Comments on: lobby’s suasion linked to Holocaust guilt

By: Rehmat

Rehmat — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:01:59 +0000

What Gretta said about Jewish domination of the US – is 101% true. Former US presidents Nixon, John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter are the living example of the power of the pro-Israel Jewish lobb groups. So are dozens of Congressmen and Senators who dared to criticize Israel and Jews being more loyal to Israel than the US – at the risk of losing their career. It was former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney who said: “There are many Members of Congress who wants to be free. I am one of them. I wanted to be free to vote according to my conscience, but I had been told that if I did not sign a pledge supporting the military superiority of Israel, no support would come my way. And sure enough, I did not sign the pledge and no support came my way. I suffered silently year in and year out, because I refused to sign the pledge. An then like a slave that found a way to buy his freedom – I went to work – I wanted to be free – Free to cast the vote in US Congress as I saw fit and not as I was dictated to…..” – Cynthia McKinney.

It’s very dangerous to speak truth in the West
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

By: MHughes976

MHughes976 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:40:33 +0000

Isn’t ‘Holocaust’ essentially a theological, not a historical term, originally referring to an acceptable form of sacrifice? It doesn’t say ‘something terrible was done in the past’ but ‘something terrible is inherent in the difference (which is a difference in theological inheritance) between Jews and non-Jews’. You get traumatised and re-traumatised every time you use this word.
Are we to interpret those events as a meaningless horror, made yet more meaningless becaus those responsible were a grotesque minority, or as a sacrifice whose morally illuminating character helps to give meaning to history? The latter view, inherent in the word ‘holocaust’, emphasises in the sharpest possible way the difference between the race whose sacrifice was demanded and all of, not just a minority among, the deluded others. The implications are very great and almost too painful to spell out.

By: MHughes976

MHughes976 — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:09:27 +0000

We have a great deal yet to understand about the crucial Ezra-Nehemiah/Elephantine period . The Oxford History of the Biblical World remarks that ‘with the arrival of E and N in the mid- to late fifth century the boundaries between Jew and non-Jew began to be defined more narrowly’. A major development. My feeling is that there had ‘always’ been a monotheistic movement with elements in many parts of the ME and Egypt and that what was to become the increasingly ‘narrowly defined’ Judaism emerged by a slow process from the fifth century. When we find elements in many different societies that have a Jewish or Israelite aspect we need to know how far they were involved in this process: were they already like the Jews of the future, or perhaps more like other kinds of monotheist?

By: JSC

JSC — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:56:19 +0000

I’ve seen CAMERA on my campus back before I graduated and became “old,” but this sort of thing is scary. It is so damn easy to abuse Wikipedia, and of course Zionists aren’t the only ones to do it. I just don’t like the idea that CAMERA can control what people see on their first google search about the I/P conflict.

By: JSC

JSC — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 16:19:05 +0000

I don’t see it as “collective trauma.” Many of the folks who use Hitler to describe every enemy of Israel had nothing to do with the Holocaust. I think it is a collective refusal to accept that it is 2010 and not 1940.

By: Psychopathic god

Psychopathic god — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:37:08 +0000

Prof. David Ruderman speaks and writes extensively on the history of Israelites in Babylon from time of Nebuchadnezzar until 1951. Recall that when Persians conquered neobabylonians and enabled exiles from Jerusalem to return, only a minority of the exiles did so; the majority stayed in Babylon/Baghdad.
The Persian province created in Jerusalem for the returning Israelites was called Yehud (from ‘Judah’) and its inhabitants Yehudi, precursor of ‘Jew.’
Ruderman describes how the Jews who stayed in Babylon prospered and engaged thoroughly with the Babylonians, as early as the

By: marc b.

marc b. — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:34:04 +0000

My son and I are going to the Holocaust Museum in DC this April as part of a school trip. It will be interesting to see to what extent the Nazi extermination plan for other ‘races’ is part of the museum experience.

The Holocaust is as real as an historical event as any other, but I object to its continued exploitation as the superlative event in the historical hierarchy of suffering. I actually prefer to avoid the use of the word when the topic of discussion is, in reality, the Nazi program in general. Exploitation of the ‘Holocaust’ both excuses Zionist misconduct and minimizes the suffering and humanity of others. WJ’s arguments make this point clearly, if unintentionally.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:22:39 +0000

Exactly. Zionists don’t even give a damn about the Holocaust.

Endless lies and hypocrisy. WJ went off on the lady mentioned in the article because she said ’6 million’. Compare what she said to what Yahoo said recently.

Zionists love playing victim even though they are the occupiers and colonizers. Even though they were the ones who started this conflict, and are perpetuating it.

It’s not difficult to understand. This is colonialism. Jews can use their identity to emotionally blackmail people. That’s what separates Zionism from other forms of nationalism.

If Zionists were doing this to Africans, it might be harder for them. African identity can be used against Zionists, in the same way they exploit ‘Jewishness’.

It’s just disgusting. None of this stuff has anything to do with reality and the Palestinians are always losing out in the end.

So what the hell does the Holocaust mean?

I couldn’t care less. The Holocaust is a historical event. It’s used for political purposes though. So I judge people, and not the event. WJ was trying to play the Holocaust card earlier and we called him out on it.

By: RoHa

RoHa — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:02:46 +0000

It is time to stop being sensitive about the Holocaust, and face the brutal truths. We don’t want to hear about it any more. We are told not to forget it, but what good has remembering it done?

All this constant wittering about the Holocaust has not stopped mass murders, wars, genocides, or racism. Millions of people have been slaughtered both before and after the Holocaust, as well as the millions who died during it.

According to some, it has not even stopped ani-Semitism. (Probably the perceived anti-Semitism is the result of people getting fed up with the constant whining about the Holocaust.)

What it has done is send comfortable, safe, American Jews into paroxysms of manufactured grief for people whom, in many cases, they never knew, and who were dead before they were born.

It has inflicted dozens of dreary, boring movies and fraudulent “memoirs” upon the world.

Others here have pointed out that the wittering about the Holocaust has been used as moral blackmail for extortion of funds, and a justification for ethnic cleansing.

Has any good ever come out of the Holocaust industry?

I am sorry for those died in the Holocaust, but no more sorry for them than for the dead of the killing fields of Cambodia, or the thousands of Australians who died in WW2, or for the victims of the fire-bombing of Dresden.

They were all killed.

They are all dead.

If we cannot remember them all equally, then it is better to forget them.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:17:25 +0000

You just sound like a typical Zionist-POV Wikipedia article on something I-P related.

There is always a sub-section for ‘criticism’ in which the only ‘criticism’ is from groups like CAMERA or Dershowitz or other nutcases.

Passing off your POV for mainstream. Why don’t you communicate to the non-Zionists why this woman should be avoided?

Because of that one comment? Apply that standard to your own side.