They should have said:

"Sure we sympathize with the Palestinians, but what happened to the Jews was much worse, so we sympathize with them more."

"Joe's Burgers are Incomparably Good."

Yeah, but Bob's Burgers are very good, too.

"How dare you question the Gooderness of Joe's Burgers which are clearly Gooder than all other merely good things? If we could compare them to that Gooderness, of course. Which we can't...but if we did..."

Yeah, it's that bizarre.

The upshot is the game called "Only We Who Consider The Holocaust Incomparable Can Compare the Holocaust When It Is Politically Expedient To Do So" which is how the Holocaust gets instrumentalised to support the ongoing oppression of the Palestinians.

[ 30 November 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Wow your rhetoric here is awfully scary to me. For me I do not believe in genocide comparisions. It leads (as can be seen) to awfully ugly language tinged with not so subtle feelings that are counter-productive.

---

quote:

---

For me I do not believe in genocide comparisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Wow your rhetoric here is awfully scary to me. For me I do not believe in genocide comparisions. It leads (as can be seen) to awfully ugly language tinged with not so subtle feelings that are counter-productive.

---

Oh for God's sake.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
Does it surprise anyone that a series on the Holocaust in Iran would be used to try and put forward such a comparision?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
It must surprise you since you have been constantly pushing the lie that the Iranian government and everyone connected to them are totally anti-semetic. The second part of your ongoing tirade has been that Iran is a totalitarian state where nothing but the official line can be heard on the media.
When Iraninas vilify Israel you decry that and now you decry this. Looks to me like you merely hate Persians because they are Persian and not Jewish.

---

Um yes Iran is a totalitarian state. You disagree?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Looks to me like you merely hate Persians because they are Persian and not Jewish.

---

That's over the line. People are allowed to have opinions about the motives of world leaders without being personally attacked for them here. Saying that the President of Iran (or even the government) is anti-semitic is no worse than claiming that George Bush or Stephen Harper are racist and we see that said here all the time.

quote:

---

Looks to me like you merely hate Persians because they are Persian and not Jewish.

---

It really was not until the Israelis captuured Eichmann that the world's attention turned to this tortuous time. Even one of the key witnesses at the Eichmann trial a survior who wrote about his ordeal in the camps had to use a pseudonym to psycholgically seperate from the time of his horror. His name....Katzetnik.

From that point there were some books and documentaries (Night and Fog, Trial at Nuremberg) but no curriculum studies. When I went through highschool in the 60s the Holocaust was hardly referred to in my modern history clsses of grade 12.

With the advent of the 80s and 90s we really began to see a new emphasis. It is after all one of the most tragically well documented horrors of our time. Why should it not be focused on? Its not like we are exactly learning many lessons witness Rwanda, the killing fields of Cambodia and even today in Darfur.

Really i get frustrated by those who wonder why the concentration on the Holocaust. Why not? That there are people, Jews and others who wish to focus on man's inhumanity to man all the better in my books. Does it mean we ignore other tragedies no of course not...from the O Porrajmos (the genocide of the Roma), to the Holodmor (Forced Ukrainian famine genocide) to the Armenian genocide...all should be taught...again and again and again.

[ 01 December 2007: Message edited by: ohara ]

It's extremely well done, judging by this YouTube segment. There were just a few spots where Iranian script overlaid the English subtitles.

I'd say dress, vehicles and the whole setting were really authentic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
...but the final cloying sequence set in Israel was truly gag worthy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel_Goldenberg:

Why? I found that scene rather touching. I didn't like the scene that preceded it, when Schindler went over the top rending his garments because he felt he didn't save enough Jews. Apparently, that didn't really happen.

---

I am sure it did not really happen. My take on Schnidler was that he was a cagey business aparatchik, and a confirmed Nazi antisemite whose main objection to the extermination of Jewish people, was the loss of useful skilled labour.

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Really i get frustrated by those who wonder why the concentration on the Holocaust. Why not? That there are people, Jews and others who wish to focus on man's inhumanity to man all the better in my books. Does it mean we ignore other tragedies no of course not...from the O Porrajmos (the genocide of the Roma), to the Holodmor (Forced Ukrainian famine genocide) to the Armenian genocide...all should be taught...again and again and again.

---

The reason why people get frustrated with coverage of the holocaust is because, in North America, it's the only genocide we hear about and it has been used to justify israel's terrible treatment of the Palestinians. Other ethnic groups with darker complexions have been trying to get the North American public to recognize that their genocides actually happened. They haven't met with a lot of success. I don't know how many Roma died in the Holocaust for instance, and I doubt many North Americans have heard of the Armenian Genocide, but I, and many, many other people on this continent have at least a basic knowledge of the Jewish component of Hitler's genocidal campaign to "purify" Europe.

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

For example the work of this group Choose Your Voice, is purely educational from teachers I know that have used it. Or what about this group Facing history and ourselves, an excellent programme dealing with genocide including the Armenian and Roma tragedies.

quote:

---

For the most part the work done on the Holocaust has been educational not political.

---

quote:

---

QUOTE] For the most part the work done on the Holocaust has been educational not political.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There's no difference.

---

quote:

---

I don't really understand your point Dibbler. Is there fault to be apportioned here becuase the Jewish community are good communicators? For the most part the work done on the Holocaust has been educational not political.

---

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

No the fault is to be aportioned because some Jewish groups only focus on the on the Jews who died in the holocaust, and ignore the other people who were murdered in the death camps. They also studiously ignore other acts of mass murder such as the armenian genocide.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:

Teachers will be interested to read that

---

quote:

---

You make it seem that the presentation today of the Holocaust has no purpose other than propagandistic. That's clearly and demonstrably wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:

Teachers will be interested to read that

---

What the members of a society know and don't know is a huge part of how they pictures themselves, picture other societies and forms the basis on which they establish values and make decisions.

I'll ask you this Petsy: do you suppose the fact that antisemitism is no longer tolerated in our society is only coincidentally related to Holocaust education?

[ 03 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

That's because it has been. It shouldn't be used to justify ethnic clensing but it is. It shouldn't be used to minimize the suffering of ohers, but it is. It shoudn't be used to maintain a unstable geo political situation in the Middle East, but it is.

---

quote:

---

That's because it has been. It shouldn't be used to justify ethnic clensing but it is.

---

Zionist:

We know that this land had an arab population but we had to remove it to found Israel, because without Israel the Jewish people of Europe are left vulnerable to a second HOLOCAUST.

quote:

---

It shouldn't be used to minimize the suffering of ohers, but it is.

---

Zionist: I know that the Palestinians where driven off their land and forced into refugee camps, and I also relize that the residents of the West Bank have endured forty years of military occupation, but we have suffered more. Look what happened in the HOLOCAUST.

quote:

---

It shoudn't be used to maintain a unstable geo political situation in the Middle East, but it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Hint: "Land without a people, people without a land."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Cueball, the dude who coined this expression died before Hitler came to power in Germany, let alone planned and executed the mass murders.

---

I don't see why that's relevant. When you have Israel's leaders, such as Golda Meir, speaking as if there were no Palestinians at all, and Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz can continue to get away with publishing arguments that rely on so-called evidence that there weren't that many Arabs in Palestine when European Jews first arrived there, I think it's safe to say that tenor of the statement has endured.

The notion that the Jewish people need special protection is also a big piece of Zionist ideology that gets repeated all the time. Heck, Petsy trotted out a version of it just a couple of posts above. To think that some amalgam of these two ideas is not a driving force in post-Holocaust Zionist ideology is kidding yourself.

Ideology isn't clean and neat, it doesn't tie up logical ends in nice neat bows. We've all seen how the tenets of ideology weave in and out of each other, often even contradicting each other on their face, but they're held with conviction and acted upon. Average people don't know these historical facts like you or I might. In essence, whether or not the statement was made before the Holocaust, or whether or not it's even factually true doesn't stop people from acting on their belief. I doubt a Zionist who would make the argument that there was essentially no real Arab population (or if there was that they weren't really a "nation") knows when or where or by whom that phrase was first coined, but I bet they know it's true. They probably also believe that the Jewish State is the only place where Jews can really be protected against all those things that they're justifiably "paranoid" about - in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

The two ideas have existed comfortably side by side, and it's doubtful that most people who hold these ideas examine them in the depth that you have. The question is not whether or not the specific quote Cueball mentioned was made before or after the Holocaust, but whether or not the attitude it conveys has been deployed in the way CMOT Dibbler later suggested.

Has it? I think that anyone who has read Dershowitz's cut-and-paste of Joan Peters and similarly witnessed him trundle out the "New Antisemitism" bogeyman dressed as the Ghost of Holocausts Past, can see that it has, and still is.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:
Fuck! I now have zero credibility. Sorry everybody.

---

I wouldn't say that. You didn't make an argument about the historical bona fides of the quote, but about its use as ideology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Cueball, the dude who coined this expression died before Hitler came to power in Germany, let alone planned and executed the mass murders.

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:I don't see why that's relevant.

---

Relevant to what? Cueball quoted the expression in reply to ohara asking when the Holocaust had been used to justify ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. The expression, coined by Israel Zangwill, predated the Holocaust. So it's a very poor example of the thesis, isn't it? That's all I meant.

quote:

---

When you have Israel's leaders, such as Golda Meir, speaking as if there were no Palestinians at all, and Joan Peters and Alan Dershowitz can continue to get away with publishing arguments that rely on so-called evidence that there weren't that many Arabs in Palestine when European Jews first arrived there, I think it's safe to say that tenor of the statement has endured.

---

That is obviously true, and the racist and colonial bias behind the statement has also endured. But it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.

quote:

---

The notion that the Jewish people need special protection is also a big piece of Zionist ideology that gets repeated all the time. Heck, Petsy trotted out a version of it just a couple of posts above. To think that some amalgam of these two ideas is not a driving force in post-Holocaust Zionist ideology is kidding yourself.

---

You obviously don't get it, or haven't read my posts on the subject for the last few years:

1. The Holocaust is used by some to justify Israeli crimes allegedly in "defence" of the Jewish people. This is IMO an obscene way to commemorate its victims, by using it not to end genocide but to justify fresh ones.

2. Zionist ethnocentrism and dismissal of indigenous populations pre-dates the Holocaust. It didn't come into being with that catastrophe.

quote:

---

The two ideas have existed comfortably side by side, and it's doubtful that most people who hold these ideas examine them in the depth that you have.

---

I don't actually see the problem in correcting the record. If anyone thinks that rabid ethnocentric Zionism (on the part of one section of the pre-war Zionist movement, which has long since become the dominant one) was born with the Holocaust, they will miss some of the elements needed to find a solution to the problems of the region. They may also buy into the ignorant "analysis" of people like Ahmedinejad, who - because they bite off more than they can chew - end up looking like anti-Semites and find it very hard to correct that perception. I hope you'll agree that blunders like his don't help to rally progressive and democratic forces against the crimes of the Israeli regime.

Raising the Holocaust (either offensively or defensively) in the context of the Middle East throws a much-needed lifeline to the Zionists. Presenting the Holocaust not just as a pretext for Israeli aggression and apartheid, but as the source of it, is historically wrong and politically foolish.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Relevant to what? Cueball quoted the expression in reply to ohara asking when the Holocaust had been used to justify ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. The expression, coined by Israel Zangwill, predated the Holocaust. So it's a very poor example of the thesis, isn't it? That's all I meant.

---

No it's not. Because SINCE the Holocaust the idea has been used IN CONJUNCTION with the memory of the Holocaust as a way to continue the politicide of the Palestinians. You're missing the point - the original context of the statement isn't the issue, but how it's understood by those who deploy it in favour of Zionism.

Again, whether or not the statement has a history preceding the Holocaust has no bearing on how it is understood by average people who - in all likelihood - have very little knowledge of Zionism predating WWII. Ask someone in the street about why Israel was created and you'll as likely as not be told "because of the Holocaust". For those in favour, you will also come across some version of the "Land without People" argument. In fact, when the facts on the ground put the lie to this original fiction (I mean, it's hard to miss a million Palestinians standing there...) it was slightly altered to become the "Land Without a Nation/State" argument. This ditty is used in conjuction with "The New Antisemitism" on dozens of pro-Zionist websites, for instance. Head over to Free Dominion and see this 1-2 combo in action.

I have no problem with you "correcting the record", I know the history as well as you do, something I'm sure you appreciate.

quote:

---

Presenting the Holocaust not just as a pretext for Israeli aggression and apartheid, but as the source of it, is historically wrong and politically foolish.

---

On this we - and I'm sure Cueball - agree. But as Cueball and CMOT pointed out, it's done all the time. That was the point. For those who use the argument, Zionism's aggressive stance (since long before the Holocaust) is something to be hidden or ignored. Zionists act on the assumption, and yet deny the truth behind it, if not denying the importance of the statement altogether. It's historical 5 W's are not at issue when they speak.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Ask someone in the street about why Israel was created and you'll as likely as not be told "because of the Holocaust". For those in favour, you will also come across some version of the "Land without People" argument.

---

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. You'll have to believe me that I have never heard either of those views expressed by some person "in the street", but maybe I'm just out of touch. What street do you live on?

quote:

---

This ditty is used in conjuction with "The New Antisemitism" on dozens of pro-Zionist websites, for instance. Head over to Free Dominion and see this 1-2 combo in action.

---

See, I don't read any of those. I did however grow up in the Jewish community, and I never heard anyone - ever - suggest that Israel was established "because of the Holocaust". If people have become that ignorant and stupid, I guess we have a broader educational job to do than I ever dreamed. And historical "minutiae" now become even more relevant.

Anyway, what did you think of my comment about Ahmedinejad, as an example of many ignoramuses who do much more to discredit the exposure of Israeli crimes than they intend?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

The notion that the Jewish people need special protection is also a big piece of Zionist ideology that gets repeated all the time. Heck, Petsy trotted out a version of it just a couple of posts above. To think that some amalgam of these two ideas is not a driving force in post-Holocaust Zionist ideology is kidding yourself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I guess I'll have to take your word for it. You'll have to believe me that I have never heard either of those views expressed by some person "in the street", but maybe I'm just out of touch. What street do you live on?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
"Zionist ideology", what about history and fact? Jews have every right to feel for their safety. It was within living memory that an attempt was made to wipe them out. There is an entire generation of Jews missing as a result. You can poo poo that all you want but Jews feel it visceally whether people like it or not.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, what did you think of my comment about Ahmedinejad, as an example of many ignoramuses who do much more to discredit the exposure of Israeli crimes than they intend?

---

I'm on record here - "somewhere" on a server - expressing my disgust and amazement that we've hit a stage in history when a "toad" like Ahmadinejad is one of the only world leaders who will stand up and speak on behalf of the victims of imperialism/colonialism.

The irony is not lost on me.

It's similar to when Milosevic was championed as the voice of "anti-imperialism". Criminy!

It's like a couple of scenes in the new film "American Gangster" that I just saw. Crime bosses are seen unloading Christmas turkeys out of the backs of trucks to throngs of downtrodden well-wishers.

BTW, Unionist - do you mean to tell me that no on in your Jewish community would ever argue that Israel is "needed", in part, because of the Holocaust?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

BTW, Unionist - do you mean to tell me that no on in your Jewish community would ever argue that Israel is "needed", in part, because of the Holocaust?

---

Well of course, that is the most popular argument around. That's a different story altogether, and it's been there since the founding of the state.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Well of course, that is the most popular argument around. That's a different story altogether, and it's been there since the founding of the state.

But that's not what I said, is it?

---

I know, but it is what I'm trying to say. I can't speak for Cueball, but I suspect something similar may have been in their mind. It's not as though they're completely ignorant of the history, either.

You're right to point out that Zionist aggression predates the Holocaust. I don't think you'll find any argument here (well, a couple might give it a go...). I think what I was focussing on was how this aggressive stance got a boost from the Holocaust. This is, of course, where the comedy and tragedy of it really takes off, in my opinion.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
"Zionist ideology", what about history and fact? Jews have every right to feel for their safety. It was within living memory that an attempt was made to wipe them out. There is an entire generation of Jews missing as a result. You can poo poo that all you want but Jews feel it visceally whether people like it or not.

---

Yeah, I feel it too. You feel it when you grow up without living relatives - big time.

The way for Jews to protect themselves is to be true to their best historical traditions: to live amongst the nations; to share weal and woe with their neighbours; to sympathize with and support the struggles of all the oppressed; to fight every possible attempt to ghettoize the Jews (or any other creed or ethnic group or nationality or orientation etc.); to cherish science and art and enlightenment and freedom; and to speak out against aggression, exploitation, apartheid, no matter at what cost and no matter who the author.

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

I know, but it is what I'm trying to say. I can't speak for Cueball, but I suspect something similar may have been in their mind. It's not as though they're completely ignorant of the history, either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Yeah, I feel it too. You feel it when you grow up without living relatives - big time.

The way for Jews to protect themselves is to be true to their best historical traditions: to live amongst the nations; to share weal and woe with their neighbours; to sympathize with and support the struggles of all the oppressed; to fight every possible attempt to ghettoize the Jews (or any other creed or ethnic group or nationality or orientation etc.); to cherish science and art and enlightenment and freedom; and to speak out against aggression, exploitation, apartheid, no matter at what cost and no matter who the author.

Finally my thick skull was penetrated by the truth: that Israel represents the worst, not the best, in Jewish tradition, and that it endangers, on a daily basis, the very people it purports to protect. Truth like that doesn't come easy given the environment in which we are raised, but once established, it lasts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
in the end it seems Jews have to rely as much as possible on themselves to survive as a people.

---

quote:

---

no matter where Jews were they were always considered the "outsider"

---

Take the U.S. as an example - can you say that this is true today? Honestly? And where there is antisemitism is it any more dangerous or substantial than anti-black, anti-Arab, or anti-Mexican discrimination?

Or compare, if you will, the status of Jews in the U.S. to Palestinians in Israel and/or the Occupied Territories.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

Take the U.S. as an example - can you say that this is true today? Honestly? And where there is antisemitism is it any more dangerous or substantial than anti-black, anti-Arab, or anti-Mexican discrimination?

Or compare, if you will, the status of Jews in the U.S. to Palestinians in Israel and/or the Occupied Territories.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

---

Unless we are vigilant and maintain solidarity, every evil the world has known will repeat itself. My parents grew up in an environment where they experienced less overt anti-Semitism than I have, yet their entire families were murdered.

The same is true for Blacks and Indigenous peoples and Muslims and LGBT and Japanese and Chinese and Ukrainians ... Given the circumstances, and our indifference, it will all recur and worse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Petsy:
Unionist, I don't believe I have said that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Well, BL, if your point is that Jews no longer have to worry about anti-Semitism - that it can't or won't happen again - I'm afraid we part company radically.

---

Let's....let's stay together...loving you forever... It's not. I was rejecting the analogy between late-19th and early-20th-Century German Jews and Jews in the U.S. today. That The Holocaust holds a near pivotal position in the moral judgements of our society is a clear and important difference. That Israel finds itself an important partner in the American imperial venture is another clear and important difference. The position of Jews then and now is radically different - ironically because of The Holocaust.

quote:

---

The question is not whether it will happen, but how to minimize the probability. And that's where those come in who say the defence of one's "people" requires segregation and marginalization and oppression and disenfranchisement of others. No thank you, ohara and Petsy.[/qb]

---

Happen to whom? You're telling me it's a sure thing that Jews will experience another Holocaust? On the matter of history repeating itself: it already is repeating itself in Israel. The tables have been turned and Jews find themselves with their boot on someone else's neck.

Also, when you speak of "solidarity" above. Do you mean solidarity as Jews, or as something else? Or are you talking about a "reformation" of what it means to be a "Jew"? I'm curious.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

I certainly do not blame the Jews for their paranoia nor should you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
"Solidarity as Jews"!?

Either read my posts, or don't comment on them.

---

I did read it. Don't assume your writing is as transparent as it seems in your mind.

Your words:

quote:

---

Well, BL, if your point is that Jews no longer have to worry about anti-Semitism - that it can't or won't happen again - I'm afraid we part company radically.

Unless we are vigilant and maintain solidarity, every evil the world has known will repeat itself. My parents grew up in an environment where they experienced less overt anti-Semitism than I have, yet their entire families were murdered.

---

Forgive me if you seem to carry an inclusive subject (Jews) from one paragraph to the next. You identify yourself as a Jew and use the pronoun "we". That's why I asked what you meant.

What do you mean by "solidarity"? With whom?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
What do you mean by "solidarity"? With whom?

---

Here, I'll just repeat various excerpts from this thread. Let me know if you still have questions afterwards.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
The way for Jews to protect themselves is to be true to their best historical traditions: to live amongst the nations; to share weal and woe with their neighbours; to sympathize with and support the struggles of all the oppressed; to fight every possible attempt to ghettoize the Jews (or any other creed or ethnic group or nationality or orientation etc.); to cherish science and art and enlightenment and freedom; and to speak out against aggression, exploitation, apartheid, no matter at what cost and no matter who the author.

---

quote:

---

I don't care about Jews surviving "as a people". I care about Jews surviving as people.

---

quote:

---

Unless we are vigilant and maintain solidarity, every evil the world has known will repeat itself. My parents grew up in an environment where they experienced less overt anti-Semitism than I have, yet their entire families were murdered.

The same is true for Blacks and Indigenous peoples and Muslims and LGBT and Japanese and Chinese and Ukrainians ... Given the circumstances, and our indifference, it will all recur and worse.

---

ETA: If you have no further questions, maybe explain to me the meaning of this statement of yours:

quote:

---

On the matter of history repeating itself: it already is repeating itself in Israel. The tables have been turned and Jews find themselves with their boot on someone else's neck.

---

JEWS have "their boot on someone else's neck"? JEWS?

Please explain.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

JEWS have "their boot on someone else's neck"? JEWS?

Please explain.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

---

You've heard of the Palestinians, yes? Last I checked, Israel is The Jewish State and the people carrying out the oppression of the Palestinians are, by-and-large, Jewish and acting in the name of Jews. They are engaged in an act of brutality much like those they were on the receiving end of for centuries.

Does that mean ALL Jews are responsible? Certainly not, no more than ALL Chinese would be inculcated with guilt if I said The Chinese have their boots on the necks of the Tibetans.

But, this is typical of you, unionist. You believe your own speech to be clear and above clarification and yet your steadfastly refuse to apply any kind of sympathetic reading to others' prose.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

What B.L. Zeebub is exhibiting here is the same mindset I was trying to point out in some posts by others on the I/P issue: The mindset that it is legitimate to attack Israeli actions by denying thereality of what Jews have gone through throughout history.

This is a mistake far too many Palestinians and far too many people who call themselves "pro-Palestinian" have made.

It goes without saying that the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli state has been abominable.

It also goes without saying that the bare minimum resolution of this situation requires the establishment of a Palestinian state in every inch of the West Bank and Gaza, and that perhaps, the ultimate disposition may require the eventual establishment of a democratic, secular unitary state comprising both national polities.

It doesn't follow, however, that what the Israeli regime has done to the Palestinian people and the support those actions received internationally was based on nothing but a cold desire for imperial conquest.

Had there not been the history of oppression and attempted extinction that Jews experienced for two milennium in the "Christian" world, the notion of a "Jewish state" would never have been more than an eccentric minority preoccupation among the world's Jewish communities.

But that history DID happen. And the leaders of the Zionist movement knew they had plenty of misery available to invoke within that historical narrative that could be used to justify(albeit unfairly)what they proposed to do to a people who had not been complicit in that historic series of outrages.

And those same leaders knew they could use the shame European countries felt in the aftermath of the Holocaust to offer those countries(plus the English-speaking countries)a chance to vaguely absolve themselves for not taking in the Jewish refugees and the other refugees from Hitler while at the same time keeping most of the surviving refugees from moving into the "Christian" countries after the war.

The Palestinians and those who are "pro-Palestinian"(and in whose ranks I basically count myself)MUST acknowledge the reality of what Jews were put through. They must acknowledge the mindset this history created. Doing so doesn't weaken the Palestinian cause in the slightest. In fact, it strengthens it, because it takes away from the Israeli right wing any number of propaganda weapons.

What Palestinians and their supporters need to be saying (like the Palestinian man who opened a Holocaust museum in the West Bank) is "Yes, we know Jews suffered horribly. Yes we understand why you would want a state. But no, that does NOT justify what was done to us. So let's find common ground now in creating a world of justice and a world without bigotry so that neither the Shoah nor the Nakba will be repeated".

This is the way to get a Palestinian state and a just world. Denying history and saying "oh, you don't have to worry about anything like THAT" anymore" is the way to defeat and continued misery for everybody.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

What B.L. Zeebub is exhibiting here is the same mindset I was trying to point out in some posts by others on the I/P issue: The mindset that it is legitimate to attack Israeli actions by denying thereality of what Jews have gone through throughout history.

---

I have? Where, exactly have I done that, Kenny Boy?

I'm not denying the reality of it at all. No more than I deny the reality of an abused son carrying on the tradition and abusing his own sons. The lines of culpability aren't clear, but we shouldn't hesitate to denounce acts of brutality carried out by ANYONE. None of us is without trauma or suffering, but neither are we without choice.

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

Yeah, he's pretty much named me as foil and produced a number of strawmen from there. Oh well...

Actually, no, I'm going to respond to this:

quote:

---

Denying history and saying "oh, you don't have to worry about anything like THAT" anymore" is the way to defeat and continued misery for everybody.

---

I've not denied any Jewish history. Nor did I deny that there is always the possibility of terrible antisemitism sometime in the future. What I DID deny is that the situation that Jews and Israel currently find themselves in is analogous to the conditions preceding the Holocaust for European Jews.

If anything, I'm arguing in favour of a more exact history. The political relationships that allow the ongoing brutalisation of the Palestinians in the name of "Jews" (rightly or wrongly attributed, I would add) couldn't be more different than those that existed prior to The Holocaust. I mean, even loosely speaking there's not a good analogy there.

How does that engender "defeat" and the way to "misery"?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

we shouldn't hesitate to denounce acts of brutality carried out by ANYONE. None of us is without trauma or suffering, but neither are we without choice.

---

Agreed. All oppression should be denounced. And we all have choices. Yet we all need to take into account why other people made THEIR choices in order to come to the best responses to those choices.

And CMOT, I don't consider you an enemy, but you have a lot to learn. Yes, hold the Israeli state responsible for what it has done, but understand the history that led people of good will, perhaps not in the full awareness of what they were endorsing, to back policies that ended up causing suffering to those who hadn't harmed them.
And also understand that it is not your place to say when another people are supposed to let go of the memory of injustices that were inflicted upon them.

One thing "pro-Palestinian" people should probably do is work towards getting the U.S. Congress and the parliaments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand to apologize for barring most refugees from fascism from finding sanctuary in their countries in the 1930's and 1940's. I'm not saying this should be the first item on their agenda, but it should be part of it.

Also, "pro-Palestinian" groups need to make sure they are taking the lead on fighting against antisemitism in their own countries(granted, many of them do already, but they need to make a greater point of this).

Finally, "Pro-Palestinian" groups need to raise funds to purchase textbooks for Palestinian schools that do NOT include Holocaust denial. Passing on THAT particular historical slander serves no purpose for the Palestinian cause and gives the Israeli right aid and comfort in its campaign to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state by any means necessary.

And, B.L., I wasn't naming you as a strawman, although I was responding to the tone you were taking in response to unionist's points. Unionist is on your side. Unionist has repeatedly and eloquently denounced the injustices perpetrated by the Israeli regime upon the Palestinian people, and he backs a unitary state. Yet you still seemed to be attacking him and, if not denying the history Jews have experienced, to be minimizing the impact of that history on the political mindset of even non-Zionist Jews. Why on earth were you doing that?

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 04 December 2007: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

quote:

---

And, B.L., I wasn't naming you as a strawman, although I was responding to the tone you were taking in response to unionist's points. Unionist is on your side. Unionist has repeatedly and eloquently denounced the injustices perpetrated by the Israeli regime upon the Palestinian people, and he backs a unitary state. Yet you still seemed to be attacking him and, if not denying the history Jews have experienced, to be minimizing the impact of that history on the political mindset of even non-Zionist Jews. Why on earth were you doing that?

---

Cut the arrogance, Ken. You have some chutzpah to asking me to lay off "allies" when you condescend to CMOT and parade around chastising people. You DID use me as a strawman - I notice you've backed completely off your suggestion that I've "denied" Jewish history. Of course, later you'll try to slip it through the back door as "minimizing", but hey...

I wasn't attacking Unionist. I attempted to clarify in more depth what he was saying. That he tends to get his hackles up when anyone doesn't immediately see the meaning he intends in his words is just one of those things we live with. I've been known to do the same. He produces good quality work here and I agree with more of what he says than I disagree with. That was never at issue. I tried humour to get past the acrimony and, in fact, I spent a good part of the thread trying to get him to take a more sympathetic reading of Cueball's words because Cueball has also spent a lot of time speaking on behalf of Palestinians and dissecting Zionist mythologies here. You've tried singling me out int the past, essentially saying that I can't see Jews having any genuine, positive intentions in a PM and you want to talk to me about building allegiences? Fuck that, I've spent plenty of time on these boards advocating for Palestinians against all and sundry. I've also spoken out against real antisemitism and done my best to open up a theoretical space where discussion of the Israel/Palestine problem is possible without recourse to the "antisemitism" charge or without the trump card of "Holocaust Ethics". I don't have to answer to you.

As for the rest, accepting that we all have traumas that effect our psychology, there is also the possibility of stepping outside of those traumas. This is necessary to any kind of individual or collective liberation. Making that suffering into the lynchpin of a politics ("Jews are paranoid for a reason" we're told) is EXACTLY the problem on both sides of this conflict. Continually going to the narcissistic well called "I deserve my negativity because of 'x'" is a big part of why no movement forward can be made.

You seem intent on the notion that reconciliation can only happen by way of everybody just accepting what is,as far as suffering is concerned. That's not enough. The only way forward is to focus on what could be. This is a radical difference. It's the difference between and essentially negative ethics that tries desperately and pathetically to balance opposing interests so that no one gets their corns stepped on, while what I'm talking about is a positive project of creating a new set of mutual values that everyone can get behind. It's not a subtle difference.

You're worried about his suffering, her suffering, their suffering; everybody's discrete and particular suffering and how to accomodate them all, but never asking anyone to drop it. That approach falls fully within the liberal-democratic consensus of statecraft being the management of competing interest groups and individuals. I'm talking about our common liberation based on a common project which goes beyond particularist associations (ethnicities and their psychologies, for example) and speaks not to what is Different in us, but what is The Same. You're trying to base an ethics in understanding everyone's individual suffering - whereas I'm talking about acknowledging that We suffer - that's life. See the difference? There is no better way to shackle a person then to stroke their pet suffering, give it a cute name and let it sleep anywhere it wants. If we want to move forward, individually and collectively, that's the first piece of baggage that needs to be left at the door.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I don't understand the attacks on Unionist above. His philosophy seems to represent the best of Enlightenment thought and was actually shared by most Jewish leaders in Western Europe prior to the Dreyfuss case and the development of "modern" Zionist thought.

---

Ah, the Muckrakers have arrived.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]