The Moral Case For Germany Annexing Poland—And Beyond

[Slotted Floppies]

Considering “Palestine” is just inhabited by Jordanian insurgents and the territory actually belongs to Israel anyway I’m not seeing the point.

[Chularatchamontri]

Subhanullah this is very well done

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Colonial state implies the intrusion of people not originally from wherever the state is. That hardly describes Jews having a state in Judaea where they have lived for 3,000 years.

Peleset/Peleshet/Falestin/Falesteen/Philistines/Palestinians (depends which language you're writing in) have been referred to as living in what is now Palestine since the earliest written records. They appear in the Book of Genesis, hosting Hebrew guests, and forming an alliance with them. They alternately allied with and squabbled with the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, and various Bedouin Arab tribes. They allied early with the Romans, who named the surrounding Roman province Syria Palestinae, later simply Palestina, from which comes the English "Palestine". Under the Romans the ethnonym Palestinae was applied indiscriminately to both the original Palestinians and other non-Jews in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

Yes, there have been Jewish communities in Palestine almost as long.

By the end of the British Mandate period, the Jewish community legally owned in total 5.23% of Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

Ethnic Germans owned about that much of 1939 Poland.

1. Owns 5.23% of the land.
2. Sixty years of warfare, expulsions, martial law, and coercion
3. Owns 80%, legally seizing more every week.

That looks like colonialism to me...

I wasn't trying to claim in stating that Jews have inhabited the region for that long, that it means the Palestinians are therefore outsiders. Both have pretty much equal reason to call the place their homeland, and therefore arguments that try to use "this group was here first/it is this groups sole home" in the Jewish-Palestinian scenario don't really have much credence.

Plus, the land ownership specifically at that time as a metric doesn't really change the above fact. Not to mention that in the 19th century, policies were enacted in Ottoman Palestine that forbade the sale of land to Jews. Even after the end of Ottoman rule, the Mandate then forbade anyone from buying land for several years. Even after the total ban was lifted, the amount that could be bought was restricted. When Jews did start to buy land in larger amounts in the 30s, your own source says that the majority (52.6%) was bought from non-Palestinians, and that the land bought was largely unpopulated or sparsely so which made it cheap, so its not like the Jews bought the land and pushed droves of Palestinians out by force or violence. They bought the land in mutual transactions, and only the minority of said land actually once belonged to Palestinians in the first place. Ownership of land by both Jews and Palestinians in Palestine was small. The Jews even more so due to discriminatory policies and being driven out.

Not to mention there was an outbreak of violence towards Jews in the 19th century that killed and forced many to either flee or convert, so there was a large decline in the Jewish population, particularly in Jerusalem. Even before that though for centuries under the Ottomans, the officials of Jerusalem were often preferential to the Muslim population of Palestine, who were often at odds with each other. Because of this, Jews moved to other areas of the Empire that were less wracked by inter religious tension and biased officials. This was made even worse when exclusively local Arab Muslims were appointed as governors of the area. The Ottomans also banned Jews (both foreign and Ottoman citizens) from moving to Palestine in 1881 in addition to banning them from buying land.

So, basically, of course the amount of land owned by Jews was small until the late 40's. For centuries the Jewish population that already lived there was subject to massive decline because of violence towards them and unfair policies. Your own source even states that when Jews began to own more land it was through economic means, not forced relocation or violence (such as what was done to the Jews), and even then, it was mostly obtained from non-Palestinian owners. Not seeing the comparison with Nazi Germany. Especially seeing as the Jews did not use such a small population as justification to take over another country like the Nazis did with Poland, the justification with the Jews was a return to the land they were from alongside the Palestinians, not take over a place they had no actual connection to. The Jews had long inhabited the area, and the small number was only due to Arab and Palestinian Muslims forcing them out of their home over centuries and then preventing them from coming back or owning land.

[Flawless Walruses]

Peleset/Peleshet/Falestin/Falesteen/Philistines/Palestinians (depends which language you're writing in) have been referred to as living in what is now Palestine since the earliest written records. They appear in the Book of Genesis, hosting Hebrew guests, and forming an alliance with them. They alternately allied with and squabbled with the Egyptians, the Edomites, the Canaanites, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, and various Bedouin Arab tribes. They allied early with the Romans, who named the surrounding Roman province Syria Palestinae, later simply Palestina, from which comes the English "Palestine". Under the Romans the ethnonym Palestinae was applied indiscriminately to both the original Palestinians and other non-Jews in Palestine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine

Yes, there have been Jewish communities in Palestine almost as long.

By the end of the British Mandate period, the Jewish community legally owned in total 5.23% of Palestine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine#Land_ownership

Ethnic Germans owned about that much of 1939 Poland.

1. Owns 5.23% of the land.
2. Sixty years of warfare, expulsions, martial law, and coercion
3. Owns 80%, legally seizing more every week.

That looks like colonialism to me...

I wasn't trying to claim in stating that Jews have inhabited the region for that long, that it means the Palestinians are therefore outsiders. Both have pretty much equal reason to call the place their homeland, and therefore arguments that try to use "this group was here first/it is this groups sole home" in the Jewish-Palestinian scenario don't really have much credence.

Plus, the land ownership specifically at that time as a metric doesn't really change the above fact. Not to mention that in the 19th century, policies were enacted in Ottoman Palestine that forbade the sale of land to Jews. Even after the end of Ottoman rule, the Mandate then forbade anyone from buying land for several years. Even after the total ban was lifted, the amount that could be bought was restricted. When Jews did start to buy land in larger amounts in the 30s, your own source says that the majority (52.6%) was bought from non-Palestinians, and that the land bought was largely unpopulated or sparsely so which made it cheap, so its not like the Jews bought the land and pushed droves of Palestinians out by force or violence. They bought the land in mutual transactions, and only the minority of said land actually once belonged to Palestinians in the first place. Ownership of land by both Jews and Palestinians in Palestine was small. The Jews even more so due to discriminatory policies and being driven out.

Not to mention there was an outbreak of violence towards Jews in the 19th century that killed and forced many to either flee or convert, so there was a large decline in the Jewish population, particularly in Jerusalem. Even before that though for centuries under the Ottomans, the officials of Jerusalem were often preferential to the Muslim population of Palestine, who were often at odds with each other. Because of this, Jews moved to other areas of the Empire that were less wracked by inter religious tension and biased officials. This was made even worse when exclusively local Arab Muslims were appointed as governors of the area. The Ottomans also banned Jews (both foreign and Ottoman citizens) from moving to Palestine in 1881 in addition to banning them from buying land.

So, basically, of course the amount of land owned by Jews was small until the late 40's. For centuries the Jewish population that already lived there was subject to massive decline because of violence towards them and unfair policies. Your own source even states that when Jews began to own more land it was through economic means, not forced relocation or violence (such as what was done to the Jews), and even then, it was mostly obtained from non-Palestinian owners. Not seeing the comparison with Nazi Germany. Especially seeing as the Jews did not use such a small population as justification to take over like the Nazis did with Poland. The Jews had long inhabited the area, and the small number was only due to Arab and Palestinian Muslims forcing them out of their home over centuries and then preventing them from coming back or owning land.

I was with you until that bit.

The Ottoman Land Laws of the 1800s were mostly used to steal land rights from local Palestinian fellahin (peasants). The fellahin were allowed to stay in place and pay rent.

After the Irgun, Lehi and Haganah terrorist organisations took over in 1948 and declared Eretz Yisrael their own, many of the Ottoman-period non-Palestinian landlords had their lands confiscated by Israel's infamous Absentee Landlord Act.

Two million dunums of land, just in the first bite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_land_and_property_laws#The_'Absentees_Property_Law'
https://israelpalestinenews.org/unearthing-truths-israel-the-nakba-and-the-jewish-national-fund/

Then the Palestinians who lived there were driven out.

"Obtained", to use your term.

If somebody "obtains" my property at gunpoint, that's not cool.

Arab and Palestinian Muslims forcing them out of their home over centuries and then preventing them from coming back

Not really.

Contemporary Americans are agitated at Latinx immigration to the USA, and enact laws and elect Presidents to restrict this.

Palestinians, both under the Ottomans and under the British, tolerated a far higher level of Jewish immigration in percentage terms, while having a much lower standard of living themselves.

They protested. Even burned a few shops once. But they obeyed their colonial masters.

Do they win a medal?

(Only if "have your country occupied, demolished and renamed while you're forced into a camp" counts as a medal.)

[Duhon]

Y'know, you almost had me there.

It is a truism that that line cannot honestly be said when it comes to a Federalist article.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I wasn't trying to claim in stating that Jews have inhabited the region for that long, that it means the Palestinians are therefore outsiders. Both have pretty much equal reason to call the place their homeland, and therefore arguments that try to use "this group was here first/it is this groups sole home" in the Jewish-Palestinian scenario don't really have much credence.

Plus, the land ownership specifically at that time as a metric doesn't really change the above fact. Not to mention that in the 19th century, policies were enacted in Ottoman Palestine that forbade the sale of land to Jews. Even after the end of Ottoman rule, the Mandate then forbade anyone from buying land for several years. Even after the total ban was lifted, the amount that could be bought was restricted. When Jews did start to buy land in larger amounts in the 30s, your own source says that the majority (52.6%) was bought from non-Palestinians, and that the land bought was largely unpopulated or sparsely so which made it cheap, so its not like the Jews bought the land and pushed droves of Palestinians out by force or violence. They bought the land in mutual transactions, and only the minority of said land actually once belonged to Palestinians in the first place. Ownership of land by both Jews and Palestinians in Palestine was small. The Jews even more so due to discriminatory policies and being driven out.

Not to mention there was an outbreak of violence towards Jews in the 19th century that killed and forced many to either flee or convert, so there was a large decline in the Jewish population, particularly in Jerusalem. Even before that though for centuries under the Ottomans, the officials of Jerusalem were often preferential to the Muslim population of Palestine, who were often at odds with each other. Because of this, Jews moved to other areas of the Empire that were less wracked by inter religious tension and biased officials. This was made even worse when exclusively local Arab Muslims were appointed as governors of the area. The Ottomans also banned Jews (both foreign and Ottoman citizens) from moving to Palestine in 1881 in addition to banning them from buying land.

So, basically, of course the amount of land owned by Jews was small until the late 40's. For centuries the Jewish population that already lived there was subject to massive decline because of violence towards them and unfair policies. Your own source even states that when Jews began to own more land it was through economic means, not forced relocation or violence (such as what was done to the Jews), and even then, it was mostly obtained from non-Palestinian owners. Not seeing the comparison with Nazi Germany. Especially seeing as the Jews did not use such a small population as justification to take over like the Nazis did with Poland. The Jews had long inhabited the area, and the small number was only due to Arab and Palestinian Muslims forcing them out of their home over centuries and then preventing them from coming back or owning land.

I was with you until that bit.

The Ottoman Land Laws of the 1800s were mostly used to steal land rights from local Palestinian fellahin (peasants). The fellahin were allowed to stay in place and pay rent.

After the Irgun, Lehi and Haganah terrorist organisations took over in 1948 and declared Eretz Yisrael their own, many of the Ottoman-period non-Palestinian landlords had their lands confiscated by Israel's infamous Absentee Landlord Act.

"Obtained", to use your term.

If somebody "obtains" my property at gunpoint, that's not cool.

Arab and Palestinian Muslims forcing them out of their home over centuries and then preventing them from coming back

Not really.

Contemporary Americans are agitated at Latinx immigration to the USA, and enact laws and elect Presidents to restrict this.

Palestinians, both under the Ottomans and under the British, tolerated a far higher level of Jewish immigration in percentage terms, while having a much lower standard of living themselves.

They protested. Even burned a few shops once. But they obeyed their colonial masters.

Do they win a medal?

(Only if "have your country occupied, demolished and renamed while you're forced into a camp" counts as a medal.)

Not really understanding how the Jews were "not really" forced out and prevented from returning to Palestine, seeing as how that is exactly what happened to them.

Yes the acts of Irgun where they violently seized lands and specifically targeted Arab and Palestinian owners was abhorrent, and for this they were and are widely condemned by Jews, and Jewish organizations, including Haganah. In fact, since you brought up Haganah, it was actually a defense group founded in response to the increase in attacks on Jews by Palestinians. But, sure, they were nothing but a terrorist group that was founded to attack Palestinians and commit terror. Irgun on the other hand, was actually founded as a terror group and was made up of extremists that split from Haganah because of their policy of restraint. Regardless. this does not somehow change the fact that the non-violent purchasing of land was far more common than the violent seizure.

Living standards for much of Jerusalem, especially in the declining days of the empire was poor for many people, and there certainly was not a clear and consistent gap between Jews, Christians or Muslims. Also not seeing how the Palestinians were exceptionally tolerant towards Jews, seeing as how they petitioned the Ottoman government to prevent Jewish immigration, and under the Mandate in 1920, there was an incident where Muslims stormed areas where Jews lived and killed at least 5 and injured some 200 more. Only a year later another major attack against Jews occurred. Granted, this event was initially started because of a Communist protest of Jews scuffled with police, but almost immediately Muslim Arabs and Palestinians took to the streets to indiscriminately attack and kill Jews that were completely unrelated and associated with the very small protest. A good number of Muslims were also killed, mostly due to violent clashes against the police when the police tried to end the violence. Then of course there were the 1929 Arab riots against Jews which was escalated from being just demonstrations and counter demonstrations when a Jewish teen was stabbed. Yeah this sure sounds like the Palestinians were incredibly non-hostile themselves and always were "obeying their clonal masters" and just engaged in some minor protests and vandalism alright.

My point is that the situation with the Jews and Palestinians is far from this simplistic and disingenuous black and white picture you are trying to claim. There is no obviously innocent party here. There were and are violent Jewish groups, and there were and are violent Muslim groups. Neither side is innocent of discrimination against the other, with Jews for a long time being forced from the area by Palestinians and then prevented from returning by the Muslim Ottomans. Palestinians today now find themselves discriminated against by the Israeli government in a similar fashion. Both groups have pretty equal claims to having Palestine as their home. Your deliberate and incredibly disingenuous attempts to somehow cast blame and wrongdoing on only one side of this and portray the Jewish people as a whole as evil, and trying to make this very complex issue into some sort of laughably simplistic struggle between good and evil serves no purpose.

[Flawless Walruses]

I was with you until that bit.

The Ottoman Land Laws of the 1800s were mostly used to steal land rights from local Palestinian fellahin (peasants). The fellahin were allowed to stay in place and pay rent.

After the Irgun, Lehi and Haganah terrorist organisations took over in 1948 and declared Eretz Yisrael their own, many of the Ottoman-period non-Palestinian landlords had their lands confiscated by Israel's infamous Absentee Landlord Act.

"Obtained", to use your term.

If somebody "obtains" my property at gunpoint, that's not cool.



Not really.

Contemporary Americans are agitated at Latinx immigration to the USA, and enact laws and elect Presidents to restrict this.

Palestinians, both under the Ottomans and under the British, tolerated a far higher level of Jewish immigration in percentage terms, while having a much lower standard of living themselves.

They protested. Even burned a few shops once. But they obeyed their colonial masters.

Do they win a medal?

(Only if "have your country occupied, demolished and renamed while you're forced into a camp" counts as a medal.)

Not really understanding how the Jews were "not really" forced out and prevented from returning to Palestine, seeing as how that is exactly what happened to them.

Yes the acts of Irgun where they violently seized lands and specifically targeted Arab and Palestinian owners was abhorrent, and for this they were and are widely condemned by Jews, and Jewish organizations, including Haganah. In fact, since you brought up Haganah, it was actually a defense group founded in response to the increase in attacks on Jews by Palestinians. But, sure, they were nothing but a terrorist group that was founded to attack Palestinians and commit terror. Irgun on the other hand, was actually founded as a terror group and was made up of extremists that split from Haganah because of their policy of restraint. Regardless. this does not somehow change the fact that the non-violent purchasing of land was far more common than the violent seizure.

Living standards for much of Jerusalem, especially in the declining days of the empire was poor for many people, and there certainly was not a clear and consistent gap between Also not seeing how the Palestinians were exceptionally tolerant towards Jews, seeing as how they petitioned the Ottoman government to prevent Jewish immigration, and under the Mandate in 1920, there was an incident where Muslims stormed areas where Jews lived and killed at least 5 and injured some 200 more. Only a year later another major attack against Jews occurred. Granted, this event was initially started because of a Communist protest of Jews scuffled with police, but almost immediately Muslim Arabs and Palestinians took to the streets to indiscriminately attack and kill Jews that were completely unrelated and associated with the very small protest. A good number of Muslims were also killed, mostly due to violent clashes against the police when the police tried to end the violence. Then of course there were the 1929 Arab riots against Jews which was escalated from being just demonstrations and counter demonstrations when a Jewish teen was stabbed. Yeah this sure sounds like the Palestinians were incredibly non-hostile themselves and always were "obeying their clonal masters" and just engaged in some minor protests and vandalism alright.

My point is that the situation with the Jews and Palestinians is far from this simplistic and disingenuous black and white picture you are trying to claim. There is no obviously innocent party here. There were and are violent Jewish groups, and there were and are violent Muslim groups. Neither side is innocent of discrimination against the other, with Jews for a long time being forced from the area by Palestinians and then prevented from returning by the Muslim Ottomans. Palestinians today now find themselves discriminated against by the Israeli government in a similar fashion. Both groups have pretty equal claims to having Palestine as their home.

Your deliberate and incredibly disingenuous attempts to somehow cast blame and wrongdoing on only one side of this and portray the Jewish people as a whole as evil, and trying to make this very complex issue into some sort of laughably simplistic struggle between good and evil serves no purpose.

Bezkoshtovnya, your "strategy" seems to be boring everyone with walls of unformatted text, some unsourced cherry-picked anecdotes, and now ad hominem.

Read the OP, and then let me ask you - did Bibi prove Hitler wrong on that point? Or not?

Y'know, you almost had me there.

It is a truism that that line cannot honestly be said when it comes to a Federalist article.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Not really understanding how the Jews were "not really" forced out and prevented from returning to Palestine, seeing as how that is exactly what happened to them.

Yes the acts of Irgun where they violently seized lands and specifically targeted Arab and Palestinian owners was abhorrent, and for this they were and are widely condemned by Jews, and Jewish organizations, including Haganah. In fact, since you brought up Haganah, it was actually a defense group founded in response to the increase in attacks on Jews by Palestinians. But, sure, they were nothing but a terrorist group that was founded to attack Palestinians and commit terror. Irgun on the other hand, was actually founded as a terror group and was made up of extremists that split from Haganah because of their policy of restraint. Regardless. this does not somehow change the fact that the non-violent purchasing of land was far more common than the violent seizure.

Living standards for much of Jerusalem, especially in the declining days of the empire was poor for many people, and there certainly was not a clear and consistent gap between Also not seeing how the Palestinians were exceptionally tolerant towards Jews, seeing as how they petitioned the Ottoman government to prevent Jewish immigration, and under the Mandate in 1920, there was an incident where Muslims stormed areas where Jews lived and killed at least 5 and injured some 200 more. Only a year later another major attack against Jews occurred. Granted, this event was initially started because of a Communist protest of Jews scuffled with police, but almost immediately Muslim Arabs and Palestinians took to the streets to indiscriminately attack and kill Jews that were completely unrelated and associated with the very small protest. A good number of Muslims were also killed, mostly due to violent clashes against the police when the police tried to end the violence. Then of course there were the 1929 Arab riots against Jews which was escalated from being just demonstrations and counter demonstrations when a Jewish teen was stabbed. Yeah this sure sounds like the Palestinians were incredibly non-hostile themselves and always were "obeying their clonal masters" and just engaged in some minor protests and vandalism alright.

My point is that the situation with the Jews and Palestinians is far from this simplistic and disingenuous black and white picture you are trying to claim. There is no obviously innocent party here. There were and are violent Jewish groups, and there were and are violent Muslim groups. Neither side is innocent of discrimination against the other, with Jews for a long time being forced from the area by Palestinians and then prevented from returning by the Muslim Ottomans. Palestinians today now find themselves discriminated against by the Israeli government in a similar fashion. Both groups have pretty equal claims to having Palestine as their home.

Your deliberate and incredibly disingenuous attempts to somehow cast blame and wrongdoing on only one side of this and portray the Jewish people as a whole as evil, and trying to make this very complex issue into some sort of laughably simplistic struggle between good and evil serves no purpose.

Bezkoshtovnya, your "strategy" seems to be boring everyone with walls of unformatted text, some unsourced cherry-picked anecdotes, and now ad hominem.

Read the OP, and then let me ask you - do you agree with that statement by Hitler? Or not?

I mean, just refusing to even bother reading my counters to your points to dismiss me is one way to go about it I guess. I am so sorry that I have a lot to counter your disingenuous arguments with but that is not my problem. I have pretty clear divisions between my different points. I am sorry if that is just too difficult for you to manage.

Yes I am the one cherry picking by disagreeing with your disingenuous attempts to portray Jews as the clear "bad guys" and downplaying or straight up ignoring the violent and discriminatory acts of Arabs as well. I fail to see where exactly I personally attacked you and not the argument? Feel free to elaborate if you can muster the energy to actually read my points.

No I don't agree with it. His statements are nothing but rhetoric to justify his antisemitic policies. Nor do I agree with the sentiments of the original article. I also don't see how this article now somehow applies to all Jews as a people and makes them the same as Nazi Germany.

I will however, provide my sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haganah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1921_Jaffa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Antisemitism
Armstrong, Karen. A History of Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths. London: Harper Perennial, 2005., which I have next to me.

[Flawless Walruses]

I mean, just refusing to even bother reading my counters to your points to dismiss me is one way to go about it I guess. I am so sorry that I have a lot to counter your disingenuous arguments with but that is not my problem. I have pretty clear divisions between my different points. I am sorry if that is just too difficult for you to manage.

Yes I am the one cherry picking by disagreeing with your disingenuous attempts to portray Jews as the clear "bad guys" by showing how this is not at all true.

I fail to see where exactly I personally attacked you and not the argument? Feel free to elaborate if you can muster the energy to actually read my points.

You and I both quoted it above.

If you want to discuss the crimes committed in Palestine by and against Jews during the centuries of Ottoman and decades of British occupation, you will need to put them in the context of the expulsion of ~750,000 Palestinians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus, and some Einsatzgruppen-style massacres like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

No I don't agree with it.

Adolf Hitler said the worldview of Nazis was never the same as the worldview of Jewish persons.

You're saying he was wrong, and it is/can be the same?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

I fail to see where exactly I personally attacked you and not the argument? Feel free to elaborate if you can muster the energy to actually read my points.

You and I both quoted it above.

If you want to discuss the crimes committed in Palestine by and against Jews during the centuries of Ottoman and decades of British occupation, you will need to put them in the context of the expulsion of ~750,000 Palestinians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus, and some Einsatzgruppen-style massacres like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

No I don't agree with it.

Adolf Hitler said the worldview of Nazis was never the same as the worldview of Jewish persons.

You're saying he was wrong, and it is/can be the same?

Describing your argument as disingenuous is not a personal attack, if that is what you mean. Nor is describing your attempts of portraying it as a one sided clear cut issue as laughable

Yes these are examples of violence perpetrated by Jews which I have not one tried to claim did not happen. How does this dismiss the incidents I presented of violence against Jews? Or somehow negate my point that the violence and discrimination is not one sided as you seem to continually try to claim?

The statement is a generalization made about all Jews, so of course it is not correct, as is the case in blanket statements. There are almost certainly Jews that have a similar view towards Palestine as the Nazis had towards Poland. However, I do not really see the point you are trying to make. The sentiments found in an article from 2019 and its similarities to Hitler are indeed quite disturbing. And?

[Flawless Walruses]

You and I both quoted it above.

If you want to discuss the crimes committed in Palestine by and against Jews during the centuries of Ottoman and decades of British occupation, you will need to put them in the context of the expulsion of ~750,000 Palestinians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus, and some Einsatzgruppen-style massacres like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre



Adolf Hitler said the worldview of Nazis was never the same as the worldview of Jewish persons.

You're saying he was wrong, and it is/can be the same?

Describing your argument as disingenuous is not a personal attack

Your deliberate and incredibly disingenuous attempts to somehow cast blame and wrongdoing on only one side of this and portray the Jewish people as a whole as evil, and trying to make this very complex issue into some sort of laughably simplistic struggle between good and evil serves no purpose.

Readers may judge that for themselves.

Yes these are examples of violence perpetrated by Jews which I have not one tried to claim did not happen. How does this dismiss the incidents I presented of violence against Jews? Or somehow negate my point that the violence and discrimination is not one sided as you seem to continually try to claim?

The statement is a generalization made about all Jews, so of course it is not correct, as is the case in blanket statements. There are almost certainly Jews that have a similar view towards Palestine as the Nazis had towards Poland. However, I do not really see the point you are trying to make. The sentiments found in an article from 2019 and its similarities to Hitler are indeed quite disturbing. And?

On that, we agree. The violence maybe be disproportionate, both in the past and the present, but has never been entirely one-sided.

The statement is a generalization made about all Jews, so of course it is not correct, as is the case in blanket statements.

Yes. Very this.

However, I do not really see the point you are trying to make. The sentiments found in an article from 2019 and its similarities to Hitler are indeed quite disturbing.

That is my point. There are some very bad people in the world. Maybe our governments shouldn't be arming and encouraging them.

[Nogodia]

What did I just read?
IK it's an article the OP posted, and not their real opinions, but what did I just read?

[Flawless Walruses]

What did I just read?
IK it's an article the OP posted, and not their real opinions, but what did I just read?

The author wrote it about what they'd like done to Palestinians.

I replaced "Palestine" with "Poland", and the result looked exactly like Der Sturmer in the 1930s.

I shared it.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Describing your argument as disingenuous is not a personal attack

Your deliberate and incredibly disingenuous attempts to somehow cast blame and wrongdoing on only one side of this and portray the Jewish people as a whole as evil, and trying to make this very complex issue into some sort of laughably simplistic struggle between good and evil serves no purpose.

Readers may judge that for themselves.

Yes these are examples of violence perpetrated by Jews which I have not one tried to claim did not happen. How does this dismiss the incidents I presented of violence against Jews? Or somehow negate my point that the violence and discrimination is not one sided as you seem to continually try to claim?

The statement is a generalization made about all Jews, so of course it is not correct, as is the case in blanket statements. There are almost certainly Jews that have a similar view towards Palestine as the Nazis had towards Poland. However, I do not really see the point you are trying to make. The sentiments found in an article from 2019 and its similarities to Hitler are indeed quite disturbing. And?

On that, we agree. The violence maybe be disproportionate, both in the past and the present, but has never been entirely one-sided.

The statement is a generalization made about all Jews, so of course it is not correct, as is the case in blanket statements.

Yes. Very this.

However, I do not really see the point you are trying to make. The sentiments found in an article from 2019 and its similarities to Hitler are indeed quite disturbing.

That is my point. There are some very bad people in the world.

It really isn't that difficult. I described the argument as being not fully representing the truth and leaving out many things that failed to accurately portray the situation. Thus, it was disingenuous. An ad hominem would be if I said "You as an individual are incredibly dumb for thinking such and such". I am not really seeing how this is unclear.

The violence is not even disproportionate. But yes, it is not one sided.

I mean....that's...it? That is your entire point? That bad people exist? That is not exactly groundbreaking or in any way disagreed on. You certainly didn't have go through all the effort of editing the original article to demonstrate this. Hell, you could have just google searched "trending news" and one of the top results deals with a school shooting that occurred.

[Flawless Walruses]

Readers may judge that for themselves.



On that, we agree. The violence maybe be disproportionate, both in the past and the present, but has never been entirely one-sided.



Yes. Very this.



That is my point. There are some very bad people in the world.

It really isn't that difficult. I described the argument as being not fully representing the truth and leaving out many things that failed to accurately portray the situation. Thus, it was disingenuous. An ad hominem would be if I said "You as an individual are incredibly dumb for thinking such and such". I am not really seeing how this is unclear.

The violence is not even disproportionate. But yes, it is not one sided.

I mean....that's...it? That is your entire point? That bad people exist? That is not exactly groundbreaking or in any way disagreed on. You certainly didn't have go through all the effort of editing the original article to demonstrate this. Hell, you could have just google searched "trending news" and one of the top results deals with a school shooting that occurred.

New tactic - whataboutism!

Yes, bad people exist in 2019. Some of them rule middle-eastern countries showering in our foreign aid and weapons. Others, like the author of the original article linked in the OP, are tax-funded professors at prominent universities, who write passionate, bloodthirsty apologetics for ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, that are then published with approval in mass media.

That's a lot like the people my grandfathers fought the last World War against, except this time they're using our name and our money.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

It really isn't that difficult. I described the argument as being not fully representing the truth and leaving out many things that failed to accurately portray the situation. Thus, it was disingenuous. An ad hominem would be if I said "You as an individual are incredibly dumb for thinking such and such". I am not really seeing how this is unclear.

The violence is not even disproportionate. But yes, it is not one sided.

I mean....that's...it? That is your entire point? That bad people exist? That is not exactly groundbreaking or in any way disagreed on. You certainly didn't have go through all the effort of editing the original article to demonstrate this. Hell, you could have just google searched "trending news" and one of the top results deals with a school shooting that occurred.

New tactic - whataboutism!

Yes, bad people exist in 2019. Some of them rule middle-eastern countries showering in our foreign aid and weapons. Others, like the author of the original article linked in the OP, are tax-funded professors at prominent universities, who write passionate, detailed apologetic for ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, that are then published with approval in mass media.

That's a lot like the people my grandfathers fought the last World War against, except this time they're using our name and our money.

How...exactly is anything I said categorized as whataboutism? I am beginning to feel like you are for some reason just accusing me of fallacies off of a list without actually fully knowing what they are...

Okay so....your actual point is not just "bad people exist" like you for some reason claimed in your last post and left it at that, but trying to portray either the Jewish people or the Government of Israel as basically Nazis due to the sentiments found in an article by a Jamaican-American professor, and then trying to state that this man's article represents the ideas of the Jewish people or in some way a significant population? I am not disagreeing that his views are abhorrent and vile, but I am not sure how this man's views are somehow proof that Jews have become Nazis or something like you seem to be implying.

[Flawless Walruses]

New tactic - whataboutism!

Yes, bad people exist in 2019. Some of them rule middle-eastern countries showering in our foreign aid and weapons. Others, like the author of the original article linked in the OP, are tax-funded professors at prominent universities, who write passionate, detailed apologetic for ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples, that are then published with approval in mass media.

That's a lot like the people my grandfathers fought the last World War against, except this time they're using our name and our money.

How...exactly is anything I said categorized as whataboutism? I am beginning to feel like you are for some reason just accusing me of fallacies off of a list without actually fully knowing what they are...

Readers on this forum are quite capable of spotting ad hominem and whataboutism.

The former I've quoted two times too many already. The latter I'll quote for the second time:

That is your entire point? That bad people exist? That is not exactly groundbreaking or in any way disagreed on. You certainly didn't have go through all the effort of editing the original article to demonstrate this. Hell, you could have just google searched "trending news" and one of the top results deals with a school shooting that occurred.

That is whataboutism. Its almost like you're repeating fallacies on purpose to divert the discussion.

I am not disagreeing that his views are abhorrent and vile

As I've said in several posts, I agree with that.

Unfortunately, the article linked in the OP represents views that are regularly given a platform by mainstream media, in the West and in Israel. Formerly, these sentiments would be cloaked in false compassion and pretend legalism. Now, they are as frank and as bloodthirsty as Der Sturmer in the 1930s, only funded by us. Shouldn't Europeans have been concerned in the 1930s? Shouldn't we be concerned now?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

How...exactly is anything I said categorized as whataboutism? I am beginning to feel like you are for some reason just accusing me of fallacies off of a list without actually fully knowing what they are...

Readers on this forum are quite capable of spotting ad hominem and whataboutism.

The former I've quoted two times too many already. The latter I'll quote for the second time:

That is your entire point? That bad people exist? That is not exactly groundbreaking or in any way disagreed on. You certainly didn't have go through all the effort of editing the original article to demonstrate this. Hell, you could have just google searched "trending news" and one of the top results deals with a school shooting that occurred.

That is whataboutism. Its almost like you're repeating fallacies on purpose to divert the discussion.

I am not disagreeing that his views are abhorrent and vile

As I've said in several posts, I agree with that.

Unfortunately, the article linked in the OP represents views that are regularly given a platform by mainstream media, in the West and in Israel. Formerly, these sentiments would be cloaked in false compassion and pretend legalism. Now, they are as frank and as bloodthirsty as Der Sturmer in the 1930s, only funded by us. Shouldn't Europeans have been concerned in the 1930s? Shouldn't we be concerned now?

...How on God's glorious green Earth does that fall under whataboutism? It was a joking comment meant to state that in order to prove the point that there are terrible people in the world you did not need to go to such lengths, as there are much easier ways to make such a rather obvious statement. How does this meet the definition of whataboutism, being me accusing you of hypocrisy to dismiss your argument without actually addressing it? Evidently you are not one of those able to spot them, as neither of your accusations are correct, and me defending myself against these false accusations is not me trying to divert the discussion, seeing as how I continue to address both your accusations and continue said dialogue. I simply do not appreciate being accused of shit I clearly didn't do. If you truly still somehow think that I attacked you and not your post, I highly encourage you to bring it to moderation as that is considered flaming.

I mean yes I definitely agree with how shockingly blatant the article is. However, I am still not seeing how an article written by an American-Jamaican for an American website now means this is the sentiment held by the Jewish people or government. If this article was, say, at least written by a prominent Israeli professor, was an official statement issued by the Israeli government, or in some way endorsed or shared on social media by prominent government officials, then that is a different story.

This article is nothing particularly new, however, and you certainly do not have to look all the way back to the 30s to find such blatant calls for violence and bloodshed. There are plenty of detestable views given platform in the West through various internet websites and social media, and this has been the case for quite some time. Stormfront is a thing, the Alt-Right has a pretty significant presence across the internet, one of ISIS main means of recruitment is through the internet, and there are innumerable YouTube channels that glorify Hitler and his policies or espouse other racist or anti-semetic views. What makes the existence of this article especially problematic among the numerous detestable views that are constantly being shared online? It seems like it is merely another example on the internet of someone being able to express abhorrent views, and nothing all that special on its own.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Wasn't one of the requirements of German unification in 1991 that they relinquish of territorial claims?

[North German Realm]

Wasn't one of the requirements of German unification in 1991 that they relinquish of territorial claims?

This thread has nothing to do with German claims on Prussia, Pomerania, Posen, and Silesia. It's just an attention bait intent on suggesting Jews are nazis, albeit in what the OP probably assumes is a subtle manner.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Wasn't one of the requirements of German unification in 1991 that they relinquish of territorial claims?

This thread has nothing to do with German claims on Prussia, Pomerania, Posen, and Silesia. It's just an attention bait intent on suggesting Jews are nazis, albeit in what the OP probably assumes is a subtle manner.

Pretty much.

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

Wasn't one of the requirements of German unification in 1991 that they relinquish of territorial claims?

This thread has nothing to do with German claims on Prussia, Pomerania, Posen, and Silesia. It's just an attention bait intent on suggesting Jews are nazis, albeit in what the OP probably assumes is a subtle manner.

I was just noting.

[North German Realm]

This thread has nothing to do with German claims on Prussia, Pomerania, Posen, and Silesia. It's just an attention bait intent on suggesting Jews are nazis, albeit in what the OP probably assumes is a subtle manner.

I was just noting.

Yeah, but a lot of other other clauses of the two plus four agreement have been infringed upon, by most signatory parties. Germany could probably have a basis upon which it could call for annexation... that is to say if there were any sizable German populations left in said lands or if they had any actual intentions of annexing those territories. Neither of the two is true (The Germans were thoroughly ethnically cleansed in Eastern Europe after the second world war, and Germany has specifically mentioned that "We don't want those lands" in the recent decade)

[Deutschess Kaiserreich]

I was just noting.

Yeah, but a lot of other other clauses of the two plus four agreement have been infringed upon, by most signatory parties. Germany could probably have a basis upon which it could call for annexation... that is to say if there were any sizable German populations left in said lands or if they had any actual intentions of annexing those territories. Neither of the two is true (The Germans were thoroughly ethnically cleansed in Eastern Europe after the second world war, and Germany has specifically mentioned that "We don't want those lands" in the recent decade)

Probably more trouble than it's worse TBH.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Yeah, but a lot of other other clauses of the two plus four agreement have been infringed upon, by most signatory parties. Germany could probably have a basis upon which it could call for annexation... that is to say if there were any sizable German populations left in said lands or if they had any actual intentions of annexing those territories. Neither of the two is true (The Germans were thoroughly ethnically cleansed in Eastern Europe after the second world war, and Germany has specifically mentioned that "We don't want those lands" in the recent decade)

Probably more trouble than it's worse TBH.

Make Ereymentau and Engels German enclaves, save whats left of the Volga Germans