Israel: Will Nazism comparisons trigger soul-searching?
http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-05-09/israel-will-nazism-comparisons-trigger-soul-searching/
Israel: Will Nazism comparisons trigger soul-searching?
9 May 2016
Remarks comparing Israel to Nazi Germany reflect fears over growing fault line within Israeli politics and the military
Al-Jazeera – 9 May 2016
There is no bigger taboo in Israel than comparing the state of Israel to Nazi Germany. And yet that is precisely what Yair Golan, the deputy head of the Israeli military, did last week during a speech to mark Holocaust Memorial Day.
“If there’s something that frightens me about Holocaust remembrance, it’s the recognition of the revolting processes that occurred in Europe – and particularly in Germany – 70, 80 and 90 years ago, and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016.” Golan called for “national soul-searching”, adding: “There is nothing easier than hating the stranger, nothing easier than to stir fears and intimidate. There is nothing easier than to behave like an animal and to act sanctimoniously.”
It was a moment of extreme self-recrimination rare among Israel’s political and military leadership. The political backlash was not long coming. The same day Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, demanded a retraction in an angry telephone call to Moshe Yaalon, the defence minister.
Golan dutifully backtracked, with a “clarification” that equating Israel and Nazi Germany was “absurd and baseless”, and that he had not intended to “criticise the political leadership”.
‘Outrageous’ speech
Nonetheless, at Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting, Netanyahu directed his fire at Golan again, calling his speech “outrageous”. Such comments, he added, “shouldn’t be said at any time”.
Other ministers were equally indignant. Science Minister Afir Okunis said the comparison would cause “massive harm to Israeli public diplomacy all over the world”. Miri Regev, the culture minister and a former military spokeswoman, called on Golan to resign.
Earlier, Naftali Bennett, the education minister and leader of the far-right settlers’ party Jewish Home, tweeted that “our soldiers will be compared to Nazis, God forbid, with legitimisation from high above.”
Neve Gordon, a political scientist at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva, said the political fallout underscored the significance of Golan’s comments. “All camps in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict want to be able to claim exclusive ownership of victimhood,” he told Al Jazeera. “Golan’s offence was to dare to identify Israelis as the oppressors. That’s why [government politicians] are now furiously going after him.”
Golan is a war hero, and for that reason he may – just – survive this incident.
‘Judeo-Nazism’
Though extremely uncommon, such comparisons have been made before by Israeli public figures, though never before by someone of Golan’s standing. Shortly after the occupation began in 1967, the late Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a renowned scientist and philosopher, began warning that Israel was in danger of succumbing to what he termed “Judeo-Nazism”.
A similar argument has been made by Avraham Burg, a former Speaker of the Israeli parliament. In the words of a prominent critic, his 2007 book Defeating Hitler argues that “Israel has no moral core and has become a brutal Sparta, fast sliding towards Nazism”.
And only last month Haneen Zoabi, a politician from Israel’s large Palestinian minority, rejected an invitation to a Holocaust Memorial Day event, noting “alarming similarities” between Israel and Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
Despite the outrage in Israel that greeted Golan, Burg and Zoabi’s remarks, none went so far as to suggest that Israel is committing a Nazi-style genocide of the Palestinians. They referred instead to Germany in the 1930s, when the Nazis came to power and started creating a structure of racist laws. This period was a prelude to the Holocaust, which began several years later.
Golan has found some very limited support. An editorial in Israel’s leading liberal newspaper, Haaretz, “saluted” him for his “brave words”. It added: “One of the most important lessons of the Holocaust was ignoring the early signs that brought the Nazi regime to where it ended up.”
Golan’s comparison is likely to register as more significant with Israelis – even if it is no more popular – than Zoabi and Burg’s. Zoabi’s statement was chalked up to Palestinian “anti-Semitism”, while Burg is widely dismissed as a leftist intellectual.
Fears for future
The reasons for Golan’s decision to speak out are complex and relate to fears prompted by a growing fault line both within Israeli politics and the military that does not strictly adhere to the usual left-right divide.
Yaalon, the defence minister, also a leading member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, came to Golan’s aid too, even while distancing himself from the Nazi Germany comparison. He argued that the general was calling for the military leadership to serve as “a compass and a conscience” for Israeli society.
Michel Warschawski, a founder of the Alternative Information Centre, a joint Israeli-Palestinian advocacy group, told Al Jazeera: “The heads of the military-security apparatus are genuinely fearful for Israel’s future. They think the right is driving Israel into a wall.
“Golan and the others understand that Netanyahu has already lost global public opinion and now they see that in time the right will drive away Western states. Eventually Israel will be left in total isolation.”
Notably, Netanyahu used his Holocaust speech not to promote the universal values highlighted by Golan but to focus on what he claimed to be the continuing dangers faced by Jews. “Anti-Semitism and the lies didn’t die with Hitler in the bunker in Berlin,” he said. The targets of his attack ranged from the Arab and Muslim worlds to Swedish government ministers, British MPs and the United Nations.
Losing control of army
The danger of this kind of tribalism was underscored in March by the furore that greeted the army’s decision to put on trial for manslaughter Elor Azaria, an army medic filmed executing a Palestinian in Hebron as he lay he severely wounded on the ground.
Polls have shown a majority of Israelis – including those drafted into the military – believe no action should be taken against Azaria. Some call him a hero. Golan alluded to the Hebron incident several times in his speech.
There seems to be a palpable fear among army commanders like Golan that they are losing control over their soldiers – and with it any hope of holding on to their much-cherished claim to be the “most moral army in the world”.
“Outside the very top echelon, the Israeli army is now controlled by people who are affiliated with the settler movement,” Gordon said. “That raises an uncomfortable argument about the place of religion in the military. Who gives the orders – God or the generals?”
Columnist Asher Schechter observed at the weekend that there was no little hypocrisy in Golan and Yaalon’s efforts to preach morality to the rest of Israeli society. Golan, for example, was disciplined in 2007 for using Palestinians as human shields, two years after Israel’s supreme court outlawed the practice.
“The irony is that the [Israeli army] had more than a hand in nurturing the kind of right-wing zealousness and disregard for human life that now worries its highest-ranking officers,” he wrote.
Journalist Gideon Levy concurred, arguing that army commanders like Golan “would do well to examine their roles in the moral decline of the country and of the army, and question what they are doing now in their high positions to institute change.”
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-05-09/israel-will-nazism-comparisons-trigger-soul-searching/#sthash.LgYJ6vW8.dpuf
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
215 visitors
There seems to be a palpable fear among army commanders like Golan that they are losing control over their soldiers – and with it any hope of holding on to their much-cherished claim to be the “most moral army in the world”.
“Outside the very top echelon, the Israeli army is now controlled by people who are affiliated with the settler movement,” Gordon said. “That raises an uncomfortable argument about the place of religion in the military. Who gives the orders – God or the generals?”
It seems to me that, despite all of the rightful anger over this by comparing the current Israeli government with the Nazis is that people constantly talk about the genocide of the Holocaust of the full blown 3rd Reich and I don't believe that's what General Golan was referring to at all. I think he sees similarities between the current Israeli government and the beginnings of what led to the Nazi party. The early days of hyper-nationalism. I believe that he was warning that things could go that way in Israel, not that they already have. Sort like a warning of early rumblings of things that eventually led to the Nazi regime in Germany. It doesn't seem that he has said anything about Israel now being like the Nazis when they were a dictatorial power. I don't think that he was comparing the current Israeli government to the Nazis, but rather sounding a note of caution.
There is a big difference between Germany in the 1930s and Israel today which is not taken into consideration in this article, in that the Jews in Germany were not incited to and hell-bent on stabbing and killing gentiles.
As well, introspection and vocal self-criticism is not the worst thing in the world, if Israelis wish to maintain the moral high road. One would not expect such in so many non-western countries, where it could lead to being thrown into prison at best and execution at worst.
Finally, it is admitted that the movie "Casualties of War" tells a true story, so although it's easy for others to criticize Israel, hypocrisy is just a little too common these days.
It is good to see that there is a large element in Israel that is acting like the conscience of the country and attempting to hold the Israeli political right to account.
Agreed. There is nothing wrong with (as indicated by the title) soul-searching. Would that other countries would do the same.
Israel: Will Nazism comparisons trigger soul-searching?
No.
Here's why not :
Israeli police say 2 Israeli women stabbed in Jerusalem
Even a whipped dog snaps back . . . and some snap back worse than others. Israel engaged in population transfers to move the Palestinians onto bantustans/reservations in a Zionist colonial land grab and then routinely tries to beat the entire population into submission through collective punishment when they resist. You want the dog to stop snapping? Stop hitting it. End the occupation.
The "occupation" was already ended in Gaza . What was the result ? Rocket attacks on Israel . How would you deal with a neighbor who launched rockets at your home ? You would of course be an apologist ...
The "occupation" was already ended in Gaza . What was the result ? Rocket attacks on Israel . How would you deal with a neighbor who launched rockets at your home ? You would of course be an apologist ...
The fact that Israel leaves the day-to-day management of Gaza to the Palestinians does not change the fact that Israel controls Gaza and, therefore, occupies it.
Israel does have a right to defend herself against armed attacks . And you have a right to be an apologist for those attacks . When are you gonna admit you are an apologist ?
Israel does have a right to defend herself against armed attacks . And you have a right to be an apologist for those attacks . When are you gonna admit you are an apologist ?
And the Palestinians have a right to resist colonial occupation. You stand on the dark side. When will you come to the light?
the Palestinians have a right to resist colonial occupation.
Its not colonialism if it is not a country being occupied . "Palestine" has never been a country and likely never will be . They are incapable of anything but running a massive smuggling organization .
the Palestinians have a right to resist colonial occupation.
Its not colonialism if it is not a country being occupied . "Palestine" has never been a country and likely never will be . They are incapable of anything but running a massive smuggling organization.
Is this anything other than hyperbole?
Since you blame only Israel for all the problems is what you are saying an expression of anti-semitism ? You don't care that Israelis are dying from the terrorist actions . All you are whining about is "collective punishment" . Whatever that is its a lot less immoral than murder & terrorism .
Since you blame only Israel for all the problems is what you are saying an expression of anti-semitism ? You don't care that Israelis are dying from the terrorist actions . All you are whining about is "collective punishment" . Whatever that is its a lot less immoral than murder & terrorism
I'll let you and all the others on this site present Israel's view. As I've said many many times, the best way to end the resistance is to end the occupation . . . or just fight forever.
As I've said many many times, the best way to end the resistance is to end the occupation
There is no occupation . There is only fear of Gazan terror . Your declaration that it is only Israel that is "occupying" Gaza is absurd . What about Egyptian "occupation" ? The mere fact that you never mention the actions of Egypt but only those of Israel is the surest sign of anti-semitism on your part . Admit that you hate Jews ...
Petey, when Israel bombed and shelled neighborhoods in Gaza two years ago , above and beyond the capability of the Palestinian civilians to defend themselves , what would you call that?
What do you want John, to give the Gazans sufficient weaponry to wipe out Israel and kill the Jews, which they have put in their "constitution" in order to make it a "fair fight"? Stop sending rockets and missiles into Israeli civilian territory and maybe things will get better for the Gazans. Stop building tunnels in order to sneak terrorists into Israel and Egypt (Yes, Egypt, not just Israel, John, in case you've forgotten that), then maybe the borders will open like they were before Hamas and Gazans can get good jobs back in Israel AGAIN, and pass through borders no different than before, which by the way was no different than passing between Canada and the US.
Maybe if Hamas wants to keep bombarding Israel with rockets and missiles it should use the concrete and steel it uses to build tunnels to build shelters for the Gazans instead of using them as human shields and launching their rockets from civilian areas and storing their weapons in hospitals, mosques and schools.
So, if the Palestinians stop causing trouble they will be allowed to be second class citizens in Israel again? Why not divide up the land in some fair arbitrated way, give Palestine a country, and build a giant WALL .
Buzz, are there any Israelis who want to drive the Arabs into the sea? In other words, they don't want the Palestinians to get a damn scrap of what they consider Israeli land?
I know there are..
Palestinians are 2nd class wherever they go . The Arab world is not fond of them either .
Palestinians are 2nd class wherever they go
You are not prejudiced much , are you?
Do you want a link to prove my statement ? I'm guessing you would rather disparage the commenter than learn something from the news . If anyone wants to learn more about this just post a request & I will hunt up a link .
Palestinians are 2nd class wherever they go .
A Petey/Buzz rhyme.
They're 2nd class wherever they go . . . so all they deserve is a curse and a blow.
I stole their land and now it's mine . . . so let them kiss my big behind.
I know one day they'll get even with me . . . but until that time I'm scot-free.
Yes they really are 2nd class throughout the entire Arab world . I suppose I will have to post a link just to shut you 2 up ...
BTW you never did address the "occupation" from Egypt . Again that is strong evidence of anti-semitism on your part . How long have you hated Jews ?
Yes they really are 2nd class throughout the entire Arab world . I suppose I will have to post a link just to shut you 2 up ...
Where did you find it . . . snob magazine?
HOW DARE YOU PUT MY NAME TO THAT!!!!
(Replying to John's post directed at me)
Maybe there are some, but not many, not enough to do it and their wishes are not being carried out by the Israeli government, nor are they inciting terrorism to further their cause. Israelis don't go into Palestinian areas and blow up buses or plant pipe bombs or blow up pizza parlours filled with innocent teenagers, do they? Sure, you might find a few examples like the man who was crazed by the murder by Palestinians of his family and walked into a mosque and killed some Palestinians, but they are a very tiny minority compared to the government and immam sponsored and incited terrorism carried out by the Palestinians.
John, I've been there. I witnessed a bus bomb. Both my son and my daughter are lucky to be alive since they JUST missed being blown up. It will be a frosty day that I will be convinced by 1ofmany to be a Palestinian propaganda mouthpiece like her.
There should be no "occupied territories". There never should have been anything described as "settlements" made onto disputed territory. There are evidently 50 TIMES more settlers today than there were when it started.
We know that Israel cannot survive as a Jewish state if Palestinians return in great numbers and become the majority voting bloc. So either they leave the land completely (other than whatever minority is allowed to remain in Israel) or the land has to be divided. You cannot have an "occupation" go on into perpetuity. If it is tried there will always be violence.
They have to get rid of Netanyahu, which is a problem since he was just re-elected not long ago.
Yeah , its all Netanyahu's fault . LMAO !
A great deal of it is his fault. He has allowed more and more and more settlements in the occupied territories. His and Likud's obvious goal is to annex the West Bank as a part of Israel completely and have no two state solution.
There are only three options. A two state solution. Annexation with continued resistance and violence. Or kill all of the Palestinians. All of them.
There never has been a 2 state solution . It is all a left wing fantasy . If anything there might be a 3 state solution ...
There are only three options. A two state solution. Annexation with continued resistance and violence. Or kill all of the Palestinians. All of them.
That's quite an imagination you've got there . Here is an example of discrimination against Palestinians in Lebanon :
Remove Restrictions on Owning Property and Working
There never has been a 2 state solution . It is all a left wing fantasy . If anything there might be a 3 state solution ...
or a 4 state solution or any other number as long as it's just on the sheet of paper that Israel tears up as they walk out of the room.
I suppose the truth is flexible in this case as well.
I suppose you can't recall the Camp David agreement between Ehud Barak and Arafat, that Arafat decided on an intifada instead.
Not to mention Abbas walking away in 2008.
Israel has always come to the table. The Palestinians have always demanded results prior to negotiation, which is a logical fallacy.
Why do you continue this way? What is the benefit to telling lie after lie? I've been standing off to the side, reading all of this, and nothing you say brings about a desire to make peace. Your goal is to blame and vilify and propagandize. There is truth in the fact that both sides need to straighten up to get something done. Why point your finger perpetually?
I don't get it.
as long as it's just on the sheet of paper that Israel tears up as they walk out of the room.
Thanks for proving you hate Jews . It was obvious from the start ...
Objecting to the make up of the Israeli government and it's actions does not equal hating Jews. Israel is a country. A nation. Not a religion. Disagreeing with the current ruling party is not anti-Semitic.
Objecting to the make up of the Israeli government and it's actions does not equal hating Jews. Israel is a country. A nation. Not a religion. Disagreeing with the current ruling party is not anti-Semitic.
Randy,
Of course objecting to Israel's policies or disagreeing with the current ruling party doesn't make anyone antisemitic. But while is a country, it was established as a Jewish State. A place where Jews could go in case of a small emergency like WWII. And for some people that is just wrong, hence how the word Zionism has become a dirty word.
I know that. However the government is separate from the religion. They are run by an elected Parliament, not a holy man. The majority of people in America are Christian, but objecting to the the actions of the American government does not mean you hate Christians any more then objecting to the acts of the ultra-right wing Likud Party makes you an anti-Semite. So it looks like we agree.
There has been a degree of soul-searching in Israel about the Israel/Palestinian conflict. A great deal of thought goes into it every day. It is certainly a complex problem, with no simple, unilateral or externally imposed solution that will solve the problem.
I can assure you that Nazism comparisons do nothing but add to the outrage that people feel against those who use that example. If I could give just one example of how outrageous a comparison this is, it would be in regard to medical treatment. The Palestinians use Israel's medical services. There have been many, many examples of Israeli doctors saving the lives of children, and of critically ill adults. Ismael Haniye, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, has had many family members treated for illnesses in Israel. This, a man who rails for the destruction of Israel.
Now, let us very briefly compare this to the Nazi doctors' treatment of Jews during WWII. Do you who know who Josef Mengele is? If not, why not just look it up, and let me know what you think.
If you need more comparisons, I'd be happy to comply. I'm not going to shout and scream about this, because there is no need.
Comparing Israel to the Nazis is not constructive in any forum that matters.
I think the general who made the allusion believes there is some thing about Israel's government that is reminiscent of Nazisim, not every thing.
I was told that I am perceived as anti-semitic because I "only" seed articles that are negative about Israel.
Not to beg the question, but if "I" don't, who will here? Certainly not you, or Perrie, or Buzz, or Mimi, or Kavika, or on and on.
I have seeded articles complimentary to Israel, and probably will in the future.
If a leading Israeli general felt it necessary to mention Israel and Nazi Germany together in the same analysis, he must have thought it important since he had to know he would come under withering criticism.
I don't think you're anti-Semitic. I do believe that there are ways to criticize Israel without being thought of in a derogatory way. Please also note the statement in my previous post. I said I wasn't going to yell and scream about it, and I will still not.
I respectfully disagreed with the premise of the article, and cited an example of why, in my opinion, the comparison is invalid.
Really, John, you can stop protesting about being considered an anti-Semite. We all know you're not, so stop with the denials because it makes one think of the speech "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
When I hear the expression "The Israelis (or the Israeli government) are just like Nazis" I would also like to hear, other than just the statement, examples of where that could be considered true, but I don't. I wonder why. Both Jonathon and I have made plausible arguments above in why we believe they are not, but I'm sure that would be discounted by anyone whose intent is to demonize Israel.
JR, if you going to invoke my name into this discussion, you should understand my feeling on the subject.
I. I believe Israel has the right to exist
2. I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself.
3. I believe that Israel has a history (holocaust, attacks by Arab countries, sworn enemies that want to destroy it) that many people cannot understand.
4. I believe that comparing Israel to Nazi's does no one any good. Although since Israel is a democracy the general is allow to say what he thinks.
5. I do not agree with everything that Israel does, but who are we to be pointing fingers?
I have to agree with Jon on this John. Don't get me wrong, Golan can speak his mind freely, since Israel is a democracy,(and may I point out, that if this happened in any other ME country, this guy would probably be dead, never mind out of a job), but the comparison is poor, and only adds to the deterioration of the discussion.
Very interesting article........
Good for Golan! The best way for Israel to avoid being compared to NAZIs is to stop acting like them.
“Golan and the others understand that Netanyahu has already lost global public opinion and now they see that in time the right will drive away Western states. Eventually Israel will be left in total isolation.”
More Jews of conscience need to speak out.
Here's what Arabs of "conscience" are doing :
Israeli police say 2 Israeli women stabbed in Jerusalem
Good for Golan! The best way for Israel to avoid being compared to NAZIs is to stop acting like them.
First of all nice use of caps.
Second, the Nazis systematically slaughter 12 million people/6 million Jews, DEAD. So imagine my shock (not) to find out that in 1948 1,292,000 Palestinians, and presently 4,700,000 living between in the West Bank and Gaza. I guess the Israelis are not Nazi's after all.
You might not agree with Israeli policy, and for that matter neither do I, but calling them Nazis is hyperbole and a disgrace and dishonor to all those who died under that regime.
THIS is what Golan said about Nazi Germany as a comparison, he says, to Israel.
This is what has to be replied to, not facts and figures about the Holocaust.
“There is nothing easier than hating the stranger, nothing easier than to stir fears and intimidate. There is nothing easier than to behave like an animal and to act sanctimoniously.”
Obviously he is comparing the Palestinians and perhaps other ethnic minority groups within Israel today with the Jews in Germany in the ways that he states " hating the stranger," etc.
At least that is what I saw as his purpose, not a literal comparison between the Nazis and the Israelis.
John,
I don't care who said it, and yeah I got that it was Golan, since I only said his name what 3 times now. I think it's awful comparison. His comparison was poor and hyperbolic and all you need to do is read 1's comment above yours to see what those kinds of comparisons draw. And that is what has been going on in recent years. Instead of addressing the issue in a sane manner, it's become hyperbolic and the words have lost their meanings and have become twisted. And I do have a problem with that. Don't call something a genocide that isn't and the Nazi's committed genocide.
Don't call something a genocide that isn't and the Nazi's committed genocide.
I don't see where Golan called it a genocide. The comparison he did make is more of tone than action. I don't think he meant it as a literal comparison, but it serves the purposes of the "defenders" of Israel to have it be seen as a literal comparison because it is easier to criticize then.
Here is a complete or near complete version of Golan's remarks. It would be nice if the discussion here related to them more
“It’s scary to see horrifying developments that took place in Europe begin to unfold here . . .The Holocaust should bring us to ponder our public lives and, furthermore, it must lead anyone who is capable of taking public responsibility to do so . . . Because if there is one thing that is scary in remembering the Holocaust, it is noticing horrific processes which developed in Europe – particularly in Germany – 70, 80, and 90 years ago, and finding remnants of that here among us in the year 2016. . . . .The Holocaust, in my view, must lead us to deep soul-searching about the nature of man . . .It must bring us to conduct some soul-searching as to the responsibility of leadership and the quality of our society. It must lead us to fundamentally rethink how we, here and now, behave towards the other . . .There is nothing easier and simpler than in changing the other . .There is nothing easier and simpler than fear-mongering and threatening. There is nothing easier and simpler than in behaving like beasts, becoming morally corrupt, and sanctimoniousness . . .On Holocaust Remembrance Day, it is worthwhile to ponder our capacity to uproot the first signs of intolerance, violence, and self-destruction that arise on the path to moral degradation . . .For all intents and purposes, Holocaust Remembrance Day is an opportunity for soul-searching . . .If Yom Kippur is the day of individual soul-searching, then it is imperative that Holocaust Remembrance Day be a day of national soul-searching, and this national soul-searching should include phenomena that are disruptive . . ..Improper use of weapons and violating the sanctity of arms have taken place since the IDF’s founding, .. .The IDF should be proud that throughout its history it has had the ability to investigate severe incidents without hesitation. It should be proud that it has probed problematic behavior with courage and that it has taken responsibility not just for the good, but also for the bad and the inappropriate. . . .We didn’t try to justify ourselves, we didn’t cover anything up, we didn’t whitewash, we didn’t make excuses, and we didn’t equivocate . . . Our path was – and will be – one of truth and shouldering responsibility, even if the truth is difficult and the burden of responsibility is a heavy one. . . .We very much believe in the justice of our cause, but not everything we do is just . . .We are certain of the high level of morality in the IDF as an organization, and we do not ignore exceptions by individuals. We demand from our soldiers the same that we demand of ourselves, and we insist that upstanding behavior and setting an example for everyone become second nature for every commander . . .On Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we remember the six million of our people who were slaughtered in Europe, it is incumbent upon us to remember the 6.5 million, those living now, and to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our return to our land, what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not . . .Most of all, we should ask how it is that we are to realize our purpose as a light unto the nations and a model society . . .Only this kind of remembrance can serve as a living and breathing monument for our people – a worthy monument, a monument of truth.
There is nothing in there suggesting that the Israelis are committing or contemplating genocide. Rather clearly he is talking about the beginnings of Nazism and feeling that there is a hint of a comparison in what he sees in present day Israel.
It probably was a poor choice of words because now all he is getting out of it is outrage from the people he was attempting to criticize.
There is nothing in there suggesting that the Israelis are committing or contemplating genocide. Rather clearly he is talking about the beginnings of Nazism and feeling that there is a hint of a comparison in what he sees in present day Israel.
It probably was a poor choice of words because now all he is getting out of it is outrage from the people he was attempting to criticize.
I had read what he had written before, and given that the word Nazi has been so over used in recent time, he could have used better verbiage, which is at the core of the issue. There have been many nationalist movements around the world in recent times, but no one did what the Nazis did, so comparing Israelis in any way to Nazis is hyperbole and gross.
And for the record, I don't support the current government for loads of reasons, but I would never call them Nazis.
There have been many nationalist movements around the world in recent times, but no one did what the Nazis did, so comparing Israelis in any way to Nazis is hyperbole and gross.
Why would he compare Israel to some other nationalist group, perhaps some that have not even been around as long as Israel has?
He did not suggest Israel is committing or contemplates committing genocide, but you keep going back to that. So I guess that was his mistake - his allusion was bound to be turned against him by people who disagree with his points about Israel.
John,
We can always view a "mistake" as an opportunity to learn.
As I wrote yesterday, there is a great deal of room for soul-searching. The people that you interact with here who support Israel are very introspective in regard to the situation that confronts a country that we love. Those of us who are Jewish are Jews of conscience, as we care about what happens, and would very much welcome a peaceful, bi-lateral conclusion to this seemingly eternal problem. Additional deaths do nothing to bring us closer to peace.
The learning experience comes from the supporter of the Palestinians in this discussion. In every single venue, this poster places 100% of the blame on Israel for every single problem that besets the Palestinians. There is no attempt at balance, or the slightest admission that this can end with the advent of a proactive push on the part of those involved in the conflict. None of the seeds you post on this topic have ever resulted in any display of conscience on the part of this poster. If you would like to know why the discussion always devolves, look no further.
Thank you.
Second, the Nazis systematically slaughter 12 million people/6 million Jews, DEAD. So imagine my shock (not) to find out that in 1948 1,292,000 Palestinians, and presently 4,700,000 living between in the West Bank and Gaza. I guess the Israelis are not Nazi's after all. You might not agree with Israeli policy, and for that matter neither do I, but calling them Nazis is hyperbole and a disgrace and dishonor to all those who died under that regime.
Genocide is what the NAZI's are best known for but that's not their only atrocity nor was it my basis for comparison. They are also known for population transfers and collective punishment that are the basis for prohibiting such practices under the Geneva Conventions. The practices are just as loathsome now as they were when the NAZIs employed them. To me, the real disgrace is not condemning Israel for doing the same thing the NAZIs did. Turning a blind eye to Israel's abuse dishonors all who suffered under the heel of the NAZIs.
Genocide is what the NAZI's are best known for but that's not their only atrocity nor was it my basis for comparison. They are also known for population transfers and collective punishment
Nazi population transfers were not meant as collective punishment. They were meant for genocide. A Final solution. DEATH. Therefore there is no comparison. And by the way, excellent use of a Gobbels technique.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Be specific about your complaints. Don't just throw around the Nazi term, since if Israel's true intent was genocide, we would have seen that already.
Don't just throw around the Nazi term, since if Israel's true intent was genocide, we would have seen that already.
That is a good point.
1ofmany is very good at repeating propaganda. Please point out to me what population transfer took place. The Palestinians who live in Israel have lived there for how long? since Partition? Did they move into Israel later? The Palestinians who live in Gaza were not "transferred" there, were they? The Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria (called by some the West Bank) were there before, and if they moved there it was of their own accord, and don't try to tell me that the Israelis "transferred " Palestinians into the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. They went on their own accord and those countries confined them to those camps - so let's not blame Israel for their being transferred or confined there.
1ofmany is very good at repeating propaganda. Please point out to me what population transfer took place. The Palestinians who live in Israel have lived there for how long? since Partition? Did they move into Israel later? The Palestinians who live in Gaza were not "transferred" there, were they? The Palestinians who live in Judea and Samaria (called by some the West Bank) were there before, and if they moved there it was of their own accord, and don't try to tell me that the Israelis "transferred " Palestinians into the refugee camps in Lebanon and Jordan. They went on their own accord and those countries confined them to those camps - so let's not blame Israel for their being transferred or confined there.
The point of UN Resolution 194 is to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes. It doesn't matter why they left because they intended to return. Blocking their return is tantamount to a population transfer.
"Blocking their return is tantamount to a population transfer."
What dictionary do you use?
The point of UN Resolution 194 is to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes.
That resolution was adopted more than a half century ago and it concerned the Palestinians who left at that time . It does NOT apply to their children and their grandchildren . But the UN is set up to be a continuing cause . There are no longer any of the original "refugees" left . The UN is designed to stay as a permanent charity with perpetual largess . And the US is paying for that largess .
The point of UN Resolution 194 is to allow the Palestinians to return to their homes.
That resolution was adopted more than a half century ago and it concerned the Palestinians who left at that time . It does NOT apply to their children and their grandchildren . But the UN is set up to be a continuing cause . There are no longer any of the original "refugees" left . The UN is designed to stay as a permanent charity with perpetual largess . And the US is paying for that largess .
The Resolution applies to the Palestinians and, by extension, their descendants. As for permanent charities, we also support Israel with perpetual largess. The UN fosters peaceful resolution of conflict between nations; Israel fosters eternal violent conflict because of an illegal occupation. I bet you could guess which I think is deserving of money and which is not.
The Resolution applies to the Palestinians and, by extension, their descendants. As for permanent charities, we also support Israel with perpetual largess. The UN fosters peaceful resolution of conflict between nations; Israel fosters eternal violent conflict because of an illegal occupation.
The resolution was nonbinding.
International reception and interpretation [ edit ]
Many of the resolution's articles were not fulfilled, since these were opposed by Israel, rejected by the Arab states, or were overshadowed by war as the 1948 conflict continued until Armistice in 1949 between Israel and Transjordan .
UN Resolution 273 admitted Israel to the United Nations on May 11, 1949, "taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representative of the Government of Israel" in respect of implementation of resolutions 194 and 181 , to which Israel did not commit itself to any specific action or timeframe. Israel has since rejected any resolution calling on it to allow the Palestinians to come to Israel. Since General Assembly resolutions are not binding, and only serve as advisory statements, there can be no obligation or enforcement of Resolution
The resolution was nonbinding.
Obviously since it has never been enforced but it embodies the view of the world community that the Palestinians have a right to return. Israel should have said said that it had no intention of abiding by the resolution before it was admitted to the UN.
Perrie, to the best of your knowledge, what is Israel willing to do to end the bloodshed and hostility and repression in Israel (including West Bank and Gaza)?
I know you don't speak for them, but what is your perception of it? What concessions or steps is Israel ready to take?
Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just "slow"?" Who's been making the concessions? Who's been making the offers? Israel released terrorist Palestinians with blood on their hands, Israel vacated lands, Israel put a moratorium on settlement building, Israel offered 95%, even 97% of what the Palestinians demanded and the Palestinians walked away from the table without making a concession to their demands or making an offer. Why don't you ask what the Palestinians are willing to concede or offer? Are you as drowned by Palestinian propaganda as 1ofmany in that you have to make such a one-sided request of Perrie?
Are you fucking kidding me, or are you just "slow"?"
Try to calm down Buzz.
"...Here are the numbers, deep in the AP story, on Israeli settlers (almost all Jewish) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem: roughly the population of Milwaukee. And someone is going to move them out?
In 1972, there were just over 10,000 Israeli settlers , with 1,500 living in the West Bank and the rest in east Jerusalem. Two decades later, by the time of the Oslo peace accords, there were 231,200 Israelis living in the territories. That number rose to 365,000 by 2000, when the second Palestinian uprising began, and 474,000 by the time Benjamin Netanyahu became Israel’s prime minister again in 2008.
The settlements are now home to more than 570,000 Israelis, according to the Israeli anti-settlement watchdog Peace Now – 370,000 in the West Bank and 200,000 in east Jerusalem. Settlements range from small wildcat outposts on West Bank hilltops to developed towns with shopping malls, schools and suburban homes.
“This is how it works in Israel,” Ilene Cohen writes:
First, reward the violent settlers for leaving their illegal outpost (so defined even by Israel) slated (by court order) for evacuation by establishing a brand-new “legal” (but, of course, illegal) settlement for them. It’s all up front. The message to settlers is clear: onward to the next outpost and get yourself a new settlement.
And as for the latest US “message”—and the “tougher tone” (second article following)—what’s the point?
Don’t get me wrong, better the latest report than not. Better to have the pile-on grow against the illegal Israeli colonization of Palestine than not. But, really, the “tougher tone” is more than half a million settlers too late.
- See more at:
Here are the numbers, deep in the AP story, on Israeli settlers (almost all Jewish) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem: roughly the population of Milwaukee. And someone is going to move them out?
“This is how it works in Israel,” Ilene Cohen writes:
- See more at:Here are the numbers, deep in the AP story, on Israeli settlers (almost all Jewish) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem: roughly the population of Milwaukee. And someone is going to move them out?
“This is how it works in Israel,” Ilene Cohen writes:
- See more at:What Is Israel going to do to advance the two state solution? There are no Palestinians here.
You want all the Palestinians to disperse to other Arab countries, don't you?
For you to talk about someone else being one sided is the most laughable thing imaginable here. To you Israel is never at fault, the existence of Muslims is the problem. We have all see that enough from you Buzz to know that is your belief.
Nazi population transfers were not meant as collective punishment. They were meant for genocide. A Final solution. DEATH. Therefore there is no comparison. And by the way, excellent use of a Gobbels technique.
I never said that population transfers were meant as collective punishment. Population transfers were not just for genocide. An example of non-genocidal NAZI population transfer was the forced removal of Poles from their homes so that Germans could be resettled there. Also, collective punishment was not directed just at extermination. The NAZIs used it to try and crush the French and Polish resistance (as well as other armed resistance) to German occupation. It didn't work because the resistance continued.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Calling the truth a lie doesn't actually make it one.
Be specific about your complaints. Don't just throw around the Nazi term, since if Israel's true intent was genocide, we would have seen that already.
I explained exactly what I was talking about. You brought up genocide, not me. I can compare a current white racist view to NAZI Aryan superiority. That doesn't mean that I'm accusing white racists of killing 12 million people, or anybody for that matter since one can be a racist without being a murderer. So I'll say it again and make it clear. If an action is wrong, then it is wrong no matter who does it. That goes for population removal, collective punishment, colonialism, Bantustans, reservations etc. and it deserves the same level of contempt as it did when the NAZIs did it.
The continuing terrorism from the Palestinians towards the Israelis is illegal . Supporting that terrorism is illegal according to the US govt .
An example of non-genocidal NAZI population transfer was the forced removal of Poles from their homes so that Germans could be resettled there.
You must learn your history better. The Poles were to be exterminated, too. There is just so many people that the Nazis could kill at one time, and the Poles were useful idiots, since they helped with the Jewish extermination. Try again.
The NAZIs used it to try and crush the French and Polish resistance (as well as other armed resistance) to German occupation. It didn't work because the resistance continued.
The Nazis had no inclinations to eradicate the French. The resistance was fighting them. It was war. That happens when there is a war.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
Calling the truth a lie doesn't actually make it one.
It's your truth. It doesn't make it THE truth. In fact, most of the stuff you have written reads like propaganda.
I explained exactly what I was talking about. You brought up genocide, not me. I can compare a current white racist view to NAZI Aryan superiority. That doesn't mean that I'm accusing white racists of killing 12 million people, or anybody for that matter since one can be a racist without being a murderer. So I'll say it again and make it clear. If an action is wrong, then it is wrong no matter who does it. That goes for population removal, collective punishment, colonialism, Bantustans, reservations etc. and it deserves the same level of contempt as it did when the NAZIs did it.
Yes I did bring up genocide, since that is what makes being a Nazi so particular. There are plenty of groups of people who have felt superior over the centuries, but only the Nazis had perfected the art of extermination. And since you are talking about population removal, the Israelis did it to their own, when they removed settlers from Gaza forcefully, in order to get some peace, or did you happen to just forget that? Here let me show you a video of that:
And if you are going to use the word reservation, know our history. The reservations that America used were supposed to be death camps. Some on a slow scale and some on a fast track. As I started this discussion, the Palestinian population has more than quadrupled since 1948. Indians are down to 2% of the US. And this is why your truth doesn't ring true.
If you want to have an honest discussion about Israeli policy, I would be glad to. But not with the hyperbole that you employ.
An example of non-genocidal NAZI population transfer was the forced removal of Poles from their homes so that Germans could be resettled there.
You must learn your history better. The Poles were to be exterminated, too. There is just so many people that the Nazis could kill at one time, and the Poles were useful idiots, since they helped with the Jewish extermination. Try again.
Unlike the Jews and some others, there was no deliberate policy to exterminate the Poles (although some were exterminated). To Hitler, the Poles were not Aryan but rather part of an inferior slav race and existed only to serve the master race in any capacity he saw fit. They were used as slave labor and their lives weren't worth much but they were not slated for extermination. In that respect, Hitler's view was similar to American slave owners.
The NAZIs used it to try and crush the French and Polish resistance (as well as other armed resistance) to German occupation. It didn't work because the resistance continued.
The Nazis had no inclinations to eradicate the French. The resistance was fighting them. It was war. That happens when there is a war.
Yes I know and said as much. However, I was not addressing the reason for the resistance but rather disputing your claim that collective punishment was only for the purpose of extermination. My point still stands.
Calling the truth a lie doesn't actually make it one.
It's your truth. It doesn't make it THE truth. In fact, most of the stuff you have written reads like propaganda.
But your truth isn't THE truth either. You won't be shocked to know that I dismiss what you have written as propaganda the same way you dismiss mine.
I explained exactly what I was talking about. You brought up genocide, not me. I can compare a current white racist view to NAZI Aryan superiority. That doesn't mean that I'm accusing white racists of killing 12 million people, or anybody for that matter since one can be a racist without being a murderer. So I'll say it again and make it clear. If an action is wrong, then it is wrong no matter who does it. That goes for population removal, collective punishment, colonialism, Bantustans, reservations etc. and it deserves the same level of contempt as it did when the NAZIs did it.
Yes I did bring up genocide, since that is what makes being a Nazi so particular. There are plenty of groups of people who have felt superior over the centuries, but only the Nazis had perfected the art of extermination. And since you are talking about population removal, the Israelis did it to their own, when they removed settlers from Gaza forcefully, in order to get some peace, or did you happen to just forget that? Here let me show you a video of that . . .
Granted this is one of the hallmarks of NAZI depravity but other behavior, though less extreme, is nevertheless despicable as well. Again, I deplore all their despicable behavior because it's wrong and it is still wrong no matter who engages in it . . . and that includes Israel, the US, Russia and everybody else.
And if you are going to use the word reservation, know our history. The reservations that America used were supposed to be death camps. Some on a slow scale and some on a fast track. As I started this discussion, the Palestinian population has more than quadrupled since 1948. Indians are down to 2% of the US. And this is why your truth doesn't ring true.
You keep raising a death camp straw man and then proceed to knock it down. I never said Palestinian reservations were death camps so the fact that their population has increased proves absolutely nothing. With regard to Indian reservations, they were not supposed to be death camps as you believe. The basic purpose of an Indian reservation was to remove Indians from their land, give it to white people, and keep the Indians confined so as not to endanger the whites who dispossessed them. If you look at the Indian Removal Act of 1830, the purpose was to remove Indians from their land and relocate them (by force if necessary) to worthless land west of the Mississippi beyond white settlements. The Indians were advised that this is for their own good and was largely viewed as a philanthropic gesture not an attempt at extermination. By 1871, under the Indian Homestead Act, this had changed to a policy of forcing the tribes to gradually assimilate and be more like mainstream Americans. Still not an attempt to exterminate them (that doesn't mean the policy was benign).
If you want to have an honest discussion about Israeli policy, I would be glad to. But not with the hyperbole that you employ.
My comments are no more hyperbolic than the comments of those who support Israel and I reserve the right to express myself as freely as they do.
Unlike the Jews and some others, there was no deliberate policy to exterminate the Poles (although some were exterminated). To Hitler, the Poles were not Aryan but rather part of an inferior slav race and existed only to serve the master race in any capacity he saw fit. They were used as slave labor and their lives weren't worth much but they were not slated for extermination. In that respect, Hitler's view was similar to American slave owners.
Wrong.
Adolf Hitler had plans for the extensive colonisation of Polish territories directly opposite the pre-war borders of the Third Reich , making them part of his newly created Reichsgau Wartheland . Eventually his plans grew bigger to include the General Government in the process of ethnic cleansing and genocide . The region was to become a "purely German area" within 15–20 years, as explained by Hitler in March 1941. By that time the General Government was to be cleared of 15 million Polish nationals, and resettled by 4–5 million ethnic Germans . [1]
You keep raising a death camp straw man and then proceed to knock it down. I never said Palestinian reservations were death camps so the fact that their population has increased proves absolutely nothing. With regard to Indian reservations, they were not supposed to be death camps as you believe. The basic purpose of an Indian reservation was to remove Indians from their land, give it to white people, and keep the Indians confined so as not to endanger the whites who dispossessed them.
No. You keep bring up the strawman use of the words "reservations" The Indian reservations were not just supposed to confine Indians, they were designed to starve them to death. Indians died there, not increase in population. Maybe this is why you think it's OK to say "off the reservation", since you don't seem to get the difference. Hitler used that model for his death camps. Are you aware of that?
Here take a good look at this picture:
Left, Nazis stand before a mass grave of victims of the Jewish Holocaust; right: U.S. soldiers pose for a picture near a mass grave of dead Lakotas following the Wounded Knee Massacre of December 29, 1890.
Unlike the Jews and some others, there was no deliberate policy to exterminate the Poles (although some were exterminated). To Hitler, the Poles were not Aryan but rather part of an inferior slav race and existed only to serve the master race in any capacity he saw fit. They were used as slave labor and their lives weren't worth much but they were not slated for extermination. In that respect, Hitler's view was similar to American slave owners.
Wrong . . .
We are moving far afield of my original point. My point was that Poles were subject to a population transfer unrelated (at the time of transfer) to extermination under the policy of Lebensraum (German colonialism of Polish lands). That plan fit into a larger plan for enslavement and extermination. But I wasn't discussing Hitler's ethnic cleansing policy. Regardless of what Hitler planned, population transfers of foreign populations are wrong. They're wrong no matter who does them and they're wrong even if the destination is not a death camp.
Left, Nazis stand before a mass grave of victims of the Jewish Holocaust; right: U.S. soldiers pose for a picture near a mass grave of dead Lakotas following the Wounded Knee Massacre of December 29, 1890.
The purpose of Indian reservations and NAZI death camps are not the same simply by showing a picture of two mass graves.
population transfers of foreign populations are wrong.
The "Palestinians" transferred themselves . Anyone who has sympathy for their situation has no knowledge of the history of the region.
We are moving far afield of my original point.
All that matters is YOUR point . Got it ...
population transfers of foreign populations are wrong.
The "Palestinians" transferred themselves . Anyone who has sympathy for their situation has no knowledge of the history of the region.
Move over . . . they're transferring themselves back.
The purpose of Indian reservations and NAZI death camps are not the same simply by showing a picture of two mass graves.
If that is all you got from that, then this discussion is hopeless.
So I guess your answer is no.
You just compared an American Indian reservation to a NAZI death camp but are annoyed that I compare Israel's population transfers and collective punishment to similar policies employed by the NAZIs. Yet I'm engaged in hyperbole but you're not? You can't be serious.
You just compared an American Indian reservation to a NAZI death camp but are annoyed that I compare Israel's population transfers and collective punishment to similar policies employed by the NAZIs. Yet I'm engaged in hyperbole but you're not? You can't be serious.
Wrong 1 you did. You used the word reservation for what the Israelis are doing, not me. Then you try to flip it on me. LOL that is just funny.
1ofmany, your view of the history of the US government and Indians needs to be updated. The Indian removal act was indeed to get the natives land and force was used. Thousands died on the ''Trail of Tears'' that ended in what is now Oklahoma. Some didn't leave, The Eastern Band of Cherokee and part of the Seminole Nation. This led to the Seminole wars, more Indians died. Starvation was a major problem on the reservations. Not just in Oklahoma but through out the US.
Lack of payment due and starvation on the reservation led to the Dakota war of 1862. More dead Indians.
The Sandy Lake Tragedy, more dead Indians. I could go on the list is long.
Killing Indians isn't the only way to destroy them us as a people. What you call assimilation into the white society was another way. Crush the language, culture, custom's and outlawing our religion was used. Perhaps they thought that was more ''humane.''
After the reservations were formed and Indians forced to them, another event took place. If the reservations were found to have any value, timber, oil, minerals, once again every effort was made to take that land from the Indians. Yup, more dead Indians. Which by the way continued into the 1970's with the Tribal Termination act. More reservations land lost. Oh, darn I almost forgot the Dawes act, and the Allocation Act.
So, yes the reservation were a death camp, of the body and the soul of the Indian.
. . . So, yes the reservation were a death camp, of the body and the soul of the Indian.
Thanks but I've read all of this before and none of them state (or imply) that the purpose of a reservation is extermination. But your position is curious. If the result of confinement can lead to death (which I assume is your point) and the result is, ipso facto, the purpose of confinement, then the Israelis by that reasoning (not mine) intend for the Palestinians to perish.
Of course you've read all this before and understand it completely. I would have expected your to make that statement.
Adding your spin to what I said and attempting to add in the Palestinians is interesting. Since I didn't state any such thing. That is a separate issue, as you may or may not know.
Since Indians were brought into this article, I simply added a Indians view of it.
Of course you've read all this before and understand it completely. I would have expected your to make that statement.
Adding your spin to what I said and attempting to add in the Palestinians is interesting. Since I didn't state any such thing. That is a separate issue, as you may or may not know.
You said you were updating me and I said I had already read this. My "spin" was simply to get you to crystalize your view on the debate if you care to do so. If you don't like how I spun it, then unspin it or spin it however you like.
Except Gaza would be part of a free two state solution that has been put forth. They had freedom to go and come until your freedom fighters, who were quite free, started to bomb people in Israel. Hence the wall. Let's not rewrite history. Then the elect a terrorist group as their government. Great/not.
The Palestinians in the West Bank have a right to complain. The continuous building of settlements is wrong. But you see there is the difference between you and me. I am willing to go for a two state solution. For you nothing but the destruction of israel would make you happy.
and I reserve the right to express myself as freely as they do.
The DHS reserves the right to arrest you if you show more support than just flapping your gums .
The continuing terrorism from the Palestinians towards the Israelis is illegal . Supporting that terrorism is illegal according to the US govt .
As you probably know, the NAZIs classified the French resistance as terrorism. Because occupation is both illegal and immoral, an occupied people have a right to resist it.
Hamas isn't a resistance group. They are terrorist. Comparing them to the French Resistance is an insult to French. You need to read the Hamas Charter. It calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jewish people. That is what makes them terrorist and racist and Nationalist. Think that I am wrong? Read the charter.
Hamas isn't a resistance group. They are terrorist. Comparing them to the French Resistance is an insult to French. You need to read the Hamas Charter. It calls for the destruction of Israel and the death of the Jewish people. That is what makes them terrorist and racist and Nationalist. Think that I am wrong? Read the charter.
Hamas is irrelevant to the issue. The Palestinian people have a right to resist occupation. There have been many treatises trying to separate a terrorist from a freedom fighter. Generally speaking, occupied people see those who resist as freedom fighters; the occupier sees them as terrorists. The NAZIs called the French resistance a terrorist organization and criminal gang; the French called them freedom fighters. The British looked on American revolutionaries as terrorists; the American revolutionaries saw themselves as freedom fighters. Call them what you will but people have a right to resist and the resistance will go on as long as they are occupied. If there's an insult in play here, it's implying that Palestinians are somehow unlike others who justifiably resist occupation.
Hamas is not irrelevant to the issue. It is who has to be willing to be a partner in peace and they have made it perfectly clear that they have no interest in doing that. You can call them anything you like, but they are considered terrorist by everyone. On the other hand the PA isn't. Know your facts. Any group that has in it's charter the death of an entire people are terrorist. If that was Israel's constitution you would be all over it like white on rice.
Hamas is not irrelevant to the issue. It is who has to be willing to be a partner in peace and they have made it perfectly clear that they have no interest in doing that. You can call them anything you like, but they are considered terrorist by everyone. On the other hand the PA isn't. Know your facts. Any group that has in it's charter the death of an entire people are terrorist. If that was Israel's constitution you would be all over it like white on rice.
It's not a question of knowing facts but rather a question of recognizing the issue. Hamas is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether the Palestinians have a right to resist occupation. They do have that right and they have that right even if they are represented by the Devil himself or nobody at all. Whether you can negotiate with Hamas is another question but Hamas's existence does not create or negate rights.
It does matter because no one is going to negotiate with another party who wants you dead. Do you not get that? As for the occupation you keep referring to, what is that? Gaza was always going to be part of a two state solution. So was the West Bank. The right of return was never on the table, even before Hamas, and now that thought would be unthinkable for all parties involved. The PA could work out something with Israel, since they have never said they want the end of Israel and to kill all the jews. I'm all for having a two state solution. That was how it was supposed to be, before Jordan decided to keep the land for themselves.
Hey where is your outrage there? Or the Egyptian wall that borders Gaza. How about the fact that they Egyptians have helped the israelis blow up tunnels with the cement that was supposed to be used to rebuild by the international community. Where is your outrage?
It does matter because no one is going to negotiate with another party who wants you dead. Do you not get that?
You're conflating two different issues. I was talking about the Palestinian right to resist occupation not who represents them in negotiations. As for negotiations, black South Africans negotiated with the white racists who killed and imprisoned them. You can hate each other and still cut a deal. Do you get that?
As for the occupation you keep referring to, what is that?
The same thing the United Nations is referring to: Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza.
Gaza was always going to be part of a two state solution. So was the West Bank. The right of return was never on the table, even before Hamas, and now that thought would be unthinkable for all parties involved.
The PA could work out something with Israel, since they have never said they want the end of Israel and to kill all the jews. I'm all for having a two state solution. That was how it was supposed to be, before Jordan decided to keep the land for themselves.
You're all for a two state solution. Good. Now all you have to do is get 5 million Israelis to agree.
Hey where is your outrage there? Or the Egyptian wall that borders Gaza. How about the fact that they Egyptians have helped the israelis blow up tunnels with the cement that was supposed to be used to rebuild by the international community. Where is your outrage?
Egypt does not control the land, sea, and airspace of the occupied territories. Israel does. I'm focused on ending colonialism not squabbles between the Palestinians and Egypt.
Of course not 1. The fact that Egypt has walled them in also doesn't add to your narrative.. you know.. the reservation one. Let's just call it a day and end it with this: let's call a spade a spade and just say you don't want a state of Israel to exist. See how easy that was?
I find many times the real issue is lost because the discussion is deflected back to the horrible atrocities of the Holocaust. It's an uncomfortable topic and many times people will drop the discussion because they don't want to be labeled anti-Israel. It's very effective. This article is a great example of someone who is in a unique position to provide insight. The comments are provocative but my interpretation is that they seem to be a plea for self reflection from all who are affected not just Israeli's. Sadly since it isn't aligned with the current leadership's vision or agenda bringing up the Holocaust is the easiest way to silence and discredit any individual that has an opinion or insight opposite of the leadership. The Holocaust is something that should never be used as leverage but it should also NEVER be forgotten. It is an important reminder.
PJ,
There is an honest discussion in this, but sadly there are many words that have had their meanings twisted. Zionist used to mean the belief in the state of Israel anymore, it is equated with Nazi. And therein lies the issue.
The current leadership in Israel has big problems. It's tie to the right wingers have way too much influence in how the country is being run. This affects every aspect of Israel. So Golan intent might have been good, but his verbiage feeds into the verbage that is causing widespread anti semitism in Europe, or are you not aware of that? Words can be very powerful, so when a man in his stature makes a comment like that, what follows is lost, which is a shame. I am not for silencing any discussion, but if you don't want a discussion to go downhill, don't start it with Nazis. Kind of Godwin's rule.
Perrie - I am aware that the Jewish people have faced atrocities. Acts so horrendous that it makes me weep when I watch a documentary or visit the Holocaust museum. Thoughts about it leaves me stupefied at how any human being could do those things to another human being. I am aware that there are some that refuse to believe what the Nazi's put the Jewish people through and some that are so twisted mentally that they have even suggested the Jews brought those acts on themselves. These people are not going to suddenly change how they think so why allow them to dictate the conversation or influence what words can and cannot be said. I'm sure I'll never understand why it's allowed to happen but I do understand everyone has their own personal limits.
PJ,
You kind of missed my point. The current verbiage is feeding a brand new generation of people who have hate for Jews in their hearts currently in Europe and that is what pissed me off about Golan said. He is using the verbiage of hate. It was unnecessary to say what he wanted to say in using the N word. He could have said that he is sick of the uber right wing politics of Israel. See, you can say it without using the N word.
Yeah, maybe. I guess I'll be able to get a better perspective on the situation in November. I'm keeping an open mind.
I think this thing is pretty much played out right now and as such I am asking Perrie to lock the discussion at midnight tonight , eastern, or in 2 hours and 18 minutes from now.
Anyone who wants to continue these particular lines of discussion can start their own seeds.
Thank you all.