|
Palestine = Anne Frank's Annex (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceGiant
Fail to actually see the connection between what you just wrote (skepticism towards national states) and your ongoing Nazi comparisons. Zionism in its very essence is no more and no less "extreme" than any other nationalist movements throughout history. Regardless of the amounts of dubious quotes of Zionist forefathers you're about to paste now, it is a morally indifferent notion, a project with a positive approach FOR the Jewish people and not AGAINST its alleged enemies. It is the theory that supposes that only a national state run by the Jews themselves can gurantee longlasting safety and independence for the Jewish people. The State is designed to serve as a Safe Heaven for the persecuted and not as a crazy racist experiment by a bunch of psychotic scientists. History has taught the Jewish people the very tough lesson that no one will stood up for them if not they themselves. In an age of nationalist states run by democratically legitimated governments the self-organization in that way seemed the most reasonable and efficient one. If you generally reject the idea of National states you'd better start with European powers in the 19th century (or smiliar movements throughout the Arab world post WWI) and then are free to pick on Israel at some later point |
The creation of nation states, a direct consequence of colonial empires, are stuctures imposed by the brutality of warfare and conquest, and maintained via coersion and manipulation of it's own subjects. Some have literally been biproducts of genocidal shrinking of the indigenous population, while others are a result of consolidated and centralized decision making and power. America, South Africa and Canada are the examples that come to mind immediately in case of the former, and most nations fall under the category of the latter. It's not like the reprehensible nature of the former goes ignored or unacknowledged. In those cases, the genocidal process of clearing the indigenous population to replace the existing structures with modern ones is now an irreversable process as the indigenous inhabitant and culture are next to extict. Care to mention an example of the historical formation of a nation state that is not morally or ethically reprehensible? The difference is that in the case of Israel and Palestine this process is and has been taking place in the modern age when we already have plenty of historical examples of it by this point and none of them are considered ethically justifiable. It is a process that is still well under implementation NOW. I fail to see how one actocity justifies another. Don't you think it's ludicrous and disingenous that humanity stands by as it happens all over again, as opposed to making effort towards a viable cease of hostilities (in this case both militant Palestinian groups and the Israeli goverment/army) to work towards a humane accomodation of all people involved and affected? That can only come about with a responsible check on power, making sure it's excercised with respect to a single standard. An absense of that only perpetuates the bull we're all well to familiar with, and will only inevitabely lead to the anhialation of the indigenous population, leaving an ingrained resentment of the victor amongst the dispossesed and destroyed, not to mention an unnecessary collective guilt for the victor. What seems like the ethical and logical conlcusion to you? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I have no problem with you arguing against people who justify Israeli actions towards the Palestinians because of the Holocaust, these people should rightly be opposed. What I take exception to is attempts to lessen the value of what happened in the Holocaust so it can be juxtaposed to other tragedies in order to make a political argument.
I personally wouldn't describe what is happening to the Palestinians as a "Holocaust" despite what officials in Israel might have promised to deliver to Gazans, there are just too many different factors (and I'm not even talking numbers here). But that's by the by, just my personal opinion.
I don't thinks it's useful or effective to draw parallels between the two situations because you just open yourself up to easy counter arguments. I certainly don't think it's useful or effective to try and find evidence that the Holocaust wasn't as widespread as acknowledged so you can compare it to another humanitarian tragedy, that just opens yourself up to the obvious accusations like TranceGiant has just made.
If you want to argue against Israeli action in the Occupied Territories then fine, I do regularly as you know. But stick that that and don't let yourself or others get sidetracked with arguing about other situations that quite frankly, have nothing to do with the Palestinian situation and serves only to direct attention away from the real issue which is the situation the Palestinians find themselves in... |
Pardon me for including all relevant hitorical context in the scope of the discussion. Where does one draw the line when they're all interrelated topics? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I personally wouldn't describe what is happening to the Palestinians as a "Holocaust" despite what officials in Israel might have promised to deliver to Gazans, there are just too many different factors (and I'm not even talking numbers here). But that's by the by, just my personal opinion.
|
more and more I lurk about and read your posts, I grow to respect you.....well except for the hugo thing ;)
out of all here, you seem to be one of the most level headed posters on here.....
props Jorge & Much Respect.... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I have no problem with you arguing against people who justify Israeli actions towards the Palestinians because of the Holocaust, these people should rightly be opposed. What I take exception to is attempts to lessen the value of what happened in the Holocaust so it can be juxtaposed to other tragedies in order to make a political argument.
I personally wouldn't describe what is happening to the Palestinians as a "Holocaust" despite what officials in Israel might have promised to deliver to Gazans, there are just too many different factors (and I'm not even talking numbers here). But that's by the by, just my personal opinion.
I don't thinks it's useful or effective to draw parallels between the two situations because you just open yourself up to easy counter arguments. I certainly don't think it's useful or effective to try and find evidence that the Holocaust wasn't as widespread as acknowledged so you can compare it to another humanitarian tragedy, that just opens yourself up to the obvious accusations like TranceGiant has just made.
If you want to argue against Israeli action in the Occupied Territories then fine, I do regularly as you know. But stick that that and don't let yourself or others get sidetracked with arguing about other situations that quite frankly, have nothing to do with the Palestinian situation and serves only to direct attention away from the real issue which is the situation the Palestinians find themselves in... |
hear hear!
I'm only going to throw my two cents into this thread rather than venturing in forthwith, but I really do believe comparing the Holocaust to what is going on in Palestine is akin to comparing apples to oranges. Much as I disagree with using the Holocaust as a justification of Israeli use of force in the Middle East, I disagree with using the Holocaust as a parallel to current Israeli policies.
The difference in my view has to do with intent. The Holocaust was conducted with a specific purpose in mind - the complete removal and/or extermination of an entire ethno-national grouping. Definitions of genocide and ethno-national identity aside, the Nazis sought to forcibly remove Jewish citizenry from their residences, round them up, ship them off, and (apparently arguably) kill them. Before this even began there was a considerable push by the government to create animosity against the Jews - anyone who has seen the film Jud Suess can see that violence against Jews was pushed even in the media from early in the Nazi regime.
This wasn't directed toward a particular segment of society. And the Jews posed no realistic security threat to the German state. Rather, the Holocaust was aimed at Jews as a whole, as a result entirely of their religious ethnic background, and rarely were any spared.
What is going on in Palestine, though certainly terrible and morally reprehensible, doesn't have this kind of insidious character. Palestinian militants do pose a danger to Israeli citizens - arguing who started the cycle of violence is kind of like a dog chasing its tail so I won't assign any blame here - but it does provide the Israeli government clemency in claiming it is specifically targeting military objectives, and that any citizen casualties are a result primarily of Palestinian militants operating in such close proximity to civilians.
You're not seeing the kind of systematic targeting of all Palestinian citizens regardless of age, sex, or political affiliation. You're not seeing policies carried out with the intent of destroying the Palestinian people. Marginalizing them? Yes, to some degree. But so long as Israel is threatened by Palestinian militants and hostile Arab governments supporting them, one can certainly argue that this marginalization is in their national security interest as well.
I believe that what is going on in the Middle East can largely be ascribed to disproportional responses to an existing security dilemma between the Israeli government and Palestinian militants. Unfortunately, citizens of both sides always seem to be the collateral damage of adversaries that are finding it harder to feel any remorse. I do not think that either side truly wishes to see the complete and utter systematic destruction of the other - despite shaolin's favorite quotes about forced population transfers.
/2 cents |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
I have no problem with you arguing against people who justify Israeli actions towards the Palestinians because of the Holocaust, these people should rightly be opposed. What I take exception to is attempts to lessen the value of what happened in the Holocaust so it can be juxtaposed to other tragedies in order to make a political argument.
I personally wouldn't describe what is happening to the Palestinians as a "Holocaust" despite what officials in Israel might have promised to deliver to Gazans, there are just too many different factors (and I'm not even talking numbers here). But that's by the by, just my personal opinion.
I don't thinks it's useful or effective to draw parallels between the two situations because you just open yourself up to easy counter arguments. I certainly don't think it's useful or effective to try and find evidence that the Holocaust wasn't as widespread as acknowledged so you can compare it to another humanitarian tragedy, that just opens yourself up to the obvious accusations like TranceGiant has just made.
If you want to argue against Israeli action in the Occupied Territories then fine, I do regularly as you know. But stick that that and don't let yourself or others get sidetracked with arguing about other situations that quite frankly, have nothing to do with the Palestinian situation and serves only to direct attention away from the real issue which is the situation the Palestinians find themselves in... |
Here's another reason why it's relevant. The entire existance of the state of Israel is based on a fairy tail as opposed to intellectually honest history consistent with logic and supported by evidence as opposed to accounts based on selective heresay, unreliable information and "testimony" aquired via brutal interogations and even torture, and a mockery of a legal proceeding. BTW, guess what the favourite tacktick of mainstream holocaust historians use to discredit all and any revisionists is, you guessed it, the ever so favourite ad hominem "antisemite," and it's unquestionigly accepted as valid, when they don't even bother examining or refuting revisionist history. I can really think of any other historical incident with a social and cultural taboo. Don't bother engaging revisionist in discussion or proving them wrong, label and crucify them, in fact in some countires you can even go to the extend of censorship, that's right, imprison them. That's the same tactic Zionist use to discredit legitimate criticism of Israel (label slapping minus the complete censorship or inprisonment), and you're been a victim of that too on this very forum on more than one occasion. Proponents of Zionism, regardless of what superficial categorization you want to assign to invent another "acceptable" form to suit the artificial and fradulent framework of discourse to allow Israel a sliver of legitimacy, typically hush up any and all legitimate criticism as "anti-semitic" and implicity abuse the memory of real "holocaust" victims to justify Israel's "necessity" and existance. The have been several "holocausts" through out history, and there's nothing special about this one. If this is too deepseeded and culturally ingrained in you to comprehend, or you're too fearful of being derided and labeled, reactionary conditioned reflexes, or social stigmata to approach the subject openly (or perhaps even think about it), I can understand that too. Essentially the holocaust guilt complex, which has now become more akin to a desire to be politically correct and go along to get along, magnified by exhagerated historical accounts, are the only reason why Israel get's away with as much as it does and much of it's attrocities and blatant human rights violations go unsrutinized. Can you name me one other nation who's navy and airforce deliberately attacked an American sub in international waters, an act of war, completely got away with it and the issue even got swept under the rug? Can you name one other nation with a lobby group that is capable of profoundly influencing the foreign policy of the World's sole superpower who's military budget it double that of the world? Can you name one other nation that violates international law on a consistant basis and ignores UN resolutions to comply with international law (that is when they're not vetoed by the US). Why should the Americna tax payer pay for or support any of this illegal and barbaric act of theft known as Israel and it's military occupation of the kananite land? Zionists, from Hertzel to modern day Zionists like ex-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon haven't exactly kept their expansionist or ethnic cleansing agenda secret. Is it any wonder that everything comes in to question, given all that? And those assertions are based on logic and evidence, not label slapping and crucifiction (antisemite). |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| Another FACT: Hitler was a eugenicist trying to reshape German society according to his idea of the "arian ideal." So it wasn't only Jews who were exterminted or went to forced labour camps. The first target of te Nazi Regime were the communist and socialts (amongst other political opponents and activists). Gypsies and honosexuals were also on the list. Of course, let's over look all that, as well Stalins death toll which is far greater, and I haven't come across much revisionist meterial on the genocides of Soviet Russia. Or the millions of gentiles that died during the first and second world war, and consequently from them. What makes Jews so special again with respect to World War? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Nobody has said gypsies and handicapped people shouldn't be entitled to their own state either.
 |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Can you name one other nation with a lobby group that is capable of profoundly influencing the foreign policy of the World's sole superpower who's military budget it double that of the world? |
Armenia.
| quote: | | Can you name one other nation that violates international law on a consistant basis and ignores UN resolutions to comply with international law (that is when they're not vetoed by the US). |
Sudan. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Armenia. |
Note usage of the term "significant." The Armenian Lobby bears no resemblance to AIPAC nor does it in way shape or form have the influence on foreign policy that AIPAC and the Israeli lobby do. Armenia for one isn't constantly violating internation law and seeking poitical, military, and financial aid from the US. Neigther does it have the power to hush up a war crime, an act of war, and attack on an American sub.
A sizable numer of prominent NeoCons also happen to be have dual citizenship (Israeli and American) and are hardcore Zionsits, and NeoCons as majority are very Zionist sympathetic. They're in the white house, which is really like an over extension of the Israeli lobby.
Your silly little technicality is of virtually no value, and doesn't detract from what I said whatesoever. You forgot to mention the Cuban American lobby btw, which doesn't detract from the point I made eigther.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Sudan. |
Really? For decades now? I didn't realize 2002 onwards constitued even a decade, plus majority of the resolution regarding Sudan are to provide humanitarian support (or allow access rather) and protection to civilians. Again, it doesn't detract from the point I was making. Nice try though. Played like a true politician. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| No answers? As expected. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
apparently not, i said it.
you think that the death of just over 4000 palestinians, resulting mainly from military exercises (i know more than half of the deaths were civilians), in 7 years is the same as 6 million dead jewish people over 5 years? And many more sent to death camps awaiting death?
that notion is simply ridiculous. Palestinians may be restricted to gaza and the west bank, but they are not being forced into gas chambers by the thousands. the Palestinians have a government (however irrelevant it is), and they have elections. The jewish people in the 30s and 40s didn't have half the rights Palestinians have now. come back to reality, i suggest you people visit one of the interment camps or a museum on the holocaust. The palestinians have it nowhere near as bad as the jewish people did. i'm not justify anything, but your suggestions are just stupid. |
I think its a tragic sign of the times that we feel the need to quantize and compare similar acts of atrocity to designate their level of worth. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Note usage of the term "significant." The Armenian Lobby bears no resemblance to AIPAC nor does it in way shape or form have the influence on foreign policy that AIPAC and the Israeli lobby do. Armenia for one isn't constantly violating internation law and seeking poitical, military, and financial aid from the US. Neigther does it have the power to hush up a war crime, an act of war, and attack on an American sub.
A sizable numer of prominent NeoCons also happen to be have dual citizenship (Israeli and American) and are hardcore Zionsits, and NeoCons as majority are very Zionist sympathetic. They're in the white house, which is really like an over extension of the Israeli lobby.
Your silly little technicality is of virtually no value, and doesn't detract from what I said whatesoever. You forgot to mention the Cuban American lobby btw, which doesn't detract from the point I made eigther.
|
Wrong. The Armenian lobby within the US financed a war against Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact that you haven't heard about it suggests that this act of war was fairly decently "hushed up". Furthermore, Armenian troops STILL occupy up to 15% of Azeri territory, representing a clear violation of Azerbaijan's sovereignty, and yet the United States has blocked resolutions condemning this as a result of the powerful Armenian lobby.
Don't believe everything you read about AIPAC. It is far more toothless than you might think. I've been to their headquarters - they can't even spin a consistent message anymore.
| quote: | | Really? For decades now? I didn't realize 2002 onwards constitued even a decade, plus majority of the resolution regarding Sudan are to provide humanitarian support (or allow access rather) and protection to civilians. Again, it doesn't detract from the point I was making. Nice try though. Played like a true politician. |
Wrong again. Darfur is only the latest manifestation of a war that has been going on for 54 years. If you look at the track record of resolutions against Sudan, you'll see that allegations of human rights violations began even before this current regime took power (and furthermore, violations of international law took place well before independence).
Also, I could add many more states, because your point was stupid. North Korea? Hello? Burma? Ever since the inception of the junta there has been clamor in the international community about forcing that government to obey the international law (in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) that it routinely breaks. So in answer to your question of whether or not anyone can name any other countries that routinely break international law and get away with it... well, there are tons. There are more resolutions in the General Assembly condemning Israel than any other country in the world, so I'm not sure where this point of yours was going in the first place.
And in any case, you made no distinction about the difference between providing humanitarian support (which has nothing to do with the resolutions from the Security Council that condemn the Sudanese, North Korean, or Burmese governments) and whatever point you were trying to make. Any distinction made was revisionist to the question you posed. |
|
|
|
|
