Arabs in the Israeli Army

That's not unusual although it is despicable, there are turncoats and traitors in every society. People who will gladly sacrifice their morals for the promise of favourable treatment.
It is known that there were an estimated 150,0000 "half Jews" in Hitlers army too, and an undisclosed number of full Jews, who kept a very low profile, for obvious reasons.

The Cover shot on the booklet "The Ideal German Soldier" featured half Jew Werner Goldberg.
25202f24.jpg


Among others were people like Field Marshal Erhard Milch.

In one of the famous anecdotes of the time, Goering falsified Milch's birth record and when met with protests about having a Jew in the Nazi high command, Goering replied, ``I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan.''

Cambridge University researcher Bryan Rigg (who studied at the Ohr Sameach Yeshiva in Jerusalem) has traced the Jewish ancestry of more than 1,200 of Hitler's soldiers, including

Two field marshals, (God knows how many Jews they killed)
Fifteen generals, (God knows how many Jews they killed)
Two full generals, (God knows how many Jews they killed)
Eight lieutenant generals, (God knows how many Jews they killed)
Five major generals, "commanding up to 100,000 troops. (God only knows how many Jews they killed) "
There is also the story and film (Europa, Europa) about Shlomo Perel who falsified his papers and served in Hitler's Army.
 
Last edited:
That's not unusual although it is despicable, there are turncoats and traitors in every society. People who will gladly sacrifice their morals for the promise of favourable treatment. .

The SS British Free Korps comes to mind made up of troops in German POW camps, but thankfully not many went over. There are others which included Indian troops captured in Singapore who went over to the JIF's. Apparently they treated POW's worse then either the Japanese of Korean guards. One ex POW told me about Ghurka POW's who would walk past a JIF then run his finger across his throat.
 
The SS British Free Korps comes to mind made up of troops in German POW camps, but thankfully not many went over. There are others which included Indian troops captured in Singapore who went over to the JIF's. Apparently they treated POW's worse then either the Japanese of Korean guards. One ex POW told me about Ghurka POW's who would walk past a JIF then run his finger across his throat.
Yes, I believe that most of that has been well documented Particularly about the Free Korps which had units of many nationalities.

The Jews serving with the Nazis were less well known about for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which, was that it would have detracted from the guilt trip, that they were trying to hang on the Allies after WWII.

I might add that personally, I feel that "guilt trip" was at least partially deserved, although not all, as England and others were very busy fighting for their own survival without which all of the European Jews would have gone through the mill.
 
Yes, I believe that most of that has been well documented Particularly about the Free Korps which had units of many nationalities.

The Jews serving with the Nazis were less well known about for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which, was that it would have detracted from the guilt trip, that they were trying to hang on the Allies after WWII.

I might add that personally, I feel that "guilt trip" was at least partially deserved, although not all, as England and others were very busy fighting for their own survival without which all of the European Jews would have gone through the mill.

There was piece on TV about Churchill's German Army. Millions of soldiers fought against Hitler’s Germany in WW2, but one group of men and women sacrificed everything in the battle against the Nazis. They knew they could be tortured and executed as traitors if captured but were still willing to die for their adopted country. One German was a fighter pilot in the RAF, a tank driver originally from Bonn who survived the Dachau concentration camp yet was among the first Allied troops to capture Hamburg, and the veteran who shot the infamous Lord Haw Haw in the buttocks.*

They were described as ‘suicide soldiers’ because of their German nationality and the fact that many of them were Jewish meant they would face torture and execution if they were ever captured. Yet all of them were volunteers – not conscripts like the majority of British forces. Over the decades that followed, they became so deeply assimilated into society that they became as British as the Brits.

As many as 10,000 Germans and Austrians fled Nazi persecution and joined British forces to fight against Hitler. Neighbours, colleagues and fellow soldiers all suspected they were traitors and double agents, so life in their adopted communities was hellish, and they had to fight doubly hard to prove their dedication to the war effort. But facing these challenges, these incredible volunteers played a key part in some of the most important events of the war.

Featuring moving personal testimonies, Churchill’s German Army tells the compelling stories of these extraordinary heroes for the first time.
 
Yes, I believe that most of that has been well documented Particularly about the Free Korps which had units of many nationalities.

The Jews serving with the Nazis were less well known about for a myriad of reasons, not the least of which, was that it would have detracted from the guilt trip, that they were trying to hang on the Allies after WWII.

I might add that personally, I feel that "guilt trip" was at least partially deserved, although not all, as England and others were very busy fighting for their own survival without which all of the European Jews would have gone through the mill.

One of the reasons it isn't well known is that not a whole lot of documentation on the matter hasn't come forward until relatively recently. There is a decent book, although a bit dry for my taste, by Mark Briggs. I can't seem to remember the title though.

Its also important to consider the fact that most of the people of Jewish descent in the German army didn't consider themselves to be Jewish and were not widely regarded by others as Jews. They fell under the legal category of Mischlinge, widely translated as "halflings", under Nazi Germany's race laws. These people were often considered lesser race on the account of having a Jewish grandparent, even though Jewish law considers such persons to be non-Jews.

Britain passively aided the Holocaust when they refused to let Jewish refugees enter Palestine after the 1939 White Paper to appease the Arabs even though they had pledged to allow Jews to move here. Many Jews were turned away at the port cities here and sent straight back to certain death in Europe. Britain wasn't the only one. America didn't allow refugees from Europe in until AFTER the war. So yes, i'd say they earned a guilt trip for their complicity in murder.
 
Britain passively aided the Holocaust when they refused to let Jewish refugees enter Palestine after the 1939 White Paper to appease the Arabs even though they had pledged to allow Jews to move here. Many Jews were turned away at the port cities here and sent straight back to certain death in Europe. Britain wasn't the only one. America didn't allow refugees from Europe in until AFTER the war. So yes, i'd say they earned a guilt trip for their complicity in murder.
Regardless of any arrangements the Brits had made with the Jews back in England, they actually had no legal or moral right to allow Jews into Palestine as it was not their country to give away, they had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.

Yes,... the Brits could have legally allowed the European Jews into their own country, as could many other countries which did not. So, as far as the "guilt trip" is concerned they were no better or worse than any other country that turned back the Jews.

In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine.
 
Last edited:
Should those born decades or even a half century later still be made to feel the burden of guilt? I think not.
 
Mr. Miller originally merely made the point that “Arabs” serve in the IDF. The discussion has gone on to one of moral’s, ethics, and loyalties.

I think we need a more clear definition of what is an “Arab”. At times I have heard all N. Africans and Middle easterners referred to as Arabs. Historically this has not been the case. N. Africans and Egyptians are not of the Arabian peninsula.
The peoples of the Arabian peninsula are Semitic, Jews are Semitic. Are not Jews then Arab?

As has been pointed out Jews served Hitler and Germans served against Hitler; in fact there were Americans in the SS. At least 1/3 of the people in what would become the U.S. remained loyal to the King during the Revolutionary War.

People with conflicted loyalties are present in all wars and conflicts through out history.

About 20% of Israel’s population are non-Jews; Arabs in Israel have equal voteing rights, and hold seats in the Knesset and high Gov positions. The same is not true in any Arab nation.

I believe the Jews have gone to some lengths to include the Palestinians who remained in Israel and when the state of Israel was established I don’t believe any non-Jews were forced out. The “Palestinians” that left did so of their own accord (probably believing that they would be treated as they would have treated the Jews if they had won), and it is worth noting that none of the Arab Nations would take many of them in.

The “Arabs” who serve in the IDF are not traitors nor are they despicable. They made a choice to defend their homes. Also they may, perhaps, see their standard of living in Israel is far better than those in Gaza - under the Palestinians.

BTW - I'm not Jewish, I am a native American. I have as much reason as the Palestinians to be bitter, the fact is I much prefer food I get from the Super Market over dog meat.
 
Last edited:
That's not unusual although it is despicable, there are turncoats and traitors in every society. People who will gladly sacrifice their morals for the promise of favourable treatment.

Wel tell that to the Japanese-American soldiers of the 442nd Regiment Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion and veterans of the Military Intelligence Service who fought in WWII and were among the most decorated soldiers of the US army.

It is known that there were an estimated 150,0000 "half Jews" in Hitlers army too, and an undisclosed number of full Jews, who kept a very low profile, for obvious reasons.

That figure comes from Bryan Mark Rigg and is misleading because allmost all cases are about "mixed Jews" as defined by the Nazi ideology, but not according to the Jewish view. Mixed jews were non-jewish people who had two Jewish grandparents (Mischling of the first degree) or one Jewish grandparent (Mischling of the second degree). Most of them maybe didn't even knew they had jewish blood in them. A Jew was someone who had at least three Jewish grandparents, and who had been enrolled with a Jewish congregation.
According to the 1939 Reich census, there were about 72,000 Mischlinge of the first degree, some 39,000 of the second degree, and probably tens of thousands more of higher degrees, which, however, were not recorded. (D. Bankier, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 3, Number 1 (1988), pp. 1-20.)

The Cover shot on the booklet "The Ideal German Soldier" featured half Jew Werner Goldberg.

Werner Goldberg's photograph appeared in the Sunday edition of the Berliner Tageblatt newspaper in 1939 with the caption "The Ideal German Soldier". The photograph had been sold to the newspaper by the official army photographer. It was later used on recruitment posters. Werner was a Mischling.


Among others were people like Field Marshal Erhard Milch.

He was one of the few high ranking Jews in the Wehrmacht and enlisted in 1910 and served also as a founding Director of Deutsche Luft Hansa. He too was a Mischling. In 1947, Milch was tried as a war criminal by a United States Military Tribunal in Nuremberg and sentenced to life imprisonment at Landsberg prison.


There is also the story and film (Europa, Europa) about Shlomo Perel who falsified his papers and served in Hitler's Army.

Perel was constantly in danger of being discovered by his German unit, and attempted on several occasions to flee back to the Soviets, each time without success. His father died of starvation in the Łódź ghetto, his mother was killed in a gassing truck and his sister was shot while on a death march but he found his brother Isaak alive. In 1948 Perel resettled in the newly independent Israel where he joined the army to fight in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
 
Should those born decades or even a half century later still be made to feel the burden of guilt? I think not.
Of course not, those who made the decisions were only a very small part of the population and I would guess that none of them are alive now. In fact there would be very few people alive now who were even of voting age at that time.

Never the less the guilt trip goes on.
 
Most of the Arab IDF enlistees, even if they are volunteering out of ideological reasons wouldn’t expose themselves to public recognition. They would keep it a secret.

As for guilt. For me it’s not about guilt. When looking at Germans, I have never felt a sense that they are guilty. I have encountered anti-Semitism in the United States as well. Clearly the anti-Semitism in Germany in the 1930s went overboard and it was clearly a terrible moment in history. But how long does one feel guilty? Can we get over that?

I always thought that the monument in Berlin was about trying to get over this question of guilt. Whenever I come there, I arrive feeling like an Israeli. But by the time I leave, I feel like a Jew. And why is that? Because Germans go out of their way -- because I am a Jew -- to make me feel good. And that makes me feel worse. I can't deal with it. Stop making me feel good. If you are anti-Semitic, fine. If you don't like me personally, fine. But deal with me as an individual, not as a Jew. I would hope that this memorial, in its absence of guilt-making, is part of the process of getting over that guilt. You cannot live with guilt. If Germany did, then the whole country would have to go to an analyst. I don't know how else to say it.
 
That's not unusual although it is despicable, there are turncoats and traitors in every society. People who will gladly sacrifice their morals for the promise of favourable treatment.


I find this statement to be quite silly and ignorant. Others in this thread already states why this is not the best of statements. We get your anti-Israel, but to this extent as to make this thread a debate is quite over-the-top, no?

You do realize you are talking about many other Veterans at the same time.

Germans who fought Germany, Japanese-Americans who fought against Japan, and Vietnamese who fought against vietnamese. There are always sympathizers on all sides (as I have said in another thread to you). To call these Arabs who joined the Israeli army, despicable, is to call all the up above people despicable despite their cause for doing it.

I would rather fight my own people who I know would not make life better than fight against a foriegner who I know will make things better. This is not a selfish outlook, except if it was bribery or blackmail that caused the decision.
 
Regardless of any arrangements the Brits had made with the Jews back in England, they actually had no legal or moral right to allow Jews into Palestine as it was not their country to give away, they had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.

Yes they did. The British Mandate for Palestine was a legal commission for the administration of Palestine. They ruled it. They had the right to allow Jews in Palestine, just as they allowed Arabs into Palestine who came there to work on the newly cultivated land by the Jews.
The British DID NOT recognise the Palestinians as the legitimate owners. The Arab interpretation of the agreement formed the basis of Arab claims to Palestine.

In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine.

Terrorism started in Palestine with the Palestine riots in 1920, the Hebron and Safed massacre in 1929 against the jews and in late 1937 the Palestinians began to attack the British forces.
 
Mr. Miller originally merely made the point that “Arabs” serve in the IDF. The discussion has gone on to one of moral’s, ethics, and loyalties.

I think we need a more clear definition of what is an “Arab”. At times I have heard all N. Africans and Middle easterners referred to as Arabs. Historically this has not been the case. N. Africans and Egyptians are not of the Arabian peninsula.
The peoples of the Arabian peninsula are Semitic, Jews are Semitic. Are not Jews then Arab?

As has been pointed out Jews served Hitler and Germans served against Hitler; in fact there were Americans in the SS. At least 1/3 of the people in what would become the U.S. remained loyal to the King during the Revolutionary War.

People with conflicted loyalties are present in all wars and conflicts through out history.

About 20% of Israel’s population are non-Jews; Arabs in Israel have equal voteing rights, and hold seats in the Knesset and high Gov positions. The same is not true in any Arab nation.

I believe the Jews have gone to some lengths to include the Palestinians who remained in Israel and when the state of Israel was established I don’t believe any non-Jews were forced out. The “Palestinians” that left did so of their own accord (probably believing that they would be treated as they would have treated the Jews if they had won), and it is worth noting that none of the Arab Nations would take many of them in.

The “Arabs” who serve in the IDF are not traitors nor are they despicable. They made a choice to defend their homes. Also they may, perhaps, see their standard of living in Israel is far better than those in Gaza - under the Palestinians.

BTW - I'm not Jewish, I am a native American. I have as much reason as the Palestinians to be bitter, the fact is I much prefer food I get from the Super Market over dog meat.

You make several good points! The fact is that Arab Israelis have a higher standard of living than any of their bretheren in the Arab countries. 1.2 million Arabs are free citizens in Israel. How many Jews can say the same of Arab countries?
 
Regardless of any arrangements the Brits had made with the Jews back in England, they actually had no legal or moral right to allow Jews into Palestine as it was not their country to give away, they had already recognised the Palestinians as the legitimate owners and agreed that it was to become their homeland in 1915.

Yes,... the Brits could have legally allowed the European Jews into their own country, as could many other countries which did not. So, as far as the "guilt trip" is concerned they were no better or worse than any other country that turned back the Jews.

In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine.

The British never made any agreement with the Palestinians that they would get a country. The only agreement Britain had with Arabs was that they would support Arab independance if the Arabs sided with the allies during WW1. This is why Palestine was severed in 1921 and Transjordan was created. Palestine is never mentioned in the agreement with the Arabs.

The only agreement that mentions Palestine is the Balfour declaration promising Jews a homeland here. The Balfour Declaration became binding international law when the League of Nations adopted it as part of their mandate in Palestine.

While it is correct that the country did not belong to Britain, it didn't exactly belong to anyone else either. Britain inherited it from the Ottomon Empire, which became defunct after the first world war. The only independant political entity to exist in Palestine were the ancient Jewish kingdoms. There has been a continued and unending Jewish presence in this land for more than 3,000 years and we never renounced our claims to a country here. The only reason Israel is 63 years old and not 3,000+ years old is that we were conquered several times. Even when we did not have independance here, the country was ruled by foreign empires that never eatablished another nation here.

The fact is that the British had the most ability to do something to help the Jews and didn't as a matter of policy makes them worse than countries who were not in a position to do as much. Some, like Denmark and Bulgaria, did way more to help the Jews than the British Empire.

"In view of the fact that Jewish terrorism was already a huge problem within Palestine it can be strongly argued that the Brits did actually have an obligation to prevent further trouble by preventing illegal immigration to Palestine."

The Jewish underground groups made retalitory attacks on Arab militants after being attacked themselves and were formed as a response to Arab massacres against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during these massacres that the British refused to defend Jews or allow the Jews to defend themselves. It was a result of Arab uprisings that the British issued their "white papers" and limited Jewish immigration.

It wasn't until they backtracked on their commitment to a Jewish state in order to appease the Arab mobs that fringe Jewish groups began targeting British military outposts in order to get them to leave.

The pre-state Jewish underground didn't use attacks on civilians as a matter of policy. They targeted Arab militants and British soldiers. The few cases in which civilians were the result of an organization called LEHI. Most of these casses involved assassinations of British officials and were widely condemned by the majority of the Jewish community.

They are not to be compared with Hamas, which targets only civilians and are supported by most Palestinians.

Also, the British created the Jewish "terrorist" problem when they backtracked on previous agreements and then refused to defend us from Arab attacks while simultaneously allowing the Arabs to arm themselves.
 
The British never made any agreement with the Palestinians that they would get a country. The only agreement Britain had with Arabs was that they would support Arab independance if the Arabs sided with the allies during WW1. This is why Palestine was severed in 1921 and Transjordan was created. Palestine is never mentioned in the agreement with the Arabs.
The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land.

The only agreement that mentions Palestine is the Balfour declaration promising Jews a homeland here. The Balfour Declaration became binding international law when the League of Nations adopted it as part of their mandate in Palestine.
Wrong see above: Anyway, the Brits as administrators of Palestine, had no legal right to enter into any agreements regarding the ownership of that land with persons other than with the native population

While it is correct that the country did not belong to Britain, it didn't exactly belong to anyone else either.
It is recognised under Terra Nullius, that the occupiers of that land,... were the Palestinian people, they therefore they owned the land and were the only people with any legitimate right to it

The fact is that the British had the most ability to do something to help the Jews and didn't as a matter of policy makes them worse than countries who were not in a position to do as much. Some, like Denmark and Bulgaria, did way more to help the Jews than the British Empire.
The Brits had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to help the Jews, or anyone else other than the people they ruled or otherwise administered.

The Jewish underground groups made retalitory attacks on Arab militants after being attacked themselves and were formed as a response to Arab massacres against Jews in the 1920s and 1930s. It was during these massacres that the British refused to defend Jews or allow the Jews to defend themselves. It was a result of Arab uprisings that the British issued their "white papers" and limited Jewish immigration.
Try making a "retaliatory attack" on some person or group that you have an issue with, and you will immediately see the stupidity of your answer. Whether the attacks were retaliatory or not does not alter the fact that the Brits had an obligation under both local and International law to try and stop the escalation by refusing the entry Jews into the country.

It wasn't until they backtracked on their commitment to a Jewish state in order to appease the Arab mobs that fringe Jewish groups began targeting British military outposts in order to get them to leave.
Firstly it has been shown that this "agreement" was never legally binding. And even if it were true it gives the Zionists no right to attack the mandated administration.

The pre-state Jewish underground didn't use attacks on civilians as a matter of policy.
Bullsh!t, The Irgun set about a terror campaign against unarmed and unsuspecting civilians deliberately bombing marketplaces etc. This policy was later endorsed and encouraged by such people as David Ben Gurion. “We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks

The admission that the Zionists executed a planned campaign of terror, is both well documented, and admitted by them in statements such as that of DBG above.
 
Last edited:
I find this statement to be quite silly and ignorant. Others in this thread already states why this is not the best of statements. We get your anti-Israel, but to this extent as to make this thread a debate is quite over-the-top, no?
In case you never realised, debate is the whole purpose of the thread otherwise we would just have people like yourself posting stupid Zionist propaganda. No,... it's no more than an attempt to see the wrong doers punished

You do realize you are talking about many other Veterans at the same time.
Being a "veteran" is no excuse for supporting a rogue State in their oppression of an innocent people who are doing no more than resisting the theft of their land. These so called "veterans" are no better than those of, say,... Robert Mugabe who feel that their status as veterans should excuse them of all need to obey international law and responsibility to their fellow man.

Germans who fought Germany, Japanese-Americans who fought against Japan, and Vietnamese who fought against vietnamese. There are always sympathizers on all sides (as I have said in another thread to you). To call these Arabs who joined the Israeli army, despicable, is to call all the up above people despicable despite their cause for doing it.
You just don't get it do you, the point is not that they are fighting against their own kind it is that in this case they are supporting a murderous rogue state.

I would rather fight my own people who I know would not make life better than fight against a foriegner who I know will make things better. This is not a selfish outlook, except if it was bribery or blackmail that caused the decision.
There's no way that Israel will ever improve the lives of the Palestinian people. No more than the Nazis improved the lives of European Jews. I'm pretty sure that theft, hunger, beatings, gratuitous violence, disenfranchisement, second class citizenship and murder are NOT things that the Palestinians either need nor want.

Obviously you neither have any understanding of the problem, nor of basic human morality.
 
Last edited:
Whether it’s religion, politics or most anything else - people will believe what they want to believe. No amount of facts will alter there prejudice.

Debating them is like the old saying “… never wrestle with pigs - the pigs love it and you just get dirty.”

“There are two things that are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind.“Albert Einstein (A Jew)

“Before one embarks on a journey of revenge, he should dig two graves.” Confucius (Chinese)

“National hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.” Goethe (German)
 
Whether it’s religion, politics or most anything else - people will believe what they want to believe. No amount of facts will alter there prejudice.

Debating them is like the old saying “… never wrestle with pigs - the pigs love it and you just get dirty.”

“There are two things that are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind.“Albert Einstein (A Jew)

“Before one embarks on a journey of revenge, he should dig two graves.” Confucius (Chinese)

“National hatred is something peculiar. You will always find it strongest and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.” Goethe (German)

"Politics and religion have one thing in common, they would both fail miserably without man's inherent inability to resist self interest and greed". Spike Jones (1947- )
 
Last edited:
Back
Top