Jul, 2013 01:55 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

You, like many other non-Jews, make too much of the word "zionism."
You, like many non-German speakers, don't have an idea what "Zionismus" meant. Besides that, I sincerely doubt that you have the slightest idea what I know about "zionism" or what I make about it. (Hint: I'm not using "zionism" as it's described by Hajo G. Meyer as a single source ... though he's Jewish.)

What German Jews thought about zionism in England and America:
Copied/pasted from "Die Welt" (No 3, page 5, 1898)
http://i41.tinypic.com/14udj7d.jpg

... it only developed when Herzl gave them some leading ideas.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 29 Jul, 2013 02:26 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
However, if one is suffering from claustrophobia in Israel/Palestine, the Israelis really are not going to let Europe vent their anti-Semitism a second time. Perhaps, the Palestineans as "the other" Semites should try their hand in Europe, to see if Europeans can be more hospitable than they were to Jews?
According to "Jediot Achronot" (31.05.2011), 70,000 Israeli Jews got a German passport in 2000; in 2010, about 200,000 Israeli Jews had a German passport. (The paper quoted Sima Zalcberg from Bar-Ilan-university, who researched about this and collected the data.)
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Mon 29 Jul, 2013 03:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
From The Jewish State, by Theodor Herzl
Quote:
PALESTINE OR ARGENTINE?

Shall we choose Palestine or Argentine? We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by Jewish public opinion. The Society will determine both these points.

Argentine is one of the most fertile countries in the world, extends over a vast area, has a sparse population and a mild climate. The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some discontent, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.

Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning to them an extra-territorial status such as is well-known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these sanctuaries, answering for the fulfillment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.
"Theodor (Binyamin Ze’ev) Herzl", according to the Jewish Library, "was the visionary behind modern Zionism and the reinstitution of a Jewish homeland."
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 05:36 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:

The use of words that imply colonization do have a pejorative connotation to many. That being said, it might not have been palatable to use wording for the organizations you mention, since anything "smacking" of Judaism was inviting hostility, in my opinion.

Naturally, Jews being so few in number, relatively speaking, they could not claim that returning to Zion had an impetus based on "lebensraum." Nor, could they "march" into the "Sudetenland" to reclaim a Jewish ethnic area.

In my opinion - and here I'm just referring to the situation in Germany - 'colonisation' was meant in the exactly meaning of the use of this word, like in "Colony South-West Africa".
It might have developped from Zionism, but it actually referred to more than Palestine.

From the "Enquête über die jüdische Orient-Kolonisation" in "Palästina" (1, 1902, pages 12 et seqq.,)
Quote:
http://i42.tinypic.com/33nu58n.jpg


The colonisation wasn't focused to Palestine, but other countries in the 'orient' were possible as well; it was questioned, if only German Jews should colonise or if it was possible that other Jews could immigrate (sic!). The next passages are about economic, monetary, geographic, political .... questions.

That region, which was called "Sudentenland" was "inhabited by mostly German speakers, specifically the border districts of Bohemia, Moravia, and those parts of Silesia located within Czechoslovakia"
Quote:
Sudetenland[/url]

In the same issue of the "Palestina" the (Jewish) daily newspaper "Prager Tageblatt" is quoted (on page 44). According to that article, the "Prager Tageblatt" wrote on 2.11. 1901 that during the last 20 years, 20 villages and 13 plantations were built by colonists in Palestine. All stone buildings were built according to European standards, now 1,205 families with 4,935 souls lived there. They were Jews from Russia.



The Zionist movement was a return to the historical homeland. It was not expanding a nation's territory for some national interests. The word colonization was misused, in my opinion. And today the idea of Israel colonizing the middle east disregards that more than half of Jewish Israelis are NOT descended from European Jews (specifically middle eastern Jews that were kicked out of their historical homelands after the 1957 war). Note that the pre-WWII German Jews never expanded any German territory into Israel. If lucky, they escaped with their lives. Let's not play with semantics for idealogical purposes. I understand you have your view of Israel's place in the world. It is not the view of many Jews, or Zionist Christians. To be candid, my experience is that Catholicism has historically considered Jews and Judaism "expendable." So, I do not look towards anyone raised in Catholicism for an empathetic ear when talking about Zionism.
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 05:48 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You've got a lot more room in America than we have in Britain, 256 people per km2 compared to the States with a measly 33.9, you've got a lot of catching up to do. The Holocaust never happened over here, we took a lot of Jews in.

Quote:
Kindertransport (Children's Transport) was the informal name of a series of rescue efforts which brought thousands of refugee Jewish children to Great Britain from Nazi Germany between 1938 and 1940.


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005260

Unlike America where you sent them back to their deaths.

Quote:
The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 937 German Jewish refugees after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted to various countries of Europe. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis


Well yes. Back in the 1930's America had a fair amount of anti-Semitism in the popular culture. Britain being an older nation might have transcended some of the historical antipathy sooner.

Also, the English/British can better manage popular sentiment, I believe. In the U.S., some cling to old identities and its historical alienation from certain groups, in my opinion.

And, I find many U.S. Jews like the Royals, as though they were of British descent themselves? Perhaps, the Balfour Declaration is remembered collectively?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 07:41 am
None of this **** really matters, because the most reasonable guess possible right now is that THERE WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING RESEMBLING REAL PEACE IN THAT AREA.

So long as a state of Israel exists there...THERE WILL NEVER BE PEACE...for the Arabs, the Palestinians, or the Jews.

It ain't gonna happen...and all this hype is just that. Hype.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 08:58 am
@Foofie,
Get over it! I'm Japanese American, and we also suffered from discrimination in the US - as most races/ethnicities did.

If it were not for our grandfather and grandmother coming to this country, our lives would have been much harsher and without much opportunity as we found in the US.

Jews think they're the only ones who were treated badly. What did you do with "your" life?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 09:28 am
@Foofie,
Annotion: I DID NOT WRITE the last paragraph in my above quote.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 09:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The ONLY real hope for PEACE is for every Arab to be killed.....


I don''t see the need to kill them all. Simple mechanical devices could be constructed to heave their asses into Sinai:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbpiq14VFSokKgc8lfgnl80M0p5bbtaW1dlMNAByFH0AxGS9-7

That technology worked quite nicely for Genghis Khan; it could work again.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 09:53 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
The Zionist movement was a return to the historical homeland. It was not expanding a nation's territory for some national interests. The word colonization was misused, in my opinion. And today the idea of Israel colonizing the middle east disregards that more than half of Jewish Israelis are NOT descended from European Jews (specifically middle eastern Jews that were kicked out of their historical homelands after the 1957 war). Note that the pre-WWII German Jews never expanded any German territory into Israel. If lucky, they escaped with their lives. Let's not play with semantics for idealogical purposes. I understand you have your view of Israel's place in the world. It is not the view of many Jews, or Zionist Christians. To be candid, my experience is that Catholicism has historically considered Jews and Judaism "expendable." So, I do not look towards anyone raised in Catholicism for an empathetic ear when talking about Zionism.
The word "Kolonisation" (colonisation) was used by Herzl as well as be all those, who emigrated, wanted to emigrate and/or had been immigrated.
If those ten-thousands misused it, you should have told them.

I don't know, who ever got the idea that pre-WWII German Jews expanded any German territory to Israel.


I don't have a Zionist Christian, Catholic or Jewish view of Israel's place in the world.
I was quoting from German Jewish newspapers and magazines, even copied/pasted from the digitalised originals.

You certainly can look at any historic view or review and question it because of the religious belief of the author.

I admit, though, that I was lazy and quoted only from two papers/magazines.

Most interesting are the magazines published by the Jewish Student Fraternities. Interesting especially, because the "Bund Zionistischer Korporationen" (association of Zionist fraternities) left the "Kartell Jüdischer Verbindungen' (KJV)" (cartel of Jewish fraternities) because they, the Zionist fraternities, thought, the cartel was a lot too one-sided and biased in the view of the "Kolonisation Palästinas" (colonisation of Palestine). They left the cartel in 1920 and re-joined it in 1929.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 12:37 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
The ONLY real hope for PEACE is for every Arab to be killed.....


I don''t see the need to kill them all. Simple mechanical devices could be constructed to heave their asses into Sinai:

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQbpiq14VFSokKgc8lfgnl80M0p5bbtaW1dlMNAByFH0AxGS9-7

That technology worked quite nicely for Genghis Khan; it could work again.



My actual comment in its entirety was:

Quote:
The ONLY real hope for PEACE is for every Arab to be killed...or for the state of Israel to leave the area.


I guess a devise could be built to "heave their asses" into the Sinai...but another, more realistic way would be to remove the state of Israel from that area.

I do not see either thing happening...and I see no chance of peace there either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 12:56 pm
I suggest that those bragging about how they treated the Jews in the Second World War read Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship by Jon Meacham, in which he quotes discussions the two had admitting that neither nation had done much to help them, or to take in Jewish refugees.
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 01:20 pm
The War Refugee Board played a crucial role in the rescue of as many as 200,000 Jews. However, some people still wonder how many more Jews might have been saved if the rescue missions had begun sooner.

Source at the Unied States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Other practical measures which were not taken concerned the refugee problem. Tens of thousands of Jews sought to enter the United States, but they were barred from doing so by the stringent American immigration policy. Even the relatively small quotas of visas which existed were often not filled, although the number of applicants was usually many times the number of available places. Conferences held in Evian, France (1938) and Bermuda (1943) to solve the refugee problem did not contribute to a solution. At the former, the countries invited by the United States and Great Britain were told that no country would be asked to change its immigration laws. Moreover, the British agreed to participate only if Palestine were not considered. At Bermuda, the delegates did not deal with the fate of those still in Nazi hands, but rather with those who had already escaped to neutral lands.

Source at the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance

By 1938, some 450,000 of about 900,000 German Jews had fled Germany, mostly to British Mandate Palestine (a number which also included over 50,000 German Jews who had taken advantage of the Haavara, or "Transfer" Agreement between German Zionists and the Nazis), but British immigration quotas prevented many from migrating. In March 1938, Hitler annexed Austria and made the 200,000 Jews of Austria stateless refugees. In September, Britain and France granted Hitler the right to occupy the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia, and in March 1939, Hitler occupied the remainder of the country, making a further 200,000 Jews stateless.

In 1939, British policy as stated in its 1939 White Paper capped Jewish immigration to Palestine (then a British mandate concerning which Britain had entered into previous agreements after Arabs helped defeat Ottoman Turkey during the First World War) at 75,000 over the next five years, after which the country was to become an independent state. Britain had offered homes for Jewish immigrant children and proposed Kenya as a haven for Jews, but refused to back a Zionist state or to take steps that might imply the legitimacy of Hitler's policies.

Before, during and after the war, the British government obstructed Jewish emigration to Mandatory Palestine so as to avoid a negative reaction from Palestinian Arabs. In the summer of 1941, however, Chaim Weizmann estimated that, when the war was over, it would take two decades to get 1.5 million Jews to Palestine from Europe; David Ben-Gurion believed 3 million could be brought in ten years. Thus Palestine—certainly, at least, once war had begun—could not have been the saviour of anything other than a small minority of those Jews murdered by the Nazis.

Source at Wikipedia
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  2  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 01:52 pm
@Setanta,
One thing you have to keep in mind when asking why the allies never launched any sort of a raid on any of those death camps is that, in those days, our government assumed that it had a duty to our fighting men to finish the war with all possible dispatch, giving them (our soldiers) the greatest possible chance to live. A raid on one of those camps would have diverted men and material from that purpose and been counter productive to it.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 02:03 pm
@Setanta,
Some countries went just that little bit further and welcomed Nazi war criminals with open arms.

Quote:
A disturbing aspect of Ireland's history has been uncovered by research finding that leading Nazis were sheltered and welcomed by the Irish establishment after the war.

A rogues' gallery that included fascists, Nazi collaborators and war criminals came to Ireland, including some who flourished and became respected members of the community.

A documentary to be screened on Irish television tonight illustrates growing willingness amongst mainstream public opinion to face up to Ireland's role in providing a haven for war criminals.

In the past, there has been a tendency to overlook stories of Hitler's henchmen being protected while they made their homes in Ireland or using it as a staging post to escape to America.

"It is very interesting that there is now much more willingness to raise these issues about those sections of the Irish population, who were sympathetic to the Nazi cause," said Paul Bew, Professor of Irish Politics at Queen's University, Belfast.

"I am glad people are focusing on this now. It has been a repressed theme in Irish history," added Prof Bew, who also deals with the subject in his book The Oxford History of Ireland, which is to be published later this year.

Otto 'Scarface' Skorzeny, once described as Hitler's favourite soldier and the most dangerous man in Europe, was feted by the Dublin social glitterati.

Fourteen years after he had rescued Mussolini from a hilltop fortress in 1943, Skorzeny arrived at a reception in his honour held at Portmarnock Country Club.

The cream of Dublin society attended the event, including a young politician, Charles Haughey, who was later to become Ireland's most controversial Prime Minister.

The two-part television documentary Hidden History on RTE, Ireland's national broadcaster, will tell the story of Skorzeny, who went on to raise prize-wining lambs in Co Kildare.

Skorzeny made his name by raiding an Italian castle where Mussolini was held captive. Descending on the fortress in gliders, Skorzeny's men succeeded in freeing the dictator.

A year later, Skorzeny was involved in rounding up and torturing members of the German resistance after their failed attempt on Hitler's life.

He was acquitted of war crimes by a US court, but remained a prisoner because other countries wanted to prosecute him.

He escaped from prison, fleeing to Spain before buying a farm Martinstown House, near the Curragh, where he lived for a decade.

The programme is presented by Cathal O'Shannon, an Irish RAF veteran who feels that anti-British sentiment in Ireland led to Nazis receiving a warmer welcome than he did when he came home after the war.

He believes between 100 and 200 people with Nazi connections passed through Ireland during the Cold War.

Albert Folens, who died in 2003 at 86 after founding Ireland's leading academic text-book publisher, was involved in the Gestapo and Waffen SS.

The documentary claims he was a volunteer in the Waffen SS Flemish legion, serving on the eastern front until he was wounded.

After treatment in an SS hospital, he joined the Gestapo and claimed to have worked at its Brussels headquarters as a translator.

His name is said to have appeared on the US army's Central Registry of War Criminals and Security Suspects. Folens always denied any involvement in torture or inhumane treatment.

Arrested by the British Army in Germany, he was sentenced to 10 years after a military trial. But he escaped after 30 months and fled to the Republic on a false passport.

The so-called 'Butcher of the Balkans', Andrija Artukovic, was another who sought and found sanctuary in Ireland, spending his time in the Dublin suburb of Rathgar in 1947.

According to the programme, Artukovic, a Croatian Nazi, was given safe passage to Ireland with the help of a Franciscan order.

Artukovic served as interior minister in the Nazi puppet regime in Croatia. He was provided with immigration papers under a false name before arriving in Ireland, where he posed as a history professor before moving to the United States.

Decades later he was extradited to Yugoslavia and was sentenced to death for opening concentration camps and being involved in the genocide of up to one million innocent people. The sentence was not carried out because the authorities deemed him too ill.

Pieter Menten, a Dutch Nazi war criminal, moved to a Co Waterford mansion in 1964 before he was eventually tried and imprisoned. After his prison term, the Irish government would not allow him back.

Helmut Clissmann was a World War II German spy involved in failed missions with the IRA. He later became a successful Dublin businessman.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1538969/Ireland-welcomed-Hitlers-henchmen.html
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:27 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Get over it! I'm Japanese American, and we also suffered from discrimination in the US - as most races/ethnicities did.

If it were not for our grandfather and grandmother coming to this country, our lives would have been much harsher and without much opportunity as we found in the US.

Jews think they're the only ones who were treated badly. What did you do with "your" life?


You are off topic. Plus, my life is not an open book.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:33 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You've got a lot more room in America than we have in Britain, 256 people per km2 compared to the States with a measly 33.9, you've got a lot of catching up to do. The Holocaust never happened over here, we took a lot of Jews in.

Quote:
Kindertransport (Children's Transport) was the informal name of a series of rescue efforts which brought thousands of refugee Jewish children to Great Britain from Nazi Germany between 1938 and 1940.


http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005260

Unlike America where you sent them back to their deaths.

Quote:
The MS St. Louis was a German ocean liner most notable for a single voyage in 1939, in which her captain, Gustav Schröder, tried to find homes for 937 German Jewish refugees after they were denied entry to Cuba, the United States and Canada, until finally accepted to various countries of Europe. Historians have estimated that, after their return to Europe, approximately a quarter of the ship's passengers died in concentration camps.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis


You might be making a very valid argument for intransigence by Israel, since you might be proving that the world at large really has no room for Jews, and every square mile counts in Israel, for Jews to survive into the future.

Thank you for your logical argument.
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:37 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
However, if one is suffering from claustrophobia in Israel/Palestine, the Israelis really are not going to let Europe vent their anti-Semitism a second time. Perhaps, the Palestineans as "the other" Semites should try their hand in Europe, to see if Europeans can be more hospitable than they were to Jews?
According to "Jediot Achronot" (31.05.2011), 70,000 Israeli Jews got a German passport in 2000; in 2010, about 200,000 Israeli Jews had a German passport. (The paper quoted Sima Zalcberg from Bar-Ilan-university, who researched about this and collected the data.)


Will they "colonize" Germany?
Foofie
 
  1  
Tue 30 Jul, 2013 06:43 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

One thing you have to keep in mind when asking why the allies never launched any sort of a raid on any of those death camps is that, in those days, our government assumed that it had a duty to our fighting men to finish the war with all possible dispatch, giving them (our soldiers) the greatest possible chance to live. A raid on one of those camps would have diverted men and material from that purpose and been counter productive to it.


Well, some authors believe that a component was the high anti-Semitism in the U.S. at that time, and knowing of the draft riots in 1863 NYC, the government didn't want a similar situation (where the draft rioters had signs that they ain't fightin' no war for (the "N" word). Meaning, if it was perceived that the war was to protect European Jews, there would have been a morale problem amongst many soldiers that would not have wanted to think they were fighting a war in behalf of Jews. [Note that Foofie did not write, "In my opinion."]
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Wed 31 Jul, 2013 12:32 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

Will they "colonize" Germany?
You can look up the source. Perhaps it's mentioned there, perhaps not.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Israel's Reality - Discussion by Miller
THE WAR IN GAZA - Discussion by Advocate
Israel's Shame - Discussion by BigEgo
Eye On Israel/Palestine - Discussion by IronLionZion
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 12:18:04