Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Nazi Concentration Camps

ViolentPanda said:
I wonder if IP will feel like coming and informing him of a particularly disgusting chapter in the history of the state of Israel?

This document http://www.samba.co.il/iraqijews/history.doc by Maurice Shohet, an Iraqi Jew, explains that dark chapter better than I ever could.

Naeim Giladi, a former Iraqi who became a Zionist activist in Iraq, changed his outlook after living in Israel, and is now an anti-Zionist activist. He left Israel in the early 80s and settled in New York, renouncing his Israeli citizenship.
Naeim Giladi said:
I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.

Of course I thought I knew it all back then. I was young, idealistic, and more than willing to put my life at risk for my convictions. It was 1947 and I wasn’t quite 18 when the Iraqi authorities caught me for smuggling young Iraqi Jews like myself out of Iraq, into Iran, and then on to the Promised Land of the soon-to-be established Israel.

About 125,000 Jews left Iraq for Israel in the late 1940s and into 1952, most because they had been lied to and put into a panic by what I came to learn were Zionist bombs.
http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol31_issue2_1998.pdf

To summarise: Giladi, who was part of the Iraqi Haroons, descended from Jews who built Yehezkel's tomb (pre-written history, destroyed following US invasion of Iraq), came from Hillah near the ancient city of Babylon. Giladi was imprisoned in Abu-Ghraib for two years for his part in the Zionist underground's activities to persuade what remained of Iraq's Jews (post-Farhud wave of emigration) to emigrate to Israel. He was tortured by the Iraqi authorities but never revealed any information about other Zionists involved and eventually managed to escape to Israel by 1950, where he became deeply involved in the young state's Zionist military/administrative exploits.

e2a: If you read about the Farhud by clicking the ushmm link below, you can see how young Iraqi Jews became radicalised following that tragedy.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Does he actually know why there are so few Jews in Iraq?
The story of the Farhud is largely about the impact of both Allied and Central powers (aka Axis i.e. Nazi-led) policies in the middle east and their struggle to gain control of it's oil reserves.

I just don't know where to begin with it. Here seems as good a place as any:
Esther Meir-Glitzenstein said:
Iraqi soldiers and policemen who had supported Rashid Ali al-Gailani's coup d'etat in April and Futtuwa youths who were sympathetic to the Axis incited and led the riots. Unlike in previous incidents, rioters focused on killing. Many civilians in Baghdad and Bedouins from the city's outskirts joined the rioters, taking part in the violence and helping themselves to a share in the booty. During the two days of violence, rioters murdered between 150 and 180 Jews, injured 600 others, and raped an undetermined number of women. They also looted some 1,500 stores and homes. The community leaders estimated that about 2,500 families -- 15 percent of the Jewish community in Baghdad -- suffered directly from the pogrom. According to the Jewish community's information, 179 Jews were killed, including 18 children, 19 women, and 32 elderly. Rioting ended at midday on Monday, June 2, 1941, when Iraqi troops entered Baghdad, killed some hundreds of the mob in the streets and reestablished order in Baghdad.

The causes of the Farhud were political and ideological. On the one hand, the leaders of this pogrom identified the Jews as collaborators with the British authorities and justified violence against Jewish civilians by linking it to the struggle of the Iraqi national movement against British colonialism. Other Arab nationalists, especially influenced by the presence of Hajj Amin al-Husayni, perceived the Baghdad Jews as Zionists or Zionist sympathizers* and justified the attacks as a response to escalating Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. Nevertheless, killing helpless Jews, including women and children, was an unprecedented phenomenon that contradicted Muslim law. In this situation, antisemitic ideology, derived in part from Nazi propaganda, helped to legitimize murdering Jews in Iraq.

The consequences of this pogrom stunned the Jewish community in Baghdad. Generally unarmed and lacking military training and self-defense skills, Baghdad Jews felt vulnerable and helpless. Many decided to leave Iraq. Hundreds fled to Iran, others went to Beirut, Lebanon, and some even obtained temporary visas for India. A few hundred Jews tried to reach Palestine, but most of them were forced to stop at some point on the way, either by the Iraqi police, which did not allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine, or by Palestinian police, enforcing strict immigration quotas (the White Paper of 1939). Most of the refugees, however, returned to Baghdad after the political situation had stabilized and the Iraqi economy had begun to prosper again.

Following the Farhud, Jewish leaders also faced a difficult political dilemma. The Farhud had demonstrated that Jews were perceived by many in the Arab nationalist movement and the religious and conservative right as collaborators with and beneficiaries of British colonialism and its alleged Iraqi puppets. On the other hand, Jewish leaders were in fact well-integrated in urban society in Baghdad. Some held public office, others were prominent in economic life, and many had friendly relations with politicians and leaders. Moreover, the hostility of the Arab nationalists toward the Jews only increased their dependence on the pro-British regime. Jewish leaders therefore chose to downplay the potential for danger and tended to dissuade community activists from steps that might have incited an Arab nationalist response. Jewish leaders preferred quiet, personal, indirect diplomacy to overt political activism. The Jews in Parliament adopted the same policy: they never voted against the Iraqi government and never publicly defended the rights of the Jewish minority.

<snip>The Farhud ultimately intensified anxiety among Baghdad's Jews, who now worried about Axis victories in the war, escalating violence in Palestine, growing Iraqi nationalist opposition, and the departure of the British from Iraq. The Farhud also marked a new era of Muslim-Jewish relations in Iraq, when discrimination and humiliation became further compounded by concerns about a direct physical threat to Jews' survival.

Among Arabs the whole event was repressed and nearly forgotten. Arab writers of the time mentioned the Farhud only vaguely, and explained it as a consequence of Zionist activity in the Middle East. In contrast, Iraq's Jews now perceived that threats to Jewish lives existed not only in Europe but also in the Middle East. In 1943, because of both the ongoing murder of European Jewry as well as antisemitism in Arab countries, Iraq's Jewish communities were included in Zionist plans for immigration and establishing the Jewish state.

By 1951, ten years after the Farhud, most of the Iraqi Jewish community (about 124,000 Jews out of 135,000) had immigrated to the State of Israel.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007277
*They were not.
 
invisibleplanet said:
The story of the Farhud is largely about the impact of both Allied and Central powers (aka Axis i.e. Nazi-led) policies in the middle east and their struggle to gain control of it's oil reserves.

I just don't know where to begin with it. Here seems as good a place as any:
*They were not.

No, they weren't collaborators and Gaylani and his supporters were taking many of their cues from the German embassy who produced anti-Jewish propaganda films, which were lapped up by the nationalists. I wrote something on this for my presentation in the States a few years ago and I'll try and find it.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Does he actually know why there are so few Jews in Iraq?

VP. Why don't you stop pretending to ignore me?

Then I could reply direct.

Makes you nervous!

Don't worry. I don't bite.
 
nino_savatte said:
L&L is only here to make a cunt of himself, disrupt the thread and give JC some sort of support (though with his kind of support on offer, I'd rather go it alone).

We all have to have some reason to exist, nino.
 
Spion said:
Nice guy! In response to a post from a UK poster saying that "on the whole, the new scapegoat is the Arab/Muslim" you put up a bunch of links to gainsay that.

It doesn't gainsay it at all. I believe that anti muslim sentiment has been on the rise. What I was disputing was the contention that anti muslim sentiment was somehow replacing anti jewish sentiment.

I think it's quite possible for anglo saxons etc to dislike both jew and arabs at the same time.

The links were to highlight the fact that anti semitism is alive and well, at the same time that anti muslim feeling is on the rise.
 
Spion said:
I've checked. 1954, 59, 66, 67, 67, 73 and 77 are all after the naqba by a long way. And as I say, rhetoric threatening a thief always plays well with the victims.

The nearest one is May 48, so was a speech made as Arab troops went in (mostly to areas allotted to the Arabs by the UN) after 200 Palestinian villages has been cleansed in the first few months of that year.

Assuming that you're correct, does that excuse the talk of extermination, of a massacre to rival those committed by the Mongols? Note, the speeches weren't about a war of liberation, or of repatriation, but a war of extermination.
 
Spion said:
Johnny, you just can't get around the fact that by the time the Arab armies entered (NB: 3 of the 5 into UN Arab-allotted areas), zionist ethnic cleansing had been happening for months . . .

18 December 1947 – Palmach attack on village of Khisas in N Galilee, commanded by Yigal Allon. Houses blown up in night attack, 15 Arabs killed

31 December 1947 - Haganah attack on Balad ash-Shaykh. Local Haganah commander ordered to, “encircle the village, kill the largest possible number of men, damage property.” 60 Palestinians killed. (Quote from Milstein, The history of the Independence War, Vol 2 p78)

31 December 1947 – Haganah attacked Haifa district of Wadi Rushmiyya and expelled Arab inhabitants

January 1948 - Haganah attacked Haifa district of Hawassa and expelled Arab inhabitants

15 February 1948 - Village of Qisarya (near Caesarea) attacked by Haganah. Population of 1,500. No village defence. All population expelled. (Orders in Ha Shomer Ha Tzair archives files 66/10, meeting with Galili 5 Feb 1948.)

15 February 1948 – four more villages cleansed that day, including Barrat Qisarya (1,000 expelled) and Khirbay al-Burj (Zvi Sinai and Gershon Rivlin, The Alexandroni Brigade in the War of Independence, p220)

14/15 February – Palmach attack on Sasa at midnight, no resistance. “We left behind 35 demolished houses and 60-80 dead bodies.” (Moshe Kalman, cmdr of Palmach 3rd Battallion (also responsible for Khisas) in The Yiftach-Palmach story, Israel Even Nur (ed.))

9 April 1948 – IZL and Stern Gang troops attack Deir Yassin 90-170 people killed. Nearby villages of Qalunya, Saris, Beit Surik and Biddu attacked by Haganah.

18 April 1948 – Tiberias falls to Haganah after period of heavy bombardment from surrounding hills. Only 30 Arab Liberation Army volunteers in the town. British provide transport to expelled Arab population of 6,000.

Haifa

December – April – Attacks on Arab areas of Haifa by Haganah including sniping, shelling, rivers of ignited oil and fuel, and rolling barrels of explosives downhill

18 April – British announce they will remove buffer forces from between Arab and Jewish areas in Haifa

2,000 Carmeli Brigade troops face 500 Lebanese volunteers

21 April – British commander – Stockwell – invited four Arab leaders to meet him and informed them he could not protect them and advised the Arab community to leave

21/22 April – Haganah attacked and expelled 50,000 – 60,000 Arabs from Haifa.

"Kill any Arab you encounter; torch all inflammable objects and force doors open with explosives." Mordechai Maklef, operations officer of the Carmeli Brigade, which took the city, to his troops. (Haganah archives 69/72 22 Apr 1948)

Other cities and villages ethnically cleansed

1 May 1948 – Safad falls after bombardment by Palmach troops since mid-April. 1,000 Palmach v 400 ALA volunteers. More than 9,000 Arabs expelled. 100 old people allowed to stay, initially . . . “Abraham Hanuki, from [Kibbutz] Ayelet Hashashar told me that since there were only 100 old people left in Safad they were expelled to Lebanon.” Ben Gurion’s Diary, 2 May 1948

April-May 1948 – Jerusalem area - 8 Palestinian neighbourhoods and 39 villages cleansed

6 May 1948 – Acre occupied after siege by Haganah, including contamination of its water supply with Typhoid (Red Cross archive, Files G59/1/GC, G3/82, 6-19 May 1948)


You haven't left anything out of your list, have you?

Like Beit Nabala, Dec 14, 1947; the Ben Yehuda street bombing, Feb 11, 1948; the Jewish Agency bombing, March 11, 48; the Hadassah medical convoy, April 13, 48; Kfar Etzion, May 13, 48.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Has it ever occurred (actually, it probably hasn't) to you that armies in battle tend to secure their main objectives first rather than trying to find ways to make the speeches of politicians become real. The only exceptions to this have been when military formations have been actively indoctrinated to carry out certain types of atrocity. That can't be said of any of the "Arab" armies until the Iran-Iraq war, and even then "specialist" units tended to be used.

You're missing the point; whether deliberately, or as a result of lack of ability, I can't tell.

Politicians order armies into battle. They tell them when to stop. They keep a tight rein wrt indiscriminate killing, etc., or not.

Thus, when an arab leader talks of extermination, then orders his armies against the people mentioned vis a vis extermination, it behooves those people to take his words seriously.

Unlike you, they don't have the benefit of hindsight at that time, to declare the politicians words to be mere rhetoric.
 
ViolentPanda said:
Did any of the Arab countries do that? Did any of them have an all-embracing philosophy of Judaeophobia to which they referred?

Or were their politicians making political capital, as politicians are wont to do?

But if the anti semitism didn't already exist, why make rhetorical speeches about extermination? Why would such a speech sell to the folks at home, if the folks at home weren't already receptive to such a message?
 
ViolentPanda said:
Kristallnacht wasn't, as you seem to suppose, the flick of a switch that brought forth Judaeophobia. :

I suppose no such thing. What krystallnacht was, was the beginning of the gross and overt physical manifestation of something that had before that been more theoretical.

To continue on with the tenor of the discussion, it was the point at which it would be plainly obvious to jewish citizens, that they were no longer safe amongst their non jewish german neighbors.
 
ViolentPanda said:
And this has...what:confused: ...to do with Kristallnacht?

It has to do with the notion, put forth I believe by IP, that the anti jewish violence was carried and countenanced for the most part, by nazi cadres who were unconnected with the average citizen.

In my contention, the 'average citizen', with some exceptions, were either unconcerned about, or supportive of, the suppression of the jews.
 
invisibleplanet said:
It might be an idea to stop replying to his poking on the Israel/Palestine issue in this thread, and transfer the quotes and make the replies in the new thread that tangentlama has made. ).

But surely it would be better to continue presenting the truth, if you find my arguments to be flawed, if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of other readers.

They're the ones who can read what you say, and what I say, and then judge for themselves. I'm comfortable with that process; are you?:)
 
ViolentPanda said:
I've tried to explain to him about German anti-Semitism before, how it was ever-present but not (on the whole) violent, how it manifested itself in the same sort of exclusionism that the British state practiced against Catholics until they were emancipated, that it was Hitler's infiltration and indoctrination, along with his core support deriving from the rural areas, that magnified what was, basically, an inconvenience into something murderous. Myself, I'd far rather have been a Jew in Germany, right up until the early 1930s, than in any of the countries that became the Soviet Union.".

I think that's what's known as 'damning with faint praise'.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You haven't left anything out of your list, have you?

Like Beit Nabala, Dec 14, 1947; the Ben Yehuda street bombing, Feb 11, 1948; the Jewish Agency bombing, March 11, 48; the Hadassah medical convoy, April 13, 48; Kfar Etzion, May 13, 48.
I've actually left a lot of things off that list. The ethnic cleansing by zionists of 500-plus villages, 10 or more cities and 30-40 massacres is a lot to list

Anyway, I have several points to make about the events you mention

1) I would condemn them, then and now
2) The events I list are predominantly the cleansing of Palestinians from villages and urban areas. They involve hundreds of thousands of people being systematically violently intimidated and being forced to move . Although I would condemn them, the events you list just don't compare in terms of scale.
3) Context is all. All of the events you list come after a population that has been seeking independence for decades has recently seen 55% of its land being given to European incomers who own only 7% of the land. Again, I'd condemn it but I defy anyone anywhere not to kick off at that provocation
4) The events you list are uncoordinated retaliations. The ethnic cleansing by the zionists had been talked of for years and had clear military orders for which we have the documents, parts of which I have already quoted in this thread.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You're missing the point; whether deliberately, or as a result of lack of ability, I can't tell.

Politicians order armies into battle. They tell them when to stop. They keep a tight rein wrt indiscriminate killing, etc., or not.

Thus, when an arab leader talks of extermination, then orders his armies against the people mentioned vis a vis extermination, it behooves those people to take his words seriously.
No, you're missing the point here. The point being that Azzam's words came after the zionists had already ethnically cleansed around 200 villages, carried out several massacres and had violently intimidated 10s of 1,000s of Palestinians from cities such as Haifa.

What you are doing is condemning a 'representative' of the victim of ethnic cleansing for his bloodcurdling threats of vengeance instead of condemning the side that actually begun extermination months earlier. Weird

It's also worth mentioning that to assess the Azzam quote and your claims we have to know who he's talking to. So? Was it a rousing speech to troops, a quote in a newspaper that an Egyptian peasant conscript of the time could not read or a diary entry that no-one read?

I've given you the original source and context for all the quotes I've provided - including of direct zionist order to kill Arabs and ethnically cleanse them. You need to do the same if yours are to have the same credibility
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
You're missing the point; whether deliberately, or as a result of lack of ability, I can't tell.

Politicians order armies into battle. They tell them when to stop. They keep a tight rein wrt indiscriminate killing, etc., or not.

Thus, when an arab leader talks of extermination, then orders his armies against the people mentioned vis a vis extermination, it behooves those people to take his words seriously.

Unlike you, they don't have the benefit of hindsight at that time, to declare the politicians words to be mere rhetoric.

You're accusing me of "lack of ability", and yet you appear to have entirely missed the fact that post -WW2 (from 1946 in fact) EVERY officer whose nation-state was part of the UN was fully aware of their obligations under international law. That means that a politician ordering his armies to exterminate is likely to risk aggravating his military, especially the general staff. This is why most illegal actions are carried out by specialist units; it limits the possibility for "fall-out".
So, given the historical context of what you're talking about, I'll repeat: Politicians' rhetoric.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
But if the anti semitism didn't already exist, why make rhetorical speeches about extermination? Why would such a speech sell to the folks at home, if the folks at home weren't already receptive to such a message?
Are you drunk?
I didn't say that Judaeophobia didn't exist (human nature is such that prejudice always exists), I said it didn't exist in the Arab countries as an "...all-embracing philosophy of Judaeophobia... to which they referred for guidance. As for the rest of your question, why does any politician take particular lines? For political reasons.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I suppose no such thing.
Yes you do, you said

"Jews lived and worked in Germany. They had stores, etc, and seemed to be doing fine, until Krystallnacht.

What a difference a day makes.

It's obviously disturbing to think that you can be living peacefully one day, then be murdered by your neighbors, the next
. I think that's what Israel is all about. They'd been murdered by 'the neighbors' too many times. So in Israel, they'd have some say about who 'the neighbors' would be." (my emphases).

What's that if it isn't a supposition that there was a sudden transformation. chopped liver?
What krystallnacht was, was the beginning of the gross and overt physical manifestation of something that had before that been more theoretical.
No it wasn't, it was a declaration of permission.
To continue on with the tenor of the discussion, it was the point at which it would be plainly obvious to jewish citizens, that they were no longer safe amongst their non jewish german neighbors.
It had already been plainly obvious to Germany's Jewish citizens that they weren't safe since 1934.

This is basic history, Johnny. Basic history pretty much held as standard by anyone except right-revisionists.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
I think that's what's known as 'damning with faint praise'.

No, it's a comment on the fact that until the 1930s by far the greatest degree of violent and murderous anti-Semitism was to be found in Russia, in the Ukraine, in Poland, in Lithuania.
 
ViolentPanda said:
No, it's a comment on the fact that until the 1930s by far the greatest degree of violent and murderous anti-Semitism was to be found in Russia, in the Ukraine, in Poland, in Lithuania.

Aye, Anti-Semitism was, and it still is ime extraordinarily virulent in Eastern Europe.
 
Just to continue the theme started by VP, Germany is currently seeing an big influx of Jews returning. The same cannot be said for Eastern European countries.
 
nino_savatte said:
Just to continue the theme started by VP, Germany is currently seeing an big influx of Jews returning. The same cannot be said for Eastern European countries.
actually many Jews from the eastern european nation-states are coming to the US...and they when they arrive they already have a job, home, car, and pocket money waiting for them :)
 
Detroit City said:
actually many Jews from the eastern european nation-states are coming to the US...and they when they arrive they already have a job, home, car, and pocket money waiting for them :)

Oh aye? Got some proof for those claims? "Pocket money"? Interesting turn of phrase there.
 
Detroit City said:
actually many Jews from the eastern european nation-states are coming to the US...and they when they arrive they already have a job, home, car, and pocket money waiting for them :)

Detroit City, please provide proof, quotes, sources for your information.

Thankyou.
 
Detroit City said:
actually many Jews from the eastern european nation-states are coming to the US...and they when they arrive they already have a job, home, car, and pocket money waiting for them :)
Where do they get this mysterious help from? Are you saying they're different from other immigrants?
 
Spion said:
I've actually left a lot of things off that list. The ethnic cleansing by zionists of 500-plus villages, 10 or more cities and 30-40 massacres is a lot to list

Anyway, I have several points to make about the events you mention

1) I would condemn them, then and now
2) The events I list are predominantly the cleansing of Palestinians from villages and urban areas. They involve hundreds of thousands of people being systematically violently intimidated and being forced to move . Although I would condemn them, the events you list just don't compare in terms of scale.
3) Context is all. All of the events you list come after a population that has been seeking independence for decades has recently seen 55% of its land being given to European incomers who own only 7% of the land. Again, I'd condemn it but I defy anyone anywhere not to kick off at that provocation
4) The events you list are uncoordinated retaliations. The ethnic cleansing by the zionists had been talked of for years and had clear military orders for which we have the documents, parts of which I have already quoted in this thread.

[For anyone who's interested, the things I listed were Arab crimes and or atrocities committed during the same time period as Spion's list, but omitted from his list for some reason. To read his list, you'd think the whole thing was totally one-sided, which it wasn't.]


...........
 
Spion said:
No, you're missing the point here. The point being that Azzam's words came after the zionists had already ethnically cleansed around 200 villages, carried out several massacres and had violently intimidated 10s of 1,000s of Palestinians from cities such as Haifa.

What you are doing is condemning a 'representative' of the victim of ethnic cleansing for his bloodcurdling threats of vengeance instead of condemning the side that actually begun extermination months earlier. Weird

It's also worth mentioning that to assess the Azzam quote and your claims we have to know who he's talking to. So? Was it a rousing speech to troops, a quote in a newspaper that an Egyptian peasant conscript of the time could not read or a diary entry that no-one read?

I've given you the original source and context for all the quotes I've provided - including of direct zionist order to kill Arabs and ethnically cleanse them. You need to do the same if yours are to have the same credibility

Btw, you didn't answer an earlier question: did any of the palestinians leave their villages as a result of hysteria whipped up by their own leaders?

Since you're calling the abandonment of these villages by the palestinians 'ethnic cleansing', then any abandonment occasioned by palestinians themselves would be what: self-cleansing?
 
Back
Top Bottom