This is a classic. Listen carefully how the problem of 35 million refugees at that time had been resolved but that the Arab refugee problem of 500 thousand at the time had yet to be resolved because of the recalcitrance of the Arab States who would not speak with the Jewish State. And so the refugee problem of the Palestinians was allowed to fester, unresolved such that there are today 5.6 Palestinian refugees registered with UNRWA. 500,000 turned into 5,600,000 driven by the hope that someday they will replace the State of Israel with another Arab State.
What was true then remains true today. The refugee problem was brought about by the Arabs themselves. They never resolved it and have weaponized it over the past 70 years cynically using their Palestinian brethren as pawns. And now, the world too thru such tools as the UN, Islamists and their clueless sympathizers are pawns in the cynical game being played today primarily by the malevolent ayatollahs of Iran and their proxies.
Fascinating : when arabs massacre Jews in Israel its called "brave and heroic resistance". When Jews kill Arabs in self defense war it's called "brutal murder" and "genocide"
Thanks for the informative Upload! Why don't you upload the entire debate onto one clip? Unless it was downloaded from the old RU-vid limited time policy days.. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2M5Ntu3C0IA.html
The terrible events of the last 2 months show all too well the failure of the Jewsih state to excercise its power in a manner one would expect of a people who suffered the horror of the Holocuast. Slaughtering thousands of children and the forced displacement of over a million Palestinians will go down in history as the time when Israel lost the moral argument.
Zionists=nazi end of the story...israel zionists state created to be used... to do the dirty job to the brits&puritans..to keep Arab &moslems behind....
The problem for Israel is that the vast majority of the planet’s people see them as a European colonial state in Asia. I don’t think this Dr. Is winning this debate at all, in fact in open debate the pro Israel side always gets hammered. Simply put Israel in the last 75 years has used the same tactics that the old colonial European powers used in the places they invaded and colonized 100-500 years ago. Just like then it is wrong, unjustified, and racist.
@JohnDoe-jw5lf We will never convince each other, but for giggles l will make a couple of points. Islamic antisemitism? Jewish and Christian communities were all North Africa and the Middle East for a reason, because they were accepted. With the start of the Zionist movement, which openly declared it wanted a Jewish run state in the heart of the Arab world, with or without the consent of the locals, yes that started to upset the Arabs toward the Jews. I thought there were atrocities committed on both sides, but apparently the Hebron event sticks out for you. For me the time of the event is important,1929, not 1229 or 1829. Apparently this holds no significance for you, but for me it does. Justification, maybe not, but there is another part of the story you leave out. One other way to look at it. What if the Zionist movement had started in Ethiopia instead of Europe. The Ethiopian Jews declaring they were in fact the direct descendants of the original Jews of ancient Israel, and now wanted to reconstruct a new state in that land. This would be their truth as they see it, but most, l dare say would note those Jews look like all other typical Ethiopians. Possessing virtually zero biological evidence, other than tradition (a very important word) that their ancestors actually once lived in the so called Promise Land. Obviously this did not happen, but for many, myself included, this hypothetical scenario is no different than what the Eastern and Northern European Zionist Jews decided to do. Your point about the archeological digs, fair, as far as it goes. They have also found more archeological evidence dating from earlier pre Jewish times, of other civilizations in the same area. There was a historical ancient Israel, never heard anyone denying this.
toynbee's moral calculus is sophomoric. according to the prof, equal moral opprobrium devolves upon the murderer of single victim & the murderer of a 1000 or 10000, 100000 or more. furthermore, his "facts" are wrong: no credible source claims that 900,000 Arabs were refugees. finally, as Amb Herzog said, most land was state land, was not privately owned: no people had a greater claim to it than the Jews.
You haven't explained anything. You refer to his stance and dismiss it only in order to conveniently refer back to numbers - without statistics, you have no argument. Why is the murder of 1 a lesser crime than the murder of its multiple? Whatever the unit, set, or quantity, we are dealing with a singular act - i.e., murder. The precision of the "facts" you refer to matter only insofar as they refer to something substantial, and the singular act of murder, whatever the relative scale, is an issue of imposing substance. The sooner you refer back to numbers, the sooner we realize your apathy toward the moral question.
@@djketler - if you are unable to make a moral distinction between a single murder & mass murder, we live in different moral universes. we share no common ground. there is no point in further discussion.
Herzog did a fine job explaining the refugee issue. But he should have vehemently rejected to the equivalency of the Nazi planned systematic murder of 6,000,000 people and other murders in the heat of war.
ich las das buch „ die sechste tote „ ... reine zeitverschwendung...600 seiten +, weder höhen noch tiefen, in weiten teilen vollkommen unverständlich. hätte ich 8,95€ dafür bezahlt, aber: 20 cent - dafür brennts jetzt im kachelofen. soll ein thriller sein, pffff. einen unverständlichen mist wie das las ich noch nicht. wie es wohl in rabbs kopf aussieht ? genau so verdreht vermutlich🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
Toynbee believed that Hitler was sincere and endorsed Hitler's message in a confidential memorandum for the British prime minister and foreign secretary.
What you failed to include was the date and circumstances of that endorsement, 1936. Kristallnacht occured 2 years later. Many people, not just the esteemed Professor, were unaware of the growing danger of Nazism.
After 1960, Toynbee's ideas faded both in academia and the media, to the point of seldom being cited today.[45][46] In general, historians pointed to his preference of myths, allegories, and religion over factual data. His critics argued that his conclusions are more those of a Christian moralist than of a historian. In his 2011 article for the Journal of History titled "Globalization and Global History in Toynbee," Michael Lang wrote: To many world historians today, Arnold J. Toynbee is regarded like an embarrassing uncle at a house party. He gets a requisite introduction by virtue of his place on the family tree, but he is quickly passed over for other friends and relatives.
Toynbee is time and again given a yes or no question and does everything in his power to dodge answering said question. Only another example as to how and why Proffessor Toynbee lost this debate without question.
I envy these old debates because such debates can't happen in the modern day without a) either party interrupting the other party; or b) one party loudly exclaiming that the other party is just a member of a "certain bad group" (for example Nazi, sexist, racist, homophobes, etc...) that is generally considered harmful in an attempt to receive pitty points; or c) calling for the "cancelling" of the other party as they seem to gain no traction with any of their arguments.
Nothing has changed in the Arab mindset since this debate took place. The extermination of the Jews and the erasure of the State of Israel is still their No.1 priority….from the river to the sea. There is no desire at all to live at peace. The dissembling, speaking words of so called peace to the West in English, and an entirely different message to the Arabs in Arabic by successive Palestinian leaders continues. The Palestinian refugees are held in camps for one reason: for their leaders to produce them as victims again and again. Millions, nay billions of dollars have been given to address this problem which have not improved the lot of the refugees. Why? Because the “aid” has been diverted to successive leaders’ bank accounts and to weapons of every description. Every attempt over the years to seek a negotiated settlement has been refused by the Palestinians. One can only conclude these leaders do not really care about their people, but they do care about their grip on power.
Israel now has far more than 10% of its population as Arabs. Which of its neighbors can claim that over 10% of their population is made up of non-Arabs?
Toynbee was a typical British hater of Israel and the Jews. He sought to cloak his hatred in his vaunted scholarship, but with that thin veneer scraped away, he revealed himself in all his ugliness.
Toynbee's only value to history is his vast knowledge of it, his opinions are not valid in his field as he deals with cold hard facts. To say his opinions matter is to tell a political analysis to interject his own opinions into his analysis. It's foolish and ungenuine.
As a Jew living in Israel, I tire of the wrong-headed notion that Hitler's atrocities are the worst ever seen by mankind. Hitler was evil and murderous enough without giving the devil more than he's due. Stalin and Mao just to name two, were far more brutal and lethal in numbers to their citizens (and indeed Mao's treacherous murder of ten's of millions of his fellow countrymen was contemporaneous with this 1958 debate). Moreover, I agree with Toynbee that if it is the nature of man to brutalize and kill his fellows, it is incumbent upon us as a species, to break this horrible chain and overcome our nature. Man's foremost challenge is to use his mind as a weapon to throw off the use of weapons of war. Call me an idealistic. I plead guilty.
You're right that Hitler wasn't as deadly as Stain or Mao; however, to date, the Jewish genocide is the most well-organized mass extermination of any given minority on earth. Moreover, how do you suggest we go about breaking this chain of, as you refer to it, human nature. Famous Enlightenment-era thinker John Locke wrote that no matter the circumstance, man will always try to find a way to return to fundamental human nature and avoid it to only grow closer to it; that is to say, returning to it is inevitable. Furthermore, world peace, as I see it, is unachievable with divided countries as we are now fighting over our world's resources. If, however, we were a singular country that spanned the globe, we would be more successful in the endeavour. Though I believe that even then, particular checks and balances of power would be needed to ensure that the people remain free and not the slaves of the state. You are not just an idealist. You're an ill-informed idealist, making you all the more dangerous as you represent in part the "useful idiot," the man used by the state for his ideals and then cast aside when no longer needed.
@@timon6759 It would be better if you suggested what it is I'm "ill-informed" about and also stop the name calling (which only diminishes you...I mention it only as a courtesy). You wrote "You are not just an idealist. You're an ill-informed idealist, making you all the more dangerous as you represent in part the "useful idiot," the man used by the state for his ideals and then cast aside when no longer needed" That needs some undergirding unless your intention is just to drag any possible ideas of your own through the muck and mire by poisoning the well. I wrote "Moreover, I agree with Toynbee that if it is the nature of man to brutalize and kill his fellows, it is incumbent upon us as a species, to break this horrible chain and overcome our nature". I should have been clearer. I DO NOT agree that it is the nature of man to kill his fellows, rather I was quoting and putting forth Toynbee's hypothesis rather clumsily. The unbroken chain is rather more the adherence and fidelity to the state, NO MATTER WHAT, that makes ordinary men do the most wicked things. THAT is the chain that must be broken. As for one world government, the unachievable is perhaps just as bad as the ill-sought. Though I would like to see man without government and enjoy his liberty in all of its fullness, I realize that anarchism becomes fascism rather quickly. One world government is about as bad a anarchism since if we extend democracy out to the bounds of the Earth, we trust our liberties to leaders and peoples who know nothing and care less about individualism and personal sovereignty. That would bring us world wide self applied chains of slavery. That is all I have to say on the subject. Thank you.
Herzog is saying that rather than being extraordinary, as far as war and war crimes are concerned, Israel is just ordinary, insofar as they are like every other nation in this respect.
