Auschwitz, 1945

BILL R. writes:

Allow me to praise your courageous public skepticism regarding the official version of the “Nazi Holocaust” to which we in the West are all expected to show unhesitating obeisance.  There are few, if any, thought crimes deemed more reprehensible or more odious by our secular theocracy than heresy against the religion of the Holocaust, particularly by a white European gentile.  Members of that group, more than any other, are expected to have unquestioned faith in it since it is they who are deemed responsible for its founding.  And faith, of course, is exactly what you must have to believe it since not only are there not facts to support the widespread account, but as soon as one dares move beyond the faith to look at the facts, they immediately begin to lead you elsewhere. 

Many tens of thousands of Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps and, as you say, that was appalling, as were the deaths of so many others (more Catholics actually died in Auschwitz than Jews, for example, according to the death records kept by the Nazis themselves, which figures were independently corroborated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, whom the Nazis permitted to regularly visit and inspect the camps — an odd thing to permit, to say the least, by those supposedly engaged, at those very locations, in the wholesale murder of millions, an act oddly never witnessed by the Red Cross nor even hinted at by them as a possibility, though they were as aware of the rumors as anyone and kept meticulous records and eventually issued a several volume report on the Auschwitz camp alone).  But it also true, and ironically so, that many of those thousands of deaths were caused by Typhus epidemics and malnutrition that swept through the camps, particularly in the latter stages of the war, owing to the collapse of transport brought on by Allied bombing which prevented the resupply of the camps with provisions, one of those provisions being the dreaded Zyklon B, an insecticide designed to exterminate, not Jews, but the deadly Typhus-carrying lice from clothes.

— Comments —

William from the Netherlands writes:

Concerning the Holocaust; I’d like to add that whatever the truth may be, Moroccan and Turk youths
are notorious for their support of Hitler’s “Endlösung” and have shouted “Hamas, Hamas, alle Joden
aan het gas!” (“Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gaschambers!”) during pro-Palestinian protests,
riots and other gatherings in Dutch cities. They (All Muhammedans I have ever met) absolutely
hate Jews and cheer terrorist attacks on them.

These youths usually entertain two thoughts: 1) the Holocaust never happened and was made up by
the Jews to create the state of Israel, 2) Hitler hated the Jews and was right to try to exterminate them, a job the Muhammedans will finish. They are also usually aware of the official story (as you would probably say) and even if they aren’t and are told, they approve of it anyway.

So, perhaps the official figures are lower or the story is somewhat different, the question is not
‘did it happen?’ but ‘when will it happen?’

Laura writes:

They hate Jews because of Israel. [See clarification below.]

That doesn’t make their hatred excusable, but it does make it rational.

Muslims and Jews have gotten along in Europe in the past.

Ben M. writes:

Oh my.   “They hate Jews because of Israel.”

Early Islamic history features battles between Jewish tribes and Mohammed, with  beheadings and rape to follow.  Yes, some Jewish generations had better experiences of Muslim rule than did other.

Here, Daniel Pipes explains the hardening of feelings that followed, not Israel, but Napoleon:

And Andrew Bostom explains the religious and historical issues, here:

Non-Muslims in Muslim lands are dependent on the good will of the overloads.  Is not a great way to live. For that reason, the plight of Israel has a universal quality.

Among the many reasons to support or at least sympathize with Israel is one on which we surely agree:  non-Muslims have the right to sovereignty on planet Earth.

Not, “They hate Jews because of Israel,” but “They hate the strength of the Other.”  If the Jews had found shelter in a sparsely populated land (see Mark Twain’s account) within larger areas that were controlled by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, or Zoroastrians, we would not be talking about an ongoing war.

Laura writes:

Muslims have a long history of bloody hatred of infidels and if there were no Israel, Muslim immigrants in Europe would still be a problem, for Jews and Christians. However, their fanatic, wild hatred of Jews right now in Europe is aroused by the conflict with Israel. I just don’t think there’s any question about that, do you? Or perhaps we should say, it’s both — historic intolerance mixed with resentment fueled by the conflict with Israel.

You write:

If the Jews had found shelter in a sparsely populated land (see Mark Twain’s account) within larger areas that were controlled by Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, or Zoroastrians, we would not be talking about an ongoing war.

Let’s turn the tables and say that Christians had come along and evicted 800,000 Jews from their homes and set up a nation in which they refused citizenship to any Jews, even though Jews had historically had a homeland in that area, and also gradually extended their borders into Jewish nations and waged war against them. Do you think Jews would have forgot about it and held no grudges?

Again, I’m not saying that the ugly hatred and death threats of Muslims for Jews is justified. It’s wrong. But it’s not just irrational anti-Semitism.

Ben M. writes:

Was there not an expulsion of Jews from Arab lands in 1948 in roughly the same number as the Arabs who fled Israel?  Yes, some number of Arabs left in response to force, but a far larger number left in response to Arab leaders’ broadcast request.  The Muslims were to return after the grand and bloody cleansing.

How many refugee problems are not solved in a decade or two?   One, in particular.

You agree that the Europeans are making a horrific mistake by bringing in millions of Muslims.  Yet Israel now has a 20% Islamic population; Muslims are citizens, as you almost certainly know, though your question suggests otherwise.  And in what way has Israel “gradually extended” its borders?  By responding in 1967 to a multi-pronged attack?  By leaving Gaza only to face months and months of rocket fire and the rest?

When did the “Palestinians” appear, anyway?  Their nationality in the 1920s seems to have had less of an emotional component than that of Virginians in the 1840s; it was an idea of a few elites.  And the PLO charter itself tells the reality; the “Palestinians” are of the Arab nation.

But the language of the Left required a particular kind of story, so Arafat concocted one with Nasser in the late 1950s:  the “Palestinians” were said to be a distinct nation with a long history and the right of self-determination. And Arafat went to the UN with an olive branch and a gun and offered his nonsensical choice, his secular taquiyya, all a ruse.

And I say again:  the land was sparsely populated, with the Arab population increasing in response to development by a Westernized people and in the context of a continuous Jewish presence.

The 1850 Ottoman census of Jerusalem might have been the first by the Turks in that area, and what was the outcome? Jews were the majority there; this, before Mark Twain visited and reported on the city:  “Rags, wretchedness, poverty and dirt, those signs and symbols that indicate the presence of Moslem rule more surely than the crescent-flag itself, abound.”

Why would you want a native people to give up its land to Islam?

What will you say if Israel finds it necessary to deal even more harshly than she wants to, with “Palestinians” and even with her Muslim citizens, while the Europeans slowly surrender to the god of non-discrimination and then to Allah?

Of course, the Europeans don’t have to surrender.  They could wake up.  They could become more militant, more akin to what you imagine Israel to be.

Laura writes:

The vast majority of Jews are not descendants of natives to the region. Neither Islam nor Talmudic Judaism has a theological claim to the Holy Land.  (Thank you for the correction on the citizenship issue. I meant the denial of citizenship to Palestinians expelled.)

In the 1947 partition, the Jews were awarded 55% of the land (the most fertile land) of Palestine even though their private holdings totaled only about 6% and their population was only about 35% (608,000) of all the Palestinians (1,237,000). In the 1948 war, Israelis seized additional Arab lands bringing their total to about 75% of Palestine. What difference does it make what sense of nationality the Palestinians had? If a portion of California was seized by Mexico, Californians would resent it.

According to Michael Neumann, a German-born Jew:

The tragic consequences of the quest for sovereignty did not follow all at once, but in two stages. The Zionists established a sovereign Jewish state in 1948. Had they been content with that, peace might have followed the 1967 war, when Israel could have backed the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Instead, Zionists pushed to extend Jewish sovereignty, this time through the settler movement. The settlements were a renewed mortal threat to the Palestinians and once again necessitated a violent response. The only solution is for Israel to withdraw, unilaterally, to its 1948 borders.

What will you say if Israel finds it necessary to deal even more harshly than she wants to, with “Palestinians” and even with her Muslim citizens, while the Europeans slowly surrender to the god of non-discrimination and then to Allah?

I will say that it is wrong.

Please follow and like us: