cycle of abuse

Israel/PalestineUS Politics
on 140 Comments

I don’t like the Nazi analogy, I try to avoid it. All the same, last night I was on the couch at midnight, grazing books, and happened to read the following passages within ten minutes of one another. So I’m going to put this one down to Jungian synchronicity.

Passage 1:

Hitler’s virulently anti-Semitic Nazi Party received a majority of German votes in 1932 and seized absolute power against little opposition the following year. Scenes of Jews on their knees scrubbing sidewalks in German towns became commonplace, and Jewish emigration to Palestine surged.

–From Geoffrey Wawro’s book Quicksand, 2010.

Passage 2:

As [my son] Shai told me later, he had actually spent the night making men in their fifties and sixties wash anti-occupation graffiti off walls with toothbrushes while their children, the force behind the Intifada and the authors of the hastily sprayed slogans, watched their fathers and grandfathers be humiliated.

–From Hirsh Goodman’s 2005 memoir, Let Me Create a Paradise, God Said to Himself, describing his son Shai’s service in the occupation in 1991. Shai Goodman subsequently left Israel, saying he will never forgive the country for what it made him do, per this memoir. He works as a guide in the bush in his father’s native country, South Africa.

Update, from Mark Wauck:

I like Wawro generally, but he’s sometimes fact challenged:

Wawro: Nazi Party received a majority of German votes in 1932

Wiki: In the first round on 13 March, Hitler had polled over 11 million votes but was still behind Hindenburg. The second and final round took place on 10 April: Hitler (36.8% 13,418,547) lost out to Paul von Hindenburg (53.0% 19,359,983) whilst KPD candidate Thälmann gained a meagre percentage of the vote (10.2% 3,706,759).

140 Responses

  1. Avi
    June 24, 2010, 8:24 am

    There may not be ovens or gas chambers, but the methods of dehumanization are exactly the same, the level of violence and callous disregard for human lives and human dignity is the same. The systematic oppression is the same.

    • Kathleen
      June 24, 2010, 9:16 am

      A slow strangulation. Smaller numbers similar techniques and very systematic.

      As a youngster I read so many history books on WWII and the holocaust. Always wondered why it was that only the 6 million Jews who were brutally killed were mentioned in books, in our movie and on our T.V.’s. Serious discounting of the others who were slaughtered. 3 million Poles, Gypsies etc. Not a mention. Also always wondered how so many who knew did nothing.

      But now living through this period with little to no accounting or concern for the dead in Iraq due to our unnecessary invasion, the drones, the Palestinians..the lack of concern. I understand what happenned during WWII. Not happening to me so who gives a rats ass.
      Same thing happening in regard to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi people etc

      • eljay
        June 24, 2010, 9:42 am

        >> Always wondered why it was that only the 6 million Jews who were brutally killed … Same thing happening in regard to the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi people …

        Victimhood isn’t as effective if one’s suffering isn’t greater than everyone else’s. “Remember the Holocaust” as justification for Israel’s actions is disgusting enough, but “Remember 9/11!” as justification for the on-going slaughter (in the ironically-named “War on Terror”) being wreaked by the U.S. makes me ill.

      • laspada
        June 25, 2010, 4:23 pm

        To Kathleen; Actually, I don’t want to open up a Holocaust can ‘o’ worms here, but the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis has now been revised. If you go to Auchwitz today there is a sign at the front gate telling you that that 1.1 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during WW2. The 6 million number was bumped up from 4 million, by the Russians – years after the war – but lowered to 1.1 million sometime in the ’80’s or ’90’s, as the 6 million number was found to be mathematically impossible. However, there is a terrible fear of being attacked, labeled an anti-semitic, and ruined for any attempt at doing any real discovery in this story. Regardless of whether it was just 1, or 20 million, it is one of the permanent stains on humanity as a whole, and if an event like that happening to your people cannot cause you to reach for new heights of human compassion, then the human species is doomed to self-destruction, and it becomes clearer that there are some select people who have made a business of killing, and stories like this one do little more than remind us of that fact.
        I, too have always wondered why the entire portion of the suffering at these camps has been awarded to the Jewish victims. There were an equal number of non-Jews that went through the same abuse, many of them for having spoken up on a Jewish family’s behalf.
        We need to stop measuring our validity to exist by how much suffering we or our ancestors have endured. We all have an equal stake in the world’s health – mental and physical – and we all have an equal right to enjoy its beauty. We need to stop acting like 3 year olds in a sandbox, and start acting like we ARE an intelligent life in this universe. Obviously, if people really wanted to achieve peace and see an end to needless death and destruction, it would be a relatively simple thing to negotiate. There’s too much money to be made by behaving like a teenager with penis envy, lashing out at anyone who does not bow down and worship Wall St.

      • lareineblanche
        June 26, 2010, 8:45 am

        “If you go to Auchwitz today there is a sign at the front gate telling you that that 1.1 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during WW2.”

        You forgot to say “in Auchwitz” at the end of your phrase, a little misleading. Strange. The figures are a little over 5 million total for Jews, and around the same for non-Jews (Rom, homosexuals, and other “deviants”, ahem), I think.

        link to

      • Richard Witty
        June 27, 2010, 2:33 pm

        Not an appealing argument Laspada.

        Are you a plant to convince us that there still are holocaust deniers and revisors?

  2. eljay
    June 24, 2010, 8:27 am

    Those graffiti artists could have avoided destabilizing the occupation forces by spraying poetry, slogans of friendship and other nuturing text – instead of anti-occupation narratives – on the walls. Shame on them for making the occupation forces humiliate their fathers and grandfathers!

  3. Shingo
    June 24, 2010, 8:30 am

    It’s not so much the methods but the ideology. The racial and ethic supremacy. The belief in maintaining bloodlike purity and opposition to mized marriages.

  4. David Samel
    June 24, 2010, 8:54 am

    The problem with superficial Israel-Nazi analogies is that they evoke the slaughter of millions and are inflammatory and susceptible to criticism and howls of outrage that most people find persuasive. They are little better than calling Ahmadinejad or Arafat “Hitler.” But there are some analogies, like this one, that are specific and difficult to refute. I think there are genuine comparisons to be made between Israel of today and Germany of the mid-thirties. If Germany had never implemented the final solution and started WWII, its conduct during that early period still would be considered atrocious. And, as Shingo says, any idology of racial or ethnic supremacy should be unacceptable, regardless of whether it involves the mass slaughter of millions or “merely” humiliation, degradation, and discrimination. Good eye, Phil.

    • Chaos4700
      June 24, 2010, 9:08 am

      What about the Israel-Nazi analogies that aren’t superficial?

    • azythos
      June 24, 2010, 10:42 am

      David – It’s not a question of comparing this or that character with “Germany in the thirties”. “Nazism”, just as Socialism, Fascism, Reaction, etc. is also a political concept defined by a set of characteristics that one can list and check one by one. Like racial supremacy as a fundamental principle of citizenship, endless pursuit of aggressive war and “Lebensraum” concept, total contempt for all civilized international conventions and humanitarian concepts, etc. etc. Problem is, of course, that the list is not cast in stone and one has to redefine the essentials for oneself before comparing.
      What I can’t fathom is why you would care about being “inflammatory”. As if the Zionist wouldn’t invoke some other pretext for rejecting what you say, and anyway it’s them that are defining “inflammatory”. If it quacks and walks it is a duck and if it is a duck just say it.

      • David Samel
        June 24, 2010, 12:46 pm

        azythos, perhaps I was a bit too abrupt with the word “inflammatory.” I don’t care about offending Zionists and Israeli leaders, but I do care about alienating people who are trying to learn more about the conflict and decide which side they are on. Referring to Israelis as Nazis is likely to make people cringe, or at least be unsympathetic. Usually, it is most unhelpful. On the other hand, specific and/or detailed arguments, like the one Phil makes here, or noting that ethnically based discrimination, whether it takes the form of Nazism, apartheid or Jim Crow, should always be challenged, makes perfect sense to me. You’re absolutely right that Zionists will counter any argument I make with one of their own, but that is why it is important to be more persuasive than they are. “Israel = Nazi Germany” is not going to sway anyone in your direction, and many others will be convinced by the complaint that Israel is being unfairly compared to a system that slaughtered millions.

      • azythos
        June 24, 2010, 2:21 pm

        David – You might be right. Or I might, too, having experienced the power of rubbing people’s nose in the dogdoo by hammering on documented analogies. Or perhaps it’s a bias due to my generation, for whom the only serious frame of reference is The war, the occupation and the resistance. I don’t know; good arguments for both sides.

      • hayate
        June 24, 2010, 2:29 pm

        azythos June 24, 2010 at 10:42 am

        Good point. Unless the conversation is specifically about comparing these regimes, such as this one, the nazi analogy is usually used as just a passing reference to simplify things one wants to express. I’ve been calling both israel and the usa a variety of terms using the nazi analogy for around 10 years plus. The responses to this are usually agreement, “yeah, they do act like nazis”, or realization, “I hadn’t thought about that, but it makes sense now that you mention it”. The times I noticed a negative reaction, it always turned out to be from someone blinded by patriotic bs and had I even couched my comments in a non-nazi analogy, they would have objected, anyways, because they refused to accept such things went on, “you lie!”, or they thought that such things were necessary, “we have to do it, it’s a tough world out there”. In other words, using a nazi analogy didn’t make much difference, the person was chauvinistic and had already made up their mind and no argument was going to sway them, no matter how persuasive or politely framed.

        So go ahead and make the comparisons and don’t worry about offending small minds. The more the analogy is used, the more people will start asking why and start thinking changes are needed. It’s like shock therapy, it can wake people up who’ve been cruising along through life living in a fog of comfortable isolation. Polite, boring analogies will never motivate people asleep at the wheel to think outside their comfortable little boxes. They wont even hear them.

  5. Kathleen
    June 24, 2010, 9:19 am

    A Letter from Nelson Mandela to Thomas Friedman
    link to
    “As to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, there is an additional factor. The so-called “Palestinian autonomous areas” are bantustans. These are restricted entities within the power structure of the Israeli apartheid system.

    The Palestinian state cannot be the by-product of the Jewish state, just in order to keep the Jewish purity of Israel. Israel’s racial discrimination is daily life of most Palestinians. Since Israel is a Jewish state, Israeli Jews are able to accrue special rights which non-Jews cannot do. Palestinian Arabs have no place in a “Jewish” state.

    Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property. It has perpetuated a system of gross racial discrimination and inequality. It has systematically incarcerated and tortured thousands of Palestinians, contrary to the rules of international law. It has, in particular, waged a war against a civilian population, in particular children.

    The responses made by South Africa to human rights abuses emanating from the removal policies and apartheid policies respectively, shed light on what Israeli society must necessarily go through before one can speak of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and an end to its apartheid policies.

    Thomas, I’m not abandoning Mideast diplomacy. But I’m not going to indulge you the way your supporters do. If you want peace and democracy, I will support you. If you want formal apartheid, we will not support you. If you want to support racial discrimination and ethnic cleansing, we will oppose you. When you figure out what you’re about, give me a call.

    • David Samel
      June 24, 2010, 9:50 am

      Kathleen – That is not an authentic letter. It was a clever parody of Friedman’s own columns where he hypothesizes letters or memos from one person to another. I think the author accurately presented the issues, but the letter has been misinterpreted as being authored by Mandela himself.

      Dershowitz has called the letter a “hoax,” but as usual, that is a false accusation, as the author never intended that the reader believe it was from Mandela. He made it plain that it was his own musings.

      • Sumud
        June 24, 2010, 1:06 pm

        Here’s the author’s comments on the mock memo, with a roundup at the bottom of what Mandela has actually said (as of 2002) in relation to Israel/Palestine:

        link to

  6. Shmuel
    June 24, 2010, 9:30 am

    Areas in which I find the analogy helpful – apart from evocative images, such as the one Phil describes, or the one noted by former Israeli journalist and cabinet minister Tommy Lapid (mentioned by Beinart in this article) – are the dehumanisation Avi refers to above, and the striking resemblance between the criteria laid out in Israel’s Law of Return (and hence the system of Israeli discrimination) and the Nuremberg Race Laws, in terms of the meticulous, dry bureaucraticisation of racial discrimination.

  7. Citizen
    June 24, 2010, 9:36 am

    Meaningful coincidence. Making people scrub floors or walls with a tooth brush. In addition to the events Phil inserts in his article, how about the incident of same in All Quiet On The Western Front, or that I had to do the same thing in the US Army at one point? What do all such tactics have in common? Do we have an archtype involved here?

  8. Leper Colonialist
    June 24, 2010, 9:41 am

    Someone once observed [and this might be apocryphal] that the state of Israel was Hitler’s ultimate revenge upon the Jews.

    What’s the Palestinian equivalent of “Kristalnacht”? And will it be recognized as such when it comes to pass? [Assuming, of course, that it hasn’t already come to pass and fallen ignominiously- if not been violently thrown – down the ever-handy memort hole].

    • azythos
      June 24, 2010, 10:29 am

      No need for a “Kristallnacht” targeting Palestinians. If you read history, there has never been a period of problemless coexistence since the arrival of the Zionist colonials. The first 10-15 years you don’t read much about armed attacks, possibly because the colonials weren’t strong enough but the British occupation forces were doing their job for them anyway.

      • annie
        June 24, 2010, 11:55 am

        the British occupation forces were doing their job for them anyway.

        that is not my understanding.

      • azythos
        June 24, 2010, 2:12 pm

        “the British occupation forces were doing their job for them anyway.”

        Annie – “that is not my understanding.”

        Enforcing (bloodily) on account of the Zionists, much needed when the Zionists were few and weaker. Some limitations to immigration, enforced much later under pressure from the Palestinian protest, should not deter you from examining the history of all that.

  9. maximalistNarrative
    June 24, 2010, 9:49 am

    What a ridiculous comparison. A person would need to bend over completely backwards, stretch themselves into a pretzel and then bend a LOT more the make that analogy.

    If you think it’s ok to compare the one thing that every country in the world has, which is the remand to cleanup graffitti, with what the Jews suffered during the Holocaust, well, it’s clear for any people outsite registered users of this website that may browse the comments section that something is seriously morally WRONG here.

    This is clearly a vehicle in the war the delegitimize the Jewish state.

    I believe that so called “anti-occupation grafiti” is illegal and vulgar and yes, it should be removed.

    How about this for an analogy.

    Case 1) Nazis attempted to rid Germany of Jews in their “Final Solution” and would often write graffiti on Jewish stores and areas that said “Death to Jews” and “Jews out of Poland”

    now compare

    Case 2) Pan Arabists and Islamists attempted to rid Israel of Jews in their “Jihad” and “Intifada” and would often write graffitti on Jewish areas that said “Death to Jews” and “Jews out of Palestine”

    • Chaos4700
      June 24, 2010, 10:07 am

      Jihad means struggle in Arabic, and intifada means the act of shaking off.

      In using those terms in the distorted, racist fashion you do, you are basically indulging in the Zionist equivalent of propagating blood libel against the Arab peoples.

      Having a pet [Zionist…] around has always been the best way to make the comparison painfully apparent. You guys really can’t help but wear your hatred and xenophobia on your sleeve.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 11:36 am

        Thanks for the glossary of terms I’ll add one Zionism: meaning the return of the Jewish people to their land.

      • gloopygal
        June 24, 2010, 3:27 pm

        Yeah – Poland, Germany, Russia, America …

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 3:51 pm

        “I’ll add one Zionism: meaning the return of the Jewish people to their land.”

        There is no Jewish people and they can more to Isral and purchase land inside Israel.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 4:10 pm

        There is no Jewish people? What a horrible statement devoid of any grounding in the real world that we live in.

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 9:56 pm

        That’s right UNIX, no “Jewish People”.

        It’s a myhth from the Bible that is of course pure fiction.

        It’s interesting to see your extremism bubble to the surface so soon after your false facade of polite fiscoursediscourse. I’m sure you’ll doom be banned.

        Time to start thinking of a new name UNIX,/BDSNow.

    • potsherd
      June 24, 2010, 10:42 am

      Max, who hasn’t yet been banned, has failed to notice all the graffiti in Hebrew saying DEATH TO THE ARABS, or been to a football game in Jerusalem where this slogan is chanted by the Jewish fanatics.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 10:47 am

        It seems when you don’t agree with someone you want to ban them. (thought police)

        Let’s stay away from personal attacks and stick to the issues if you can manage to do that.

      • Cliff
        June 24, 2010, 11:31 am

        You should be banned because you’re [—-], mN.

        You judge people based on their religion. You judge their worth. You don’t care about how many innocent people have been driven off their land, out of their homes.

        You only care about Jews. Not because of who they are – but simply because they belong to the Jewish religion.

        You make people homeless.

        You don’t debate. You don’t support what you say. You treat it as fact.

        I reject your sanctimony and religious fanaticism. I don’t want to live in a world where people are thrown into exile simply because they are not Jews.

        That’s why I’m attacking you. You’re […].

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 3:54 pm

        “‘It seems when you don’t agree with someone you want to ban them. (thought police)”‘

        No just those who post offensive white supremacist religiuos extremist bile.

        Liek I said MN, you’ll corss th eline and be banned soon enough. You might want to start thinking of a new speudonym.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 4:11 pm

        Another Ad Hominum attack. Let’s try to stay away from those in te future and really stick to the issues at hand.

      • Sumud
        June 24, 2010, 1:21 pm

        Not forgetting that such graffiti is not just some rogue nasty – it’s articulating the desires of a large proportion of the population:

        “The poll showed that many students believe the phrase “Death to Arabs” is racist, and, therefore, not legitimate. 45% of religious students and 16% of secular students, however, believe it is a legitimate statement.”
        link to

        Salon also made the nazi comparison recently:

        Is the Star of David the new swastika?
        link to

    • azythos
      June 24, 2010, 10:51 am

      “This is clearly a vehicle in the war the delegitimize the Jewish state”

      I just love that old piece of manure! When on earth has that abcess on humanity’s buttcheek ever had any “legitimacy”? It’s nothing other than a shameful, abusive plant by the last colonial powers. Legitimacy can only be bestowed by the inhabitants before the arrival of the Zionists (which comprised 6% Jews.) Now that the colonials are implanted, they have to negotiate a legitimacy on the Palestinians’ terms.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 11:17 am

        The date that you pick to confer legitimacy on Jews living in their land is arbitrary.

        In fact what you are claiming is the opposite of international law.

        The Mandate for Palestine was set up to explicitely facilitate massive immigration of Jews into the Land of Israel.

      • Sumud
        June 24, 2010, 1:28 pm

        The British had no right to give away property they didn’t own.

      • droog
        June 24, 2010, 2:03 pm

        Sumud, if Palestine had really been a “doable” conquest, we would have put our own people there and added another territory to the lists of “our” lands. As it was, IMHO the Zionists served as useful idiots for the Imperial plans, Israel has always had the role of military base in it’s raison d’etre, first ours , now Americas. The mentality of Zionists is useful in the strategy, as if the outpost inhabitants were to, ‘go native’ the whole venture is compromised, they need to be scared of the indigens and utterly reliant on the distant imperial sugardaddy.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 4:12 pm

        You’re right. The Land of Israel is owned by Jews. Zionism, as a revolutionary ideology threw off the yoke of the British occupier and redeemed Israel for it’s natives, the Jewish people.

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 9:57 pm

        There’s no such thing as the land of Israel.

        Zionism is a fascist, apartheid racist ideology. The natives of Palestine are Palestinians.

      • Shmuel
        June 25, 2010, 1:57 am

        And we were making such progress, Max. You almost admitted that Palestinians were human. If you should ever actually reach that conclusion, maybe we could have another chat.

      • Sumud
        June 25, 2010, 3:01 am

        No amount of wishing will turn a series of fables into a property deed mN.

      • annie
        June 25, 2010, 3:22 am

        Zionism, as a revolutionary ideology threw off the yoke of the British occupier and redeemed Israel for it’s natives, the Jewish people.

        gee max, it appears the british occupiers might not have been all the zionists were attempting to throw off. come to think of it after many decades they still haven’t throw off those ‘other’ natives. one might think if god was so set on giving palestine to the jews it would be a done deal by now. how long did the (perhaps mythical) ‘Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy)’ last? 60- 100 years? and we should believe the new israel (after 60 years and STILL NO PEACE) is here to stay. maybe being rulers or nation builders is not the forte of israelis. maybe they should stick to art or music or hollywood or comedy of law or social justice or something they are better at because for a young country they certainly do seem to be fucking up.

        The Land of Israel is owned by Jews

        double yawn. maybe to the fanatics max, maybe to the fanatics.

      • demize
        June 25, 2010, 10:02 pm

        I would say Zionism is just about the most Counter-Revolutionary Ideology in the Pantheon of Reactionary Ideologies.

      • Shingo
        June 25, 2010, 10:16 pm

        Counter revolutionary and anti intellectual.

      • piotr
        June 27, 2010, 9:45 pm

        From Wikipedia:

        The first group or Class A mandates were communities formerly controlled by the Ottoman Empire that were deemed to “… have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.”

        The Class A mandates were:
        ‘Mesopotamia’ (United Kingdom), 10 August 1920–3 October 1932, which became the independent kingdom of Iraq.
        ‘Palestine’ (United Kingdom), from 25 April 1920 (effective 29 September 1923–15 May 1948). In April 1921, ‘Transjordan’ was incorporated as an autonomous area under the mandate.[13][14] It eventually became the independent Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan (later Jordan) on 22 March 1946. Following the termination of the remainder of the Palestine mandate, most of the territory became part of the State of Israel, other parts, until 1967, forming the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Egyptian-occupied Gaza Strip and small slivers of territory east and south of the Sea of Galilee held by Syria.
        ‘Syria’ (France), 29 September 1923–1 January 1944, including ‘Lebanon’; Hatay (a former Ottoman Alexandretta sandjak) broke away from it and became a French protectorate, until it was ceded to the new Republic of Turkey. Following the termination of the French mandate, two separate independent republics were formed, Syria and Lebanon.

        The “communities” whose wishes were to be followed by the Mandate powers were there in 1920. And this was a treaty, unlike, say, Balfour Declarations which I guess was just that, a speach.

        Because the British never had the opinion that “The Mandate for Palestine was set up to explicitely facilitate massive immigration of Jews into the Land of Israel”, there were targeted by Jewish terrorists.

        Again, Wikipedia on one such terrorist:

        In 1937 [David Raziel] was appointed by the Irgun as the first Commander of Jerusalem District and a year later Commander in Chief of the Irgun. His term as leader was especially marked by violence against Arabs, including a sequence of market-place bombings.
        On May 17, 1941 he was sent, with three of his comrades including Ya’akov Meridor, to Iraq on behalf of the British army. On May 20, a bomb from a German aircraft killed him and the British officer with him near an oil deposit in Habbaniyah. Meridor returned to Palestine and took over command of the Irgun.

        One may wonder (1) how could British want to use services of Irgun members, and (2) ho a German aircraft could appear out of the blue in Iraq. The Wiki entry on Ya’acov Megidor explains that the two of them wanted to blow up some oil wells (the oil benefitting the war effort of the British, by the way) was but the plan did not work out, Raziel was killed and Megidor returned to Palestine.

    • MarkF
      June 24, 2010, 10:58 am

      Yes, ok, sounds good:

      Case 1) Nazis kept Jews in ghettos controlling goods in and out strangling them economically.

      Case2) Israelis keep Palestinians in ghettos (Gaza) controlling goods in and out strangling them economically.

      Arabists? Islamists? Oh, that’s right, a pollster said not to use the word Palestinian.

      The vehicle of deligitimization is being driven by Bibi. He certainly doesn’t need any help.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 11:19 am

        Case two is wrong in your example.

        Egypt is free to open its borders with Gaza.

        Also comparing Gaza with Warsaw Ghetto is unrealistic and shows detachment from reality.


      • Sumud
        June 24, 2010, 1:29 pm

        “Also comparing Gaza with Warsaw Ghetto is unrealistic”


      • MarkF
        June 24, 2010, 3:20 pm

        Israel is free to open it’s borders as well, so it truly is apt, but I would agree with you, Egypt is culpable along with Israel.

        Didn’t say Warsaw. I was going by what my dad told me about Lodz, but I would also say we’re both probably detatched from reality because I assume neither of us were in Warsaw or Lodz, and we haven’t been to Gaza, so I would defer to Mr. Weiss and others who have been there.

      • Richard Witty
        June 24, 2010, 3:24 pm

        Warsaw ghetto was 20 sq blocks or so. Gaza is what 150 sq miles?

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 3:41 pm

        “‘Warsaw ghetto was 20 sq blocks or so. Gaza is what 150 sq miles?”‘

        So Gaza is a bigger version of the Warsaw Ghetto. It’s population was less than a third of Gaza.

        What’s your point Witty?

      • Richard Witty
        June 24, 2010, 8:24 pm

        That its nowhere near an apt parallel.

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 9:58 pm

        Of course it is.  Apt and entirely appropriate, though Israel happens to be far worse.

      • Sumud
        June 25, 2010, 3:06 am

        LOL – you think geographic size disqualifies a comparison?

        That’s just ridiculous.

        Build a massive or minute gas chamber and start stuffing human beings of any variety in. The comparison would be made, and it would be appropriate.

      • Egbert
        June 26, 2010, 12:43 pm

        UNIX wrote “Egypt is free to open its borders with Gaza”

        A hyothesis: The moment that happens, Israel will be required to defend itself from the Humus threat and use a rolling barrage to drive the Gazans onto Egyptian territory, followed by a prompt sealing of the border by Israel.

    • MRW
      June 24, 2010, 11:02 am

      Pan Arabists and Islamists attempted to rid Israel of Jews in their “Jihad” and “Intifada” and would often write graffitti on Jewish areas that said “Death to Jews” and “Jews out of Palestine”

      Prove it. Cite photographs with genuine metadata showing it wasn’t created last week proving it. “Death to…” is a distinctly Israeli call; witness Avigdor Lieberman.

      Pan Arabists and Islamists attempted to rid Israel of Jews

      You are so full of shit.

      • MRW
        June 24, 2010, 11:11 am

        Alan Hart, the celebrate BBC journalist, is finally speaking out about his contemporaneous experience in Israel. This is part of his speech to the survivors of The Liberty, in which he calls Israel’s assertion during the 1967 War it fought to prevent “the driving in the sea of its Jews” a big fat Zionist lie:

        I’ll start by telling you where I was on Thursday 8 June 1967. I was in the Sinai desert. I was the first Western correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis. On reflection some years later, I realised that what I witnessed in the desert, well out of sight and sound of the attack on the Liberty, was a key to understanding why America’s most advanced and sophisticated spy-ship (perhaps I should say intelligence-gathering platform) was attacked. I’ll come to what I witnessed in a moment.

        First, and to provide some context to assist complete understanding, I must summarise very briefly the whole truth about that particular war. By elements in the mainstream media which peddle Zionist propaganda, and other elements of it which are terrified of offending Zionism either too much or at all, the Western world was conditioned to believe that Israel went to war because it was in danger of annihilation – “the driving in the sea of its Jews”.

        Zionism’s first assertion was that the Arabs started the war by attacking Israel. Zionism’s second story was that the Arabs were intending to attack and that in the name of self-defense, Israel had no option but to launch a pre-emptive strike because its very survival was at stake. Both those stories were big, fat, propaganda lies. The Arabs did not attack and were not intending to attack. It was a war of Israeli choice and aggression.

        link to

      • lysias
        June 24, 2010, 11:21 am

        I am currently reading the just-released third volume of Hart’s Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The first chapters deal precisely with the ’67 war and the attack on the USS Liberty.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 12:09 pm

        Please do more to expose the true anti Israel nature of the BBC, I want it out in the open

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 3:42 pm

        “Please do more to expose the true anti Israel nature of the BBC, I want it out in the open”‘

        Has the BBC not been corrupted by teh Israeli lobby sufficiently UNIX?

      • demize
        June 25, 2010, 10:06 pm

        Yes, I’ve been reading it as well. Very interesting stuff.

      • Walid
        June 26, 2010, 11:20 am

        Good article, MRW, thanks.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 11:38 am

        No need to resort to personal attacks. If you are seriously claiming that Arabs in Jewish areas of Gaza and Hebron don’t idealize Jihad and murder of Jews as well as martyrdom in grafiti, print media and video, then there isn’t much I can do to help you although I may recommend google as a useful tool.

      • azythos
        June 24, 2010, 1:45 pm

        “would often write graffitti on Jewish areas that said “Death to Jews” and “Jews out of Palestine”…

        Big fat hairy deal. They are the target of a war, no, turkey shoot on a disarmed, strictly civil population and while bombs, bullets and humiliation is raining they are supposed to write “Love and kisses”?

        In Palestine, “Jewish” means occupying, murderous Master-Race goon. Worse than “White” in old South Africa. Of course death to the oppressor and let them get the hell out.

        And fat chance anyone could write on the walls in “Jewish areas” in the Hellhole…

      • Schwartzman
        June 26, 2010, 12:51 pm

        ig fat hairy deal. They are the target of a war, no, turkey shoot on a disarmed, strictly civil population and while bombs, bullets and humiliation is raining they are supposed to write “Love and kisses”?

        Disarmed? Do you remember Olmert’s plea to the Gaza ppl to stop the missiles before Caste Lead? Do we have a detachment from reality here? or are you just disseminating misinformation and hope someone bites?

      • azythos
        June 26, 2010, 12:59 pm

        Schwarzmann – “Armed” means with a state, army, planes, bombs, gunships (and perhaps nukes like your ‘Zi entity?) The Palestinians are far short of even the Resistance under German occupation whenit comes to being armed.

        As for talking about disinformation, how about you finally present proof about your slander about Mr. Goldblum or admit to being a piece of [autocensored]?

      • Shingo
        June 26, 2010, 7:12 pm

        “Disarmed? Do you remember Olmert’s plea to the Gaza ppl to stop the missiles before Caste Lead?”

        You mean Olmert’s plea after ge ordered the raid on Gaza that broke the 4 month ceasefire and killed 6 Palestinians?

        That’s like a rapist who pleads with his victim not to fight back, because he’d be left choice but to kill her.

    • annie
      June 24, 2010, 12:01 pm

      max, it wasn’t a holocaust analogy it was a nazi analogy. i notice you evaded acknowledging potsherd’s death to arabs comparison which reminds me of the yeshiva kids who desecrated the mosque just a week ago.

      • Shingo
        June 24, 2010, 3:43 pm

        He won’t acknowledge potsherd’s death to arabs comparison becasue he agrees with it.

  10. eljay
    June 24, 2010, 10:21 am

    >> A person would need to bend over completely backwards, stretch themselves into a pretzel and then bend a LOT more the make that analogy. If you think it’s ok to compare the one thing that every country in the world has, which is the remand to cleanup graffitti …

    Talk about being a pretzel, eee! Every country in the world is not a racist, colonial power forcing disenfranchised, occupied citizens – at the point of a gun – to clean up anti-occupation graffiti.

    >> How about this for an analogy

    Crappy analogy. Nazis had no right to tell Polish nationals of any faith to get out of Poland. The “Pan Arabists” and “Islamists” had every right to demand that invading colonialists get out of Palestine. But that’s a moot point, anyway, since the calls are overwhelmingly for equality, democracy, freedom and justice, and not for “Jews out of Palestine”.

  11. Todd
    June 24, 2010, 10:32 am

    Tip-toeing around comparisons often involves deciding whose sensitivities can or can’t be trampled. The constant comparing of Jim Crow to Israel makes little sense, since the situations were not very similar. But who complains about that when the issue can tie Israel to the U.S., people can be reminded of the heroic sacrifices of Jews in the Civil Rights era, Americans can be divided and exploited, and careers can be made?

    • lysias
      June 24, 2010, 11:39 am

      I don’t think blacks in this country object to comparisons between Jim Crow and the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. I know that I, as an Irish-American, have absolutely no objection to comparisons between that treatment and how my people, the Irish, were the victims of colonial settler policies. As a matter of fact, I believe most Irish Catholics, far from having any objections to such comparisons, sympathize with the Palestinians precisely because they see parallels.

      • maximalistNarrative
        June 24, 2010, 11:43 am

        A closer parallell would be Irish Catholics and Jews since both are native to their lands, Irish Catholics to Ireland and Jews to Israel

        (although of course Jewish settlement in Israel predates Catholicism and the settlement generally of Ireland by thousands of years)

        Whereas the Palestinians would be more akin to Protestants in this comparison

      • droog
        June 24, 2010, 1:06 pm

        Maximum narrative, minimal fact:

        The first definite evidence of human settlement in Ireland dates from 8000 to 7000 BC. They are known from early archaeological findings to have made an appearance in the far north in the lower Bann valley near present-day Coleraine and in the southwest in the Shannon estuary. Later they are thought to spread northeast along the coast of Antrim and followed the Bann upstream to Lough Neagh. They also settled down to an industrious existence on the shore of Larne Lough just north of present-day Belfast, where they chipped flints for implements. These people, mesolithic hunter-gatherers without domestic animals or farming skills, huddled for the most part along the coasts and waterways. As a consequence, these early arrivals had little impact on the environment.

        One of the earliest claimed radiocarbon dates for the human inhabitation of Ireland was about 7490 bc. The sample that documents this date was obtained from a primitive settlement that contained charcoal remains at Woodpark in County Sligo.

        link to
        your obvious contempt for scientifically estabolished knowledge, I’m afraid only provides further proof of the erosion of mental faculties innate to your chosen condition.
        And while I’m sure you really wish the Palestinians were more akin to the NI Protestants, you fear the truth that your quasi-religion of Zionism is the implanted colonial entity. Implanted by the same Imperialist Britain, albeit 800 yrs apart, Ireland stands as proof of the stupidity of all Greater-Nationalisms, it just doesn’t work. Whereas, Rights and Justice based solutions do work as evidenced by the Northern Ireland Peace Process and the British/Irish national relationship we have today.

      • azythos
        June 24, 2010, 1:22 pm

        Well said.

        Besides, did you observe that Maximum is The Highlander?

        ” native to their lands … Jews to Israel”

        The Propaganda-Abteilung must be short on personnel for using the blatantly insane.

      • lysias
        June 24, 2010, 1:27 pm

        Funny, then, how it’s the Ulster Protestants who have been demonstrative in their support of Israel, whereas Irish Catholics have supported the Palestinian cause. Ireland, Ulster and the Flotilla Inquiry:

        As Ben Smith pointed out earlier today on Politico’s Web site, Ulster Protestants like Mr. Trimble have been generally more sympathetic to Israel than their Catholic neighbors:

        The Irish Republican Army made common anticolonialist cause with the Palestinian Liberation Organization, with the P.L.O. allegedly providing arms and training for the I.R.A. as early as the 1970s. And so, logically, [Northern] Irish Protestant leaders allied themselves with the Israelis.

        Maybe the two sides in Ireland know more than you do?

      • Don
        June 24, 2010, 12:38 pm

        Todd is a bit sensitive about this Jim Crow thing. The source of this sensitivity escapes me entirely. No one is accusing you, Todd. And its’ not like slavery (and many decades post slavery) were a laugh riot for American Blacks.

      • Todd
        June 24, 2010, 11:44 pm

        Don, you might have a point if the issue of Nazi comparisons to Israel being a sensitive issue weren’t a common topic for threads at this site, along with threads comparing Israel to Jim Crow. I’d be interested to know what is the percentage of threads that have Jewish participation in Civil Rights, Jim Crow comparisons to Israel or reasons that Nazi comparisons to Israel are wrong or tactless would be. Those are frequent topics at Mondoweiss.

        When are bad comparisons acceptable? The Nazi comparison to Israel is more apt than a comparison to Jim Crow. My view is that each society should stand alone and be judged on its own merits or lack of merits.

        If I’m not mistaken, Phil once stated that he makes the comparisons because Americans can relate to Jim Crow. If that’s the case, then Americans can certainly relate to Nazi Germany, so then the comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany should be fair game if recognition for a cause is the main concern. However, we both know that such comparisons are heavily frowned upon. Why do you think that is, Don? And why is it fair to brand one group with an unfair label, while avoiding doing the same to another group?

      • Donald
        June 26, 2010, 1:18 pm

        That doesn’t make much sense, Todd. Jim Crow is a very apt comparison to Israel in many ways. I grew up in the South just after Jim Crow ended and once I became familiar with the I/P conflict and the way Israel’s defenders argue, there was a clear family resemblance between the attitudes and behaviors and rationalizations of white Southerners and Zionists. You had the crude racists in both camps, and also the slightly more subtle but still often racist “liberals” who would get very defensive on the subject of the South’s treatment of blacks or Israel’s treatment of Arabs.

        Apartheid South Africa is, of course, another apt comparison. The Nazi comparison is only apt if we talk about Nazism in its early stages, when it was discrimination and violence, but not yet extermination. But the Nazis are remembered precisely because of how far they went in the 40’s, not for the crimes they committed (which were bad enough) back in the 30’s–in the 30’s Nazi Germany was arguably no worse than, say, Argentina in the 70’s (which was also anti-semitic and fascist ).

      • Todd
        June 27, 2010, 1:42 pm

        Donald, have you ever been to Israel? I’m from the South, and there is no good comparison between the two people or places. Many white Southerners during Jim Crow were quite as poor as most blacks. The same can’t be said of Jews and Palestinians in Israel. Beyond that, the crimes of Israel far exceed those of Jim Crow. Israel is a centrally organized military state that uses a modern military to dominate, dispossess, disperse and strangle a completely civilian Palestinian population–even using napalm in the process. Nothing of the sort could be said of any state during Jim Crow. Jim Crow was not supported from diaspora Southerners from abroad, or by a superpower. And there was absolutely no MSM or any other group running media or political interference at the national or international level for Jim Crow. There is no real comparison. George Wallace didn’t hold a candle to Ariel Sharon.

      • James Bradley
        June 27, 2010, 1:54 pm

        I don’t think Donald is arguing that Jim Crow is equal to or worse than Israeli apartheid.

        Rather I believe that one can draw many correlations between Jim Crow and Apartheid Israel.

        This of course does not imply that its a good analogy. However, several aspects of Jim Crow are clearly visible and easily observable in Israel today.

        In any case looking for a perfect analogy between a former/current crime against humanity and Israels crimes against the Palestinian people is a moot point. The fact of the matter is that we can observe bits of Jim Crow, South African Apartheid, 1930’s Nazi rhetoric and actions, and quite a few other parrallels to describe what is happening to the Palestinians today.

        Nonetheless, in the end the Palestinian oppression has its own unique factors thus perfect analogies can never exist.

      • Richard Witty
        June 27, 2010, 2:30 pm

        I hope that you realize that there is significant poverty among Jewish Israelis.

        If you believe that there isn’t, then you’ve constructed a fantasy for yourself.

      • Donald
        June 27, 2010, 2:52 pm

        Actually, Jim Crow at its worst most certainly was comparable to Israeli or South African apartheid. There were two laws for two groups of people and in the late 1800’s mass violence to put blacks back in their place after a brief period in the 1860’s and 70’s when it looked like they were going to have equal rights. And in Tulsa Oklahoma (not the traditional South, but close enough) there was aerial bombing of black neighborhoods during a horrific race riot in the 1920’s–there’s still disagreement about how many died, but it was at least in the hundreds. And a few years ago there was a book that came out (I forgot the name) which detailed how laws were used to throw blacks into prison on the pettiest of charges and then use them for slave labor.

        By the early 60’s the Federal government was no longer looking the other way, but that’s the tail end of Jim Crow, not the entire history.

      • Todd
        June 28, 2010, 12:20 pm

        James, my point is that if comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is something that should be watched closely, then constantly comparing Jim Crow to Israel is surely worth questioning. And if a Nazi to Israel comparison isn’t apt, then comparing Israel to Jim Crow is surely wrong. I don’t look for perfect analogies, and I don’t expect to find them. I’m just looking at the politics behing the comparisons.

      • Todd
        June 28, 2010, 12:23 pm

        Richard, Jewish poverty in Israel is not the same type of poverty as the poverty experienced/forced on Palestinians. Talk about constructed fantasy.

      • Richard Witty
        June 28, 2010, 12:31 pm

        Tell that to the actual poor.

        Poor share a great deal.

        As do traumatized.

      • Todd
        June 28, 2010, 12:32 pm

        Donald, I’m not defending Jim Crow. What I am doing is pointing out that nothing that ever happened during Jim Crow comes close to what happened during Operation Cast Lead, or the Nakba, in general. The societies were structured very differently, and the comparisons have to be very general to stick.

        Again, why is one comparison worth watching and constantly refuting, while another, less apt, comparison is freely thrown around without question?

      • Shingo
        June 28, 2010, 4:48 pm

        Yes Todd, how dare you inject reality interrupt Witty’s self pitty.

      • demize
        June 25, 2010, 10:11 pm

        Not only do they sympathize, Irish Republicans hold in very high esteem Palastinians. I have a whole collection of Derry, Belfast, Armagh Murals tying the two traditions of resistance to colonialism.

      • demize
        June 25, 2010, 10:24 pm

        Lysias, I did not see you had expounded on this theme. Sometimes I reply before reading the entire thread.

      • lysias
        June 27, 2010, 2:23 pm

        No harm in saying more than once something that happens to be true.

  12. Richard Witty
    June 24, 2010, 10:43 am

    They are comparable, but only at the level of feeling, not at the level of fact.

    I was arrested once painting out the bottom of the R in Riggs Bank in DC in 1972 (Piggs Bank – prime funder of a napalm manufacturer), and my punishment was to help the painter repaint the three that I had painted out.

    I wasn’t on my hands and knees. I thought the political statement was artful, elegant, admittedly on someone else’s property.

    That is different than if I was asked to scrub the streets in general in DC because I was born Jewish.

    There is a difference between the embarrassment of someone punished for an action (perhaps wrongly), and someone punished for being.

    If Phil wanted to make the comment that Palestinians were punished for being, he would have picked a different example. I hope he distinguishes between punishment for actions and punishment for being.

    What was it in this case?

    • Cliff
      June 24, 2010, 11:38 am

      Richard Witty:

      If Phil wanted to make the comment that Palestinians were punished for being, he would have picked a different example. I hope he distinguishes between punishment for actions and punishment for being.

      Most regulars here (not counting the Zionists) – if not ALL of them – would conclude that Richard Witty is deluded and bored. Hence, he continues to troll this blog w/ his asinine paternalistic condescension (rife w/ historical errors and intellectual dishonesty).

      He should have been banned a long time ago or limited to two trolling posts per day – similar to how Richard Silverstein treats him.

      However, since he knows Phil – he gets a pass.

      We have had posters in the past get banned for far less (simply having a website called ‘Judeofascism’ – I mean how inundated is our political culture w/ the term ‘Islamofascism’?).

      Anyways, read this passage carefully.

      Richard Witty is saying Palestinians suffer for their actions. Jews suffer for being Jews.

      Palestinian suffering is their own fault. They shouldn’t have fought back/resisted/done anything other than bow down to Zion.

      [ad hominem removed…]

    • Donald
      June 24, 2010, 11:39 am

      The action they were punished for was protesting against an occupation that discriminated against them for who they were. For that matter, Palestinians were expelled from Israel because of who they were. And this incident aside, surely in all your vast reading you’ve read accounts of wanton acts of humiliation of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers?

    • maximalistNarrative
      June 24, 2010, 11:41 am


      You nailed it this time.


      • jimby
        June 24, 2010, 12:28 pm

        Wow Max, You are coming in loud and clear from wherever you are in wooey wooey land.

      • Sumud
        June 24, 2010, 1:40 pm

        I’m sure Richard will (secretly) be glad for your support mN. He has a hard time admitting the colour of his thinking, but you recognise a kindred spirit.

    • annie
      June 24, 2010, 12:06 pm

      the grandfather was very much punished for who they were witty (for the purpose of humiliation), not their actions. had they been punished for their actions the children who painted the graffitti would have been forced to clean it up, not the old men.

      • Donald
        June 24, 2010, 12:14 pm

        Darn, I should have caught that myself, so in this case I plead to being as silly as RW.

      • Don
        June 24, 2010, 1:02 pm

        Donald, we will forgive you this oversight…but only because your comments are almost always intelligent and insightful.

        Richard (Witty), on the other hand, is taking “nuance” to breathtaking levels. I assume he has a burning desire to become a Medieval Catholic theologian (if we pray 4 times for 5 minutes, is this equivalent to praying once for 20 minutes?).

      • Richard Witty
        June 24, 2010, 3:03 pm

        I think you are right Annie. The individuals forced to repaint appear not to be the ones that did the painting. And, painting on the wall is not really damaging others’ property

        Still, the principle of accountability for actions rather than for being, applies.

        Those that knee-jerk, or Pavlovian invocation, that Israel is always wrong by virtue of it being Zionist (Jewish self-governing), or more powerful than Palestinians, RATHER than specifically criticized for specific policies and actions, engage in a prejudice pretending to be an advocacy for justice.

        I cringe at the thought of living in such a state governed by the sensitivities of militants (whether fanatic Zionists or fanatic solidarity).

      • Sumud
        June 25, 2010, 3:23 am

        Can you cite comments criticising Israel for anything *but* specific policies and actions?

        You may run away when specific Israeli actions are discussed – that doesn’t mean they aren’t.

        I’m still waiting for your take on why the memory cards and footage of the flotilla activists and journalists was stolen, along with the Mavi Marmara CCTV footage and jamming of satellites during the raid. What’s it all about Richard?

      • Richard Witty
        June 25, 2010, 3:53 pm

        I don’t know. Do you accurately?

        I’ve seen you conflate your suspicions into facts.

        Is that something that you are proud of?

      • Shingo
        June 26, 2010, 8:48 am

        You’re such a liying scum bag Witty.

        The only facts we do have are that the IDF confiscated all video and photographic equipment and have never returned it.

        Unless you can prove otherwise, may I suggest you shut the fuck up?

      • Sumud
        June 27, 2010, 4:01 am

        “I don’t know. Do you accurately?

        I’ve seen you conflate your suspicions into facts.”

        I’ve taken an educated guess based on the video and photos we have seen, the testimony of flotilla survivors and the known behaviour of various Israeli institutions before, during and after the flotilla raid (eg MFA and IDF Spokespeople) . Simultaneously I’m also calling for the release of stolen footage and photos, and an independent international investigation in order that speculation be put to rest.

        Pride doesn’t really come into it.

      • Sumud
        June 27, 2010, 4:03 am

        “I’m still waiting for your take on why the memory cards and footage of the flotilla activists and journalists was stolen”
        “I don’t know.”

        Be brave Richard. Speculate!

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2010, 4:52 am

        The “I don’t know”, response is a common one amone Zionist propagandists. They can’t bring themselves to admit the obvious so they play dumb.

        Of course, Witty is not only prepared to speculate, but create a whole narrative on the fly when it comes to scruitinizing Hamas’ actions. He’s happy to speculate about the motivations of the peace activists, or speculate about the motives about Hamas, but when it comes to the Israelis, he suddenly decides he’s too coy to make a guess.

        Another example of what a patholigical liar he is, as though we needed another one.

      • Sumud
        June 27, 2010, 5:53 am

        True Shingo, RW’s intellectual impotency is predictably selective. It’s now 4 weeks since the flotilla was attacked, and still he hasn’t worked out how to field that question.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2010, 5:59 am

        On the contrary Sumud,

        Witty has worked it out. Be it 4 weeks, 4 months or 4 years, he will continue to give the same evasive answer. It’s been 18 months since the Gaza massacre and Witty still insists that the matter of whether Israel violated the ceasefire on November 4th is up for debate, so his capacity for dishonesty is not only boundless, bu inexaustable.

      • Shingo
        June 27, 2010, 6:02 am

        Further to that Sumud,

        Witty is equally vague and evasive about Israel’s motives for blocking foreing journalists from entering Gaza during the 2008/2009 massacre.

      • Sumud
        June 27, 2010, 11:57 pm

        I’ll keep asking..

    • Shingo
      June 24, 2010, 3:55 pm

      There goes Witty again, comparing his experiences to the Nakba.

      I guess he thinks being arrested means he knows what it means to be tortures in an Israeli prison or that having his tonsils out means he understands what those who have their organs harvested have to deal with.

    • Chaos4700
      June 25, 2010, 3:18 am

      That’s a laugh! So you object to goyim using napalm but “Jewish” Israelis with white phosphorous? More please!

      • Schwartzman
        June 26, 2010, 12:54 pm

        I am pretty sure every Zionist commentator on here objects to Israel’s use of white phosphorous. (except maybe MN)

      • Shingo
        June 26, 2010, 7:20 pm

        You might SM, but scumbags like Witty won’t explicitly condone it or condem it.

  13. eljay
    June 24, 2010, 11:32 am

    >> There is a difference between the embarrassment of someone punished for an action (perhaps wrongly), and someone punished for being.

    You crazy clown! Once again, you amuse, delight. As the article clearly states, the men who were “punished for an action (perhaps wrongly)” were not the ones who had sprayed the graffiti – their children had. Rather than punish the authors of those painted narratives, the soldiers “spent the night” humiliating the men, making examples of them. The men were punished for being – for being the fathers and grandfathers of the oppressed, the occupied, for being Palestinians.

  14. annie
    June 24, 2010, 12:16 pm

    thanks for marks update phil. i knew immediately when reading ‘Nazi Party received a majority of German votes in 1932’ it was wrong. when i visited the holocaust musuem in DC they show a movie at the beginning of the tour explaining hilter’s party never did win a majority in fact there was much opposition to him and the film showed mass demonstrations against him. i was there after bush came into power and it reminded me of the protests in dc on the day of his inauguration and the protests against the war and the protest i had just attended in nyc on the day of the gop convention circa 2004. it shocked me really to see the film of the germans protesting, before that i had no idea how many opposed him. he was was appointed chancellor of germany, he wasn’t elected into office.

  15. Les
    June 24, 2010, 1:42 pm

    How about the IDF soldier who made a Palestinian kiss the rear end of his donkey in front of his son! The anti-semitic racism is as obvious as it is easy.

  16. hayate
    June 24, 2010, 1:59 pm

    I’ve been using a nazi-zionist/israel comparison for years, and before that frequently referred to the usa as the 4th reich. I see no reason not to compare these 2 countries to nazi Germany, any more than comparing them to other repulsive regimes of the past, such as the u.s. pre-civil rights or apartheid South Africa. These comparisons are not exact, no comparison could be, but they do covey an accurate impression to others of how strongly one views the obscenities that are regularly perpetrated by countries like israel and the usa.

    When I see others wasting time condemning these comparisons, it’s usually because they are sayanim/hasbarat trolls, both overt and covert, who are interested in lessening the “bad” image of israeloamerica (nazi being the ultimate “bad”) and see arguing about “nazi” as being a very convenient strawman to distract/misdirect the conversation to a “no they’re not-yes they are” pissing match.

    I say usually because some are not objecting out of loyalty to israeloamerica, but are just pedants. In the end, though, their motivations don’t make a lot of difference, and ignoring them and continuing on with the real subject matter at hand is the best response to both. Otherwise, their pedantry/strawman intrusion devalues the conversion to meaningless drivel.

    • lysias
      June 24, 2010, 2:13 pm

      I remember how the classical archaeologist Elisabeth Alföldi-Rosenbaum expressed to me the opinion that there was a lot about what Israel was doing that was like what the Nazis had done. Since she had survived the Third Reich, she probably knew what she was talking about.

      She told me this while I was working at the Instituted for Advanced Study in Princeton. So it was at some time during the 1980’s.

      • hayate
        June 24, 2010, 2:47 pm

        There is a famous book by Bertram Gross called “Friendly Fascism” where he compares the usa to fascism. Gross was in the roosevelt admin back during WW2, and wrote “Friendly Fascism” in the late 1970’s. It’s an interesting book, he devised the term “friendly fascist” to describe how american fascism is different from the earlier sorts in that it relies more upon “friendly persuasion” rather than police state like overt coercion. There’s a lot more to it than that, though, in Gross’ description and comparison.

      • Cliff
        June 24, 2010, 3:01 pm

        It’s funny how all these terms are part of a larger framework of looking at American power and how it functions and differs from other power structures.

        Chomsky and Herman’s analysis of the MSM. This book you just mentioned, and many more contribute to this understanding.

      • hayate
        June 24, 2010, 9:40 pm

        Cliff June 24, 2010 at 3:01 pm

        Well, american fascism has been the most successful implementation of this sort of system to date. So far, it’s outlasted all the others by a long shot. Many of the nazi policies were taken from american examples. Most of the fascist regimes had american backing, at least at the beginning, before they went rogue – for those that eventually fell foul of the israeloamerican oligarchy.

        Of the fascist regimes, the zionists/israelis seem to be unique in a lot of ways, the major one being how they converted external support into external subservience without being a brute economic/military powerhouse. They subverted from within, rather than from without. Which means that of all the empires to date, that of zionism, inc. is probably the most fragile. They are truly an empire that шаги по стеклу.

  17. Richard Witty
    June 24, 2010, 3:05 pm

    If you “don’t like the nazi analogy”, then don’t invoke it.

    How many times in the last year have you done something that is “repugnant to you”?

    • Chaos4700
      June 25, 2010, 3:20 am

      Well, he lets you come around here, insult his parents, question is character and spout overt racism against Palestinians, all while you claim to be his “life long friend.” So I dare say Mr. Weiss has a phenomenal tolerance for repugnant things, considering, like I said, you’re still here.

      • Richard Witty
        June 25, 2010, 3:54 pm

        I guess you didn’t get my message on your posting to my blog. I erased it because the e-mail address you provided was invalid.

    • Sumud
      June 25, 2010, 3:28 am

      Phil has the guts to face unpleasant facts Richard, you do not.

      • Sumud
        June 25, 2010, 3:32 am

        Which is why, I imagine, that you and many others are commenting on his blog and not vice versa.

  18. tommy
    June 25, 2010, 1:17 am

    The Nazi analogy is mis-named. Totalitarianism expresses the similarity of what Germans did to Jews and what Israelis do to Palestinians. Hannah Arendt described totalitarianism as a society based on terror. The Nazi death camps achieved the ideal of organized, societal terror. What is taking place in Gaza and the West Bank intimates the beginnings of the idealism of Hitler, which is why such terror enforced upon a civilian population with the most technological of arms is correctly compared to Nazism. The application of an ideology based on race and historical destiny completes the analogy.

  19. Richard Witty
    June 25, 2010, 4:15 pm

    The great divide is relative to actual acceptance of the state of Israel at all.

    I agree with the analysis that settlement expansion gives cover to the fascist interpretations of Palestinian solidarity that do not accept Israel’s existence at all. That it allows solidarity to claim “Israel is a rogue state, a microbe”, to give voice to Ahmenidijad. (“There is no homosexuality in Iran.”)

    It would be wonderful if Israeli officials unilaterally saw that their policies inflict suffering on Gazans, and voluntarily sought to reduce their suffering. I’m not behind the closed doors, so I actually cannot say that that doesn’t happen.

    You in solidarity also cannot accurately say that that does not happen.

    As, those of us that bear sympathy for Israel and Israelis cannot accurately say whether or not leadership of Hamas unilaterally and humanely consider the affects of their actions and policies on Israel and Israelis.

    The Gilad Shalit issue is a telling one on that. Its reported even by those very critical of Israel, that EVERY Palestinian prisoner is afforded twice annual contact with the International Red Cross, whereas none is afforded to Shalit.

    Maybe thats an exception to the norm of their behavior, maybe THE norm.

    A 150 square mile enclosure is not a prison. Its a land-locked proto-state that has alienated 100% of its neighbors.

    There are many countries that are smaller than Gaza, but do have acceptable relations with their neighbors. Some are landlocked, some not.

    • Shingo
      June 26, 2010, 8:53 am

      “The great divide is relative to actual acceptance of the state of Israel at all.”

      Go to hell Witty.

      Acceptance and recognition is a mutual and simultaneous process. Why should the Palestinians accept or recognize Israe (illegal borders and all) when Israel refuse to accept, let alone recognize a Palestinian state?

      Of course Israeli officials realize their policies are inflict suffering on Gazans. As the recent report from McClathy reveals, along with Sharon’s own statements, that was the aim.

      Why is a 150 square mile enclosure is not a prison when the population does not wish to be enclosed? You can’t claim it’s a proto state and simltenouslargue there is no Palestinian state.

      Name one country smaller than Gaza. Which are landlocked, which are not?

    • LeaNder
      June 27, 2010, 6:36 am

      absolutely perfect:

      Acceptance and recognition is a mutual and simultaneous process.

      Reminds me of a story in our team. The “He doesn’t like me” I once overheard being said about one of (obviously, … primus inter pares) our team-leaders. It was the tip of the iceberg of many complaints and bad talk about his abilities behind his back.

      Look at the maximalist discourse:
      Its a land-locked proto-state that has alienated 100% of its neighbors.

      I am still wondering about his style.

      He doesn’t use theses superfluous phrases or raped sentences on his blog. Can someone explain? Mooser maybe? Or his ghostwriter? Proofreader?

      The great divide is relative to actual acceptance of the state of Israel at all.

      • LeaNder
        June 27, 2010, 6:46 am

        Oddly enough turning it into a question works much better:

        Is the great divide relative to actual acceptance of the state of Israel at all?

  20. tommy
    June 26, 2010, 10:33 am

    Witty has confused Gaza with Israel.

  21. kapok
    June 26, 2010, 11:57 am

    The Nazis were honester; they didn’t describe themselves as “humanitarians”

  22. Richard Witty
    June 27, 2010, 6:54 am

    Its a pervasive question that has a LONG thread.

    You are not the originators of the question or of the answer.

    It is a trying question certainly.

    In practice, when the question gets answered by “the two-state solution is already past”, that is not functionally an observation so much as an advocacy.

    Its a choice of what to pursue.

    And, although you state that “the two state solution had its day”, it has not yet. And, your renunciation of that goal represents to Israelis an opportunism to apply Israel’s removal, and not as an objective observation.

    The two-state solution remains the most democratic, most effective, and most just of the options available.

    I ask that you invest in it, to make it happen, rather than war.

    National/communal identity is important to both communities. To deny that is to live in a grosser denial. Unless you are suggesting that the Jewish Zionist Israelis should be a subordinate minority in an Islamic Palestine.

  23. tommy
    June 27, 2010, 7:26 pm

    Jews do not want to live with Nazis and it would make sense Palestinians do not want to live with Zionists.

Leave a Reply