Israels fake history..?

The following typical threads that plague martial arts sites will get moved here if not just deleted: 1 - My style is better than Your style" - 2 - "Internal & External" - 3 - Personal attacks - 4 - Threads that start well, but degenerate into a spiral of nonsense.

Re: Israels fake history..?

Postby Interloper on Wed Jan 07, 2015 3:49 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12 ... ish-state/

An Ambassador Admits There’s a Double-Standard for Israel. That’s When a Columnist Rips Him Apart for ‘Obsessive, Compulsive Need’ to Pick on the Jewish State.
Dec. 14, 2014 6:40am Sharona Schwartz

Supporters of Israel often complain that the Jewish State is held to a different standard than Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and neighboring Arab countries.

It’s a rare occurrence when a policymaker or media insider concedes they might have a point. So when a senior Danish diplomat admitted there is not only a double-standard for Israel but that Israelis should welcome it, his admission inflamed an Israeli columnist who proceeded to pillory the ambassador over Europe’s “obsessive, compulsive need” to pick on the Jewish State and what she called its patronizing attitude to Arabs.

The two came face to face in a roundtable that took place on Thursday at the Jerusalem Post’s Diplomatic Conference which featured Ambassador of Denmark to Israel Jesper Vahr and Jerusalem Post senior contributing editor Caroline Glick.

An excerpt of the exchange posted online opened with the ambassador voicing concern about the “Europe bashing” he was hearing.

“I think that Israel should insist that we discriminate you, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us,” Vahr said.

The heated exchange took place at the Jerusalem Post’s Diplomatic Conference which featured Danish Ambassador Jesper Vahr (second from L) and Jerusalem Post senior contributing editor Caroline Glick (center). (Image source: YouTube)
The heated exchange took place at the Jerusalem Post’s Diplomatic Conference which featured Danish Ambassador Jesper Vahr (second from L) and Jerusalem Post senior contributing editor Caroline Glick (center). (Image source: YouTube)
Vahr explained that when criticized, Israelis often point to Syria and other places with poor human rights records which are not condemned as frequently.

“Those are not the standards that you are being judged by. It is not the standards that Israel would want to be judged by,” Vahr said. “So I think you have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.”

Jerusalem Post diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon, the event’s moderator, asked Vahr, “Isn’t it kind of patronizing to the Palestinians to say that, ‘We hold Israel to a higher standard than we hold you’?”

Vahr responded: “I am not sure it is,” adding that Europe views the conflict as being one between a “very strong party” and “a much weaker party.”

Engaging Israel “in a different fashion that we engage others is natural,” the ambassador added.

That’s when Jerusalem Post columnist Glick angrily chimed in:

I think that this patronizing attitude towards us that we should be happy that you have a separate standard for Israel is really, I’m sorry, a statement of contempt for our intelligence. I consider it to be an obsession. I consider Europe’s keen interest in the Middle East, specifically Israel, to be an obsession, and it’s an obsession that Jews have seen from Europeans from the time of Jesus.

Holding Israel to a different standard was highlighted over the summer by HBO host Bill Maher who called Israel “the victim of the soft bigotry of high expectations.”

Glick said, “‘We have this whole common culture,’ I mean, really? We respect international law. You guys make it up.” She cited the 2001 United Nations Security Council resolution 1373 adopted after the September 11 attacks which U.N. member states pledged to criminalize terrorism financing.

“You guys are funneling billions of euros into rebuilding terrorist-controlled Gaza. This is in contravention of binding international law that you signed onto,” Glick said.

“On the other hand, there’s imaginary international law … that says you are required … to sanction Jewish [construction] projects from Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. There is no such binding law,” Glick asserted. “You guys are funding settlements in Western Sahara.”

“This is not a double standard. This is a singular standard for Israel. It’s not about international law. It is about an obsessive, compulsive need to constantly pick at the Jewish state. And no, I don’t want to be proud that you are looking at us in a different standard from our neighbors because you are not looking at our neighbors as human beings. What you are saying is that they are objects,” Glick said.

“The only people who are supposed to be judged for our actions, and always poorly, are the people who are doing everything possible – more than Europe, more than the United States, more than anybody – in order to protect the lives of the Palestinians,” she said.

“I would love it if I could have more respect for Europe, but your treatment of Israel, your singular standard, your obsessive compulsive need to constantly pick at the Jewish state makes it very, very difficult,” Glick said.

Glick asserted that the only military organization in the area that is not a terrorist organization is the Israel Defense Forces, and for this “we are condemned, we are investigated, we are put on trial every single day.”

“Our soldiers, our soldiers are condemned by you. Our soldiers come in and are being called murderers for protecting our families and I’m sorry it’s very hard for me to feel any respect for this kind of behavior,” she added.

Glick is the author of the recently released book The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East” exploring a new arrangement for the Israelis and Palestinians not predicated on the two-state solution widely promoted by both U.S. and European governments.

Watch an excerpt of the exchange:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example of a blatant expounding of the double standard here:
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/German-pr ... aim-387043

Berlin -- The German Press Council reprimanded the largest broadsheet newspaper in Germany – the Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) – for falsely claiming that tens of thousands of Israelis fled to Germany because of the policies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration.

The late December decision is believed to be the first rebuke regarding an SZ article covering Israel, Roman Portack, a media expert at the Press Council, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

According to the decision, SZ violated the press code because the paper did not exercise “due diligence in examining the truth” of the article before publication.

The dispute centered on Thorsten Schmitz’s claim that “tens of thousands of Israelis fled” Israel and sought refuge in Germany. Schmitz, a former SZ correspondent in the Jewish state, published his contention without proper sourcing in a September commentary titled “Germany’s Terrible Silence.”

Henryk M. Broder, an authority on contemporary German anti-Semitism and a columnist at the daily Die Welt, presented statistical data on his blog in September from the Office of Migration and Refugees that disproved Schmitz’s assertion.

The German Press Council relied on the Migration and Refugee data in determining that Schmitz employed a flawed method of journalistic verification. Post emails and telephone calls to Schmitz seeking a comment on the decision and whether he planned to correct his article were not returned.

In September, Schmitz declined to provide the Post with the source for his assertion that “tens of thousands of Israelis” had fled to the Federal Republic. He criticized Broder for the exposing the flaws in his commentary.

The Office of Migration and Refugees showed a total of 11,655 Israelis living in Germany in 2013. In 2012, 11,244 Israeli citizens lived in the Federal Republic.

Schmitz and the SZ told the Press Council they meant “refugees” in the sense of fleeing from “the difficult economic situation for the middle class” in Israel and the “hopelessness of the peace process,” but not in the definition an asylum-seeker. The Press Council limited the scope of its reprimand to the faulty numerical claim that tens of thousands of Israelis fled to Germany.

A spokeswoman for SZ told the Post on Wednesday that Mr. Gericke, the SZ’s attorney, was not immediately available for a comment. It is unclear if SZ plans to issue a correction to the online article and in its print edition.

Heribert Prantl, a top SZ editor covering domestic politics, did not immediately respond to Post queries.

Sacha Stawski, the head of the Frankfurt-based Honestly Concerned media watchdog group, filed the formal complaint against SZ with the Press Council in September.

SZ is a “permanent topic” for his NGO because of its sloppy reporting on Israel, he told the Post. SZ has published anti-Jewish and rabidly anti-Israel cartoons, Stawski noted. The paper published a caricature of Israel as a demonic, starving monster and showed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who is Jewish, as a hook-nosed octopus devouring the world.

Stawski said that “piece by piece,” via articles and cartoons, SZ “demonizes and applies double standards to Israel.”

“No other country” is attacked in this form by SZ, he said. He praised the Press Council for establishing that SZ “crossed a line” with its false contention.

Portack from the Press Council told the Post that Stawski did a thorough job in proving that Schmitz’s numbers were incorrect. Asked if SZ is obligated to correct Schmitz’s report, Portack said in principle yes, because “a false presentation” exists.

Nathan Gelbart, a leading German media lawyer, told the Post it should be “self-evident for a Germany-wide traditional paper that a correction should take place regarding the false numbers without being compelled by external agencies.”

He criticized Schmitz for claiming to know the motivations of Israelis in Germany but failing to perform basic reporting to gather the views of Israelis. Gelbart, a managing partner with the international law firm FPS, said Schmitz sought to spread an “anti-Israel sentiment” in Germany. The commentary was “cheap and a badly researched article against Israel. Any provincial drug store newspaper would apologize for such an article,” Gelbart said.

Tabloid papers exaggerate, but a paper like SZ adheres to high journalistic standards and a correction should be a natural response to false statistical information, he said.
Last edited by Interloper on Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pariah without peer
User avatar
Interloper
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4816
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Israels fake history..?

Postby Interloper on Wed Jan 07, 2015 7:47 pm

And, 5 weird anti-Semitic TV shows, including one that teaches Arab children to kill Jews. Huzzah.
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=69 ... =2&theater
Pariah without peer
User avatar
Interloper
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4816
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: USA

Re: Israels fake history..?

Postby emptycloud on Sat Jan 17, 2015 2:30 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XID_UuxiGxM

Watched this the other night. Emotional.

Brace, brace, Interloper in coming...

x
Last edited by emptycloud on Sat Jan 17, 2015 5:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
emptycloud

 

Re: Israels fake history..?

Postby Interloper on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:32 am

Hitler and Islam - apparently, he had a twisted concept of how to exploit Islam in his cultivation of "the master race."

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/02/02/wh ... as-muslim/

For decades, historians have seen Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 as emulating Mussolini ’s 1922 March on Rome. Not so, says Stefan Ihrig in “Atatürk in the Nazi Imagination.” Hitler also had Turkey in mind—and not just the 1908 march of the Young Turks on Constantinople, which brought down a government. After 1917, the bankrupt, defeated and cosmopolitan Ottoman Empire contracted into a vigorous “Turanic” nation-state. In the early 1920s, the new Turkey was the first “revisionist” power to opt out of the postwar system, retaking lost lands on the Syrian coast and control over the Strait of the Dardanelles. Hitler, Mr. Ihrig writes, saw Turkey as the model of a “prosperous and völkisch modern state.”
Through the 1920s and 1930s, Nazi publications lauded Turkey as a friend and forerunner. In 1922, for example, the Völkischer Beobachter, the Nazi Party’s weekly paper, praised Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the “Father of the Turks,” as a “real man,” embodying the “heroic spirit” and the Führerprinzip, or führer principle, that demanded absolute obedience. Atatürk’s subordination of Islam to the state anticipated Hitler’s strategy toward Christianity. The Nazis presented Turkey as stronger for having massacred its Armenians and expelling its Greeks. “Who,” Hitler asked in August 1939, “speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?”
This was not Germany’s first case of Türkenfieber, or Turk fever. Turkey had slid into World War I not by accident but because Germany had greased the tracks: training officers, supplying weapons, and drawing the country away from Britain and France. Hitler wanted to repeat the Kaiser ’s experiment in search of a better result. By 1936, Germany supplied half of Turkey’s imports and bought half of Turkey’s exports, notably chromite, vital for steel production. But Atatürk, Mr. Ihrig writes, hedged his bets and dodged a “decisive friendship.” After Atatürk’s death in 1938, his successor, Ismet Inönü, tacked between the powers. In 1939, Turkey signed a treaty of mutual defense with Britain, but in 1941 Turkey agreed to a Treaty of Friendship with Germany, securing Hitler’s southern flank before he invaded Russia. Inönü hinted that Turkey would join the fight if Germany could conquer the Caucasus.
As David Motadel writes in “Islam and Nazi Germany’s War,” Muslims fought on both sides in World War II. But only Nazis and Islamists had a political-spiritual romance. Both groups hated Jews, Bolsheviks and liberal democracy. Both sought what Michel Foucault, praising the Iranian Revolution in 1979, would later call the spiritual-political “transfiguration of the world” by “combat.” The caliph, the Islamist Zaki Ali explained, was the “führer of the believers.” “Made by Jews, led by Jews—therewith Bolshevism is the natural enemy of Islam,” wrote Mahomed Sabry, a Berlin-based propagandist for the Muslim Brotherhood in “Islam, Judaism, Bolshevism,” a book that the Reich’s propaganda ministry recommended to journalists.
By late 1941, Germany controlled large Muslim populations in southeastern Europe and North Africa. Nazi policy extended the grand schemes of imperial Germany toward madly modern ends. To aid the “liberation struggle of Islam,” the propaganda ministry told journalists to praise “the Islamic world as a cultural factor,” avoid criticism of Islam, and substitute “anti-Jewish” for “anti-Semitic.” In April 1942, Hitler became the first European leader to declare that Islam was “incapable of terrorism.” As usual, it is hard to tell if the Führer set the tone or merely amplified his people’s obsessions.
Like Atatürk, Hitler saw the Turkish renaissance as racial, not religious. Germans of Turkish and Iranian descent were exempt from the Nuremberg Laws, but the racial status of German Arabs remained creatively indefinite, even after September 1943, when Muslims became eligible for membership in the Nazi Party. As the war went on, Balkan Muslims were added to the “racially valuable peoples of Europe.” The Palestinian Arab leader Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, recruited thousands of these “Musligermanics” as the first non-Germanic volunteers for the SS. Soviet prisoners of Turkic origin volunteered too. In November 1944, Himmler and the Mufti created an SS-run school for military imams at Dresden.
Haj Amin al-Husseini, the founder of Palestinian nationalism, is notorious for his efforts to persuade the Nazis to extend their genocide of the Jews to the Palestine Mandate. The Mufti met Hitler and Himmler in Berlin in 1941 and asked the Nazis to guarantee that when the Wehrmacht drove the British from Palestine, Germany would establish an Arab regime and assist in the “removal” of its Jews. Hitler replied that the Reich would not intervene in the Mufti’s kingdom, other than to pursue their shared goal: “the annihilation of Jewry living in Arab space.” The Mufti settled in Berlin, befriended Adolf Eichmann, and lobbied thegovernments of Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria to cancel a plan to transfer Jews to Palestine. Subsequently, some 400,000 Jews from these countries were sent to death camps.
Mr. Motadel describes the Mufti’s Nazi dealings vividly, but he also excels in unearthing other odious and fascinating characters. Among them: Zeki Kiram, the Ottoman officer turned disciple of Rashid Rida, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; and Johann von Leers, a Nazi professor who converted to Islam and became Omar Amin, an anti-Semitic publicist for Nasser ’s Egypt.
Some of the Muslim Nazis ended badly. Others stayed at their desks, then consulted for Saudi Arabia in retirement. The major Muslim collaborators escaped. Fearing Muslim uprisings, the Allies did not try the Mufti as a war criminal; he died in Beirut in 1974…
Last edited by Interloper on Mon Feb 02, 2015 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pariah without peer
User avatar
Interloper
Great Old One
 
Posts: 4816
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 5:35 pm
Location: USA

Previous

Return to Been There Done That

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests