Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism

by Guest Sat Mar 25, 2017 7:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Ken Livingstone has warned he will take Labour to court if it expels him over alleged anti-Semitism.

He had told BBC Radio London last April that in Adolf Hitler’s policy in 1932 “was that Jews should be moved to Israel”. “He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews,” he told the Vanessa Feltz show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ken-livingstone-judicial-review-labour-party-anti-semitism-michael-mansfield-imran-khan-jeremy-corbyn_uk_58d54dd5e4b03787d357fadb?utm_hp_ref=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk

This is the problem with the Far Left.

Israel did not exist in 1932, so ho could he move them to Israel?

Delusions. What he is referring to. Is the Haavara agreement between German Zionist Jews and the Nazi Germany. Of which many other zionists were against, but considering the hate many Germans Jews faced. You can hardly blame them for wanting to cut a deal, simply to get out of Germany with some of their property.

Which the Nazi's only did, to try and break the anti-Nazi boycott. It was also seen as a way of getting rid of Jews. Hitler never even supported the agreement and criticized this in 1932. He only supported the agreement between 1937-1939. Only 60,000 German Jews were able to emigrate to Palestine, of which the Nazi's exploited them of their money and property out of 522,000. There is nothing in the agreement that backs and supports the creation of a Jewish homeland or nation in former Judea and Israel.

The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement (such as the Revisionist Zionist leader Ze'ev Jabotinsky) and outside it.^[4] For German Jews, the agreement offered a way to leave an increasingly hostile environment in Nazi Germany; for the Yishuv, the new Jewish community in Palestine, it offered access to both immigrants and some economic support; and for the Nazis it was seen as a way of breaking the Anti-Nazi boycott of 1933, which had mass support among European Jews and was thought by the German state as a potential threat to a fragile German economy.

The Haavara Agreement was thought among some Nazi circles to be a possible way to rid the country of its supposed "Jewish problem." The head of the Middle Eastern division of the foreign ministry, the anti-Nazi Werner Otto von Hentig, supported the policy of concentrating Jews in Palestine. Hentig believed that if the Jewish population was concentrated in a single foreign entity, then foreign diplomatic policy and containment of the Jews would become easier. Hitler's own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s. Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.
After the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, the program was ended.

Zionism

noun
1.
a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

So how in anyway, was Hitler supporting Zionism, a belief in a Jewish homeland for the Jews in Israel, of which none existed at this present time? When his intention all along was to eradicate them? The Nazi's in the 1930's were not strong enough to start murdering Jews on any scale, as it could likely lead to war. They certainly persecuted the Jews and treated them as inferior Until Germany was strong enough to go to war.. So this agreement does not mean Hitler of the Nazis supported the ideology of Zionism. Like I say the Far Left are truly it seems Nazi apologists. I hope he does go to court, as he would need to show Hitler actively believed and supported a Jewish homeland for the Jews in its previous nation of Judea and Israel.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:11 pm

Yeah his support is by many of those who hate Jews.

Go figure

Lol, what a failed argument, that many who back antisemitism, some how makes his views right. Even though countless historians have rightly ridiculed his revisionist history.

The Jewish labour MP's that support him are anti-Zionists

So are against the existence of the state of Israel

Go figure

PMSL

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:16 pm

Thorin wrote:Yeah his support is by many of those who hate Jews.

Go figure

Lol, what a failed argument, that those who back antisemitism, some how makes his views right. Even though countless historians have rightly ridiculed his revisionist history.

The Jewish labour MP's that support him are anti-Zionists

So are against the existence of the state of Israel

Go figure

PMSL

The Jews who are supporting him hate Jews? Please explain that. lol!

Others have backed up what he's saying. You only read the "historian" reports which disagree with him - because you're biased and pig-headed. Cool

What's wrong with being anti-Zionist? Being anti-Zionist isn't antisemitic - as you well know - or do you?

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:22 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:Yeah his support is by many of those who hate Jews.

Go figure

Lol, what a failed argument, that those who back antisemitism, some how makes his views right. Even though countless historians have rightly ridiculed his revisionist history.

The Jewish labour MP's that support him are anti-Zionists

So are against the existence of the state of Israel

Go figure

PMSL

The Jews who are supporting him hate Jews? Please explain that.

Others have backed up what he's saying. You only read the "historian" reports which disagree with him - because you're biased and pig-headed.

What's wrong with being anti-Zionist? Being anti-Zionist isn't antisemitic - as you well know - or do you?

1) Revisionist history again. Where did I say Jews supporting him hate Jews?
Though there is such a think as a self hating Jew, did you not know that? Just as there is a thing such as a self hating white.
I said many who support him hate Jews and that the labour MP's supporting him are all anti-Zionists.

PMSL

2) Others have backed up what he is saying?
What experts?

Donald duck?

Mickey Mouse by any chance?

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 3489511464

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 3489511464

Show me any reputable historians that agree with him?

This should be fun

3) Never claimed being anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but those who are generally cross over into antisemitism.

4) So the question to ask. Are you against self determination of the Scottish people and thus Scottishism. To have an independent nation?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:25 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

The Jews who are supporting him hate Jews? Please explain that.

Others have backed up what he's saying. You only read the "historian" reports which disagree with him - because you're biased and pig-headed.

What's wrong with being anti-Zionist? Being anti-Zionist isn't antisemitic - as you well know - or do you?

1) Revisionist history again. Where did I say Jews supporting him hate Jews?
Though there is such a think as a self hating Jew, did you not know that? Just as there is a thing such as a self hating white.
I said many who support him hate Jews and that the labour MP's supporting him are all anti-Zionists.

PMSL

2) Others have backed up what he is saying?
What experts?

Donald duck?

Mickey Mouse by any chance?

Show me any reputable historians that agree with him?

This should be fun

3) Never claimed being anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but those who are generally cross over into antisemitism.

4) So the question to ask. Are you against self determination of the Scottish people and thus Scottishism. To have an independent nation?

Do you know all the Jewish Labour members and supporters who signed the letter? You seem to think you do. Please provide the history of anti-Zionism of all them. Ta.

You simply don't know your history. It's all been explained to you several times, but you are absolutely clueless about it. Read it up again.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Revisionist history again. Where did I say Jews supporting him hate Jews?
Though there is such a think as a self hating Jew, did you not know that? Just as there is a thing such as a self hating white.
I said many who support him hate Jews and that the labour MP's supporting him are all anti-Zionists.

PMSL

2) Others have backed up what he is saying?
What experts?

Donald duck?

Mickey Mouse by any chance?

Show me any reputable historians that agree with him?

This should be fun

3) Never claimed being anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic, but those who are generally cross over into antisemitism.

4) So the question to ask. Are you against self determination of the Scottish people and thus Scottishism. To have an independent nation?

Do you know all the Jewish Labour members and supporters who signed the letter? You seem to think you do. Please provide the history of anti-Zionism of all them. Ta.

You simply don't know your history. It's all been explained to you several times, but you are absolutely clueless about it. Read it up again.

1) Sorry, how many is that? Are you claiming its all the Jewish Labour members?

Lets see the evidence for that please?

2) Is your argument again based on people with views, not knowing history, that support him?

How embarrassing, this is your evidence. That some Jews, who are anti-Zionists are clueless on history and have an agenda and motive to back him.

Is that your reputable evidence?

You then make further unfounded charges.

So you best put up some real reputable experts on this that back him.

This should be hilarious

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:33 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Do you know all the Jewish Labour members and supporters who signed the letter? You seem to think you do. Please provide the history of anti-Zionism of all them. Ta.

You simply don't know your history. It's all been explained to you several times, but you are absolutely clueless about it. Read it up again.

1) Sorry, how many is that?

2) Is your argument again based on people with views, not knowing history, that support him?

How embarrassing, this is your evidence. That some Jews, who are anti-Zionists are clueless on history and have an agenda and motive to back him.

Is that your reputable evidence?

You then make further unfounded charges.

So you best put up some real reputable experts on this that back him.

This should be hilarious

You don't know how many signed the letter, or who signed it, and yet you claim they are all anti-Zionists?

It's you who doesn't know the history. You will do anything to promote your extremism. Try reading something about it - as I suggested before.

Oh, and your boot-licking failed by the way.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Sorry, how many is that?

2) Is your argument again based on people with views, not knowing history, that support him?

How embarrassing, this is your evidence. That some Jews, who are anti-Zionists are clueless on history and have an agenda and motive to back him.

Is that your reputable evidence?

You then make further unfounded charges.

So you best put up some real reputable experts on this that back him.

This should be hilarious

You don't know how many signed the letter, or who signed it, and yet you claim they are all anti-Zionists?

It's you who doesn't know the history. You will do anything to promote your extremism. Try reading something about it - as I suggested before.

Oh, and your boot-licking failed by the way.

1) How many who did sign are again anti-Zionists?

Does that not then make them biased?

Take your time.

You would need people backing him who are not anti zionist and Jewish, which would still be a weak argument.

Though I would love to see the numbers here of Jewish labour membership and of those who back him to compare.

Do you have the stats?

2) So again misdirection, when I have easily embarrassed you on your complete and utter ignorance of this topic. Of which again the reputable experts agree with me.

So why can you not find a single reputable expert that backs Ken?

lol

Take your time toddler

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:47 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't know how many signed the letter, or who signed it, and yet you claim they are all anti-Zionists?

It's you who doesn't know the history. You will do anything to promote your extremism. Try reading something about it - as I suggested before.

Oh, and your boot-licking failed by the way.

1) How many who did sign are again anti-Zionists?

Why are you asking me? You're the one who seems to think that any Jewish Labour member or supporter who backs him is anti-Zionist. The people who signed the letter aren't necessarily MPs, so you moved the goal posts again. However, you seem to know who's anti-Zionist and who isn't, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to expand on that.

Don't take too long about it either.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:48 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't know how many signed the letter, or who signed it, and yet you claim they are all anti-Zionists?

It's you who doesn't know the history. You will do anything to promote your extremism. Try reading something about it - as I suggested before.

Oh, and your boot-licking failed by the way.

1) How many who did sign are again anti-Zionists?

Does that not then make them biased?

Take your time.

You would need people backing him who are not anti zionist and Jewish, which would still be a weak argument.

Though I would love to see the numbers here of Jewish labour membership and of those who back him to compare.

Do you have the stats?

2) So again misdirection, when I have easily embarrassed you on your complete and utter ignorance of this topic. Of which again the reputable experts agree with me.

So why can you not find a single reputable expert that backs Ken?

lol

Take your time, you fabulous person.

Are you suggesting that the Haavara Agreement didn't happen, and that it didn't encourage Jews to move to Palestine?

Where is your proof of that? Did you get it from a "historian"? lol!

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) How many who did sign are again anti-Zionists?

Does that not then make them biased?

Take your time.

You would need people backing him who are not anti zionist and Jewish, which would still be a weak argument.

Though I would love to see the numbers here of Jewish labour membership and of those who back him to compare.

Do you have the stats?

2) So again misdirection, when I have easily embarrassed you on your complete and utter ignorance of this topic. Of which again the reputable experts agree with me.

So why can you not find a single reputable expert that backs Ken?

lol

Take your time, you fabulous person.

Are you suggesting that the Haavara Agreement didn't happen, and that it didn't encourage Jews to move to Palestine?

Where is your proof of that? Did you get it from a "historian"?

1) Where did I claim the agreement did not happen? lol

2) So that is your argument for Hitler supporting Zionism again, easily refuted by all reputable historians?

3) Is that why you failed to offer any reputable historian that backs Ken

lol!

4) I am not bothered that Sassy demeans me and then tries to defend a terrorist who tried to stab Israeli's with scissors, just this terrorists children committed terrorism. She is an apologist of terrorists. Though, at least I can commend her for speaking out on antisemitism. Even if she promotes lies and fake news

5) So again, one last time, show me any reputable historian that claims the Nazis and Hitler were supporting Zionism with this agreement, when they were actually exploiting Jews of their wealth and trying to get rid of them?

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:57 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you suggesting that the Haavara Agreement didn't happen, and that it didn't encourage Jews to move to Palestine?

Where is your proof of that? Did you get it from a "historian"?

1) Where did I claim the agreement did not happen? lol

2) So that is your argument for Hitler supporting Zionism again, easily refuted by all reputable historians?

3) Is that why you failed to offer any reputable historian that backs Ken

4) I am not bothered that Sassy demeans me and then tries to defend a terrorist who tried to stab Israeli's with scissors, just this terrorists children committed terrorism. She is an apologist of terrorists. Though, at least I can commend her for speaking out on antisemitism. Even if she promotes lies and fake news

5) So again, one last time, show me any reputable historian that claims the Nazis and Hitler were supporting Zionism with this agreement, when they were actually exploiting Jews of their wealth and trying to get rid of them?

If Hitler supported the Haavara agreement, then he was encouraging Jews to move to Palestine, thereby supporting what the Zionists wanted. I really don't know why you can't see that.

You need to start thinking for yourself instead of hanging onto the words of others. Try explaining things in your own words instead of hiding behind people who happen to think the way you do.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:59 pm

A Palestinian woman said to be the mother of a man killed last year attempted to stab Israeli police officers with scissors at the entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City on Wednesday before being shot dead, officials said.
The woman pulled the scissors on the security force members at the entrance to Damascus Gate but was shot dead before she was able to stab anyone, a police spokeswoman said in a statement.
A police image showed the woman with the scissors in the air seeking to stab the police

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/29/palestinian-woman-shot-dead-trying-to-stab-israeli-police-officials-say

Enough said, she was a threat.
Many of these terrorists survive such attacks.

If this was the UK, people back the policy of shoot to kill terrorists, yet again we see fake news from those who are terrorists apologists.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:03 pm

Thorin wrote:A Palestinian woman said to be the mother of a man killed last year attempted to stab Israeli police officers with scissors at the entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City on Wednesday before being shot dead, officials said.
The woman pulled the scissors on the security force members at the entrance to Damascus Gate but was shot dead before she was able to stab anyone, a police spokeswoman said in a statement.
A police image showed the woman with the scissors in the air seeking to stab the police

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/29/palestinian-woman-shot-dead-trying-to-stab-israeli-police-officials-say

Enough said, she was a threat.
Many of these terrorists survive such attacks.

If this was the UK, people back the policy of shoot to kill terrorists, yet again we see fake news from those who are terrorists apologists.

Didge, stop trying to stir. This is not about that kind of thing, so you're off topic. If you want to reply to Sassy, go over there and speak to her, or start another thread here.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

1) Where did I claim the agreement did not happen? lol

2) So that is your argument for Hitler supporting Zionism again, easily refuted by all reputable historians?

3) Is that why you failed to offer any reputable historian that backs Ken

4) I am not bothered that Sassy demeans me and then tries to defend a terrorist who tried to stab Israeli's with scissors, just this terrorists children committed terrorism. She is an apologist of terrorists. Though, at least I can commend her for speaking out on antisemitism. Even if she promotes lies and fake news

5) So again, one last time, show me any reputable historian that claims the Nazis and Hitler were supporting Zionism with this agreement, when they were actually exploiting Jews of their wealth and trying to get rid of them?

If Hitler supported the Haavara agreement, then he was encouraging Jews to move to Palestine, thereby supporting what the Zionists wanted. I really don't know why you can't see that.

You need to start thinking for yourself instead of hanging onto the words of others. Try explaining things in your own words instead of hiding behind people who happen to think the way you do.

PMSL

1) So he wanted to eradicated Jews and be rid of them, to then exploit them. Where by the Jews had been betrayed by the British for a Nation in Palestine and this is supporting Zionism to you?

How is that supporting Zionism

I really cannot understand how ignorant you are of apologist hate against Israel?

Again, how is hating Jews, with Hitler. Even stating he is against them ever having a state and nation, by then exploiting them of their wealth. Only to counter boycotts helping Zionism?

2) Still waiting for your imaginary experts

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:04 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:A Palestinian woman said to be the mother of a man killed last year attempted to stab Israeli police officers with scissors at the entrance to Jerusalem’s Old City on Wednesday before being shot dead, officials said.
The woman pulled the scissors on the security force members at the entrance to Damascus Gate but was shot dead before she was able to stab anyone, a police spokeswoman said in a statement.
A police image showed the woman with the scissors in the air seeking to stab the police

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/29/palestinian-woman-shot-dead-trying-to-stab-israeli-police-officials-say

Enough said, she was a threat.
Many of these terrorists survive such attacks.

If this was the UK, people back the policy of shoot to kill terrorists, yet again we see fake news from those who are terrorists apologists.

Didge, stop trying to stir. This is not about that kind of thing, so you're off topic. If you want to reply to Sassy, go over there and speak to her, or start another thread here.

I am just posting facts Rags

Double standards again

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:04 pm

So anyway, how do you define "historian"? Is it people who agree with you by any chance?

You are a Zionist so you're biased, although I don't know why a Zionist would be offended by the suggestion that Hitler supported their wish for Jews from Germany to move to Palestine. It's the truth.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:07 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

If Hitler supported the Haavara agreement, then he was encouraging Jews to move to Palestine, thereby supporting what the Zionists wanted. I really don't know why you can't see that.

You need to start thinking for yourself instead of hanging onto the words of others. Try explaining things in your own words instead of hiding behind people who happen to think the way you do.

PMSL

1) So he wanted to eradicated Jews and be rid of them, to then exploit them. Where by the Jews had been betrayed by the British for a Nation in Palestine and this is supporting Zionism to you?

How is that supporting Zionism

I really cannot understand how ignorant you are of apologist hate against Israel?

Again, how is hating Jews, with Hitler. Even stating he is against them ever having a state and nation, by then exploiting them of their wealth. Only to counter boycotts helping Zionism?

2) Still waiting for your imaginary experts

He wanted the Jews out of Germany, and he agreed that it would be good if they moved to Palestine where the Zionists wanted to set up a Jewish State - it was a mutual thing. Some of your post made no sense actually - maybe you could rewrite it properly.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:09 pm

How are you getting on with the list of Jewish anti-Zionist Labour MPs, members, and supporters?

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:12 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, how do you define "historian"? Is it people who agree with you by any chance?

You are a Zionist so you're biased, although I don't know why a Zionist would be offended by the suggestion that Hitler supported their wish for Jews from Germany to move to Palestine. It's the truth.

Sorry, did you say how do I define a historian?

PMSL

What did you miss by the word reputable?

I seriously just felt pee I laughed so much at such bad misdirection

I am a Zionist, because I back the right of Israel to exist.

So you think, Hitler hating Jews and even way before his rise to power. Stating that he wanted to kill Jews. To then exploit them through persecuting them whilst in power. To them offer to take most of their wealth, as a means to escape. Is supporting Zionism. Even though he was against the creation of a Jewish state? The central tenant of Zionism. Th creation of a Jewish state.

Like I said, your view, that when Israeli's treat any wounded medically ( as Israelis are humanitarian), including ISIS terrorists and Palestinian terrorists. To you make them support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and ISIS.

This proves how absurd and dumb your views are based on.

That is why your view point, is ridiculed by historians, because you fail to factor Hitler or Nazism ideology itself

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:How are you getting on with the list of Jewish anti-Zionist Labour MPs, members, and supporters?

I am still waiting for you to show me the stats hun?

Laughing

How many Jewish members are there of Labour.

How many of them are supporters here of Ken

Ho many of these are anti zionists.

You made the claim on them to back them, as if they make Ken right some how, because they are Jews.

Its a fallacy argument you are presenting, if none of them are experts historically.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:18 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, how do you define "historian"? Is it people who agree with you by any chance?

You are a Zionist so you're biased, although I don't know why a Zionist would be offended by the suggestion that Hitler supported their wish for Jews from Germany to move to Palestine. It's the truth.

Sorry, did you say how do I define a historian?

PMSL

What did you miss by the word reputable?

I seriously just felt pee I laughed so much at such bad misdirection

I am a Zionist, because I back the right of Israel to exist.

So you think, Hitler hating Jews and even way before his rise to power. Stating that he wanted to kill Jews. To then exploit them through persecuting them whilst in power. To them offer to take most of their wealth, as a means to escape. Is supporting Zionism. Even though he was against the creation of a Jewish state? The central tenant of Zionism. Th creation of a Jewish state.

Like I said, your view, that Israel treated any wounded medially ( as Israelis are humanitarian), including ISIS terrorists and Palestinian terrorists. To you make them support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and ISIS.

That is why your view point, is ridiculed by historians, because you fail to factor Hitler or Nazism ideology itself

Backing the right for Israel to exist doesn't necessarily make someone a Zionist. However, I think you are a Zionist, and it's obvious why.

You are failing to understand the psychology of Hitler, and you are failing to understand that he was afraid of a boycott against German goods. You are further failing to understand the shenanigans in Nazi Germany and the issue of people with a common goal doing deals even if they didn't like each other.

You also don't understand the Haavara Agreement.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:20 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:How are you getting on with the list of Jewish anti-Zionist Labour MPs, members, and supporters?

I am still waiting for you to show me the stats hun?

How many Jewish members are there of Labour.

How many of them are supporters here of Ken

Ho many of these are anti zionists.

You made the claim on them to back them, as if they make Ken right some how, because they are Jews.

Its a fallacy argument you are presenting, if none of them are experts historically.

You're the one who claimed that Jewish Labour MPs who support KL are anti-Zionists. I notice you avoided the issue of the letter though - do you think everyone who signed it are also anti-Zionist? You made the claim - you back it up.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:25 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So anyway, how do you define "historian"? Is it people who agree with you by any chance?

You are a Zionist so you're biased, although I don't know why a Zionist would be offended by the suggestion that Hitler supported their wish for Jews from Germany to move to Palestine. It's the truth.

Sorry, did you say how do I define a historian?

PMSL

What did you miss by the word reputable?

Name the historians who you consider to be reputable on this issue, and the ones who you consider are not.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry, did you say how do I define a historian?

PMSL

What did you miss by the word reputable?

I seriously just felt pee I laughed so much at such bad misdirection

I am a Zionist, because I back the right of Israel to exist.

So you think, Hitler hating Jews and even way before his rise to power. Stating that he wanted to kill Jews. To then exploit them through persecuting them whilst in power. To them offer to take most of their wealth, as a means to escape. Is supporting Zionism. Even though he was against the creation of a Jewish state? The central tenant of Zionism. Th creation of a Jewish state.

Like I said, your view, that Israel treated any wounded medially ( as Israelis are humanitarian), including ISIS terrorists and Palestinian terrorists. To you make them support Hamas, Islamic Jihad and ISIS.

That is why your view point, is ridiculed by historians, because you fail to factor Hitler or Nazism ideology itself

Backing the right for Israel to exist doesn't necessarily make someone a Zionist. However, I think you are a Zionist, and it's obvious why.

You are failing to understand the psychology of Hitler, and you are failing to understand that he was afraid of a boycott against German goods. You are further failing to understand the shenanigans in Nazi Germany and the issue of people with a common goal doing deals even if they didn't like each other.

You also don't understand the Haavara Agreement.

1) Logically it would make them Zionists, because its a key principle of Zionism. Which is what you fail to grasp and why some people like you show double standards.

2) Sorry you are now presenting the psychology of Hitler. So you admit, he was afraid of the boycott and thus exploited Jews. That is not supporting Zionism, but supporting a view to help Germany. Not Jews. It proves he is using them. So to you, a child groomed by a Pakistani grooming gang is not exploited at all. She has been exploited and wants to be loved. Her central goal, is to be loved. Are you saying those who groomed her, have provided her with this love? Or were actively aiding those groomed to have love?

You dont have a clue what you are talking about and as seen, when you psychology. I will ultimately make you look stupid.

Though for the sake of interest and you digging a bigger hole on what you seem to think you know about psychology and in this regard Hitler?

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry, did you say how do I define a historian?

PMSL

What did you miss by the word reputable?

Name the historians who you consider to be reputable on this issue, and the ones who you consider are not.

I have listed many on the other debate.

I can name loads, yet you cannot name a single one that backs you.

Checkmate

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:35 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Name the historians who you consider to be reputable on this issue, and the ones who you consider are not.

I have listed many on the other debate.

I can name loads, yet you cannot name a single one that backs you.

Checkmate

What other debate? Name them here please.

The point is that you are twisting the argument. You seem to be totally oblivious to the point KL was making.

What do you think about the claims re the issue of the Zionist flag and the coin with the swastika on one side and the Star of David on the other?

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:43 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

I have listed many on the other debate.

I can name loads, yet you cannot name a single one that backs you.

Checkmate

What other debate? Name them here please.

The point is that you are twisting the argument. You seem to be totally oblivious to the point KL was making.

What do you think about the claims re the issue of the Zionist flag and the coin with the swastika on one side and the Star of David on the other?

Already posted this here for you on this thread

http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-historians-take-down-livingstons-claim-that-hitler-supported-zionism/

What point was he making?

That groomers are enabling love, when they exploit children?

Oh the Zionist Flag?

“In spite of Tribich’s brief testimony, Livingstone doggedly reiterated his claims, adding that a Nuremberg law passed in 1935 had ruled that only two flags were to be flown in Germany — the swastika and “the Zionist banner.” (In fact Section 4 of the Nuremberg Laws states that Jews were not allowed to fly “the national flag” but could fly “the Jewish colors” — usually held to be blue and white.)

‘Partial truths are more dangerous than outright lies’

In an interview with The Times of Israel on Monday, Holocaust historian Professor Yehuda Bauer, arguably the foremost scholar of the Holocaust, dismissed Livingstone’s interpretations of history, which he called “partial truths.

”Two flags — yes, true, and totally immaterial because of course no Jew would fly a Jewish flag in Germany. This was a propaganda ploy, to emphasize that German Jews were foreigners and not Germans or full German citizens (they became ‘Reich subjects’),” said Bauer, author of dozens of books and articles on the Holocaust, including the 1994 book “Jews for sale?: Nazi-Jewish negotiations

If you had of read the links I gave you, which clearly you never did.

So in conclusion. Rags thinks exploiting people is helping them achieve their aims, by never having them by this exploitation.

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:51 pm

Well isn't that odd? I posted a link to an article by Bauer on page 2 of this thread, and you dismissed it because he's a "Zionist". You've clearly forgotten that. He agreed that the Nazis came to an arrangement with some Zionists did he not? That's what KL said.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:59 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Well isn't that odd? I posted a link to an article by Bauer on page 2 of this thread, and you dismissed it because he's a "Zionist". You've clearly forgotten that. He agreed that the Nazis came to an arrangement with some Zionists did he not? That's what KL said.

No you further lie

How did I dismiss him?

What I said

Thorin wrote:He was also a Zionist

Does that mean these groups of Zionists trying to flee Germany represent all Zionism?

Are you then culpable for any Christian violence Rags based off your argument?

The Nazi's did not support zionism. They supported getting rid of some Jews and exploiting them of their property and money.

So how is that dismissing him?

Pray tell?

Why are you dismissing him, if you are now using him, when he says this?

Professor Bauer added: “Much of what Livingstone says is true, but at the same time distorted. The Ha’avara agreement was motivated, certainly as far as Hitler himself was concerned, by the overwhelming desire to get rid of the Jews of Germany by emigration,” said Bauer. “Ha’avara helped in getting Jews out of Germany. That was the reason why he supported the continuation of Ha’avara even in 1938, when he was asked.”

Bauer said there were also additional motives behind Hitler’s support of the Ha’avara agreement.
“Ha’avara increased German exports at no cost in foreign currency; the Jewish boycott movement had collapsed by 1935, and the Ha’avara continued until 1939. But yes, in 1933, the Nazis also saw in Ha’avara a means of fighting the boycott,” said Bauer.
“Partial truths are more dangerous than outright lies,” said Bauer.
Livingstone sought to support his thesis that Hitler was a backer of Zionism by alleging that he had stood out against other Nazi leaders who feared the creation of a Jewish state. Bauer dismissed this as “pure nonsense.”

“Hitler agreed that the establishment of a Jewish state would create a Jewish Vatican and opposed it, but the ideology of expelling Jews was more important,” said Bauer.

Livingstone also claimed in the J-TV interview that the Stern Gang had tried to do a deal with the Nazi leadership, asking for weapons in exchange for joining Germany in the war.
Bauer poured scorn on this idea, saying that in 1941 “the Stern group, numbering about 120 members in 1941, tried to contact the Germans to create a common front against the British. The Jewish community in Palestine (Yishuv) fought against them. They did not ask the Germans for weapons. The Germans of course did not reply or react to that attempt.”

Your expert witness agrees with me, you are an idiot

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:05 pm

So you consider that Bauer is reputable because he's a Zionist.

Cheers - you just answered my previous question. You consider someone reputable because you think they agree with you.

How about a "reputable" historian who is not a Zionist and who has commented on this issue? Care to name some?

I've been saying what Bauer was saying all along - that Hitler was supporting the Zionists for a different reason.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:11 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:So you consider that Bauer is reputable because he's a Zionist.

Cheers - you just answered my previous question. You consider someone reputable because you think they agree with you.

How about a "reputable" historian who is not a Zionist and who has commented on this issue? Care to name some?

I've been saying what Bauer was saying all along - that Hitler was supporting the Zionists for a different reason.

He is a historian

The worlds leading expert on this

I don't even need to use him here for my argument, as I have non-Jews who back me as historians

Sorry, how many fire extinguishers does it take to put the flames out on Rags on that piss poor argument?

Hence the point, on that very link, there is historians, that are not Zionists or Jews who refute the Jew hater Ken.

Bauer never claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism.

Fake news and desperation again

Where is your reputable historian Rags that backs you?

So your argument is. Child abusers are providing children with the love they seek, when they fall prey to exploitation

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 2686688521

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 2686688521

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:15 pm

Professor Colin Shindler, of London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies, told The Times of Israel that the Nazis were of two minds regarding the idea of a Jewish state.

“Basically the Nazis had a dual policy since the early 1920s. They ideologically opposed Zionism and the very idea of a Jewish homeland, since they believed that this would be yet another historical ‘base’ for the Jews to congregate and operate their world-wide conspiracy. On the other hand, they desperately wanted the Jews of Germany to leave,” said Shindler.

‘The question for Livingstone is this: Would it have been better for this 53,000 to have remained in Germany and not taken advantage of the arrangement?’

“[Under the Ha’avara Agreement] the Jewish Agency arranged with the Nazis in 1933 that they could take out a limited amount of money to Palestine, but that it should only be used to purchase German goods. In this way the Nazis combatted the boycott of their economy. However, 53,000 Jews were allowed to leave Germany in this fashion in the 1930s to reach the shores of Palestine and start a new life. The US historian, Francis Nicosia, who has written about this subject in detail, has pointed out that if it was not for this arrangement, the 53,000 Jews would probably have perished in the Shoah,” said Shindler.

“The question for Livingstone is this: Would it have been better for this 53,000 to have remained in Germany and not taken advantage of the arrangement?” asked Shindler.
Rainer Schulze, professor of modern European history at the University of Essex and general editor of “The Holocaust in History and Memory,” stated that the Ha’avara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were ever Zionists.

“Instead, it is testament to the fact that Nazi policy towards the Jews was not clear-cut from the beginning, but evolved greatly over the years. The only constants were a fanatical hatred of Jews, the insistence that the Jews were the root cause of all of Germany’s problems, and that the ‘Jewish question’ must be ‘solved’ once and for all,” said Schulze.

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 Tsnyder-305x172

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 Tsnyder-305x172

Yale history professor Timothy Snyder (screen capture: YouTube)

In an interview with the BBC, Timothy Snyder, Yale University history professor and author of “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning,” opined that Hitler was not a supporter of Zionism.

“He believed, on the contrary, that Zionism was one of many deliberately deceptive labels that Jews placed upon what he believed to be their endless striving for global power and the extermination of the human species. From Hitler’s point of view, Jews were precisely not normal human beings because they did not care about territory, but cared only about global domination,” said Snyder.

Snyder said that Livingston’s claim that Hitler was supporting Zionism “is categorically false and reveals a total and fundamental misunderstanding of what Hitler’s anti-Semitism was all about.”

http://www.timesofisrael.com/top-historians-take-down-livingstons-claim-that-hitler-supported-zionism/

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 2686688521

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:19 pm

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:So you consider that Bauer is reputable because he's a Zionist.

Cheers - you just answered my previous question. You consider someone reputable because you think they agree with you.

How about a "reputable" historian who is not a Zionist and who has commented on this issue? Care to name some?

I've been saying what Bauer was saying all along - that Hitler was supporting the Zionists for a different reason.

He is a historian

The worlds leading expert on this

I don't even need to use him here for my argument, as I have non-Jews who back me as historians

Sorry, how many fire extinguishers does it take to put the flames out on Rags on that piss poor argument?

Hence the point, on that very link, there is historians, that are not Zionists or Jews who refute the Jew hater Ken.

Bauer never claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism.

Fake news and desperation again

Where is your reputable historian Rags that backs you?

So your argument is. Child abusers are providing children with the love they seek, when they fall prey to exploitation

Bauer is saying what I've been saying - I think that's game, set, and match to me. You've been so busy twisting what KL said that you didn't notice what he actually meant. We all know the history Didge - the issue is you trying to twist what KL meant. lol!

It's funny that you tried to use Bauer against me though, and then claimed you didn't "need" him after you quoted him. lol!

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

He is a historian

The worlds leading expert on this

I don't even need to use him here for my argument, as I have non-Jews who back me as historians

Sorry, how many fire extinguishers does it take to put the flames out on Rags on that piss poor argument?

Hence the point, on that very link, there is historians, that are not Zionists or Jews who refute the Jew hater Ken.

Bauer never claimed Hitler was supporting Zionism.

Fake news and desperation again

Where is your reputable historian Rags that backs you?

So your argument is. Child abusers are providing children with the love they seek, when they fall prey to exploitation

Bauer is saying what I've been saying - I think that's game, set, and match to me. You've been so busy twisting what KL said that you didn't notice what he actually meant. We all know the history Didge - the issue is you trying to twist what KL meant.

It's funny that you tried to use Bauer against me though, and then claimed you didn't "need" him after you quoted him.

Sorry, Bauer is saying what you are saying?

Ken Livingstone Warns He Will Sue Labour If He Is Expelled For Anti-Semitism - Page 7 Giphy

Is that why he is refuting Ken then Rags?

Its so bad your defense you are now left with now only poor points on me
But downright lying

If he read this, he would picture you with the intellect of a toddler..

Laughing

Show me how he backs you, that Hitler supported Zionism, as you claim?

This should be fun.

Then tell me how a victim of grooming has obtained love through exploitation.

This point, you have avoided like the plague.

by Guest Fri Mar 31, 2017 10:49 pm

I have to thank Rags

She has been a good sport, misguided, but a good sport, for being so badly misled.
Take the latest terrorist attack on Israeli's.
Its reported by Pro-Palestinians as murder of a claimed innocent. Whilst she wields a weapon to harm Jews, which is caught on camera.
That though does not stop idiots from posting lies off this from the left

Go figure

Night all

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:53 am

Thorin wrote:I have to thank Rags

She has been a good sport, misguided, but a good sport, for being so badly misled.
Take the latest terrorist attack on Israeli's.
Its reported by Pro-Palestinians as murder of a claimed innocent. Whilst she wields a weapon to harm Jews, which is caught on camera.
That though does not stop idiots from posting lies off this from the left

Go figure

Night all

What do attacks on Israelis have to do with any of it? Have you been off piste again?

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:03 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:I have to thank Rags

She has been a good sport, misguided, but a good sport, for being so badly misled.
Take the latest terrorist attack on Israeli's.
Its reported by Pro-Palestinians as murder of a claimed innocent. Whilst she wields a weapon to harm Jews, which is caught on camera.
That though does not stop idiots from posting lies off this from the left

Go figure

Night all

What do attacks on Israelis have to do with any of it? Have you been off piste again?

Reported

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:04 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Bauer is saying what I've been saying - I think that's game, set, and match to me. You've been so busy twisting what KL said that you didn't notice what he actually meant. We all know the history Didge - the issue is you trying to twist what KL meant.

It's funny that you tried to use Bauer against me though, and then claimed you didn't "need" him after you quoted him.

Sorry, Bauer is saying what you are saying?

Is that why he is refuting Ken then Rags?

Its so bad your defense you are now left with now only poor points on me
But downright lying

If he read this, he would picture you with the intellect of a toddler..

Show me how he backs you, that Hitler supported Zionism, as you claim?

This should be fun.

Then tell me how a victim of grooming has obtained love through exploitation.

This point, you have avoided like the plague.

Ken didn't say that Hitler supported Zionism, he said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" in the context of Jews moving to Palestine, which is absolutely true. The link you posted didn't work, but no matter. The trouble with the article you cited is that it starts with an inaccurate statement - ie, that Ken said that "Hitler supported Zionism", which he did not say, and it doesn't provide the context.

Bauer merely disagreed with Ken's interpretation, although his own interpretation appears to be the same to me. He agreed that Hitler supported the continuation of the Haavara Agreement.

If you want to debate this, at least try to understand what was said and what was meant.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:06 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

What do attacks on Israelis have to do with any of it? Have you been off piste again?

Reported

Why? Your post was clearly nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with what someone said on another forum.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:09 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Reported

Why? Your post was clearly nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with what someone said on another forum.

Reported for continued stirring

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:15 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Sorry, Bauer is saying what you are saying?

Is that why he is refuting Ken then Rags?

Its so bad your defense you are now left with now only poor points on me
But downright lying

If he read this, he would picture you with the intellect of a toddler..

Show me how he backs you, that Hitler supported Zionism, as you claim?

This should be fun.

Then tell me how a victim of grooming has obtained love through exploitation.

This point, you have avoided like the plague.

Ken didn't say that Hitler supported Zionism, he said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" in the context of Jews moving to Palestine, which is absolutely true. The link you posted didn't work, but no matter. The trouble with the article you cited is that it starts with an inaccurate statement - ie, that Ken said that "Hitler supported Zionism", which he did not say, and it doesn't provide the context.

Bauer merely disagreed with Ken's interpretation, although his own interpretation appears to be the same to me. He agreed that Hitler supported the continuation of the Haavara Agreement.

If you want to debate this, at least try to understand what was said and what was meant.

Same regurgitated drivel.

Its very clear and also documented that he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

So spamming which you have throughout this debate

Double standards

Again show me any reputable historians that back Ken

You failed to do so and since then Ken has made even more absurd claims

The debate is not on your terms, especially, when you constantly avoid points

Put up or stop wasting my time with your toddler tantrums

Professor Bauer added: “Much of what Livingstone says is true, but at the same time distorted. The Ha’avara agreement was motivated, certainly as far as Hitler himself was concerned, by the overwhelming desire to get rid of the Jews of Germany by emigration,” said Bauer. “Ha’avara helped in getting Jews out of Germany. That was the reason why he supported the continuation of Ha’avara even in 1938, when he was asked.”

Bauer said there were also additional motives behind Hitler’s support of the Ha’avara agreement.

“Ha’avara increased German exports at no cost in foreign currency; the Jewish boycott movement had collapsed by 1935, and the Ha’avara continued until 1939. But yes, in 1933, the Nazis also saw in Ha’avara a means of fighting the boycott,” said Bauer.

“Partial truths are more dangerous than outright lies,” said Bauer.
Livingstone sought to support his thesis that Hitler was a backer of Zionism by alleging that he had stood out against other Nazi leaders who feared the creation of a Jewish state. Bauer dismissed this as “pure nonsense.”

“Hitler agreed that the establishment of a Jewish state would create a Jewish Vatican and opposed it, but the ideology of expelling Jews was more important,” said Bauer.

Livingstone also claimed in the J-TV interview that the Stern Gang had tried to do a deal with the Nazi leadership, asking for weapons in exchange for joining Germany in the war.
Bauer poured scorn on this idea, saying that in 1941 “the Stern group, numbering about 120 members in 1941, tried to contact the Germans to create a common front against the British. The Jewish community in Palestine (Yishuv) fought against them. They did not ask the Germans for weapons. The Germans of course did not reply or react to that attempt.”

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:34 am

In 1933 when Hitler became Chancellor, he had big ambitions. One of the things he wanted to do was abolish the Treaty of Versailles, but he couldn't just do so straightaway - he didn't know how the rest of the Europe and the US would react to that. He started breaking the terms fairly early on, bit by bit.

He wanted the Jews out of Germany because he was afraid of them and he thought they had too much power, and he also blamed them, at least in part, for the Treaty of Versailles, but he couldn't just go around killing them all. He had to find another way to get rid of them.

He was afraid of a boycott of German goods, which was being organised by Jewish organisations and others in other countries. The Haavara Agreement allowed him to get rid of Jews without harming them - after all, it was a Zionist organisation which came up with the idea so who could accuse him of harming the Jews? They wanted the Jews to go to Palestine, and so did he at the time. Not all Zionists agreed with the Transfer of course - it caused a lot of division between them.

The Haavara agreement also weakened the boycott - another motive.

Later on, after he marched into other countries, he had many more Jews under his control, especially in Poland, so he had to think of another way. The Haavara agreement would no longer serve his purpose.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:35 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? Your post was clearly nothing to do with this thread and everything to do with what someone said on another forum.

Reported for continued stirring

You're the one stirring by continuing to refer to what's said elsewhere.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:37 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Reported for continued stirring

You're the one stirring by continuing to refer to what's said elsewhere.

You have already been reported and not going to further continue your attempts to derail the thread

So I suggest you grow up

But, please continue, be my guest, as its just more evidence that you are stirring.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 8:56 am

There was also another problem with the Haavara Agreement later on. The British had their own problems in Palestine - the Zionists and the Arabs wanted them out, and the Arabs were objecting to the number of Jews coming into the area, so something had to be done to restrict the number of Jews coming to the area.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:00 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Ken didn't say that Hitler supported Zionism, he said that Hitler "was supporting Zionism" in the context of Jews moving to Palestine, which is absolutely true. The link you posted didn't work, but no matter. The trouble with the article you cited is that it starts with an inaccurate statement - ie, that Ken said that "Hitler supported Zionism", which he did not say, and it doesn't provide the context.

Bauer merely disagreed with Ken's interpretation, although his own interpretation appears to be the same to me. He agreed that Hitler supported the continuation of the Haavara Agreement.

If you want to debate this, at least try to understand what was said and what was meant.

Its very clear and also documented that he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

Well Hitler was. I've explained it to you many times, but you're either not reading my posts or you're unable to understand anything. Once again, the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine to further their ambitions of a Jewish State, and Hitlers wanted the Jews to leave Germany too. He didn't just want them to go to Palestine, but the Havaara Agreement was a solution which was acceptable to both the Zionists who suggested it and the nazis.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:There was also another problem with the Haavara Agreement later on. The British had their own problems in Palestine - the Zionists and the Arabs wanted them out, and the Arabs were objecting to the number of Jews coming into the area, so something had to be done to restrict the number of Jews coming to the area.

Objecting, by constantly killing them.
So the Brits appeased the Arabs by restricting Jewish immigration.
Though they allowed Arab immigration. Where Arabs saw how prosperous the Jews had made what was previously barren land. Hence the draw of so many Arabs
Also many Jews had been living there centuries.
The Arabs had also been given 77% of the mandate and Arabs were leaving there to come to what was left of the Mandate, again because of how the Jews had created work and made the land prosperous.

I mean the cheek of these Arabs, that they are colonialists, denying decolonisers, the Jews, returning from the dispora.

by Guest Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Thorin wrote:

Its very clear and also documented that he said Hitler was supporting Zionism

Well Hitler was. I've explained it to you many times, but you're either not reading my posts or you're unable to understand anything. Once again, the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine to further their ambitions of a Jewish State, and Hitlers wanted the Jews to leave Germany too. He didn't just want them to go to Palestine, but the Havaara Agreement was a solution which was acceptable to both the Zionists who suggested it and the nazis.

I have read your posts and you keep spamming the same drivel

Its you that constantly avoids answering my points or even understands what Zionism is, let alone where the Jews were promised a state and know nothing about the League of Nations mandates.

The Havaara agreement exploited Jews of their wealth.
You are basically saying that victims of gromming gangs got the love they yearn by being exploited.
Its shambolic and absurd to claim Jews facing daily hate and persecution by the Nazi's with tens of thousands forced to flee, not only to Palestine, but the US, UK and other parts of the world, were being supported by the Nazi's. When the Nazi's hated the Jews and wanted rid of them. Its an insult to those refugee;s when again it exploited 12,000 Jews of their wealth in this agreement.

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:10 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Well Hitler was. I've explained it to you many times, but you're either not reading my posts or you're unable to understand anything. Once again, the Zionists wanted Jews to leave Germany and go to Palestine to further their ambitions of a Jewish State, and Hitlers wanted the Jews to leave Germany too. He didn't just want them to go to Palestine, but the Havaara Agreement was a solution which was acceptable to both the Zionists who suggested it and the nazis.

I have read your posts and you keep spamming the same drivel

Its you that constantly avoids answering my points or even understands what Zionism is, let alone where the Jews were promised a state and know nothing about the League of Nations mandates.

The Havaara agreement exploited Jews of their wealth.
You are basically saying that victims of gromming gangs got the love they yearn by being exploited.
Its shambolic and absurd to claim Jews facing daily hate and persecution by the Nazi's with tens of thousands forced to flee, not only to Palestine, but the US, UK and other parts of the world, were being supported by the Nazi's. When the Nazi's hated the Jews and wanted rid of them. Its an insult to those refugee;s when again it exploited 12,000 Jews of their wealth in this agreement.

I didn't say that Jews were being supported by the nazis, I said the Zionists who wanted immigration to Palestine were supported by the nazis. They went to the nazi Government to get the agreement, not the other way round, and the nazis agreed to it. Jews were not forced to apply for immigration to Palestine by the way.

You're the one who doesn't know what Zionism is - you think it's merely support for Israel. You even accused me of being a Zionist!

by Raggamuffin Sat Apr 01, 2017 9:11 am

Thorin wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:There was also another problem with the Haavara Agreement later on. The British had their own problems in Palestine - the Zionists and the Arabs wanted them out, and the Arabs were objecting to the number of Jews coming into the area, so something had to be done to restrict the number of Jews coming to the area.

Objecting, by constantly killing them.
So the Brits appeased the Arabs by restricting Jewish immigration.
Though they allowed Arab immigration. Where Arabs saw how prosperous the Jews had made what was previously barren land. Hence the draw of so many Arabs
Also many Jews had been living there centuries.
The Arabs had also been given 77% of the mandate and Arabs were leaving there to come to what was left of the Mandate, again because of how the Jews had created work and made the land prosperous.

I mean the cheek of these Arabs, that they are colonialists, denying decolonisers, the Jews, returning from the dispora.

Yes they did, which is partly why the Havaara Agreement became redundant, along with other reasons.

by Sponsored content