- Joined
- May 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,595
- Reaction score
- 2,739
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Mainly its because they hate Jews but shouldnt these people realized that Arabs and other non-Germans wouldve been apart of Hitlers extermination project if Hitler had gotten full control of Europe. Sure we can throw out Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and the Iranian sha who helped out Hitler for their own reasons. Although Hitler declared that Iranians were offical Aryans due to their background. Many in this sick circle of deniers forget that although the Jewish people were the main target others were just further down the list.
Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?
Not that it excuses fabricating history, IMO.
Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?
I'm fairly sure Hitler wouldn't have proclaimed that at all. Iranians are probably a little too dark skinned for that, they are however literally Aryan i.e. Indo-European and certainly not Semitic.
Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Iran does literally mean land of the Aryans and Iranians have called themselves Aryans for far longer than anyone in Europe.
As for the original topic, the Holocaust having little to do with Arabs is only really a big deal in the Middle East because of the creation of Israel, thus attacking the Holocaust and it's legitmacy is somewhat synonomus in their minds with an attack on Israel and her legitimacy. It's not very bright and tends to do much more harm to their argument, especially in the minds of most Europeans and frankly anyone with any intelligence.
Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?
IMO, the reason there are some Arabs (there are some Christians who do too)who challenge the holocaust is because they see that as the raison d'etre (or one of them) for the existence of a Jewish state in what they consider to be their turf. The attack line is that the Germans tried to kill off the Jews, chased them out of Europe, and therefore they deserved there own homeland (and if they chased out a bunch of poor Arabs in the process who cares).
Not that it excuses fabricating history, IMO.
Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?
Iranian
Main articles: Iranian peoples and Iranian languages
Since ancient times, Persians have used the term Aryan as a racial designation in an ethnic sense to describe their lineage and their language, and this tradition has continued into the present day amongst modern Iranians (Encyclopedia Iranica, p. 681, Arya). In fact, the name Iran is a cognate of Aryan and means "Land of the Aryans." [9] [10] [11] However, many of these usages are also intelligible if we understand the word Aryan in its sense of "noble" or "Spiritual".
Darius the Great, King of Persia (521–486 BC), in an inscription in Naqsh-e Rustam (near Shiraz in present-day Iran), proclaims: "I am Darius the great King… A Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage...". He also calls his language the "Aryan language," commonly known today as Old Persian. According to the Encyclopedia Iranica, "the same ethnic concept was held in the later centuries" and was associated with "nobility and lordship." (p. 681)
The word has become a technical term in the theologies of Zoroastrianism, but has always been used by Iranians in the ethnic sense as well. In 1967, Iran's Pahlavi dynasty (overthrown in the 1979 Iranian revolution) added the title Āryāmehr "Light of the Aryans" to those of the monarch, known at the time as the Shahanshah (King of Kings).
The term "Airya-shayana" (abode of the Aryans) has also been used in the Avesta referring to all the lands where the Aryans dwell.
"Iranian Glory" (Airyana Khvarenah) occurs in the Avesta 23 times.
The term also remains a frequent element in modern Persian personal names, including Arya and Aryan (boy's and girl's name), Aryana (a common surname), Iran-Dokht (Aryan daughter, a girl's name),Aryanpour (or Aryanpur, a surname), Aryamane, Ary among many others. The terms "Aryan" and "Iranian" are sometimes used interchangeably, as in the Iranian bank chain, Aryan Bank.
The Arabs, in hatred of the Jews and the Isreali project deny the holocaust, simply making a rod for their own back.
Lawrence of Arabia said they have a tendency for obsession but Id take that with a pinch of salt.
But then to top it all off, you get some Israelis and Pro-Isrealis and Western Conservatives using this irrational hatred as a means to deny all of their claims against the West and Isreal.
Its just one big hating merry go-round!
I guess its because you cant make your enemylook like victims.The jews in the concentration camps didnt hold much evidence to support the idea of a global jewish conspiracy that explain why everything that is wrong in your country.
There is some truth here, though it comes from the anti-arab/ pro-isreal perspective.
The aim of this arab denial is to remove the image some have of the Jewish people liking to portray of the Jews being history's biggest victims, thereby making whatever they've done since seem more reasonable.
However, removing this image by denying the holocaust is both wrong and self-defeating. Furthermore there is no need for this, the facts of the time since WW2 speak for themselves without revision of WW2.
An old man in Palestine I seen on TV once explained it better. He said, "Its true the holocaust happened but its like they've jumped out of a burning house in europe, and landed on our back. Now they stand on us, complaining to the world about how their house burnt down while we struggle in the mud."
Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.When one wants to achieve a certain policy objective it is helpful to create a debate about fact. For example, some individuals with an American Liberal viewpoint question free trade and its general acceptance by most economists. Similarly, a number of American Conservatives question the existence of global warming or that it might have any possible threat in the long-term. Despite what most experts and what the evidence says, pundits will continue to create a debate about the existence of a problem so as to prevent any real action towards the problem. (Obviously debating how serious the problem is or weighing in on different policies to solve a problem is not an invalid discussion). This is of course a rather foolish way to go about achieving progress, yet it is a popular way to avoid undesirable legislation for some. As Iriemon said, the same is true here. Creating doubt about the Holocaust creates doubts about whether or there are survivors of the Holocaust that deserve a swath of land. Instead of accepting that Israel will hold its territory for some time and accepting that a two-state solution is one of the only sustainable solutions, a few hard-liners in the West and East make it a point to deny the whole reason there was a land setup for survivors. Put simply, debating fact is a convenient way for politicians to prevent any action that they might find undesirable. Moreover, denying fact also makes preserves some individual’s convenient world-view. It is quite similar to Aristotle’s Cave Allegory. I would note that not all debates on "accepted fact" are invalid, yet it is sometimes used by politicians for the sake of political gain and not truth.
My analysis was in no way related to the right of the Israeli's to be given their current swath of land. I never said whether or not the original displacement of Palestinians was right or wrong, I only explained the reason why some politicians in the East and West want a "debate" about the Holocaust. Do you have a specific part of my previous post where I actually say anything related to the transfer of the land?Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.
You implied it. You seemed to say that the Arabs should except the situation due to the holocaust.My analysis was in no way related to the right of the Israeli's to be given their current swath of land. I never said whether or not the original displacement of Palestinians was right or wrong, I only explained the reason why some politicians in the East and West want a "debate" about the Holocaust. Do you have a specific part of my previous post where I actually say anything related to the transfer of the land?
Feela
Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.
ORIGIN OF THE ISSUE:
After World War I, the British gained lands in the M.E. that had belonged to the Ottoman Empire since 1520 or so. After 1919, the British Mandate of Palestine, which the League of Nations entrusted to the United Kingdom to administer in the aftermath of World War I, became a Mandate Territory and the U.K. tried to govern fairly so that both the Arabs and the Jews would be able to live peacably together in separate lands.
The U.N. votes on the creation of two States: one for the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, and a second one for the Arab inhabitants. The Jewish residents accept, but the Arabs and Palestinians refuse the two State solution and the 1948 war is under way.
It is quite clear that the Arabs feel slighted due to a misunderstanding. They were never promised the Palestine area, but they feel that the encroachment of the Jews and the ommishion of Palestine to their territory justifies violence. Gradually, over time, the Israelies have tightened their grip.
I do not want to get into modern policies, nor do I want to talk about the 1967 War or any other until we can nail down and address the root of the issue. If one side or another is operating off of a false premise of righteousness, then that is how we begin to address a solution.
“Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal anti-Semitism.”
— Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General Irwin Cotler
Feela's sentiments are more hyperbole than rubbish however, SLFRN has made a genuine attempt to cut a clear path through the emotions of the issue.
Dont know if the arabs were promised Palestine or not. It matters little as the locals were never consulted despite being the majority in every single district.
Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.
The Jews were a majority in the lands designated to become Israel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?