Monday, April 19, 2010

A Conversation of the Deaf?

I received a mail that was sent out from Iraq that contained a horrific propaganda message in that it compared the Holocaust to what the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael experienced. Maybe you have seen it.

I wrote back to all the attached addresses and here is my reaction:-

The PowerPoint Presentation making a comparison between what was done to the Jews and what Arabs suffer as a result of the Arab-Israel conflict over the Palestine Mandate is, at first glance, horrifying.

But besides that, some people may presume that the message is genuine: what the Nazis did do the Jews, the Jews do to Arabs.
That, of course, is not only wrong but facile.
a) Jews have no ideology that Arabs are vermin like Nazis called the Jews or worse. The conflict, from a Jewish point-of-view is nationalist; not theological. And as always, there are a few who break that rule but we are still looking for an Arab "Peace Now" which would indicate there is someone on the other side for balance.
b) In Europe, Jews were herded up, killed and placed in concentration camps only because they were Jews. None of them bombed pizza parlors, supermarkets, blew themselves up in churches, on buses, on rail trains unlike what Arabs practice.
c) worse, the Grand Mufti Amin El-Husseini fled to Berlin after the pro-Nazi revolt in Iraq failed and made broadcasts on behalf of Nazis, mobilized Muslim Bosnians to the Waffen SS and successfully halted rescue efforts of Jews to flee Europe.
d) I guess someone could be clever and compare marriage to prostitution, or a doctor operating to a serial killer.

One person out of 30 responded:-

With all due respect, I did not ask for your opinion on this. So please refrain from sending me e-mails moving forward.

I replied:-

Sorry, I thought that an inquisitive mind and willingness to hear varied opinions is the basis of a human being, which permits dialogue, bettering each person's own personal worth and and contributing to an improved society.

You will not hear from me again.


VH then wrote:

You stated:

a) Jews have no ideology that Arabs are vermin like Nazis called the Jews or worse. The conflict, from a Jewish point-of-view is nationalist; not theological.

What about the claim of "the promised land" that is not theological? One reason I am not interested in your opinion. Furthermore, when I requested that you refrain from e-mailing me, you did not have the decency to consider my wishes; very indicative of your society.

I would appreciate you NOT/NOT writing me again.


I didn't.

But as my veteran readers know, one need not believe in a God or that he promised us a land. The Land of Israel for over 3000 years has been the residency, the homeland of the Jews. Non-Jewish source as well as archeology support this.

In fact, it was promised to us: by the League of Nations, following the Balfour Declaration, following the Versailles Peace Conference and the San Remo Conference. And the United Nations recommended it be established.

We, of course, refer to this "promise" as no more than a recognition of our historical, legal, natural, cultural and religious rights, as all other nations, to our homeland.

_ _ _
_ _ _

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mr. Medad.
nice to see that you start to refer to the San Remo Peace Conference.

It would be even more accurate to refer to the San Remo Resolution.

I guess you read my comment I left on youtube under a video you posted here :)

YMedad said...

I have been referring to San Remo for decades, following Jabotinsky and Shmuel Katz. As for accurate, since I referred to the Versailles Peace Conference, it naturally follows to refer to the San remo Conference.

Anonymous said...

That's nice to hear.

I'm following your blog regularly, and it's picked with some valuable information.

I saw your interview on hardtalk in 2007.
If I might make some recommendations:
I wish you would refer to internationall law, as it was set up after the first world war, namely that:
The only recognized sovereign over the Land of Israel is the Jewish People and therefore its assignee, the State of Israel, as determined by several acts of international law.

The first such act was the Smuts Resolution of January 30, 1919 ( the precursor of Article 22 of the League Covenant) which, in referring to the term "Palestine" (Eretz Israel), must be interpreted in conjunction with the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917, The Lloyd George-Clemenceau Agreement of December 1, 1918 and the Weizmann-Feisal Agreement of January 3, 1919.

It is thus evident that "Palestinians" and "Palestine" (Eretz Israel) is a reference to the Jewish People and not to the local Arab inhabitants of the country.

The other acts of international law that confirm the Jewish legal title to Palestine (Eretz Israel) are the San Remo Resolution of April 25, 1920, the Mandate for Palestine of July 24 1922, the Franco-British Boundary Convention of December 3, 1920 and the Anglo-American Convention Respecting the Mandate for Palestine of December 3, 1924.

"Israel" denotes all areas of the historical Land of Israel, including both Cisjordan and Transjordan that were part of the mandated area of Palestine (Eretz Israel). It also includes those parts of the historical Land of Israel that were illegally excluded when the boundaries of Palestine (Eretz Israel) were determined by Great Britain and France in 1920 and 1922: Southern Lebanon up to the bend of the Litani River, the Bashan ( including the Golan) north of the Yarmuk River, and the Sinai Peninsula.

Also, everytime you use the world Palestinian in reference to an arab, it's up to no good, and should be made illegal.

So, I really appreciate your blog and am looking forward to further post by you, but I think you should be more clear in your expressions.

This, of course, should first and foremost be the case for the government of Israel, which unfortunately is still not the case, but as a representative of the settler movement, one should be very clear

Shalom and best regards.
David