Why do Arabs and others deny the Holocaust?

[Cold Highway]

Why do people deny the Holocaust?

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.

 

[Iriemon]

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?

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.

 

[Cold Highway]

Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?


Not that it excuses fabricating history, IMO.

I read on the wiki page of the Iranian sha awhile back during that period but I never double checked it.

 

[Slainte]

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.

 

[Iriemon]

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.

This quote from Wiki probably sums it up best:

Nazi use of the term "Aryan" was wildly inconsistent with the claimed meaning. Roma, of Indian descent and language, were classified non-Aryan, while the Japanese were made honorary Aryans during World War II. In effect, "non-Aryan" ended up very nearly meaning, "insufficiently nationalistic".

 

[ARealConservative]

The actual event has been sensationalized to a great degree. Many that deny the holocaust are caught in a web - they have found evidence of the sensationalism and took it several degrees of magnitude higher.

 

[EAGLE1]

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!

 

[Lerxst]

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.

Spot on Irie. To deny the Holocaust, the catalyst for the founding of a the Jewish state, is to undermine the entire premise of Israel. De-legitimize Israel, legitimize the struggle against Israel and the Jews.

 

[Hatuey]

Hitler declared Iranians were Aryan? On what basis could he possibly have done that?

Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Hitler didn't declare them Aryans. The Iranians have been calling themselves Aryan for a long time now.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Hitler:

"You see, it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[39]


"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers -already, you see, the world had already fallen into the hands of the Jews, so gutless a thing Christianity! -then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world. Christianity alone prevented them from doing so." [40]

 

[americanwoman]

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!

^^:agree ^^

 

[mikhail]

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.

 

[EAGLE1]

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."

 

[brctln]

Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

Very interesting reading


The Palestinian-Nazi relation

 

[nkgupta80]

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."

hey, nicely said

 

[EAGLE1]

Tell The Children The Truth - Homepage

Very interesting reading


The Palestinian-Nazi relation

It is interesting, very. Many thanks.

Whats also interesting is that they repeatedly tried to persuade the British to listen to their point of view - which seems reasonable given they were the majority at the time - and yet the British ignored them and even worked against them. So they allied themselves with Germany years later. This is a logical step given the circumstances.

Is that interesting to you also?

 

[SFLRN]

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.

 

[Feela]

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.

Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.

 

[SFLRN]

Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.

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]

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?

You implied it. You seemed to say that the Arabs should except the situation due to the holocaust.

 

[Bodi]

Feela
Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.

Rubbish - Instead of believing the hype and just being another of the sheeple...would you like to know why?

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.

1. Britain told the Arabs, through Lawrence of Arabia, independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East, in exchange for their supporting the British. This area did not include Palestine.

"I feel it my duty to state, and I do so definitely and emphatically, that it was not intended by me in giving this pledge to King Hussein to include Palestine in the area in which Arab independence was promised. I also had every reason to believe at the time that the fact that Palestine was not included in my pledge was well understood by King Hussein"

The Hussein-MacMahon Correspondence

2. Britain had promised to create and foster a Jewish national home as laid out in the Balfour Declaration, 1917.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Balfour Declaration

Tensions were up from the beginning. As tens of thousands of Jews immigrated to the ME, many Arabs started to resent it. Violence ensued as Arabs attacked and killed Jewish civilians over issues like land ownership, and ownership of what grows on the land. Different understandings of ownership and miscommunication coupled with increasing numbers of Jews immigrating and being diplaced by rising anti-semtism over time and into the 1930's and Hitler/Facism say an increase in violence.

WWII had a major effect on the situation in Palestine. During the war, the British forbade entry into Palestine of European Jews escaping Nazi persecution, placing them in detention camps or deporting them to places such as Mauritius.

Following the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, the British refused to lift the ban on immigration and admit 100,000 displaced persons to Palestine. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several attacks against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.

Seeing that the situation was quickly spiraling out of hand, the British announced their desire to terminate their mandate and to withdraw by May 1948.

III. Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in part III of this plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in parts II and III below.

A/RES/181(II)(A+B) of 29 November 1947

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



Sources also included Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia, and most importantly, my Brain. :2razz:

 

[EAGLE1]

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.

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.

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. Living together peaceably in speparate lands in an interesting concept.
Say 10 million muslims move into South Dekota over a number of years and set up a state called Dekotistan. This state hardly even has a majority of Dekotistanis, so there's 9 million Americans now under the Dekotistan state. This is all decided and approved by a country, like say Pakistan, some 1000 miles away.
Question, you cool with that?

Thats the trouble with the Balfour declaration and the UN partition plan. It failed to take account of one of those 'inconvenient truths', the native population.

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.

Ben Gurion,

"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

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.

This is a fair comment, then you contradict it by adding this;

“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

Why? If you were going to be fair youd have added that the Palestinians in the West Bank are continually under threat and have been in Gaza for decades by encroaching settlements. Why?

I now declare my brain to be the best.:2razz:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

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.

The Jews were a majority in the lands designated to become Israel.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Unless you'd give up your property and land to a victim of war crimes your sentiments are hollow.

Whose land? The British? The Ottamans lost their land during WW1 and the British gave the Arabs 90% of Palestine and only alotted 10% to the Jews.

 

[EAGLE1]

The Jews were a majority in the lands designated to become Israel.

A tiny majority in an area cobbled together from a number of districts. They didnt accept it and neither would you.