The Holocaust Industry

macca · June 26, 2002, 2:12pm

i’m not sure how well known this subject is but a historian called Norman Finklestein states that there is the Holocaust (Jews, etc. being murdered by the Nazis) and the Holocaust industry (Jews using it to gain sympathy and support for Israel and to make money for themselves). has anyone read his books or herd more about him/his ideas.

(i also now realise this is probably more suited to the politics board.)

Magius · June 26, 2002, 4:51pm

I’m not sure about this Norman Finklestein guy, but there is much I can tell you about the ideas of this type. As you may have already notice I reside in Ontario, Canada. I remember not to long ago I saw a commercial on TV giving biblical references to saving Jews and so forth and finally it came out and asked for us to send between $150-$500 to save a single Jews life in Russia because of the prosecutions going on. This money we send goes to taking the Jews out of Russia.
What this Norman guy is talking about rings many bells and could be very true. Especially the part about gaining sympathy for Isreal.

After WWII there was a famous British boat with some huge number of Jews on it (I believe it was 5000) after being rescued from camps. This boat was heading to Europe to land somewhere safely so the people can return to their land and not have to encounter any left over German soldiers. Anyway, after the war was over the Political Jews told Britain that they wanted the Land what is now known as Isreal. The Jews claimed it was rightfully theirs according to their religion. Britain told the Jews that the land is inhabited with Arabs and they can’t just go and say “okay, all you Arabs get out of here, the land now belongs to the Jews according to their religion”. The British politicians told the Jews that it wasn’t fair nor did they believe that according to their religion the land was theirs (specifically the land which is now Isreal). Jews responded to the Brit’s with a threat, either you give us the land or we kill you. The Brit’s didn’t listen and the Jews began killing British soldiers by the numbers. Jews in Britain even began to revolt and many buildings were bombed. The British were so insulted that the famous boat was at once turned around and headed back for Germany, where the Jews were brought back to the camps and told to get themselves home.
In defence, Britain began to deploy soldiers in the middle east. Whenever there was an outbreak and a British soldier killed a Jew, the Jews would make sure to catch 5 British soldiers, hang them, and burn them in the middle of a town so that everyone could see and so Britain would get the picture.
In the history of human life, the land of Isreal is the only land that Britain gave up. I believe the PIM said that he wants nothing to do with those people ever again. Which is a great coincedance, since the land has been bounced from the league of nations, to the United States, and back to the newly found United Nations - all because no one really wants to deal with it.
As the British soldiers began to move out of the Isreali area, Arabs lined up behind them and ‘walked them out’ because the Arabs knew very well that once the British soldiers were gone the Jews would begin killing the Arabs. So the Brit’s were like a shield the Arabs used to go through the land of Isreal and whenever the line came to a Jewish village the Arabs would destroy it. This went on and on until all the British soldiers were at the coast getting into boats.
The Arabs thought they had it pretty good, they made a circular outer perimeter and began to close in. It was 40,000 Jews in the middle of Isreal with no high tech weaponry against 150, 000 Arabs closing in from all directions with tanks, missile launchers, helicopters, etc. In the end the Jews defeated the Arabs and made claim for the land to be theirs which was granted by the United Nations in the year 1945, I also remember that there was much controversy over what name to give it, I know that ‘Zion’ was one of the favorites and till this day I am not sure why ‘Isreal’ was chosen.

All I have said can be viewed on the ‘History Channel’ or from books found in any public library. For those wishing to know more, I don’t mind debating about it, but it must remain clear that there are those who would do harm to those who paint any kind of people in a bad light. Take caution in the things you say, you never know who is watching.

What’s your take?

redjames · June 27, 2002, 9:57pm

Sounds a lot like David Irving’s writings.

macca · June 27, 2002, 10:09pm

dunno about that but Finklestein is real, we are ‘studying’ him in what is suspossed to be history but is more of a waste of time.

Magius · June 27, 2002, 10:39pm

Macca,
if I understood you correctly, you find history to be a waste of time. Why?

macca · June 30, 2002, 3:35pm

you would too if you had the same teacher/syllabus.

alex · July 1, 2002, 3:34pm

Magius I feel the need to correct you but I genuinely don’t know where to begin. I do respect you for some of the other posts you have made but unfortunately your post on Israel was the most inaccurate thing I have ever read in my life. Not only that but I laughed through almost all of what you said. This is the dangerous mistake people make when they remove historical evidence and recount something vaguely without any historical fact. It sounded like you were retelling the narrative of a film. Please go and reread those books that you mentioned and (I don’t have sky) but it seems to me that the history channel sucks some serious cock. I’ll give you a clue for where to begin. Type the following into a search engine: Balfour Declaration, Theodor Herzl, British Mandate, Haganah, Exodus ship and then keep looking. Next time you post - verify what you are typing because that type of ignorance is more than dangerous.

Pangloss · July 1, 2002, 5:33pm

quite a good website for understanding the middle-east conflict is: israelinfo.comevisit.com/druze.html

it may seem one-sided, but is in no way designed to condition anyone’s views. it says it as it is.

ben · July 1, 2002, 6:16pm

I couldn’t find much info on the middle east conflict on that site Leo, however, Alex and I have been to a Druze community and we had the nicest meal there. Also, the guy whose site that is, Neil Lazarus, we’ve seen him speak and he’s a very funny and fascinating guy, his speeches are brilliant.

sorry to sidetrack a bit there. Magius, where on earth did you get you information from? Like Alex, I am stumped as to what your sources since it’s the first time i’ve heard that version of events.

Magius · July 1, 2002, 8:10pm

Alex, (I suggest you read the quotes thoroughly)

Sources used: haganah.com/

Your Balfour Declaration revealed the following:

Violence in Palestine, but why? Maybe you should do some more research into your own sources.

It may be recalled, with regard to Palestine, that in 1917 the Government of the United Kingdom, in the statement known as the Balfour Declaration, announced that it viewed with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and that it would use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that object, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country. In 1923 the objectives stated in this Declaration were embodied in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which was entrusted to the Government of the United Kingdom as mandatory. As the United States was not a member of the League of Nations, a Convention was concluded between the United States and the United Kingdom in 1924 with regard to American rights in Palestine.

“it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine…” If it’s so clear why do you think they emphasis the point? You must remember that they are not going to write in detail the problems of a country in a general report. Talk to some people educated in political science and you will find their answers to be less than enthusiastic in reference to the way politicians write about problems and how situations are resolved in actuality compared to what is said on paper. Moreover, here it clearly states that Palestine belonged to League of Nations prior to belonging to the United Nations (now) - as I stated in my ignorant, hilarious, and uneducated post previous to this one.

Now why would they want to inlude Jaffa if the land they are giving is to go to the Jews? Jews and Arabs have been at war for a long time, they must realize that including Jaffa would mean that there would be war (civil). Or maybe, just maybe, they did it because they knew what was going to happen, meaning the Jews would try to kill of the Arabs from the area, there not being enough Arabs they added Jaffa.

In the above, why do they keep focusing on equality between Jews and Arabs? Could it be because there is a problem!?!

I rest my case. But I hope you didn’t expect to come out and say what strategy was implemented in the attack, who attacked who, why, how many soldiers, who won, how were the killings done, etc. For this is a political paper.

The war is over, yet the Security Council speaks of a threat to peace in Palestine. But what could that be? Aren’t we suppose to be in a time of peace, Hitler has been defeated. What followed…

by force, something must be really bad if the Security Council is talking about altering a situation with force.

The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

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

It appears as though it is you who needs to reread your sources, because the evacuation of the soldiers I spoke about in my previous uneducated, ignorant, and laughable post.

So the army is pulling out but they are training Jews and Arabs in their independant states to be soldiers. Could it be because Brit’s are tired of losing their own soldiers when the war is between the Arabs and the Jews?
The only way to find peace is to implement a militia for both that is under control of a medeator so that they don’t go nuts and kill each other.

As you can see they are not intermingled but living in their own states because they can’t live with each other.

I wonder why that could be? What do you think? Draw your own conclusions.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 42; March 5, 1948

More evidence of upheaval.

Section I. “The Constitution”

It has been urged that the expression “a national home for the Jewish people” offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty’s Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration. But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country. That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

More evidence of Jews wanting their own land, land that Arabs live on. Just as I stated in my uneducated, ignorant, and laughable previous post.

Here it is clearly noted that Britain was under pressure to make Palestine a land to be a Jewish National Home. If there was no pressure I don’t think it would have been mentioned here. Hence, once again what I stated in my previous post.

Under Section II (Immigration) - something to think about. Draw your own conclusions.

This may explain alot…

In practice, from that date onwards until recent times, the economic absorptive capacity of the country has been treated as the sole limiting factor, and in the letter which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, as Prime Minister, sent to Dr. Weizmann in February 1931 it was laid down as a matter of policy that economic absorptive capacity was the sole criterion. This interpretation has been supported by resolutions of the Permanent Mandates Commissioner. But His Majesty’s Government do not read either the Statement of Policy of 1922 or the letter of 1931 as implying that the Mandate requires them, for all time and in all circumstances, to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to consideration of the country’s economic absorptive capacity. Nor do they find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent Statements of Policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely. If immigration has an adverse effect on the economic position in the country, it should clearly be restricted; and equally, if it has a seriously damaging effect on the political position in the country, that is a factor that should not be ignored. Although it is not difficult to contend that the large number of Jewish immigrants who have been admitted so far have been absrobed economically, the fear of the Arabs that this influx will continue indefinitely until the Jewish population is in a position to dominate them has produced consequences which are extremely grave for Jews and Arabs alike and for the peace and prosperity of Palestine. The lamentable disturbances of the past three years are only the latest and most sustained manifestation of this intense Arab apprehension. The methods employed by Arab terrorists against fellow Arabs and Jews alike must receive unqualified condemnation. But it cannot be denied that fear of indefinite Jewish immigration is widespread amongst the Arab population and that this fear has made possible disturbances which have given a serious setback to economic progress, depleted the Palestine exchequer, rendered life and property insecure, and produced a bitterness between the Arab and Jewish populations which is deplorable between citizens of the same country. If in these circumstances immigration is continued up to the economic absorptive capacity of the country, regardless of all other considerations, a fatal enmity between the two peoples will be perpetuated, and the situation in Palestine may become a permanent source of friction amongst all peoples in the Near and Middle East. His Majesty’s Government cannot take the view that either their obligations under the Mandate, or considerations of common sense and justice, require that they should ignore these circumstances in framing immigration policy.

So, before you laugh, tell me that I should go reread those books, and tell me I am ignorant, I suggest you get your head out of the sand and focus more on the topic with some backup and explanation instead of telling me to go read something, educate me and tell me how I am wrong, and focus less on Ad Hominum. Everything stated within this post (in quotes) was copied and pasted from resources kindly provided by Alex.

This Herzl guy sounds very interesting and I like some of his views. I understand that the theory is based on this guy, but what happened after World War II is apart from Herzl. From what I read about him, Jews did anything but follow what he postulated. For he preaches peace and happiness no matter what the consequences are. Most of his words are about problems between the Christians and the Jews not Jews and Arabs.

On the Haganah,

This once again proves what I stated in my previous post about the Jews organizing against the British. Many of the major parts of the Zionist policy (mentioned in the Balfour Declaration) were about the implementing of a National Home for the Jews which the British were against for the simple fact of unfair treatment of the Arabs who live in the area.

You disappoint me Alex, you make strong words of my previous post, insult and demean me, when it is you who lacks education in his own argument against me, for which the resources you have provided have actually strengthened and reconfirmed my view and opinion - inadvertantly you have helped me and I am glad. In the future, do not make accusations and belittle what I have to say, if you do not disagree with what I have to say, you are free to do so, but you have no right to tell me I am ignorant, for ingorance is like a weed proliferating in you post.

Ben, when your friend makes a post about someone elses post, do you feel obligated to stand by your friend and simply reask the same concept? You both ask the same question as if only a fraction of my previous post was visible, I already stated where I got my information from, yet you redundantly ask me anyway. I hope you are satisfied with my analysis into Alex’s sources that can be found the same way I did, over an hour of reading, I just wish this could have been a debate and not a demeaning and egotistical competition for right of opinion. I know you didn’t read about the Balfour Declaration, or else you would not be confused at my claims, nor would you be telling me to go read about it - this is insulting - you tell someone they are wrong and that they should go read about your sources instead of you going to read about theirs, and than the person finds out that you didn’t even thoroughly read your own sources.

Pangloss · July 1, 2002, 10:54pm

… bing bang bong …

sorry my source was of little help. i find it quite useful when trying to understand the bits and bobs that make up each event taking place at the moment.
(i also met neil lazarus. i share your view of him. great guy. enlightening etc. )

people always seem to become unstuck when discussing the historical details behind the middle-east conflict. yet i’ve always reckoned that the how-dare-you history behind such conflicts has to be ignored if anything resembling a peace process is to advance. only the positive history can be drawn upon, as forced and as false as it may feel.

(i am not ignorant of the culture of revenge on both sides, or the ‘35 year camel-to-cadillac’ social change that many palestineans have had to endure. i hope my rejection of much of the historical context can be viewed as lightly as i intend)

can somebody pleeeeeeease reply to my ‘bush proposal’ post. i originally put it on that infinite israel post, as it seemed like a natural extension.

and can somebody explain exactly what israel’s ‘removal of west bank settlements’ is. of all settlements (a gesture towards their aspirations for a pal. state)? or of those under construction?[/i]

Pangloss · July 1, 2002, 10:59pm

christ! sorry! i just realised that had nothing to do with the holocaust industry. it’s because i’m not racing around the site like i usually do. my computer’s being really slow (i think natsil… sent a love virus).

carry on …

alex · July 2, 2002, 11:17am

Magius I think you will find that it wasn’t an ad hominem attack. As I said I have been impressed by many of your posts but your account of a complicated history was written in the most unhistoric way…there was this boat yeah…and some Jews and Arabs yeah…and they all killed each other…and so the British encircled the country…but they were blackmailed by some wealthy Jews. What the fuck? You provided no detail whatsoever and as I said that is dangerous because you’re passing off as truth information which you haven’t even thouroughly explained.

Anyway I will soon respond to your post on the Blafour Declaration but a) I have read my sources b) they didn’t proove what you were saying because your story seems to have changed c) you didn’t provide ANY sources for your original post and d) it had nothing to do with the holocaust industry.

Magius · July 2, 2002, 4:30pm

Alex stated:

I didn’t provide detail!?! You should reread my post, maybe do a cut and paste into word and do a word count and than see if you can tell me I didn’t provide detail. I provided lots of detail. Your right, I could have added more detail about how it is that something as paradoxical as 150, 000 Arabs losing to 40,000 Jews when they are surrounded and have no high-tech weaponry is a cause for further explanation, but everything else I explained as I saw it and read from books, I cannot provide anymore detail because it would be going into personal opinion and away from what I read and saw. I have many opinions on this matter, but unfortunately I cannot explain them as it is a sensitive matter. By the way, if I haven’t thoroughly explained a point, YOU SIMPLY ASK ME TO EXPLAIN!!! Instead of calling me ignorant and laughing.

If you have read your sources you would not have laughed and mocked me! If you had read your sources you would not have to reread it. The reason I am sure about this is because it is a general overlaying problem present in all the documents in the Balfour Declaration, so that when you read the whole thing, you are left with a general overview of what I stated, since it is present in every link in the Balfour Declaration website. Obviously I don’t expect you to remember specific details, but there is just no way you could have missed it.
Those quotes did prove what I said, atleast most of it, that which it didn’t necessarily prove were things that I mentioned would not be present in political documents, so go read some WWII war strategy and fact books and you will find the rest of what I said to be true. MY STORY HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT! I did provide sources, I told you I read some books and saw some shows, most of which I saw on the ‘History Channel’. You say my post had nothing to do with the holocaust industry,
REREAD IT!!! (my original post) The first part of my post talks about a commercial on TV that is exactly about the holocaust industry. Everything else explains the historical facts I learned about and is suppose to make you realize that this is what is played on, this is why there IS a holocaust industry. It’s suppose to show that the Jews are not weak people, they are not dumb, they are anything but these things - since human history has shown that they have been persecuted in just about every country on earth, yet they don’t even have a Jewish National Home, prior to world war II. Despite all the odds they continue to thrive and dominate world capital. Some argue that Isreal is their national home, but others argue that although they got their indepedance Isreal has so many problems along with so many Arabs in it that it cannot be said the Isreal is their national home.

What’s your take?

HVD · July 3, 2002, 9:04pm

“Those quotes did prove what I said, atleast most of it, that which it didn’t necessarily prove were things that I mentioned would not be present in political documents, so go read some WWII war strategy and fact books and you will find the rest of what I said to be true. MY STORY HAS NOT CHANGED ONE BIT! I did provide sources, I told you I read some books and saw some shows, most of which I saw on the ‘History Channel’”

Okay

You say my post had nothing to do with the holocaust industry,
REREAD IT!!! (my original post) The first part of my post talks about a commercial on TV that is exactly about the holocaust industry. Everything else explains the historical facts I learned about and is suppose to make you realize that this is what is played on, this is why there IS a holocaust industry

Hmmm, okay, with you

“It’s suppose to show that the Jews are not weak people, they are not dumb, they are anything but these things - since human history has shown that they have been persecuted in just about every country on earth, yet they don’t even have a Jewish National Home, prior to world war II”

Agreed

Despite all the odds they continue to thrive and dominate world capital

and now we arrive on Planet stasiak. Tell me you are not referring to the “Jewish bankers conspiracy” i think that could strip away the credibility right there

Magius · July 4, 2002, 8:07am

HVD stated:
“and now we arrive on Planet stasiak. Tell me you are not referring to the “Jewish bankers conspiracy” i think that could strip away the credibility right there”

I am not speaking of the Jewish bankers conspiracy, or atleast what I understand it to be. Although, if I was it would not mean that all my credibility is stripped away. Your if, then's are far reaching. Come on, I thought you could do better than that, posting a little post with one word answers. Concluding with a far reaching statement and an assumption as to what I am referring to, instead of actually seeing my words for what they are. Nor do you ask me to explain further but instead take pleasure in assuming as though there couldn’t possibly be anything I might have to say that you don’t already know about.

What’s your take?
[/quote]

Matt · July 6, 2002, 3:22pm

I did Israeli history at school and they teach it to us pretty much as Magius recounted, so I don’t know if we’re just all being taught anti-israel propoganda in the spirit of “We’re going to do the exact opposite to America” kinda way

To be honest, I’ve always felt sorry for the Palestinians because the Jews did kinda turn up and say, “we were promised this land a couple of thousand years ago by our god, so we’re having it” and cause everyone was feeling sorry for them the world let them get away with it.

I can’t see how you can look at it any other way. How many Jews were living in Palestine before 1945? What right did they have to the land?

By the way, at one point Hitler was conssidering sending all the jews somewhere himself, it was to be Madagascar. I’m sure they wouldn’t have been happy with that.

Magius · July 7, 2002, 10:32pm

I also read that their claim to the land was a religious one, but a few years back they admitted that it was all based on mythology.

macca · July 7, 2002, 11:14pm

i have totally lost the point of this topic. can some please refer to my actual question.

ben · July 7, 2002, 11:25pm

The population of Israel is more than 70% secular, i.e. they do not observe the Jewish faith. Therefore, for that percentage, being given the land by God is not an issue and they would not contend it. Mistakes were made on both sides but now we must look to rectifying the situation. This is no longer a religious war about whose God promised it to who. This thread can be continued in the relevants topics on Israel.

The original topic was about the Holocaust Industry. I was first made aware of this idea when they held the first annual Holocaust Memorial day here in Great Britain. While speaking to someone about it I said that it is possible that too much of these sorts of events will just lead to more and more people feeling guilty about it, or making people feel more remorseful about it than they actually should. It is very probable that there are some people out there who are making money on the basis of the Holocaust. I think we would all agree that this is deplorable. People who suffered under the Nazis may be willing to cash in on it to find some kind of compensation.

However, I disagree with people such as Norman Finklestein who generalise the Jewish population into hyping up the Holocaust and inventing parts of it. There are a spectrum of views on this notion, some who claim that Jews are cashing in on the Holocaust, to those who claim that the Holocaust never happened - so called Holocaust Deniers. I find it difficult to swallow, having seen footage of and met Holocaust survivors, that anyone would have the audacity to stand up and say “oh it wasn’t all that bad.” Even the things that we know to have happened - gas chambers, mass graves/cremation, human experiments, to my mind are enough to warrant the attention it has received.

The aim of Holocaust memorials is two-fold. Firstly, to remember the people who died in the camps, and also for those like Oskar Schindler, who helped some Jews escape. Secondly, it is their as a reminder to the world, that such a thing cannot ever be allowed to happen again. It shows the true evil that is the potential in all of us. They weren’t aliens from space, they were real, everyday people who joined the Nazi party and were brainwashed into killing their fellow human being.

So in conclusion, like with most discussions there is a yes and no answer. It is possible that there are people out there who are cashing in on what is known as the Holocaust Industry but it cannot be generalised to the entire Jewish population. For people who deny the Holocaust, their motives need to be addressed and you will usually find out that they are racist, Nazis or just plain mad. We do not doubt the Christopher Columbus discovered America yet that happened centuries ago. Can we really give people who deny the Holocaust any credibility?