Two social critics who used Nazi analogy– Mark Rudd, Betty Friedan

Last week we ran Jerry Slater’s post saying that comparisons of Israel’s behavior to Nazi Germany’s conduct, in the documentary The Gatekeepers, are exaggerated. Jerry points out that Israel’s conduct in the occupation does not approach actual Nazi crimes. Well, by coincidence, this Tuesday the New York Times reported that Betty Friedan used the Nazi analogy, and that day I also happened to read Mark Rudd’s use of the analogy in a 2005 paper. Those examples follow.

From the article in the Times reassessing Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique, after 50 years, by Jennifer Schuessler:

Indeed, Friedan was hardly without her critics in the movement, who blasted what they saw as her myopic focus on educated white women or her sometimes over-the-top language, whether she was comparing suburbia to “a comfortable concentration camp” or warning the National Organization for Women, which she help found in 1966, against an encroaching lesbian “menace.”

Some scholars, however, have defended aspects of Friedan’s work that sound most outlandish to contemporary ears. In an essay excerpted in the new Norton critical edition, Kirsten Fermaglich, a historian at Michigan State and the volume’s co-editor, argued that Friedan was hardly the only Jewish thinker of the period to make use of extended Nazi metaphors while saying nothing about Jews. The historian Stanley Elkins, the psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton and the psychologist Stanley Milgram, she wrote, all used Nazi concentration camps, much as Friedan did, as a metaphor for mass society’s destruction of the individual.

And below is an excerpt of Mark Rudd’s excellent essay, “Why Were There So Many Jews in the SDS?”

Identifying with the oppressed seemed to me at Columbia and since a natural Jewish value, though one we never spoke of as being Jewish. We were socialists and internationalists first. I myself joined the cult of Che Guevara, putting posters of him on my apartment wall and aching to be a revolutionary hero like him. He wasn’t very Jewish, incidentally.

But World War II and the holocaust were our fixed reference points. This was only twenty years after the end of the war. We often talked about the moral imperative to not be Good Germans. Many of my older comrades had mobilized for the civil rights movement; we were all anti-racists. We saw American racism as akin to German racism toward the Jews. As we learned more about the war, we discovered that killing Vietnamese en masse was of no moral consequence to American war planners. So we started describing the war as racist genocide, reflecting the genocide of the holocaust. American imperialist goals around the world were to us little different from the Nazi goal of global conquest. If you really didn’t like somebody—and we loathed President Lyndon B. Johnson—you might call him a fascist.

P.S. I have often written that visiting Gaza reminded me of what I’d learned about the Warsaw Ghetto as a boy.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 153 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Dan Crowther says:

    As a son of Northampton, Massachusetts, I can say that Friedans comments about the suburbs being a concentration camp, are in fact, indicative of the mindset of most modern “Smithies” – a detestable lot, I hate to say. Somehow I think Slater would find it in himself to defer to Friedan….

  2. eGuard says:

    You mean Jerry Slater’s piece was not satirical?

  3. Avi_G. says:

    P.S. I have often written that visiting Gaza reminded me of what I’d learned about the Warsaw Ghetto as a boy.

    In popular culture, nothing even comes close to the suffering of Jews in WWII or the ghetto life in old Europe.

    Every year. Every year, a few movies are made about the Holocaust (Don’t forget the capital “H” for copyright purposes). Whether the movies are about a piano player, about a book reader, about a boy in pajamas, about a futuristic time machine in which the protagonist just so happens to go back to 1942 or about some such nonsense, Hollywood will continue to churn them out lest someone on the Military Channel or the Discovery Channel forget what a Nazi was that guy, Hitler. By the way, be sure to click on my username to purchase the 8 part DVD collection about concentration camps in Germany, with rare footage now available in color.

    Meanwhile, the atrocities in Rwanda earned two or three movies. The genocides in the former Yugoslavia could only manage four or five movies, and even then two of them were about some downed American pilot or a couple of kidnapped journalists. Ahhh, but wait. Both Nicole Kidman and George Clooney are in abundance if you need them to portray a Moslem from Bosnia as a fanatic suicide bomber who managed to get his hands on a Russian nuke. Wow.

    And don’t even get me started about those 1001 Vietnam war movies that make for cheap action-packed thrillers.

    Then of course there’s the Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine which has yet to get one movie to document it in mainstream American culture.

    Stalin? Well, he’s only dragged to appear in a movie whenever the West needs to remind itself of the atrocities of Those evil guys over there.

    So what do I think about the Nazi comparison? I think the day the State of Israel with its army, its surveillance agencies, and its thuggish paramilitary police ceases to borrow tactics perfected by the SS, then perhaps the analogy would become passé.

    Don’t forget, all it takes is one film, one movie, to open the eyes of a willfully blind mainstream journalist like Brian Lehrer and a million others like him.

  4. Jerry Slater says:

    Phil asked me to comment on this post. Actually, the post he links to above was meant to be a satire, the point of which was that while it is true that Israeli crimes don’t approach those of the Nazis, that is not even slightly comforting.

    Actually, I don’t think that the use of Nazi analogies is a good idea, whether applied to American society (Frieden), the Vietnam war (Rudd), or to the Israeli occupation and repression of the Palestinians. (I may be wrong, but I don’t think Phil does either.) First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known. I don’t say this because its victims were mostly Jewish, like me; it would be just as absolutely and unimaginably evil if the victims of a carefully planned, systematic, and cold-blooded campaign of the literal extermination of millions of people had been any other group. (Needless to say, I trust)

    Aside from its inaccuracy–to say the least–the analogy is counterproductive. It’s supposed to shock readers into recognizing that something evil is occurring, but my guess is that most readers will be put off by it–at least, they should be–and it will have the opposite effect. Meaning that those who employ the analogy will be discredited and so the overall message they seek to deliver may be dismissed. (I even think that applies to the Shin Bet director who, amazingly, suggested the analogy)

    The central point: the Israel crimes of occupation and repression are sufficiently terrible, and they can be described and condemned without the need of any analogy, let alone to Hitler and the Holocaust. Or, if analogies are irresistible, compare them to something like the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the crushing of the anticommunist resistance movements, the Hungarian and Czech uprisings, and the like.

    • Djinn says:

      I agree that Nazi comparisons are counterproductive, it seems to instantly raise hackles and cease debate but the following is simply not true;

      “First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known. I don’t say this because its victims were mostly Jewish, like me; it would be just as absolutely and unimaginably evil if the victims of a carefully planned, systematic, and cold-blooded campaign of the literal extermination of millions of people had been any other group. (Needless to say, I trust)”

      The Turks did it to Armenians, genocide was planned in Rwanda. Unless you really think that the absolute numbers are the be all and end all then many many other instances of this exact crime have occurred in human history.

    • Avi_G. says:

      Professor Slater,

      Setting aside for a moment the issue of counterproductivity in making this comparison, what do you make of the Nazi comparison made by a former Shabak director in the film the Gatekeepers? More specifically, I am interested in understanding your perspective vis-a-vis the knowledge and understanding one acquires as the director of such an apparatus vs. the knowledge and understanding available to a respectable professor whose knowledge of the policies, operations, and insider tactics of said ‘security’ apparatus is naturally constrained by virtue of it relying on journalistic sources, which are often filtered through the eyes of the journalist on the ground, the editor in the newsroom and the newspaper’s considerations, whether political, legal or economic.

      Simply put, of the two parties involved in this debate, the Shabak director on one hand and a professor on the other hand, whose opinion is based on more complete and thorough information – A first hand account, vs. secondary and tertiary account? From an objective point of view, whose opinion holds more weight? That is to say, who is more qualified to make such a comparison?

      Moreover, is geographic distance from the daily conflict on the ground in the occupied West Bank a factor in and of itself?

      Finally, what role does language play in such cases? And should knowledge of the native languages of the region, for example, lend the party making that comparison more credibility or less credibility?

      I look forward to hearing your thoughtful response and appreciate your taking the time to do so.

      Thanks.

    • Dear Prof Slater,
      I must thank you again for your article the other week. It was a beautiful piece of black humour. It wasn’t ‘swiftian’ but without question, the late Mr Swift would have enjoyed it.

      I disagree only with your suggestion that the crimes of the Nazi’s was unique. The true h0rror of the 20th Century was the sheer numbers of awful mass crimes, each systematically organised and ruthless carried out, in everycase by people who thought that they were the good guys. I won’t repeat it; everybody here is familiar with the list.

      Putting these crimes on a pedestal as unique horrors makes it easier to deny that _we_ will ever do the same.

      • Jerry Slater says:

        southernobserver: “I disagree only with your suggestion that the crimes of the Nazi’s was unique. The true h0rror of the 20th Century was the sheer numbers of awful mass crimes, each systematically organised and ruthless carried out, in everycase by people who thought that they were the good guys. I won’t repeat it; everybody here is familiar with the list.”

        Thanks for your comment. Of course I don’t disagree with your general point about the awful massacres of the 20th century; I was making a more limited argument, which I will hold to: that the Holocaust was in a special category of evil, even as compared to the Armenian and Rwandan massacres, which are obviously the closest 20th century comparisons. I won’t go into detail, as the argument I’m making is widely known and hardly original.

        Along the same lines–and this comment is not in the least directed to southernobserver–it is also unconvincing and offputting to describe Israeli policies as “genocidal,” as some do. The Holocaust, the Turkish massacres of the Armenians, and the Rwandan massacres were genocidal, since they were intended to murder an entire class of people–that’s what the word “genocide” means.

        Is there a responsible argument that Israel intends to massacre all or most Palestinians? The truth about Israeli policies is bad enough, and is really quite sufficient. To repeat my argument: loose language and contempt for important distinctions (again, not in the least directed to southernobserver but to unnamed others) on such an explosive matter is more likely to set back rather than advance the cause of persuading the Israelis and their “pro-Israel” supporters in the US to end the occupation and repression of the Palestinians.

        And persuasion is our only weapon.

        • Hostage says:

          it is also unconvincing and offputting to describe Israeli policies as “genocidal,” as some do. The Holocaust, the Turkish massacres of the Armenians, and the Rwandan massacres were genocidal, since they were intended to murder an entire class of people–that’s what the word “genocide” means.

          It’s explicitly stated in the international convention on the crime of genocide that it’s only necessary to deliberately inflict conditions meant to destroy a portion of the targeted group, i.e. “in whole or in part”. It’s a mistaken view to think that genocide can only occur on the scale of the Holocaust, or the massacres in Rwanda or Cambodia.

          Israeli officials deliberately imposed conditions that resulted in deaths, children with stunted growth, and permanent developmental disabilities. In the final analysis it doesn’t matter whether they committed genocide or crimes against humanity, including persecution, as the Goldstone report suggested. Each of those offenses are punishable by life in prison and were first described in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. So comparisons are probably inevitable, even if the scope of the crimes are hardly commensurate.

        • American says:

          It’s explicitly stated in the international convention on the crime of genocide that it’s only necessary to deliberately inflict conditions meant to destroy a portion of the targeted group, i.e. “in whole or in part”. It’s a mistaken view to think that genocide can only occur on the scale of the Holocaust, or the massacres in Rwanda or Cambodia.”…Hostage

          Exactly. To use murder themes –whether you feed someone poison over a extended period of time to sicken and kill them –or just immediately shoot them to kill them—the intent and result is the same.

      • Jerry Slater says:

        southern observer: “I disagree only with your suggestion that the crimes of the Nazi’s was unique. The true h0rror of the 20th Century was the sheer numbers of awful mass crimes, each systematically organised and ruthless carried out, in everycase by people who thought that they were the good guys. I won’t repeat it; everybody here is familiar with the list.”

        Thanks for your comment. The argument that the Holocaust was unique–even as compared with the Turkish and Rwandan genocides–is well-known and hardly original, so I won’t go into detail here.

        A similar point: others (not southernobserver) here and elsewhere have used the word “genocide” to describe Israeli policies–not a good idea.The word “genocide” means a deliberate policy of exterminating an entire class of people. Is there a responsible argument that Israel has been trying to exterminate all the Palestinian people? The truth about Israeli policies is awful enough, and will suffice.

        Making necessary distinctions, especially on such emotionally explosive issues, is not a trivial matter. We are trying to persuade Israelis and their “pro-Israel” supporters in the US to end the occupation and repression of the Palestinians. Extremism and fighting words, especially when they are clearly inaccurate, sets back that cause. And persuasion is the only weapon we have.

        • gamal says:

          “A similar point: others (not southernobserver) here and elsewhere have used the word “genocide” to describe Israeli policies–not a good idea.” thanks for the pointer “The word “genocide” means a deliberate policy of exterminating an entire class of people.” really according to whom, not international legal institutions i fear, or the famed international community, Slater stuff like this just reveals your whole schtick for the tired semi-literate philosophically incoherent self serving nonsense that it is. Prior to reading you here i always got a frisson of admiration when ever i heard “Emeritus”, is there nothing you cant degrade.

          From where did you derive the authority to determine what constitutes the crime of Genocide, how about Apartheid, Hmm Israelis are no good at rugby, at the national level, so perhaps it cant be Apartheid either.

        • lysias says:

          The UN Genocide Convention defines “genocide” as follows:

          any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (a) Killing members of the group;
          (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

          (emphasis added).

        • eljay says:

          >> I was making a more limited argument, which I will hold to: that the Holocaust was in a special category of evil …

          “The Holocaust: The Bestest Genocide Ever!”™

          But not really: Top 10 Most Horrific Genocides In History

        • Donald says:

          One could always argue that an attempt at mass annihilation with characteristics A, B, and C is worse than one with characteristics D, E, and F. I’ve seen some of those arguments and usually don’t find them convincing. When someone sets out to exterminate a group of people then that’s the important moral line that’s been crossed–it’s almost dehumanizing to argue about which particular example is the worst, IMO at least. I suspect that one of the reasons Westerners of European descent often believe the Holocaust was worse is because both the victims and the perpetrators were people much like ourselves. It’s easier to envision ourselves in the position of either a German or a Jew in the mid-20th century, even if we don’t have any personal connections to either victims or perpetrators. I don’t know enough about Rwanda or say, Pol Pot’s Cambodia to imagine it to the same extent.

          However, these arguments about which terrible evil was the worst rarely have any practical consequence. An exception to that would be WWII, if someone had asked the question whether Hitler or Stalin was worse and which side we should be supporting as the lesser of two evils. Then you actually do have to choose. I think Hitler was, but then, according to Timothy Snyder link and contrary to widespread belief, Hitler was probably worse even on the purely quantitative scale. Plus his ambitions were greater.

          On the rest, though, I agree completely. It’s almost never a good idea to compare some current day atrocity to the Holocaust, and what Israel is doing isn’t genocide in the sense that most people use the term, an attempt at killing many or most members of an ethnic group. If one wishes to use a an emotional and damning term that is also accurate, then terms like “apartheid” or “ethnic cleansing” or “war crimes” are available.

        • Donald says:

          I just clicked over to the Nation and read the review of “The Gatekeepers”. Referring to one of the Israeli intelligence chiefs, the article says–

          “Even more astounding, he likens the Israeli occupation to that of the Nazis (making a careful exception for the Holocaust itself).”

          That’s an important distinction. I’m still not crazy about Nazi analogies , but if someone compares Israel to the Nazis while carefully excluding the Holocaust then it’s really just saying that the Israelis are acting like racist thugs.

        • @ Donald

          “That’s an important distinction. I’m still not crazy about Nazi analogies , but if someone compares Israel to the Nazis while carefully excluding the Holocaust then it’s really just saying that the Israelis are acting like racist thugs.”

          Donald, i think that any emotive connotations the term “Nazi” has are due to their perpetration of the Holocaust. Calling Zionists “Nazis” conveys the meaning that Zionists are as bad as the people who committed the Holocaust.

          If you want to convey the meaning that we are racist thugs, then i think it’s better to compare us with the white South Africans, or talk about apartheid.

        • Jerry Slater says:

          Donald writes: “I suspect that one of the reasons Westerners of European descent often believe the Holocaust was worse is because both the victims and the perpetrators were people much like ourselves.”

          Agreed, except I would emphasize that it was just one of the reasons. The others have to do with careful planning of a cold-blooded slaughter; the creation of a bureaucracy to carry it out, like any other routinized state function; the fact that the obsession with killing as many Jews as possible actually undercut Nazi Germany’s own war effort (assuming I understand the history correctly); and the sheer numbers of the murdered.

          Maybe the Cambodian genocide–which comes close to being self-genocide–had some or all of the same characteristics. But as Donald and I agree (I think), to dwell on the comparisons is to risk obscuring the much more important point–that comparing
          the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to ANY of the other 20th century genocides is wrong on the facts and counterproductive in terms of its consequences.

        • i think there is a strong possibility the holodomor had to do with careful planning and a bureaucracy to carry it out, killing as many as possible and the numbers and intent have been covered up. it was a slow excruciating death of starvation and a pretext many have excused. anyway, a horrific crime against humanity.

        • tree says:

          Agreed, except I would emphasize that it was just one of the reasons. The others have to do with careful planning of a cold-blooded slaughter; the creation of a bureaucracy to carry it out, like any other routinized state function; the fact that the obsession with killing as many Jews as possible actually undercut Nazi Germany’s own war effort (assuming I understand the history correctly); and the sheer numbers of the murdered.

          Actually all of those conditions applied to the Soviet Union’s Holodomor and the Great Terror, which happened around the same time frame (slightly before) the Holocaust. The killing and exiling of the dreaded “kulaks” only made the famine worse.

          The Communist party agreed to the use of force in the collectivization and dekulakization efforts. They intended to eliminate the kulaks as a class by the following: death sentence, labor settlements (not to be confused with labor camps, although the former were also managed by the GULAG); or deportation “out of regions of total collectivization of the agriculture”. Tens of thousands of kulaks were executed, property was expropriated to form collective farms, and many families were deported to unpopulated areas of Siberia and Soviet Central Asia.

          Often local officials were assigned minimum quotas of kulaks to identify, and were forced to use their discretionary powers to “find” kulaks wherever they could. This led to many cases in which a farmer who employed only his sons, or any family that had a metal roof on their house, was labelled as kulaks and deported. The same fate was the end of those labeled as podkulachniks (подкулачник), so-called “kulak helpers”.

          A new wave of persecution against “ex-kulaks” was started in 1937. It was part of the Great Purge, conducted by Nikolai Yezhov after the NKVD Order no. 00447. Those deemed ex-kulaks were either executed or sent to labor camps. With few rich or middle-class peasants left to arrest, to satisfy the conviction quotas demanded by Stalin and Yezhov the NKVD terrorized more of the peasantry to induce more denunciations. In the wave of round-ups that followed, the term ‘kulak’ lost its previous distinction and became a general accusation (like wrecking), which could be leveled at anyone whom the troikas wished to convict. During the Great Purge, hundreds of thousands of peasants were falsely accused of being ex-kulaks and sent to the Gulag or executed based on circumstantial evidence, forged evidence or none at all.

          ……………

          During 1929-1933, the grain quotas were placed artificially high. It became a cat and mouse game between the peasants and government officials, as peasants would attempt to hide grain and bury it. Every brigade had someone with a long iron bar to probe the ground for grain caches.[17] Peasants who did not show signs of hunger, (whose bodies were not swollen) were especially suspected of hiding food.[18]

          “When the snow melted true starvation began. People had swollen faces and legs and stomachs. They could not contain their urine…And now they ate anything at all. They caught mice, rats, sparrows, ants, earthworms. They ground up bones into flour, and did the same with leather and shoe soles…[19]”

          As Vasily Grossman explained, the activists who helped the GPU (the secret police) with arrests and deportations,

          were all people who know one another well, and knew their victims, but in carrying out this task they became dazed, stupefied. . . They would threaten people with guns, as if they were under a spell, calling small children ‘kulak bastards,’ screaming ‘bloodsuckers!’. . .They had sold themselves on the idea that that so-called ‘kulaks’ were pariahs, untouchables, vermin. They would not sit down at a ‘parasite’s’ table; the ‘kulak’ child was loathsome, the young ‘kulak’ girl was lower than a louse…[2]

          Party activists taking actions against the starving villagers found themselves confronting cognitive dissonance as they processed realities of the day through the prism of ideology. Lev Kopelev, who later became a Soviet dissident, explained the conditions:

          It was excruciating to see and hear all of this. And even worse to take part in it. . .And I persuaded myself, explained to myself. I mustn’t give in to debilitating pity. We were realizing historical necessity. We were performing our revolutionary duty. We were obtaining grain for the socialist fatherland. For the Five Year Plan…[2]

          ……………….
          The overwhelming majority of kulaks executed and imprisoned were male,[3] but precise numbers have been difficult to obtain. Stalin ordered for kulaks “to be liquidated as a class”[20] and this liquidation was considered by many historians to have resulted in the Soviet famine of 1946–47.[citation needed] This has complicated attempts to distinguish the executions of kulaks. A wide range of death tolls has been suggested, from as many as 6 million suggested by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn[21] to as few as 700,000 by Soviet news sources. A collection of estimates is maintained by Matthew White.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

        • sardelapasti says:

          Slater – “…careful planning of a cold-blooded slaughter; the creation of a bureaucracy to carry it out, like any other routinized state function; the fact that the obsession with killing as many Jews as possible actually undercut Nazi Germany’s own war effort (assuming I understand the history correctly); and the sheer numbers of the murdered.”

          All right. Well said.

          Now tell us what’s to keep the Zionist entity from building the same kind of bureaucracy, if you believe that it isn’t already in place, in case the Palestinians remain steadfast in resisting spoliation and evacuation. Also note that the last but one of your objections, i.e. overcoming the self-defeating character of the cleansing, does not actually apply in the case of the Zionist machine.

          We’ll stipulate that they haven’t done it yet, but that is not the point. The Nazis were not doing it before well into 1941, probably 42. Anyway, funny that you should consider the Zionists ineffective in their murdering.

        • American says:

          “Donald, i think that any emotive connotations the term “Nazi” has are due to their perpetration of the Holocaust.”

          I don’t think the holocaust is the single thing or only thing people associate with Nazism….’Nazi’ evokes the idea of racial supremacy and racism. These white Ayran groups we have today are still called ‘nazis’ becuase they advocate the same things the nazis did and now the zionist do—-about inferiors, undesirables, separation, national ‘purity’ —if those groups weren’t curtailed as they are they would be doing the same thing as Israelis. Imagine the white Ayran Brotherhood having the power in the US the way zionist do in Israel…it would be the same.

        • lysias says:

          The Holocaust also involved subjecting a good many people to a slow excruciating death. I would guess that something like a million Jews died of hunger and/or disease in the horrific conditions the Nazis created in the ghettos of Eastern Europe. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if that figure rose to as much as two million.)

        • i never even heard about the holodomor until a few years ago. it’s very strange how it was almost disappeared from western sources (never heard about it in school). when i first heard of it i went online and there were several ukranian sites with english translations but, as i recall nothing on wiki. a year or so later, after the urkranian parliament acknowledged it as genocide (i think) there were so many links, most casting doubt and minimizing the effects. very different than just the year before. the history/narrative on this has been unclear and messed with for a purpose i assume. and being so close to the holocaust in time and geography, probably connected in some ways.

        • Donald says:

          “Hitler or Stalin was worse and which side we should be supporting as the lesser of two evils. Then you actually do have to choose. I think Hitler was..”

          I just realized the way I wrote it it’s not clear what I meant–was Hitler worse or was he the lesser of two evils? I meant that Hitler was worse than Stalin and so one would have been right to side with one of the worst people in the twentieth century (Stalin) against someone who was worse (Hitler).

          I mostly agree with Jerry here, except on the point of whether it makes much sense to argue that this or that massive atrocity was the worst in history. Generally it doesn’t make any difference. WWII was one time when one might have had to wrestle with it.

        • yes of course lysias, on review my phraseology implied otherwise. i will fix.

        • Avi_G. says:

          I don’t think the holocaust is the single thing or only thing people associate with Nazism….’Nazi’ evokes the idea of racial supremacy and racism. These white Ayran groups we have today are still called ‘nazis’ becuase they advocate the same things the nazis did and now the zionist do—-about inferiors, undesirables, separation, national ‘purity’ —if those groups weren’t curtailed as they are they would be doing the same thing as Israelis. Imagine the white Ayran Brotherhood having the power in the US the way zionist do in Israel…it would be the same.

          Excellent point, American.

          The focus on the holocaust is proof that concern with Nazism is meant to be promulgated as a Jewish-only issue. Whenever one hears “Nazi” one must immediately associate that with “poor, persecuted Jews”.

          Why is it, for example, that in American national discourse, it is rarely mentioned that roughly an equal number of non-Jews was exterminated by Nazi Germany during the same [H]olocaust?

          Again, this goes back to the issue of Jewish-centric narratives. But bringing this up usually draws howls of “antisemitism”.

          So where do we go from here?

        • @ American

          “I don’t think the holocaust is the single thing or only thing people associate with Nazism….’

          I would think that the Holocaust is the most salient connotation of the term “Nazi”.

          Nazi’ evokes the idea of racial supremacy and racism.”

          Maybe. But i am still inclined to think (and this is an empirical claim that can be tested with psychological experiments) that the first word that comes to mind when we hear “Nazi” is “Holocaust.

          “These white Ayran groups we have today are still called ‘nazis’ becuase they advocate the same things the nazis did and now the zionist do—-about inferiors, undesirables, separation, national ‘purity’ —if those groups weren’t curtailed as they are they would be doing the same thing as Israelis. Imagine the white Ayran Brotherhood having the power in the US the way zionist do in Israel…it would be the same.”

          I don’t think we do the same things that the Nazis did. We don’t view the Palestinians as racially or genetically inferior.

          We also do give them a chance to live if, for example they agree to some peace terms that we find agreeable. The Nazis gave no such chance to the WW2 Jews.

          Come and think of it, we also let the Palestinians live even now, that they haven’t agreed to our peace terms.

          Maybe we are very immoral people. But less so compared to Nazis.

        • @ lysias

          The UN Genocide Convention defines “genocide” as follows:

          any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (a) Killing members of the group;
          (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

          (emphasis added).

          Lysias, if our intention is to commit genocide against the Palestinians, then we have botched the job. To my knowledge, their population is increasing.

        • @ sardelapasti

          “Now tell us [Slater] what’s to keep the Zionist entity from building the same kind of bureaucracy, if you believe that it isn’t already in place, in case the Palestinians remain steadfast in resisting spoliation and evacuation.”

          There is nothing to keep us from establishing said bureaucracy.

          But why don’t you wait until it becomes clear that we intend to commit the crime before you call us Nazis?

          Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?

        • if our intention is to commit genocide against the Palestinians, then we have botched the job. To my knowledge, their population is increasing.

          ah, not really. for example let’s take intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

          as it pertains to the jordan valley. link to mondoweiss.net

          they are experiencing a negative population growth. there were a few hundred thousand people there in 67, now there’s 50 thousand. i’d say that’s intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

          maybe you have not heard about the diet israel put gaza on, or the lack of clean water.

        • Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?

          or, the palestinians just got up and left on their own accord you wouldn’t have to plan the destruction of their homes and society to get them to leave? wow, that’s an amazing thought. i wonder why that didn’t occur to anyone before. but back to reality, what if they don’t want to sell out or otherwise leave? which does appear to be the state of affairs now doesn’t it? so why consider a variable that doesn’t seem to be in play as opposed to the reality? but i will fully agree the jews into the full judaization of palestine would rather ethnically cleanse palestine without any blame at all, that would be preferable. what would even be more advantageous is to ethnically cleanse palestine AND appear to be the victim, or to be doing it in defense and not pay anything, any price at all financially, morally or otherwise. did you think of that? oppressors as victims. i bet that’s never crossed anyone’s mind before either. maybe you should run down to the nearest hasbara think tank with that brilliant idea (it’s almost as original as yours), tell them i sent you.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?”

          Why should anyone give a damn what you want? You and all your fellow parasitic zionist countrymen can to go jump in a lake and you’ll make the world a better place.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Annie – Thanks a million for the laugh at the brilliant idea and for the telepathic interpretation of my definitely unprintable Greek in infinitely more polite terms.

        • sardelapasti says:

          “We”, eh?
          No more E-X-O, aren’t “we”?

        • my pleasure sardela

        • @ Annie

          “or, the palestinians just got up and left on their own accord you wouldn’t have to plan the destruction of their homes and society to get them to leave? wow, that’s an amazing thought. i wonder why that didn’t occur to anyone before. “

          Annie, i overheard the discussion (with detailed proposals as to how much it might cost) in a right-wing Israeli blog, there were suggestions to bribe the Palestinians to leave. I didn’t just make it up.

          “but back to reality, what if they don’t want to sell out or otherwise leave? which does appear to be the state of affairs now doesn’t it? so why consider a variable that doesn’t seem to be in play as opposed to the reality?”

          I was only responding to sardelapasti that maybe our intentions are not to commit genocide, and that, until our intentions become clear, sardela might consider refraining from calling us Nazis. It is not plain that our intentions are to commit genocide.

          “but i will fully agree the jews into the full judaization of palestine would rather ethnically cleanse palestine without any blame at all, that would be preferable. what would even be more advantageous is to ethnically cleanse palestine AND appear to be the victim, or to be doing it in defense and not pay anything, any price at all financially, morally or otherwise. did you think of that? “

          I think the only moral solution is to pay them to leave. I don’t think Israelis and Palestinians can coexist. Too strong passions at work.

          “oppressors as victims”

          If there is something that i despise more than an oppressor, that is an oppressor that plays the victim. So, here we have agreed at least on a moral principle.

          “i bet that’s never crossed anyone’s mind before either. maybe you should run down to the nearest hasbara think tank with that brilliant idea (it’s almost as original as yours), tell them i sent you.”

          If i go to my hasbara think tank after the way you humiliated me, i will loose face, so i’d rather stay here for the time being – if i am not imposing.

          Besides, i like the way you humiliate me, the “tell them i sent you” did it.

        • @ Woody

          “Why should anyone give a damn what you want? You and all your fellow parasitic zionist countrymen can to go jump in a lake and you’ll make the world a better place.”

          I protest woody.

          The discussion was about whether we may be aptly compared to Nazis and as intending to genocide the Palestinians – does such a verb exist? And i just told sardela that it is not crystal clear that we intend to exterminate them.

          There are no zionists in my country, i think i am the only one. But plenty of lakes.

        • American says:

          dionissis mitropoulos says:

          Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?>>>>

          No. You haven’t paid them for anything you’ve stolen so far—-why would do so in the future.

        • @ Annie

          my pleasure sardela

          It was my pleasure, too (your reply, not sardela’s)

        • sardelapasti says:

          Lysias – “Holocaust also involved subjecting a good many people to a slow excruciating death. I would guess that something like a million Jews died of hunger and/or disease in the horrific conditions”

          What about the millions of others, from Greece to Albania to Serbia to the Soviet Union to… whose starved corpses at times literally littered the streets under Nazi occupation, who died before managing to become Jewish so they would be remembered? I know how you mean it and I hope you won’t take this as a criticism; I am just asking myself if Zionist propaganda was really so effective that the worst chapter of our collective history has become an “it’s all about ME!” comedy.

        • Bumblebye says:

          dionissis mitropoulos

          “Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?”

          “we”?
          Weren’t you claiming to be Greek and not Jewish a short while ago?
          You shoulda told us you were nearly thru the conversion process and about to make alleyoops! So now you’ve got a real incentive to protect your stolen property in some Palestinian West Bank settlement, eh?

        • i overheard the discussion …..there were suggestions to bribe the Palestinians to leave. I didn’t just make it up.

          no, i am sure you didn’t. we’ve been hearing it for years.

          just out of curiosity, if i told you I think the only moral solution is to pay jews to leave palestine (including jerusaelm and israel) and i had overheard the discussion (with detailed proposals as to how much it might cost) in a left-wing palestinian blog….what would your reaction be? btw, how much do you think jews would accept to leave jerusalem? just out of curiosity, to make it a fair and moral solution?

        • @ Annie

          no, i am sure you didn’t [make it up]. we’ve been hearing it for years [the paying-Palestinians-to-relocate thing].

          just out of curiosity, if i told you I think the only moral solution is to pay jews to leave palestine (including jerusaelm and israel) and i had overheard the discussion (with detailed proposals as to how much it might cost) in a left-wing palestinian blog….what would your reaction be?

          My reaction? Something along the lines that the Palestinians are broke and they can’t pay anyway – hoping that by my stressing the financial gap i would invite some more smart humiliation by you – or even non-smart.

          I wouldn’t mind in principle if the Israelis were to relocate. Being an atheist and completely out of touch with Judaism, i have no special feelings for Jerusalem, or whatever land is considered holy.

          But then i would be reminded that the Israelis are there in the first place because they had to live somewhere where they could feel secure from anti-Semitism. The Palestinians will have no worries that they might be persecuted if they move elsewhere, whereas the Israelis will be full of such fears. That is why i would exclude the possibility of the Israelis moving out of Israel – it’s impossible to persuade them because they would be afraid to leave.
          I think fear is the emotion we should be attending to and respecting the most in other beings.

          “btw, how much do you think jews would accept to leave jerusalem? just out of curiosity, to make it a fair and moral solution?:”

          If i understand your point, you want to stress the religious motivation in a hypothetical Israeli intransigence to relocate. What i would be stressing is that, even in the absence of such religious motivation, the Israelis would have every reason to want to stay in Israel or any other state of their own – if they don’t have a state, they are back to square one of being fearful of being exposed to anti-Semitism.

          And would America consider to accept them all? I seriously doubt it.

        • ritzl says:

          @dionissis mitropoulos

          “I was only responding to sardelapasti that maybe our intentions are not to commit genocide, and that, until our intentions become clear, sardela might consider refraining from calling us Nazis. It is not plain that our intentions are to commit genocide.”

          “You” ARE, by definition, committing genocide. Where’s the maybe??

          Once again, Genocide defined. Please pay attention to the “in whole or in part” bits.:

          link to preventgenocide.org

          Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Israel/”You” are a signatory to this.)

          The Contracting Parties,

          Having considered the declaration made by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its resolution 96 (I) dated 11 December 1946 that genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world,

          Recognizing that at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity, and

          Being convinced that, in order to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge, international co-operation is required,

          Hereby agree as hereinafter provided:

          Article I: The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

          Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

          (a) Killing members of the group;
          (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

          Article III: The following acts shall be punishable:

          (a) Genocide;
          (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
          (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
          (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
          (e) Complicity in genocide.

          Article IV: Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

          Article V: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

          (b) and (c) of teh above definition certainly apply to “you”/Israel.

          While you may feel immune to international law, you certainly have to acknowledge and accept the words as they apply to “you.” Deep down, c’mon, admit it. You’re living by the proverbial sword…

        • dionissis, Something along the lines that the Palestinians are broke and they can’t pay anyway

          let’s assume money isn’t the issue and many rich people and governments the world over would gladly chip in to get the over with. i’m more curious what dollar amount you place on the value of jerusalem in as a fair and moral solution, after all this was your brilliant idea to insert this into the dialogue. so name a fair and moral price you think jews would accept (to leave).

          thanks

        • @ Annie

          “let’s assume money isn’t the issue and many rich people and governments the world over would gladly chip in to get the over with. i’m more curious what dollar amount you place on the value of jerusalem in as a fair and moral solution, after all this was your brilliant idea to insert this into the dialogue. so name a fair and moral price you think jews would accept (to leave). thanks”

          Annie, i cannot put a price on Jerusalem because the Israelis will never accept any financial offer to leave Israel. They have got used to living without having to worry about the next-door potential anti-Semite, there is no way they will abandon this sense of being able to be themselves (as they would have to do if they moved out of Israel and were dispersed throughout the world). By now, they must be afraid to face social hostility in the country of their hypothetical relocation – they must be accustomed to living free from this fear. I sympathize with their fear. It’s the world’s fault if they are wary, not the Jews’ fault.

          “…after all this was your brilliant idea to insert this into the dialogue”

          No, no! My idea was to insert into the dialogue the possibility that we, zionists, do not wish to exterminate the Palestinians, as sardela was saying. And it seemed a good argument to say that other options exist and are considered, such as the voluntary relocation of Palestinians through financial incentives.

        • @ bumblebye

          ““we”?
          Weren’t you claiming to be Greek and not Jewish a short while ago?
          You shoulda told us you were nearly thru the conversion process and about to make alleyoops! So now you’ve got a real incentive to protect your stolen property in some Palestinian West Bank settlement, eh?”

          Ask sardela, we are pals, (s)he will vouch for me.

        • i cannot put a price on Jerusalem because the Israelis will never accept any financial offer to leave Israel.

          right, and palestinians are as likely to voluntary relocate through financial incentives as jews are. it was tour idea (very unbrilliant imho) to insert ‘financial offer’ into the dialogue tho it’s been done time and again here. and when posters ask that i always just have them put a fair price on jerusaelm, by jewish standards. not a one of them has ever considered jews would give up something so dear to them, so why is it you would think palestinians are less attached. unlike the vast majority of jews over the last few centuries, they’ve lived their and it’s their city. they will never give up. so we get it, you jews don’t want to exterminate anyone to get their way. so why don’t you tell us what alternatives are left, because there will be no voluntary relocation on the part of palestinians.

        • @ Annie

          “right, and palestinians are as likely to voluntarily relocate through financial incentives as jews are.”

          I believe that the Palestinians might accept money after all, because they are poor. If they are offered, i don’t know, 50 years’ worth of income, then lots of them might decide to take the offer.

          “it was your idea (very unbrilliant imho) to insert ‘financial offer’ into the dialogue tho it’s been done time and again here.”

          Annie, it was not premeditated, i did not intend to “insert” things when i showed up in this thread. The incentives occurred to me in the course of the discussion when sardela talked about genocide. All i was interested in initially were the Nazi analogies. If there is anything i can do to prove that i am not coming here with an explicit subversive agenda, i will be glad to do it.

          “and when posters ask that i always just have them put a fair price on jerusaelm, by jewish standards. not a one of them has ever considered jews would give up something so dear to them,”

          My point was that Israelis are not going to leave Israel (not just Jerusalem) and relocate throughout the world because they will be afraid that they will encounter anti-Semitism wherever they go. It is this fear that makes me consider them justified in not wanting to relocate: they simply have nowhere else to go and feel safe.

          If the posters you refer to are having in mind theological justifications and God’s will, point me to them and i will help them understand that Her will (assuming She exists, just for the sake of argument) is that the suffering on both sides of the conflict be terminated, and has nothing to do with real estate divine rights.

          I could think no less than that of a sky mommy – pity though She’s just a myth.

          “so why is it you would think palestinians are less attached. unlike the vast majority of jews over the last few centuries, they’ve lived their and it’s their city. they will never give up.”

          Annie, the Israelis cannot leave Israel because they have nowhere safe to go, so i justify them if they don’t want to relocate because at the end of the day (and religious superstitions aside) it is their justified fear speaking. In the case of the Palestinians though, i think that any intransigence on relocating will be just their anger speaking. If they have the chance to relocate, after a hypothetical financial offer that guarantees them a greatly improved standard of living, and yet they refuse, then i cannot consider them justified.

          The Israeli future-oriented fear makes sense in deciding future actions. If they are going to face anti-Semitism at their destination, then they are rational in not wanting to relocate.What sense does the Palestinian anger about past injustices make in their decision to relocate? Is it rational for them to want to stay poor and submerged in daily anger just so as to have a chance to stick it to the Israelis?

          “so we get it, you jews don’t want to exterminate anyone to get their way. so why don’t you tell us what alternatives are left, because their will be no voluntary relocation on the part of palestinians.”

          I can’t think of any other alternative than paying the Palestinians to leave. I believe that the two peoples cannot live side by side peacefully, and i consider paying them the only moral solution, the only solution that minimizes the suffering.

          “so we get it, you jews don’t want to…”

          Not only am i flattered if i pass for a Jew, i am also going to take your post to my boss and ask her for a raise on account of my having infiltrated m/w so successfully. All right, i am just teasing.

          PS. i can stop the discussion about incentives now and not reply to your next reply, if you think i am doing it for any improper reason.

        • RoHa says:

          “They have got used to living without having to worry about the next-door potential anti-Semite,”

          Whereas Australian and American Jews can hardly sleep at night for that worry. Poor things.

          “By now, they must be afraid to face social hostility in the country of their hypothetical relocation”

          And yet many Israelis manage to overcome that fear and live in other countries.

        • that’s an unoriginal narrative you got goin on there dion, jews need to stay because of fears and palestinians want to stay because of anger and u can justify one and not the other. wow/not.

          moving right along. nobodies buying that story. the reality is people are not that different. they want to stay cuz they love the place (home etc), hence no amount of money will suffice to buy them off, common sense ( radical, but most of us have it, too bad you don’t).

          My point was that Israelis are not going to leave Israel

          and my point is… (drumroll please) palestinians are not going to leave palestine.

          it’s irrelevant that you believe Palestinians might accept money after all, because they won’t. your thought has as much power as me telling you i believe jews might accept money after all , because they won’t.

          you need to wake up to reality.

        • RoHa says:

          “the Israelis cannot leave Israel because they have nowhere safe to go,… it is their justified fear speaking. ”

          That fear is unjustified.

          Australian, British, Canadian, and US Jews are safe.

          If Israeli Jews were to migrate to those countries and integrate with the wider community in the way that Australian, British, etc., Jews have done, they too would be safe.

        • RoHa says:

          “Donald, i think that any emotive connotations the term “Nazi” has are due to their perpetration of the Holocaust.”

          The Nazis occupied, looted, and oppressed most of Europe. They started a war that destroyed cities, bankrupted Empires, and slaughtered and starved millions. But no negative connotations from that, eh?

        • Hostage says:

          I believe that the Palestinians might accept money after all, because they are poor.

          Don’t kid yourself. Most of the Jews who moved to Mandate Palestine or the occupied West Bank and Gaza did so for the very same reasons.

        • @ RoHa

          “Whereas Australian and American Jews can hardly sleep at night for that worry. Poor things.”

          Roha, the Israelis don’t have to feel scared to death for us to consider them as being afraid. And mild fears can be both an explanation and a justification for their not wanting to relocate.

          There are hints that things might not turn out that well for European Jews in the future (and the consideration that Muslim populations might become majorities at some time in the future in Europe makes it very natural for Israelis to be a little worried – to say the least – at the prospect of relocating permanently in Europe).

          Just not knowing how things might turn out in any destination country provides enough of a motive for Israelis to pass at the relocation prospect. Fear of the unknown. And all this in the context of a 2,000 year-resilient anti-Semitism (sometimes mild, sometimes aggressive), which makes it rational to wonder if its more virulent forms might take the upper hand at sometime – if the Eurozone collapses we will have before us a real test of the potential of hardcore anti-Semitism to resurface, people tend to let their true feelings come up when they are financially very frustrated (not to mention that they look for scapegoats, and i have in mind a very likely candidate for a scapegoat, even if he has trimmed the horns to make them invisible).

          “How do i know that the situation in America or Australia won’t worsen for Jews after 50 years? Why should my grandchildren be exposed to (possible) anti-Jewish prejudice, when all along i can stay in Israel and be certain that my descendants and the future generations of Israelis won’t have to put up with such problems”? That’s one of the thoughts i think Israelis think deep down.

          “And yet many Israelis manage to overcome that fear [to face social hostility] and live in other countries.”

          Because lots of them know they can always go back if things turn out wrong where they are. They won’t feel equally secure without Israel.

          Nice to chat with you again, Roha.

        • MHughes976 says:

          In a comment on the 21st I suggested that the logic of Zionism is indeed to respond to non-resisting Palestinians with sympathy and generosity. It’s not their fault that they were born where they have no right to be. They will one day have to leave but in the meanwhile all manner of temporary concessions and accommodations are of course available, as you would expect from the light to all the nations. A grand relocation scheme (the bill would be attached to the foot of a carrier pigeon who would fly away westward) would be best and would be followed by the most genuine and sincerely meant friendship and cooperation: how else is the opening up the the wider ME, for the benefit of all (see Judenstaat, that founding vision), to be achieved? The fact that all the land up to the Euphrates is according to Genesis a Jewish heritage would have to be faced in later centuries but ways would be found with patience and good will to all.
          It was revealed to a great Jewish thinker in better times that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Dionysis – “I believe that the Palestinians might accept money after all, because they are poor.”
          That’s where you unfailingly recognize the naff manager so typical of our days, even in Greece. O tempora o mores.
          Anyway, that possibility is nil. Also because you criminals would be trying to bribe these people with money stolen from them. But mostly because they are not money-obsessed. As opposed to Zionists, they still have a country. In fact, now that the Meisterrasse inhabitants of Palestine are starting to have a hard time, all one needs to get them to clear is to make their life a little harder
          and give them enough money to sweeten the deal, so that they just use their second or third passport. Almost all have or can have a second passport, and anyway Uncle Sam is ready to take them. No matter how revolting this sounds for Americans.
          So get ready to pay the Meisterrasse “citizens” of Ishghaal.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Mitropoulos – “Ask sardela, we are pals, (s)he will vouch for me”
          Pals, not really. Sure I’ll vouch that he sounds Greek, he may well be an atheist as he says, or Christian Orthodox or Catholic or Jewish; that’s indifferent. He may be committing the additional crime of alleyoops or just tapping the Middle East market like any savvy Greek businessman, with the Shitty Country as a client. His becoming a Zionist is very logical, what with the monetary crisis in Greece and the uncounted millions of my tax money that the Zionists are lavishing on propaganda hacks the world over. And his personal outlook, based on strictly monetary principles like the most respected capitalists’. One thing is sure: if that toilet paper of a paper that he says does effectively belong to his daddy, he badly needs support from the Propaganda-Abteilung for his commissioned articles and his writing here. I hope he gets paid well, because he writes with a little more brain activity than the Zioyahoos we have on this site for Zionist propaganda bots.

        • I don’t think we do the same things that the Nazis did. We don’t view the Palestinians as racially or genetically inferior.

          we? I’m native Greek and atheist. are you israeli? or are you speaking as a zionist? i’m confused.

        • @ Annie

          “we? I’m native Greek and atheist. are you israeli? or are you speaking as a zionist? i’m confused.”

          As a native Greek non-Jewish zio.

        • @ sardela

          “if that toilet paper of a paper that he says does effectively belong to his daddy, he badly needs support from the Propaganda-Abteilung for his commissioned articles and his writing here.”

          I only mentioned daddy’s paper during my first discussion here because Shingo especially and lots of other commenters were attributing my presence in m/w to the i-lobby. And i did so after lots of commenters’ speculations about my employer.

          If toilet-paper means insignificant, then it’s true, it has very low readership and i think that i had mentioned it in my first discussion in m/w.

          “Sure I’ll vouch that he sounds Greek, he may well be an atheist as he says, or Christian Orthodox or Catholic or Jewish; that’s indifferent.”

          I can prove my Greekness any time, my only trouble is that i cannot get a brain transplant to get rid of it completely – i have said that i hate Greek culture.

          I cannot possibly prove that i am an atheist, can i?

          “He may be committing the additional crime of alleyoops or just tapping the Middle East market like any savvy Greek businessman, with the Shitty Country as a client.”

          I don’t know if the Shitty Country does propaganda war with regards to m/w, but it sounds to me more like mild paranoia on your behalf – or maybe just self-flattering (which, sardela, you don’t need, the m/w crowd [you too] are too intellectual to need the psychological boost of having a boogieman as an enemy).

          “His becoming a Zionist is very logical, what with the monetary crisis in Greece and the uncounted millions of my tax money that the Zionists are lavishing on propaganda hacks the world over.”

          My becoming a zionist, as i more or less have explained here in m/w, stemmed from my psychological reaction to the faux sanctimoniousness with which my compatriots were blaming Israel.

          For me, it was not love of Israel in the first place, it was retaliation to a Greek attitude i have come to resent.

          As time went by, my researching Israel-related issues (so that i could pay back Greeks with reasoned arguments and truth) became a habit.

          That’s all. No conspiracies anywhere. Just the banality of my zio-evil.

          “And his personal outlook, based on strictly monetary principles like the most respected capitalists’.”

          My economic outlook was logically forced by my love of freedom and the accompanying desire to see the state not messing up with my life if i want to smoke a spliff, or if i want to marry my boyfriend, or if i want to have an abortion.

          I can’t very well ask the state to stay the hell away from me on the issues that matter a lot to me, and then ask it to interfere with taxation and businesses just because it suits me. So i am logically forced to be a libertarian (not liberal) in the economy too, not just in social issues. My motto is “keep the state as far as possible, it’s too controlling”.

          But i have explicitly explained this in my first visit to m/w (after Shingo prompted me by considering me a right-winger), and this was a discussion that you were present.

          “Pals [with dionissis], not really.”

          I said in public we are pals as a joke but, to be honest, i knew it would make you feel a little uncomfortable.

          But i couldn’t imagine it would make you feel the need to address me by surname so as to distance yourself from me as much as possible.

          To anyone concerned: sardela does not befriend me, i lied.

          “I hope he gets paid well, because he writes with a little more brain activity than the Zioyahoos we have on this site for Zionist propaganda bots.”

          If you keep on complimenting me (even with such restraint), you might end up feeling pally towards me, you know. Watch it.

          What’s included in the concept of a zioyahoo, please tell me, i will adopt the term for self-reference if only you explain.

        • talknic says:

          dionissis mitropoulos

          Hilarious stuff..

          ” i consider paying them the only moral solution, the only solution that minimizes the suffering”

          Illegally acquiring territory is moral? Illegal annexation is moral? Illegally settling is moral? LYING is moral?

          Israel , according to the UNSC, is in breach of International Law, the UN Charter and Conventions written in large part because of the suffering of Jewish folk under the Nazis. Is that moral?

          “Not only am i flattered if i pass for a Jew”

          You’ve come to the wrong place to spout your drivel

          “Lysias, if our intention is to commit genocide against the Palestinians, then we have botched the job. “

          You’ve also botched your pathetic, odious & transparent character..

          “But why don’t you wait until it becomes clear that we intend to commit the crime before you call us Nazis?”

          “Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?”

          “I don’t think we do the same things that the Nazis did. We don’t view the Palestinians as racially or genetically inferior”

          We also do give them a chance to live if, for example they agree to some peace terms that we find agreeable.”

          “Come and think of it, we also let the Palestinians live even now, that they haven’t agreed to our peace terms.”

          Toooo funny

        • so when you say ‘we’ you are speaking as a zionist? iow, you’re speaking for all zionists when you say We don’t view the Palestinians as racially or genetically inferior ?

          you’re aware, i presume, there is an abundance of evidence there are zionists whose words would explicitly refute that statement.

        • American says:

          dionissis mitropoulos says:
          February 24, 2013 at 10:14 am
          + Show content
          @ Annie

          “we? I’m native Greek and atheist. are you israeli? or are you speaking as a zionist? i’m confused.”

          As a native Greek non-Jewish zio.>>>>

          Hummm…..and what was it that attracted you to zionism exactly? How did you ‘become’ a zionist?
          Please explain.

        • @ Annie

          so when you say ‘we’ you are speaking as a zionist? iow, you’re speaking for all zionists when you say We don’t view the Palestinians as racially or genetically inferior ?

          you’re aware, i presume, there is an abundance of evidence there are zionists whose words would explicitly refute that statement.”

          The majority of zionists do not consider the Palestinians racially inferior. So i think i am justified to say that we, zionists, do not view them as racially inferior, even if it is the case (as you said) that some of us do. Personally, i don’t.

        • @ sardela

          “His becoming a Zionist is very logical, what with the monetary crisis in Greece and the uncounted millions of my tax money that the Zionists are lavishing on propaganda hacks the world over.”

          Sardela i see lots of people concerned with my country of origin, my religion, my hypothetical israel lobby connection, and i just thought that there is a way for me to assuage most of these concerns, with your help.

          If it so happens that you have friends in Greece, they can come and visit me either in public or at home (provided that my home address won’t be divulged in the internet, you will have to give me your word on that), so that after a face-to-face contact with me they might be able to release either you or others from paranoiac concerns.

          They can email me to ask me to meet them.

        • lysias says:

          But why don’t you wait until it becomes clear that we intend to commit the crime before you call us Nazis?

          Hasn’t it crossed your mind that we might actually want to buy them out, pay them to leave, instead of exterminating them?

          We? Us? I thought you claimed to be a Greek atheist.

          UPDATE: Sorry. I see you’ve already answered — or should I say attempted to answer — this question.

        • @ lysias

          “UPDATE: Sorry. I see you’ve already answered — or should I say attempted to answer — this question.”

          lysias, i live in Greece too. I am not an Israeli.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Dionysis – I don’t think anyone was concerned with your personal data but the contradiction between declared identity and your speaking in the name of the Zionist entity. It being a fact now that you are a mercenary propaganda agent for the shitty little state and *speak in its name*, from now on of course I’ll boycott you, both in Greece and on this website, hoping that the website members also implement the boycott by not answering posts by any Ishghaal citizens except known enemies of it.

        • @ sardela

          “Anyway, that possibility is nil. Also because you criminals would be trying to bribe these people with money stolen from them. But mostly because they are not money-obsessed. As opposed to Zionists, they still have a country.”

          That’s interesting.

          You seem to consider nationalism as something better than money-obsession.

          I think they are both obsessions (ergo, unhealthy), and that nationalism is worse.

          “That’s where you unfailingly recognize the naff manager so typical of our days, even in Greece. O tempora o mores.”

          Why am i naff if i consider that a poor person might place his family well being over his nationalism?

          And going a step further, from descriptive to normative, i believe that the poor person should place his family well-being over his nationalism.

          I guess that in my zio-universe the arrow of the mores’ tempora points in the opposite direction than in yours.

          Anyway, i love it when you go poignant.

          PS. you didn’t really expect me to go search for the Latin genitive of “mores” and “tempora”, did you?

          PS2. Can you guess why (contrary to my habit) i used the male pronoun for the family head of the poor families in question?

        • @ talcnic

          dion said:
          “Not only am i flattered if i pass for a Jew…”

          talcnic replied:
          “You’ve come to the wrong place to spout your drivel”

          In case you didn’t notice, my whole sentence addressed to Annie was the following:

          “Not only am i flattered if i pass for a Jew, i am also going to take your post to my boss and ask her for a raise on account of my having infiltrated m/w so successfully. All right, i am just teasing”.

          The operative sentence is the one at the end, “i am teasing”, as in “i am joking”.

          I reserve my “drivel” for individuals and for food, not for ethnic or religious identities.

        • @ sardela

          “As opposed to Zionists, they still have a country. In fact, now that the Meisterrasse inhabitants of Palestine are starting to have a hard time, all one needs to get them to clear is to make their life a little harder
          and give them enough money to sweeten the deal, so that they just use their second or third passport. Almost all have or can have a second passport, and anyway Uncle Sam is ready to take them. No matter how revolting this sounds for Americans.”

          The ones that will decide not to use their second passport and stay in Israel will be the diehards. And they are not exactly the type that minds economic sanctions. How are you going to persuade them to leave?

        • @ sardela

          “I don’t think anyone was concerned with your personal data but the contradiction between declared identity and your speaking in the name of the Zionist entity.”

          I have been asked specific questions about my religion and nationality and connection to the i-lobby. I offered to clear things up.

          “It being a fact now that you are a mercenary propaganda agent for the shitty little state and *speak in its name*”

          How can i be a mercenary since I DO NOT DO IT FOR MONEY? I asked you for your Greek friends to meet me because there was a serious chance i could show them that i have no need for that.

          Grant me the minimum of intelligence to realize that any pro-Israel advocacy effort is only worth it if it has a chance to change the outlook of those it is addressed to. And these are the people who are neutral, or not seriously partisan, or misinformed about the I/P conflict. You may find such people in the Guardian, or the Huffington Post, or the NYT, and elsewhere, but not in m/w.

          How stupid would i be if i thought that i could alter the anti-Israel attitude of the m/w readers and/or commenters, who are very committed to a negative view of Israel?

          I don’t come here for propaganda, i come here for the discussion and for some other reason that has nothing to do with diverting your discussions, or spreading misinformation, or wasting your time.

          “from now on of course I’ll boycott you, both in Greece and on this website, hoping that the website members also implement the boycott by not answering posts by any Ishghaal citizens except known enemies of it.”

          It’s to your benefit to respond (in writing or in your mind) to the content of an adversary post irrespective of who is the one that put it forth. It helps you intertwine your views. But by all means ignore me if you feel like it, nothing good can come from forcing ourselves too much to do things we despise – i am speaking from (painful) experience.

          “I’ll boycott you”

          Boycotts, huh?

          The hasbara manual says that at this point we must say something about self-hating, but it always sounded to me as a lame (and glaringly untrue) accusation.

          Also, i never go by the buk.

        • American says:

          dionissis mitropoulos says:
          February 22, 2013 at 4:28 pm
          + Show content
          @ American>>>>>>

          Bullshit, you are what you are.
          Hitler “let some Jews live also” …he ‘let’ 300,000 of the 500,000 Jews in Germany emigrate out of Germany…in the beginning.

        • lysias says:

          i have said that i hate Greek culture.

          When someone not only hates the likes of Homer and Plato, but openly proclaims that he hates them, that tells us a lot about the person.

        • @ American

          “Bullshit, you are what you are.
          Hitler “let some Jews live also” …he ‘let’ 300,000 of the 500,000 Jews in Germany emigrate out of Germany…in the beginning.”

          Yes, but when i said that the Nazis left no way-out to the Jews, and killed them just because they were Jews, i had in mind the Jews that died in the Holocaust, and who were given no chance to do something to avoid death.

    • John Douglas says:

      I take Prof. Slater’s first paragraph as the operative one. The rest is beside the point. Mondoweiss, to its great credit, creates a free market for ideas on I/P in a world that tries its best to shut down any such an exchange. Whether this or that analogy will win or lose friends is a rhetorical question. The point of the debate is not persuading (sophism), that’s Dersh’s thing, it’s about saying what’s what’s true and finding reasons to prove it.
      The point of an analogy is to clarify. When we knew more about the solar system than the atom we looked at the atom as if it were a small solar system. If that helped understanding fine, if it didn’t then drop the analogy. But it wouldn’t make much sense to say, “Well you can’t compare an atom to a solar system, one’s bigger than the other.” Nor would it make sense to say, “Don’t compare them or people won’t like you.”

      • @ John Douglas

        “The point of an analogy is to clarify. When we knew more about the solar system than the atom we looked at the atom as if it were a small solar system. If that helped understanding fine, if it didn’t then drop the analogy. But it wouldn’t make much sense to say, “Well you can’t compare an atom to a solar system, one’s bigger than the other.” Nor would it make sense to say, “Don’t compare them or people won’t like you.””

        I think that’s a great point.

        If i were to add something to the first sentence (“The point of an analogy is to clarify”) i would have added that the analogy must not miss some important dimensions of the thing that is used as the basis for the analogy.

        In the case of the Holocaust, there are two dimensions that strike me as very important:

        1) the gratuitousness of it: exterminating people for no rational reason, just because they happened to be Jews, is not just immoral, it’s crazy. There are rational reasons (albeit immoral) to kill someone, e.g. in order to inherit her, or in order to marry her husband. The murder would strike us as immoral of course, but not as something crazy. I think that this gratuitousness of the Holocaust(coupled, of course, with the number of the victims) plays a big role in our seeing it as the epitome of evil.

        2) The victims did not have any way-out: Jews could do nothing to avoid their fate. They didn’t have the choice to save themselves by converting, or by paying the Nazis, or by begging, or by agreeing to become slaves. They just had to wait for their death. This dimension too, this total lack of control over one’s own fate, contributes to our perception of the Holocaust as uniquely atrocious.

        PS. Yes, i am a Zionist (non-Jewish, atheist, and i don’t really mind what the borders of Israel will be, so long as they are defensible).

      • sardelapasti says:

        John Douglas – ‘Nor would it make sense to say, “Don’t compare them or people won’t like you.” ‘

        Ah, but it does make a lot of sense, if sense is to be measured in dollars and cents. Why do you think the Zionists act as if they had patented the “Holocaust” word, jump on anyone who commits lèse-choah by saying that others have been victims of genocide, and come all the way to MW to trumpet that it was unique, irreproducible, without comparison, etc?

        Now look at the three-ring circus that has been going on the last 40 years or so, with “Holocaust Museums” all over the place (including on the buried bones of unsung Native American tribes and Roms), collections from many governments, blackmail of Swiss banks for money that goes to a state that did not exist during the events instead of going to the survivors, etc. etc… Of course protecting the unique, unrepeatable, unequalled, etc. character of Holocaust(TM) is a central task for any Zionist. To the point of openly supporting the Turkish military dictatorship PR machine against the surviving Armenians every year –until the Mavi Marmara murders and the fall of the generals.

        The good thing in all of that is the following: the fact that we all here initially read Slater’s stuff with serious attention says a lot about the high credit that MW has acquired.

    • Ecru says:

      Great my first comment and I’m going to disagree with someone. Apologies in advance.

      However, I have to say that the Holocaust is far from unique in the annals of history, and buying into the idea that it was seems to me to be also buying into the Zionist idea that a crime only really counts when either the victim’s Jewish or when it impacts on the Zionist project. For cold blooded and organised mass murder the Holocaust (and in my use of the term I include non-Jewish victims such as the Roma) has plenty of parallels from ancient times to modern. Just check out what happened in Dacia, the Belgian Congo or German South-West Africa. The fact is that throughout history genocide has been carried out based upon the technological and logistical capabilities of the killers, the Nazi’s were merely the first to use Industrial Age levels of both in the Death Camps. They were also the first in some time to be acting within their own geographical local, which seriously simplified the process.

      I also disagree that the Nazi analogy is invalid. Yes Israel doesn’t have Death Camps, but then neither did Hitler until 1942, does this mean that before then he was not a Nazi? Of course not, Nazism existed before the Final Solution was even codified, Nazism was more than a simply genocidal ideology. Unhappily Nazism has many parallels with Zionism, which is natural, they are both products of 19th Century European ethno-nationalistic philosophy grounded in ideas of “purity” and “supremacy.” As such I believe that the comparison is valid. Remember that comparable does not mean identical.

      But I will say that the comparison should be made carefully lest the mere use of the word “Nazi” turn a conversation/debate into a slagging match.

    • aiman says:

      “First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known.”

      There is a relation between all sufferings. To not believe so would justify absence of empathy. Evil is imaginable. Let’s not smother reality with mysticism.

    • seafoid says:

      “First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known”

      Republican/capitalist climate change denial will put the Nazis in the shade over the long run. Wait until the climate goes tits up. And there’ll be no Keynesian switch to make every thing better again.

    • Bumblebye says:

      The fact remains that the nazi analogy was made by an elderly man who had experienced that era in his early youth. According to the director, this had been discussed on camera, but ended up on the cutting room floor. However, he does intend to use the many hours of footage to expand the film into a series. Unfortunately I am not able to find where I read the article in which this was stated. Could it be considered disrespectful to him to dismiss his own analogy when he is speaking from personal experience of living under both systems?

      • American says:

        Here is another very qualified to make the comparsion..and does.

        link to globalresearch.ca

        Straight Talk on Israel: Israeli Wall is “Hitler’s Posthumous Triumph”

        Zygmunt Bauman is UK-based University of Leeds Emeritus Professor of Sociology. His work spans five decades. He’s now aged 87

        (excerpts)

        ‘’He has family in Israel. He once lived there. He was briefly a citizen. He taught at Tel Aviv University and the University of Haifa. Since then, he said, Israelis “expressed their approval of high-handedness over high-mindedness.”
        They “vot(ed) into power people who made sure that peaceful Israeli-Palestinian coexistence is not in the cards.”

        He last visited 20 years ago. He’ll return briefly. He accepted an invitation from the Ruppin Academic Center (RAC) and Israel Sociological Society (ISS).

        In 1971, he left Israel. He did so disillusioned and disappointed. He criticized Israel’s conquest of Arab territories.

        Before her death, his wife Janina called Israel a “nationalist country. We had just run away from nationalism,” she said. “We didn’t want to go from being victims of one nationalism to being perpetrators of another.”

        Bauman decries how Israel exploits the holocaust. It does so for political reasons. Jewish suffering isn’t unique. Calling it special belittles many other human tragedies. Some far exceed what Jews endured.

        Claiming Israel faces potential holocaust 2.0 leads to insularity and isolationism. It prevents reconciliation with Palestinians, other Arabs, and international community countries.

        Bauman compared Israel’s Separation Wall to how Nazi Germany ghettoized Warsaw. He did so in the context of separating one population from another.

        He called building the Wall “Hitler’s posthumous triumph.” It’s trying to accomplish what he failed to achieve – “to set Jews and the rest of the world at loggerheads and make their peaceful coexistence all but inconceivable or impossible.”

        Bauman today feels much like he did decades earlier. Israel goes out of its way to spurn peace. Protracted occupation morally denigrates the occupier.

        “Militarized political thought, debate and action” don’t work. Israel lost its moral bearings. It lost the capacity to deal with social problems.

        “It pains me, pains me tremendously, to watch the forgetting and abandoning of our collective mission and duty, imposed upon us by the tragic Jewish history: the duty to alert the world – lest it forget – to the evil endemic in all and any nationalist hatred, and to be in the forefront of the ongoing fight against its breeding.”

        “And of the ambition of the founders of Israel to serve as ‘a light unto the nations.’ ” It never was and isn’t now.

        Bauman spoke out earlier on the holocaust, Zionism, and Israeli belligerence. Its leaders prioritize conflict, not peace, he said. They manipulate holocaust memories to justify occupation harshness.

        They do unto others what they deplore having been done to them.

        Bauman is a holocaust survivor. He escaped Nazi-occupied Poland. He managed to get into Soviet Russia’s sector. He was forced out of Eastern Europe during Poland’s 1968 anti-Semitic purges.

        He calls today’s Israel a “belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-state.” Peace is a non-starter. Advancing it never existed and doesn’t now. “It did not die. It was killed.” It was done so from inception.

        Occupation harshness is “toxic” and “corrosive,” he says. It corrupts the “ethics and moral scruples of the occupiers.” Challenging fortress Israel is considered “criminal and treason.”

        War and readiness for it erode democratic freedoms. Israeli leaders fear peace. Without conflicts they “don’t know how to govern.” They exploit holocaust memories as “a get-out-jail card for their own depravity and absolution of their sins.”

        They do so for ones they’ve “already committed and (others) they are going to commit.”

        Bauman’s “radically opposite way of ‘commemorating’ the holocaust can be summarized as follows: It is forbidden to stay silent in the face of Israeli crimes and their persecution of Palestinians exactly because the fate of Jews in Europe had similar beginnings – discrimination, pogroms, ghettoes, concluding with the Shoah.”

        Holocaust survivors have a mission, he added. They’re obligated “to prevent another disgracing of civilization.”

        Israeli leaders threaten one. It’s ongoing in slow motion. “Hurting people debases and morally destroys those who are doing” it.

        It initiates a process anthropologist Gregory Bateson called “schizmogenesis.” It’s a “sequence of action and reaction where each consecutive behavior” exaggerates another. Doing so causes “ever more deepening schism.”

        Israel’s been shooting itself in the foot for decades. What can’t go on forever won’t. Bauman is one of many Jewish intellectuals speaking candidly on today’s Israel.

        He wants views he considers vital heard and understood. He was invited to Israel to express them. Advanced age didn’t silence him. In November, he’ll be 88.”

    • American says:

      “It’s supposed to shock readers into recognizing that something evil is occurring, but my guess is that most readers will be put off by it–at least, they should be–and it will have the opposite effect. Meaning that those who employ the analogy will be discredited and so the overall message they seek to deliver may be dismissed. “….Slater

      I disagree. I have used the nazi analogy…as in describing the zionist and nazi ‘mentality” about inferiors and supremacy as similar……..and in pointing out many things the Israelis do to Palestine’s that are the same as what the Nazis did to Jews. There was a lot more to Nazism than the final extermination plan for Jews—-a lot of different kinds of discrimination and persecution came before that.

      Yes, it has shocked people who aren’t informed about Israel….shocked them into asking me more details about it and into looking into it themselves. As far as I know it has never discredited me with anyone I’ve presented this to, quite the contrary, the feedback I get from people I discuss this with has been amazement at having been unaware of what was going in Israel and the US part in it.

      One reason I use the Nazi analogy is because people know what ‘the Nazis were ‘and because Israel ‘does use’ some of the same tactics Nazi did–and I don’t think the Zionist or Israel can be ‘reasoned’ with or ‘reformed’ any more than the Nazi cult could have been reformed with reason or pleas to humanity–Israel is 40 years into that abyss and getting worse, not better.

      So the Nazi analogy has both “shock value” in alerting people to the similarities in Israeli zionism, and the ‘mentality of it’–the threat it poses– is immediately understood by people.
      Yes—zionism is similar to nazism in it’s beliefs and many practices–and if shocking people into opposing it before it ends up in a ‘transfer’ or ‘final solution’ as nazism did then I am fine with using it.
      There are many ways to ‘genocide’ people, it doesn’t have to be ‘all at once’ or in concentration camps and according to the Rome Statute definitions Israel has already committed some of those acts.

      An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If I gave a damn about Israel like you do I’d be out there ringing 5 alarm fire bells and screeching my head off about the similarities in an effort to stop it before it goes any further, not downplaying it or worrying about the ‘sensitivities” of the analogy.

      • Avi_G. says:

        American says:
        February 22, 2013 at 10:50 am

        I disagree. I have used the nazi analogy…as in describing the zionist and nazi ‘mentality” about inferiors and supremacy as similar……..and in pointing out many things the Israelis do to Palestine’s that are the same as what the Nazis did to Jews. There was a lot more to Nazism than the final extermination plan for Jews—-a lot of different kinds of discrimination and persecution came before that.

        Again, that’s a very good point with which I wholeheartedly agree.

    • American says:

      “First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known. I don’t say this because its victims were mostly Jewish, like me; it would be just as absolutely and unimaginably evil if the victims of a carefully planned, systematic, and cold-blooded campaign of the literal extermination of millions of people had been any other group”…Slater

      The more I hear this the tireder of it I get —and I do think you say that because it was about your people. For that reason it is impossible for you to be objective, to consider what has happened to other people.
      Why was it the worst in history? Because it was systematic? Because they were killed just because they were Jews? Because they killed half or a third of the Jewish population?

      All those same things are true of the more recent Rwandan genocide. Do they not count because they were African and not Jews or White? To me this is” the worst” because every government was told before hand it was going to happen…and unlike Germany’s camps, something could have been done about this extermination.

      link to pbs.org

      ‘Out of a population of 7.3 million people–84% of whom were Hutu, 15% Tutsi and 1% Twa–the official figures published by the Rwandan government estimated the number of victims of the genocide to be 1,174,000 in 100 days (10,000 murdered every day, 400 every hour, 7 every minute). It is estimated that about 300,000 Tutsi survived the genocide.”

      There were 1,o95,000 million Tutsi and only 300,000 surviving means 73% of their total population was wiped out…more than your Jewish population %. And they were killed for just being Tutsi also.
      And this genocide was planned, killing them all off was the plan from the beginning, it wasn’t something built up to like with the nazis, it was kill them on sight, no prisoners, no camps, no slave labor, just comb thru the country and kill them. So why isn’t this as bad?……the method of killing, being hacked to death with machetes was worse in pain and suffering than a gas chamber or being shot, starving is a far less painful death than this.

      This is quit typical of the survivors, mostly teens and children who would hide under dead bodies, sometimes for days .

      VALENTINA IRIBAGIZA: [through interpreter] I saw the soldiers come in, and they started shooting and shooting. All we had to defend ourselves were rocks. And our local governor, Gacumbizi, came in and stood in front of us. Gacumbizi said that everyone should know what they were there for. He said that all those who were there should be killed, that no one should survive.

      Then they started killing, hacking with their machetes. They kept doing it, and I was hiding under dead people. They didn’t kill me. Because of the blood covering me, they thought they had killed me.

      VALENTINA IRIBAGIZA: [through interpreter] It was very late, around 2:00 AM, when the Interahamwe came back. One of them stepped on my head. He was shaking me with his foot to see if I was alive. He said, “This thing is dead,” and so they left. I lived among the dead for a long time. At night, the dogs would come to eat the bodies. Once a dog was eating someone next to me. I threw something at the dog and he ran away. I hid in a small room. That’s where I stayed and slept for 43 days.

      VALENTINA IRIBAGIZA, Tutsi Schoolgirl: [through interpreter] I felt a lot of pain, a lot of pain, because my fingers had been chopped off. And my head had been cut. I was very sad because my family was all dead. I was waiting to die myself. I didn’t think I was going to survive.’

      Nope, you don’t get the prize for the worst.

      • Hutu and Tutsi? both savages. no way can one compare a slaughter among savages the same way we regard the death and brutality of refined civilization. it was the execution of and by civilized man, often thru skilled technological refinement that supersedes all genocide before and after the holocaust…that’s what makes it ‘special’. if the victims are savages, slaughtered like pigs, we distance ourselves from their pain. white people, we feel more in our refinement. both mentally and physically. i suppose.

        • American says:

          @ annie

          “”it was the execution of and by civilized man, often thru skilled technological refinement that supersedes all genocide before and after the holocaust…that’s what makes it ‘special’. if the victims are savages, slaughtered like pigs, we distance ourselves from their pain. white people, we feel more in our refinement. both mentally and physically. i suppose.’

          Savages? Surely you jest. These people had homes, schools, churches, a government—lots of poverty yes, but the trappings of a society and civilization. They weren’t naked Zulus living in the bush a la 18th century.

          We ‘feel’ more in our ‘refinement’? Really? Really? …..we ‘refined’ techonology advanced people feel more pain?
          Huuum……somehow that aint my definition of civilized. …sounds like the zionist talking about Palestines.

          Had no idea you thought this way……

        • American says:

          @annie

          BTW…the UN asked the US, Canada several other countries to provide some troops to prevent this slaughter…..no one would do it.

          So much for your ‘civilized’ and advanced societies theory.

        • of course i was jesting. i was trying to frame the mental contortions one must go thru to minimize a peoples suffering.

        • American says:

          @ annie

          well thank gawd…for a minute I though you had been posessed

        • and for the record american, even if they were Zulus living in the bush a la 18th century

        • gamal says:

          right ok so Rwanda has been mentioned and that is a perfect example of the potency of the Genocide idea.

          For those who have not read the Politics of Genocide a review: link to monthlyreview.org

          the generally accepted narrative is actually highly questionable.

          but it has been decided in some circles that to even enter in to the vulgar activity of examining the evidence is mark of depravity.

          thus George Monbiot accuses, Chomsky, Media Lens, Diana Johnstone et al of Genocide denial, in fact this is one of the favourite charges leveled against Chomsky in the right wing press which is all of them in the uk, just look at the Guardians treatment of Chomsky lately.

          its odd isnt it that Slater uses his own or the common usage definition of genocide, presumably to increase its utility for his particular ideological purposes.

          genocide underlies the whole current international system, it is a common place, coke, shell, bp, etc are all at it, with the co-operation of local power elites this is the stuff Roy is continuously, nowadays, pointing out, as a result everywhere is war. But its not the Holocaust, granted, which digression profits us how?

          there seems to be a kind of Holocaust nostalgia, a yrning for a simpler time, when, like a Christ Nation, the Jews, a purified by suffering, innocence, brilliance and benevolence whiteness, were both chosen, not by God alone, but history itself as, the Jews, gave rise to the modern world, history seemed to have chosen them, and like the innocent Christ crucified only to rise again in 3 days (well years) and seize the temple, now what? a Christ/Rambo. this kind of thinking and self worship can only end badly.

          It puts me in mind of Gades and Hoyos dancing the adultery scene from Saura’s flamenco version Lorcas bodas de sangre, i am obsessed with Hoyos no less than with Lorca,

          Let the Bride awaken
          With loves green bough in flower…..

          there is something truly agonising about the liberal zionist dilemma, (or it could just be a way of sublimating all that angst and neurosis) i think in that last second of this clip Hoyos, with her extraordinary artistry, as the guitar plays the final harmonic, captures all the agony of self obsession and illicit desire, can Beinhart dance?

  5. pabelmont says:

    Not allowing the use of the “Nazi”/”Hitler” words is a technique for Zios and of course they also teach Jews (Zios especially) to hate and fear “Nazi”/”Hitler” and to wish to reserve them (as also “holocaust”) for the singlular events of 1940s — making nonsense of the “learn from it” and “never again” if by definition nothing else could ever be sufficiently like the singlular real thing to deserve the name.

    There are no words at all whose definitions are as narrow as Zios wish to make “holocaust” et al. The word “chair” doesn’t even denote something with 4 legs any more, and no harm done. “You get the idea” and “and so on” and “etc.” are all well understood, and it is in that way that people use “Nazi” these days to refer to things other than Hitler et al in the 1940s.

    Use of the “Nazi” word is not done to belittle the Jewish experience. It is done to convey meaning and feeling. The cebnsorship here, as elsewhere, is harmful.

    • talknic says:

      Lemme see now.

      When a country ignores International Law and Customary International Law, ignores the UN Charter and Conventions which were written in large part because of what the Nazis visited upon the world and especially Jewish folk.

      When it ignores numerous UNSC resolutions based on the Law, UN Charter and Conventions. When it illegally acquires territory by war and illegally annexes territory acquired by war and illegally institutes it’s own civil law in territories outside its borders.

      When it illegally prevents civilians from leaving a war zone and illegally uses collective punishment.

      It would seem the Nazi analogy is quite apt.

  6. RE: “Last week we ran Jerry Slater’s post saying that comparisons of Israel’s behavior to Nazi Germany’s conduct, in the documentary The Gatekeepers, are exaggerated. Jerry points out that Israel’s conduct in the occupation does not approach actual Nazi crimes.” ~ Weiss

    MY COMMENT: That’s one of the reasons I believe the more appropriate comparison is to the Italian fascism of Mussolini’s Italy rather than to Nazi Germany.

    • sardelapasti says:

      Dickerson – Certainly not. Even with its many negative aspects, Italian fascism lacked the racist exclusivist outlook, the Master Race concept and the naked glorification of aggression.

      I interpreted Slater’s paper as saying the Zionists are not as bad as the Nazis because they aren’t working the gas ovens –yet.
      If what he wrote was serious, he would one more irrelevant censor.

      • RE: “Even with its many negative aspects, Italian fascism lacked the racist exclusivist outlook, the Master Race concept and the naked glorification of aggression.” ~ sardelapasti

        MY REPLY: That’s a somewhat valid point.

        FROM BELOW: “Abba Ahimeir [founder of the Revisionist Maximalist faction of the Zionist Revisionist Movement - J.L.D.] was attracted to fascism for its staunch anti-communism and its focus on rebuilding the glory of the past . . . Achimeir’s [a leading Zionist of the Revisionist basic assumption was that liberal bourgeois European culture was degenerate, and deeply eroded from within by an excess of liberalism and individualism. Socialism and communism were portrayed as "overcivilized" ideologies. Fascism on the other hand, like Zionism, was a return to the roots of the national culture and the historical past. . ."

        SEE WIKIPEDIA [Revisionist Zionism]:

        [EXCERPTS] Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist faction within the Zionist movement. It is the founding ideology of the non-religious right in Israel, and was the chief ideological competitor to the dominant socialist Labor Zionism. Revisionism is the precursor of the Likud Party.[1] . . .
        . . . Up to 1933, a number of members from the national-messianist wing of Revisionism were
        inspired by the fascist movement of Benito Mussolini.
        Abba Ahimeir [founder of the Revisionist Maximalist faction of the Zionist Revisionist Movement - J.L.D.] was attracted to fascism for its staunch anti-communism and its focus on rebuilding the glory of the past, which national-messianists such as Uri Zvi Greenberg felt had much connection to their view of what the Revisionist movement should be.
        [citation needed]
        Abba Ahimeir’s ideology was based in Oswald Spengler’s monumental study on the decline of the West, but his Zionist orientation caused him to adapt its ultimate conclusions. Achimeir’s basic assumption was that liberal bourgeois European culture was degenerate, and deeply eroded from within by an excess of liberalism and individualism. Socialism and communism were portrayed as “overcivilized” ideologies. Fascism on the other hand, like Zionism, was a return to the roots of the national culture and the historical past. According to Achimeir, Italian Fascism was not anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, whereas communist ideology and praxis were intrinsically so.[citation needed]
        He also developed a favorable attitude toward fascist praxis and its psycho-politics, such as the principle of the all-powerful leader, the use of propaganda to generate a spirit of heroism and duty to the homeland, and the cultivation of youthful vitality (as manifested in the fascist youth movements). . .

        SOURCE – link to en.wikipedia.org

        • P.S. ALSO SEE: “Im Tirzu Steals Confidential Documents from Lawyer’s Office”, by Richard Silverstein, Tikun Olam, 1/19/13

          [EXCERPTS] In a deposition in a libel case brought by the far-right Israeli group, Im Tirzu, its director, Ronen Shoval, admitted that he hired private investigators who obtained confidential legal documents about the defendants and transferred the documents to two far right Israeli newspapers. Michael Sfard, the Israeli human rights attorney defending the suit noted that his law office had been burglarized and documents stolen related to the case. . .
          The libel suit was brought by the highly litigious Shoval against those Israeli activists who created a Facebook page, Im Tirzu–Fascist movement–So There! The group’s claim is that calling it fascist constitutes libel because it is false and damaging to its reputation. Apparently, the group doesn’t
          think much of democratic values like free speech unless the values are ones THEY are exercising.
          In a circumambulation through the miasma of Jewish ultra-nationalism, Sfard questioned Shoval for three hours. Among other pearls of wisdom emanating from him were these notions: western culture is decadent, materialist and egotistical, Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) is a metaphysical entity and an organic vision of nationality. . .
          . . . Shoval confessed that he didn’t believe in unfettered freedom of speech: the law should prevent human rights organization from publishing statements or materials that endangered the State.
          You can imagine how sweeping the definition would be. . .
          . . . Im Tirzu is poison and Israeli society has been infected with this poison by its far-right ultranationalist ideology. . .
          . . . Lest anyone argue that the Shovals of Israel are flukes or a minority–that simply isn’t so. He is a prince of contemporary Zionism.
          Like Naftali Bennett, who stands to win 15 Knesset seats in the upcoming election (running to the right of even Avigdor Lieberman’s Likud-Beitneu Party), Im Tirzu is Israel’s future (if not its present). . .

          ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to richardsilverstein.com

      • RE: “Even with its many negative aspects, Italian fascism lacked the . . . naked glorification of aggression.” ~ sardelapasti

        MY REPLY: It seems to me that Mussolini’s Blackshirts might have embodied a “naked glorification of aggression”.

        FROM TED RALL, 07/22/10:

        . . . Umberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Eternal Fascism” describes the cult of action for its own sake under fascist regimes and movements: “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.” . . .

        SOURCE – link to commondreams.org

        P.S. ALSO SEE THIS VIDEO – Mussolini in Color : The Blackshirts [VIDEO, 02:24] – link to youtube.com

        • sardelapasti says:

          Dickerson – I apologize for not being clear enough. Aggression in its Nuremberg meaning. The difference being the vague and insincere lip service to international decencies by the Mussolinians who for the first several years officially pretended to follow rules even when they were aggressing African peoples while the Nazis did not. Not a significant difference, I agree.

    • SimoHurtta says:

      Well would the “right” comparison point with Nazi Germany be the situation in the year 1940, before the mass killings begun. There were in Germany then prisons, concentration camps, first ghettos, some murders, state level propaganda, nationalistic violent movements, deportations, thefts of property etc. Something what we can see also in Israel/Palestine. We know how the whole “story” of Nazi Germany, because it is history. We do not know how the story of Zionist Israel will end, but all marks are that the highly likely result will be a unseen mass killing. So when Israel and Nazi Germany are now compared the comparison points “timing” in Germany is 1932 – 1940. Astonishing much is equal. Not the amount of killed – yet, but the violent racism, over-nationalistic attitude, concentration camps, ghettos, isolation of minorities etc are.

      Israel and Jews use constantly using Nazi Germany as one of the main reasons to “justify” the creation of their country – Israel. We have also all rights to try to find historic and present comparison points of what Israel is and has become. There is is no other country in the West where large masses march on streets shouting “Death to Arabs” with all support of the ruling regime. The only point we can compare Jerusalem Day marches are in the 30′s when the German youth shouted death to Jews. For example. Where have we seen Gaza’s in the not so distant history? The only possible comparison point is Warsaw Ghetto.

      Lieberman as a minister suggested bombing Aswan damn. What would that be – a Holocaust – or a Holocaust power two? Israel has weapons for transforming the whole Middle East to radioactive glass deserts. And a mentality solve
      problems with violence. The constant decades long chain of aggressions and attacks is a proof of that. Israel lives and earns money with these conflicts. Peace would force Israel to shrink to a 5-7 million small state what it is. And that they do not want…

      • RE: Well would the “right” comparison point with Nazi
        Germany be the situation in the year 1940, before the mass killings begun.
        ~ SimoHurtta

        MY REPLY: Yes, in theory it probably would be. The problem is that when you refer to “Nazi Germany” people inevitably think of the Holocaust.
        I myself have referred to some of the IDF night raids in the West Bank as “little Kristallnachts”.

  7. yourstruly says:

    there are these two opponents

    palestine versus israel

    each applying the label nazi to the other

    nazi germany committed genocide

    in gaza israel is committing slow motion genocide

    palestine has never committed genocide

    the nazi label fits which of the two opponents?

  8. Phil, is Mondoweiss about the war of ideas in the Middle East, or about what it means to be a Jew in America today? Do you see those as separate subjects? Because I’m having trouble seeing how this post, interesting as it may be, addresses the former.

  9. Hey, the Lobby (aipac) is out crowing that this Hagel fight was good for them and that it made them stronger, so now, the Lobby is more visible and risible, but they feel empowered being under the microscope, you would think a night flower would not be comfortable under the microscope.
    But what do they know, they are history’s actors and we can only follow them trying to catch a clue.

    oy vey what bul$h*t.

    Jonathan Tobin says this.
    “But those who will say the fight wasn’t worth it are wrong. Far from suffering a defeat, the last six weeks of close political combat on the issue have only strengthened the position of the pro-Israel community.”

    link to commentarymagazine.com

    • @ atime forpeace

      I think that Tobin is delusional and attempting to will his wishful thoughts into reality. If other I-firsters and donkey-fellators also believe as he does that this has incapacitated Hagel, then so much the better. It will give Hagel more room to effect change after he is confirmed.

      Mark my words – this is a significant turning point for America. The tipping point has been reached.

      • American says:

        “Mark my words – this is a significant turning point for America. The tipping point has been reached” …Cloak & Dagger

        Well I hope you are right but I just don’t see it yet……mainly because our US politicians are themselves totally into the zionist insanity.

        • mainly because our US politicians are themselves totally into the zionist insanity.

          it’s the public discourse american. we’ve gone over a hump. they know that and it’s why they are calling it a win. you have to grok the psychology.

  10. mmayer says:

    Does anyone remember the Adbuster photo essay that showed pictures of the Warsaw Ghetto on one side and then the Occupation on the other? It was pulled off of the shelves at all of the Shopper’s Drug Marg (Canada’s equivalent of Rexall – Pharmacy National Chain) in about two seconds after the Canadian Jewish Congress complained.

  11. Nevada Ned says:

    One more comment on the use (or misuse) of the comparison of Israel and the Nazi Holocaust.

    Consider the statement made (decades ago) by the late Israel Shahak, a professor of organic chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Shahak said that so much attention is paid to the final stages of the Holocaust that not enough attention is paid to the beginning stages. He added that, in Israel, we are “far far past the beginning”.

    The discussion in Israel of “the transfer option” is the open discussion of expelling all the Palestinians. And because the Palestinians won’t leave voluntarily, this would likely entail hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of casualties.
    In 1982, Israel (Begin and Sharon) massacred around 15,000-20,000 Palestinians and Lebanese, culminating with the Sabra-Chatila massacre. (A massacre for which nobody was ever charged, let alone convicted).

    Consider a 2004 book by Michel Warschawski, Towards an Open Tomb. Warschawski is the director of the Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem and a longtime activist. Here’s an excerpt from the review on Amazon:

    “Warschawski describes the atrocities of the occupation—from the sack of Ramallah to the massacre in Jenin, the razing of houses and refugee camps, shooting at ambulances and hospitals, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields—showing how each of these pushes back the boundaries of what was previously thinkable. He documents the resulting shifts in Israeli political thought, citing Ariel Sharon, army officers and even rabbis who begin by describing Palestinians as Nazis and end by relying on the German army’s tactics for subjugating the Warsaw ghetto. Toward an Open Tomb seeks to explain the forces within Israeli society and culture that are leading to this self-defeating result.”

    Philip Weiss and Jerome Slater, where do you think this is leading?

    • sardelapasti says:

      I don’t give a rat’s axe. As a kid I knew the Nazis and their immediate aftermath and I grew up with the European WWII as my immediate frame of reference. Of course I’ll compare anything and everything, in point of invasion, occupation, oppression, mass murder, war crimes, mass annihilation etc. to the Nazi occupation and to the Resistance. Only so do things make sense. Who’s gonna tell me not to?

      I also find extremely offensive Slater’s suggestion to let go of it and compare to conditions in the Soviets, without whom the Nazis would have won without any doubt.

    • lysias says:

      The Nazis constantly and vociferously condemned the atrocities of the Bolsheviks (except for the brief period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) just as they increasingly imitated those atrocities.

    • American says:

      “Shahak said that so much attention is paid to the final stages of the Holocaust that not enough attention is paid to the beginning stages. ”

      Absolutely true. And I stand by my prior statements that the world in fact ‘did not’ learn anything from Nazism or from the Nuremberg trials.
      Rwanda was a perfect example of that—–we were warned before hand—800,000 people killed in 8 months–and not a finger lifted to stop it.
      All we learned is it is o.k. to genocide some people– and o.k for some people to genocide others….all depends on who you are.

  12. Words are tools. One doesn’t use a sledgehammer to open up a nut, one uses a nutcracker. Sometimes in a play, a playwright might have a character use a sledgehammer to open up a nut, but not because it is useful in real life, but because he wants to make a point about the character or the world or the lack of a nutcracker.

    As kids when a person in authority would act dictatorial we kids would bring a finger under our nose to make a Hitler moustache and give a heil Hitler salute. The 10 year old within me can say, “Jawohl, herr kommandant,” upon command.

    Is it useful? Sometimes an analogy is useful, sometimes it isn’t.

    Hannah Arendt was a scholar and a thinker, if she made the analogy she did not do it frivolously or for effect, but because she felt some essence had to be uncovered or discussed or argued.

    Betty Friedan was using it to shock. You think you’re being a good wife, but really you’re being a good German. You think suburbia is the garden of eden, well it’s really a concentration camp. These were/are attempts to shatter complacency.

    Mark Rudd was a revolutionary trying to get his peers to view their situation as dire. To stir them from their complacency, but more to inspire them about the world about right and wrong.

    What was useful in 1968 can be trite in 2013.

    Words are sometimes used to improve understanding, to shatter complacency, to stir thought and action.

    If you wish to remove a needle from your foot you will use a tweezer and not a sledgehammer. If you wish to scare someone into finding a tweezer you might threaten him with a sledgehammer.

    There are very few historians writing for this blog site or in its comments sections. A historian like Arendt can make good use of an analogy of this sort. Phil Weiss can say, it made me feel like I was in the Warsaw Ghetto, but this is as a journalist, or an activist, but not as a serious historian.

    The Nazis were defeated by total bombardment. If the cure for the middle east is to be found in bombarding the Israelis into submission, then the analogy will lead us in the right direction and it is a proper tool. If some less drastic or dramatic means is to be the direction that will eventually lead away from the current tendencies, then a sledgehammer is not useful and it is better to find a tweezer or a nutcracker.

    • Well your long winded analogies are more like a blanket of obfuscation, if you want laboured comparisons with arbitrary objects, as you appear to. But reading through the strained attempt at high-minded pronouncements and dubious similies, the drift appears to be: patronise Phil and his blog, and end with a predictably unsubstantiated piece of hyperbole about ‘bombing Israel into submission’ (what, like the Israelis do to the Gazans?)
      C-, must try harder.

      • sardelapasti says:

        justicewillprevail – I cannot agree with your evaluation. As Y-zio correctly says: “If the cure for the middle east is to be found in bombarding the Israelis into submission, then the analogy will lead us in the right direction and it is a proper tool”. Just so. Any more optimistic prediction is too optimistic as of now, considering the record. So, yes, Zionists may at times also be smart.

    • sardelapasti says:

      friedman – Excellent observation!
      “The Nazis were defeated by total bombardment. If the cure for the middle east is to be found in bombarding the Israelis into submission, then the analogy will lead us in the right direction and it is a proper tool. If some less drastic or dramatic means is to be the direction that will eventually lead away from the current tendencies, then a sledgehammer is not useful and it is better to find a tweezer or a nutcracker.”

      The sum total of all instances in which the Zionist leaders have shown any readiness to compromise or agree to any legitimate demand except by raw force, over more than a hundred years and especially the last 65 years is, guess, zero. So the Zionist commentator can calculate the probable effectiveness of “tweezers” or “nutcrackers”.

    • eljay says:

      >> If some less drastic or dramatic means is to be the direction that will eventually lead away from the current tendencies, then a sledgehammer is not useful and it is better to find a tweezer or a nutcracker.

      If you want the rapist to stop raping you and to set you free, stop punching and slapping him and try playfully tickling him instead. He won’t necessarily stop raping you or set you free – after all, he’s dreamed about you for years; he feels at home in and around you; and he believes that you, like some gawd-given promise, belong to him – but he might lengthen your chain a bit and brighten up the cell with cheerful posters and, occasionally, some fresh flowers.

      I wonder how many more Palestinian tweezers and nutcrackers Zio-supremacist apologists will let the Zionist sledgehammer of supremacist “Jewish State” smite and crush before they’re willing to admit that “Jewish State” has (is) a problem. Is suspect the number is quite high.

  13. quercus says:

    ‘The Holocaust” was one aspect of an event that was itself an unimaginable horror, and that was World War II. The tens of millions of people, civilian and military, who died in a stupid, senseless, orgy of violence, borne out of one man’s sickness for power. Placing the Holocaust on some pedestal to be worshipped as a religion, degenerates into an amoral dismissal of the suffering of many, many, millions of other people.

  14. American Jews today who question this morally devoid full throttled acceptance of this doxology are no less than direct intellectual descendants of those rebbes of the old world who warned of the dangers of Idolat ry with Israel as the idol.

  15. American Jews today who question this morally devoid full throttled acceptance of this doxology are no less than direct intellectual descendants of those rebbes of the old world who warned of the dangers of Idolatry with Israel as the idol.

  16. gamal says:

    “borne out of one man’s sickness for power.” to believe that WW2 emerged out of Hitlers psycho-pathology is also one of the ideas put about by the victorious Allies, it doesnt stand up to much scrutiny, the causes of war were systemic, like now, rather than adventitious.

    Being unfamiliar with the discipline of “comparative atrocity” can anyone direct me to some work that can explain why we would be interested in what constituted “The Greatest Crime In History”, what does it mean to say that the Holocaust was the greatest atrocity ever, I mean Deir Yassin, pfft, Khafr Kassem, Qibya, one hardly knows what Palestinians are complaining about.
    There is also of course the little matter of those there Allies themselves who were no less sunk in infamy than the Nazi’s but the vast slaughters the Allied powers have and are committing some how they disappear as we contemplate the horrors of “The worst thing ever”. i am bit suspicious that people have a little more than a mere scientific interest in who done the worst thing.

    what would a discourse analysis of Holocaust evaluation reveal i wonder. Historical discourse analysis is a post-structuralist discipline which means they want to know why you are, in a spirit of free inquiry, trying quantify the awfulness of bad things.

    Lipstadt said something once about relativising the Holocaust, i know of nothing that is not relative to other stuff, but there you are once you place irrational knots in your thinking who knows where you will end up, so leaving aside all dispute, if one concedes that the Holocaust “was the worst crime leading to the greatest suffering in recorded History” what would that mean what are the implications, what do i need to do to in light of this established fact.

  17. American says:

    Tick tock….

    Israel Ends Multi-Decade Ban on Oil Drilling in Golan Heights
    February 21, 2013

    ‘In what is certain to be an enormously controversial decision, the Israeli government has issued a permit to the Genie Energy company to begin drilling for oil in the occupied Golan Heights, despite it still be internationally recognized as part of Syria.

    Genie Energy International’s President is retired Israeli General Effi Eitam, a former Likud Housing Minister and MP who has repeatedly called for Israel to “cleanse” the occupied territories of all Arabs, and predicting in a New Yorker interview that eventually “we will have to kill them all.”

    Before his successful political career Eitam was investigated for war crimes in the Gaza Strip, after men under his command testified he ordered them to “break the bones” of Palestinian civilians. He was reprimanded after one of the beaten men died.

    Genie is well politically connected beyond Eitam, with a special Strategic Advisory Board that includes former Vice President Dick Cheney, News Corporation Head Rupert Murdoch, and several other high profile figures.

    Israel “annexed” the Golan Heights in 1981, 14 years after the occupation began, but that is not recognized by any other nation. Israel had refused to grant any oil permits for 20 years, as negotiations were ongoing which were liable to return Golan to Syria as part of a peace deal.

    Genie’s experts say they believe a large amount of oil is available under the heights, and that it is in “relatively tight formations.” Energy Minister Uzi Landau allowed the first bids for Golan permits last year, and this gives Genie an “exclusive” license for nearly 400 square kilometers of Syrian territory.

    The decision to allow drilling seems certain to start an international incident since it will have major ramifications on any future peace settlement between Israel and Syria”

  18. piotr says:

    I am not fond of Nazi analogies too much either. They partly stem from the abysmal state of the popular knowledge of history. Zionists can be quite convincingly compared to Spartans, but how many know about the myth of “return of Heraclids”, the treatment of helotes that included periodic little wars with them to boost the martial spirit of the young people etc.

    A distinguishing mark of Israeli atrocities is not their severity but the methodical pedantry and extend in time. My personal favorite analogy is to a good citizen, pillar of his community, who keeps his daughter imprisoned in the basement of his house and regularly rapes her. And imagine that he also has many accomplishments: in arts, technology, science, you name it. And he regularly rapes his daughter. And he cheers gay parades and is a very liberal guy in other aspects.

    • Avi_G. says:

      piotr says:
      February 22, 2013 at 1:59 pm

      I am not fond of Nazi analogies too much either. They partly stem from the abysmal state of the popular knowledge of history. Zionists can be quite convincingly compared to Spartans, but how many know about the myth of “return of Heraclids”, the treatment of helotes that included periodic little wars with them to boost the martial spirit of the young people etc.

      It is a natural human reaction to tend to focus on recent history for we often see and understand the evolution of events stemming from that historical point of reference as it affects us today.

      The same occurs when the issue of religious beliefs influences the political discourse, suddenly one drags Jesus from 2000 years ago, because it’s relevant.

      Given these points, I tend to disagree that it’s a matter of “abysmal state of the popular knowledge of history”. Sure, it may apply to some, but I don’t feel comfortable applying it wholesale across the board.

      • piotr says:

        Well, this is an elite intellectual website where even the trolls exude erudition.

        However, when your write for the wider audience, the comparison have to appeal the the majority. Thus I think that it would nice to compare “return to Zion” with “the return of Heraclids” (a.k.a. “Dorian invasion”), the story of conquerors subjugating the natives in the name of historical and divine justice — the ancestors of Spartan kings regained the patrimony promised to Heracles by Zeus himself.

        So here we can make a pretty good comparison but totally devoid of emotion. So I worked out another comparison, of a good citizen of his town who keeps his daughter in his cellar and rapes her there. But there is no humanitarian crisis: she eat a balanced diet, has the access to adequate sanitation etc.

  19. Jerry Slater says:

    A general comment, in response to a number of participants in this discussion. On further thought, it was not necessary to my argument that I rank-order the various undoubted genocides in the 20th century, with the Holocaust at the top. That was entirely irrelevant to my main argument and served only to obscure it: which is that the Israeli crimes are not comparable to the Holocaust or to other true genocides, that it was factually wrong to make such a comparison–even when made by a Shin Bet Director who is now apparently “clarifying” it–and that it caused people who otherwise might be amenable to persuasion to tune out.

    • Avi_G. says:

      which is that the Israeli crimes are not comparable to the Holocaust or to other true genocides, that it was factually wrong to make such a comparison–even when made by a Shin Bet Director who is now apparently “clarifying” it–and that it caused people who otherwise might be amenable to persuasion to tune out.

      Here is the relevant paragraph from the article at The Nation:

      (Emphasis mine)

      Near the end of the film, though, Shalom registers one of the strongest criticisms of Israel, saying, “We’ve become cruel…to ourselves as well, but mainly to the occupied population.” Even more astounding, he likens the Israeli occupation to that of the Nazis (making a careful exception for the Holocaust itself).

      link to thenation.com

      So, the distinction between the Nazi occupation of neighboring countries and the Holocaust itself was made IN the film.

      It is not a new distinction as both you and Donald seem to think and allege. Either you took Donald’s — misinformed — word at face value, or you didn’t bother checking the article in question for yourself.

      The comparison to Nazis isn’t about the holocaust. I don’t think anyone here was making the claim that Israel was committing a holocaust in the occupied West Bank.

      But, the Holocaust is at the top of your own personal agenda. It is something with which you are personally and overwhelmingly preoccupied. So when comparisons to Nazis are made, you immediately and reflexively write something to the effect that, There is no comparison between the holocaust and the occupation of the West bank and Gaza. That is your own personal bias.

      So what do we learn from this? As unfortunate as it is, we learn that you do not pay facts sufficient attention, or more bluntly, are sloppy with facts.

      That you had to wait for what you mistakenly refer to as a “clarifying” statement by the former Shabaknik to realize the distinction between making a comparison to Nazi occupation and making a comparison with the Holocaust further reinforces the fact that not only are you sloppy with facts, but you are not the all-knowing-all-seeing, my words-are-Torah-from the Sinai you repeatedly lead others to believe.

      By the way, “Shin Bet” — the two letters — are an acronym of the generic term that means Security Service. It’s a generic term. The FBI is a security service. The Israeli organization’s name is General Security Service whose acronym spells the word, “Shabak.” The distinction is important, you know.

      • Donald says:

        “It is not a new distinction as both you and Donald seem to think and allege.”

        I’d appreciate it if you’d make it clear that this “you and Donald” of whom you speak are some imaginary set of debate opponents that you carry around in your head for occasions like this. Phil’s post talks about comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and specifically mentions Nazi crimes. Well, what crime in particular did the Nazis commit, one that has made them the favorite point of comparison for anyone condemning something that they don’t like? Mass killings, on a scale of over ten million civilians altogether, including the Holocaust. Rightwing racist thugs are a dime-a-dozen–the Nazis are famous precisely because they went well beyond the usual atrocity level one associates with thuggish regimes. So of course I thought a Nazi comparison would involve the Holocaust–it usually does, you know. Who bothers to compare anyone to Francisco Franco (though Franco piled up a pretty considerable bodycount, well beyond the usual for a rightwing thug)? Then I read the very article you cite (mentioned above) which shows that the Israeli in question specifically excluded the Holocaust. Well, whatever. The genocidal killings are what distinguish the Nazis from the usual run-of-the-mill racist thugs, so personally I prefer to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow South and so forth. The whole point of making comparisons is to do so in a way that illuminates and doesn’t leave one open to a legitimate counterattack that says the comparison is exaggerated.

        Anyway, people do in fact compare Israel to Nazi Germany even including the Holocaust, as when the term “genocide” is used. The legal definition of “genocide” is broader than the way it is used in common speech, where people use it to mean massive slaughter aimed at an ethnic group. Ask the average person for examples of genocide and they will probably cite the Holocaust first, and then maybe Pol Pot or Rwanda or what Turkey did to the Armenians. So if someone accuses Israel of genocide, they’re going to have to go on to point out that the legal definition of the term is actually much broader than the common usage.

        As for Jerry, he was brought into this because of a satirical post he wrote making fun of people who defend Israel on the grounds that their crimes aren’t as bad as those of the Nazis. Some people really thought he was defending Israel on the grounds that it wasn’t as bad as Nazi Germany. Even Phil rather bizarrely writes as though that was Jerry’s point, though Phil couldn’t possibly have believed that.

        • Avi_G. says:

          Donald,

          I seem to have confused your comment up-thread (From 12:46pm) with Jerry’s when I mentioned you in reference to the article at the Nation.

          I apologize.

          As an aside, next time, try to tone down your hissy fit. You could have said the same exact thing without throwing a tantrum. Furthermore, some people on here seem to lack the ability to forgive as they hold a grudge for a very, very long time. That is to say, you wouldn’t respond the same way you just did had I been a first-time poster here. No. We have a history. Don’t we? One thing I will grant you, however, you’ve come a long way from the days (Circa 2009, 2010?) when you refused to compare the Warsaw Ghetto to the Gaza Strip.

        • American says:

          “so personally I prefer to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow South and so forth. The whole point of making comparisons is to do so in a way that illuminates and doesn’t leave one open to a legitimate counterattack that says the comparison is exaggerated”…Donald

          I don’t know about S. Africa, but comparing I/P to Jim Crow is down playing the I/P situtation.
          In Jim Crows days the *US military* did not go into black neighorhoods and bulldoze their homes, confiscate their property or regularly shoot black children throwing stones in the head or break into black homes in the night and carry people away to prison to be held without charges.
          Discrimination and the acts against backs by ‘non government’ racist groups doesn’t compare to ‘government sanctioned’ attacks,license to kill unarmed civilians and property thefts carried out by a government’s military as part of it’s official policy.
          You’re letting Isr off the hook too easily with that comparison.

        • sardelapasti says:

          Donald – “The genocidal killings are what distinguish the Nazis from the usual run-of-the-mill racist thugs..”

          There you go against the Nuremberg Tribunal. The most heinous Nazi crimes, for which some were hanged, were the crime against peace, i.e. the crime of aggression, and war crimes. Of which brutal mass murder was a subchapter. The exact legal formulations are easy to find, so look it up.

          Comparisons of the Zionists to the Nazi are based on clear, well-defined criteria, the top one being a combination of open, uncamouflaged aggression, conquest, and spoliation, naked rejection of all international law, glorification and continuous exercise of war, ideology and practice of continuous expansion, absence of any laws of war, absence of the state of law and arbitrary dictatorship applied on racial criteria to the conquered populations, definition of the state as belonging to one racial group, massive population cleansing by hook or by crook (the crook won’t be long coming, too.) There are a couple articles which try to formalize the criteria, have fun looking it up.

          This combination does not fit the old South Africa, Italian-type fascism or the Jim Crow South.

        • Avi_G. says:

          The genocidal killings are what distinguish the Nazis from the usual run-of-the-mill racist thugs, so personally I prefer to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa and the Jim Crow South and so forth.

          Donald,

          The problem I have ALWAYS had with your comparisons is that they stem from armchair expertise. The same applies to Jerry.

          You’ve never been to the occupied West bank and yet you think you understand what is going on there. Again, the same applies to Jerry.

          Why don’t you ‘walk’ the narrow streets of Venice, Italy on Google Street View and then proceed to adamantly argue with me that Venice is beautiful, wonderful and gorgeous despite the occasional smell of stench from the mildew and moss that grows out of the canals, the same smell that you cannot possibly get from Google Street View?

          Hopefully that analogy will open your eyes to your own arrogant confidence in what you consider to be sound comparisons.

          Armchair experts are armchair experts. And it’s even worse when they are confident in their own ignorance.

        • Donald says:

          “armchair expertise”

          That’s true, but then that’s true of comparisons to South Africa, the Holocaust, and other things. Of course it’s armchair expertise. I talk about lots of things I never experienced–Mongol conquests, the US bombing of Cambodia, Pol Pot’s genocide, Armenia, US support for genocide in East Timor, and all sorts of things beside atrocities. (I’m sort of envious of the Russians in the Ural Mountains who saw the bolide, at least the ones who didn’t suffer any window breakage or injuries, because they got to experience something I’ve only read papers about.) How many people making the Holocaust comparison lived through the Holocaust?

          Anyway, does anyone seriously think that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians compares to what the Nazis did to the Jews? Now it’s possible that Israel is on the downward spiral towards something worse, but so far, no, the Nazis are in that special category with a few others, the category that involves killing millions of civilians in cold blood. (I don’t particularly see the need to make fine moral distinctions between genocides, as stated above, unless one is forced into a position of having to choose between supporting a Stalin and a Hitler.) Israel isn’t there.

          There are all sorts of perfectly legitimate comparisons one could make. American thinks the “Jim Crow” comparison is insufficiently critical, but you might find some black people who would disagree–there were mass killings of blacks at times (Tulsa Oklahoma for one, around 1920, where there was even aerial bombardment). But let that pass. The South African apartheid example is almost perfect. Desmond Tutu has seen both apartheid and Israeli occupation and made that comparison. (If I remember right, he thought Israel’s occupation might even be worse, but I’m not sure and don’t want to take the time to look it up.) So use that one.

          I still don’t like the Warsaw Ghetto comparison to Gaza because the orders of magnitude in killings are very different. One thing I think people miss here is this–if one constantly reaches for the Nazi atrocity comparison it inadvertently sends the message that an atrocity committed by the Israelis (or Bush or whatever) has to rise to the level of the Nazis or it isn’t worthy of consideration. It gives the hasbarists an out–they can just point to the relative numbers, accuse one of exaggeration, and then the focus is on why people overstate Israel’s crimes. It’s better to go for a pretty damn accurate comparison right from the start, which is what makes the South African apartheid comparison so useful.

          Someone else brought up Nuremberg and how the worst crime of the Nazis was the crime of aggressive war. I’m a little sympathetic to that argument–Chomsky uses it and I’ve usually nodded along. Yes, Bush is guilty of a crime in invading Iraq that would have gotten him hung at Nuremberg and I completely agree with Chomsky on that point. But I suspect Chomsky himself wouldn’t say that Bush’s crimes are on a par with the deliberate killing of over ten million people. It’s enough for me to say that Bush (along with many other Presidents) would have been hung at Nuremberg and that invading Iraq was a horrific crime, without going one step beyond and saying it was as bad as the killings aimed at Jews, the Roma, Soviet POW’s and various others.

          On the use of the word “genocide”–if one applies the broader meaning to Israel, it won’t end there. The hasbara side likes Hitler analogies too, and I’ve seen some say that, for instance, Hamas or other Palestinian factions are guilty of genocide. Hamas has its famously anti-semitic charter and they have targeted innocent civilians simply for the crime of being Israeli, so there you have your intent to kill “in part” people for belonging to a nationality or an ethnic group. And why was Leon Klinghoffer murdered? (That was the PLO or some splinter group, I think.) He was a man in a wheelchair. I’m sure you’ve seen denunciations of the utter barbarism of that act, that then went beyond that and tried to taint the entire Palestinian resistance movement with the charge of being genocidal based on such actions.

          Killing or persecuting people for their sectarian affiliation isn’t exactly rare in the Middle East or in other places. It’s happening on both sides in Syria right now (unless Assad’s side is simply killing civilians at random, in which case it’s mass killing but not genocide, which makes it no better to my way of thinking). In Lebanon during their civil war it was almost every faction at one point or another killing innocent members of other factions. Iraq, of course, was a massive sectarian bloodletting. Turkey has persecuted and bombed its Kurds (using American-supplied planes.) According to Alistair Horne’s “A Savage War of Peace”, nearly all of Algeria’s Jews were expelled when Algeria got its independence. What would have happened to them if they hadn’t left? It might be a shorter list if one tried to think of all the countries in that part of the world where there hasn’t been violence and murder directed at innocent people simply for their ethnic or religious affiliation.

          I also wonder just how recently the US and Canada and Australia were guilty of genocide in the broader sense. Obviously the US and Australia (I don’t know much about Canada) were at times guilty of it in the mass killing sense even in the 19th century. But I think in the broader sense the guilt would probably stretch even into the 20th century. Taking Indian children away from their parents and bringing them up in a white culture was a favored “solution” even by some “liberals” in the past–this was a terrible crime, but would we want to put it in the same analytical category as Auschwitz? And even now America’s criminal justice system seems aimed disproportionately at blacks. Is that genocide by the broader definition people favor in this thread? It seems to me it might be.

          If using the word “genocide” for all this helps end these various evils, then fine. I won’t argue against it. But the problem is that there are really two meanings for the term, the popular one meaning “massive slaughter aimed at an ethnic group” and the broader one that encompasses a whole host of discriminatory policies and lesser-scale violence and it’s the latter version that applies to Israel and many other places, not the former.

        • sardelapasti says:

          “… does anyone seriously think that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians compares to what the Nazis did to the Jews?”

          Yes. I certainly do, as many people here, many friends of mine and also many people who did directly experience both.

          [As an aside, just as the main crime of the Nazis was not their treatment of the Jews, the main counts against Zionists may well end up being the same for which Nazi leaders were hanged. Zionism is way worse than what it is doing to Palestinians and very similar to Nazism in that, too.]

        • @ Donald

          “On the use of the word “genocide”–if one applies the broader meaning to Israel, it won’t end there. The hasbara side likes Hitler analogies too, and I’ve seen some say that, for instance, Hamas or other Palestinian factions are guilty of genocide. Hamas has its famously anti-semitic charter and they have targeted innocent civilians simply for the crime of being Israeli, so there you have your intent to kill “in part” people for belonging to a nationality or an ethnic group.”

          Donald, we don’t speak of Hamas as guilty of genocide, but rather as guilty of genocidal intentions, sort of “if they could, they would have exterminated all the Israelis”.

          Like most hasbarats, i stick to what you referred to as the popular meaning, the massive-slaughter one. I am not a hasbara expert yet but, even if i were, i would be reluctant to forgo the benefit of simplicity that the popular meaning of “genocide” confers to people’s dealings with any massive slaughter: it is good for people to have a special term for such massive slaughters, even if hasbara considerations suggest otherwise.

        • Djinn says:

          Yes Australia was guilty of genocidal programs until at least the mid seventies, a fact acknowledged by all but the virulently right wing. It is called the Stolen Generations. The word genocide has a meaning and it does not require mass killing. You can do it without killing a single living person. You may not like it being applied to Israel but you’ve yet to explain, with reference to internationally agreed definitions, why it doesn’t.

        • American says:

          “Anyway, does anyone seriously think that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians compares to what the Nazis did to the Jews?”…Donald

          Yes it ‘compares” —-as in ‘some’ genocidal acts—it’s not about the *numbers* It’s not about whether genocide is done all at once or over a period of time.

          I don’t know what it is Donald but you appear to have some personal reason for your fixation on the Jim Crow comparsion and for down playing what Israel is actually doing. What it is?

          link to untreaty.un.org
          Rome Statute of Internationl Criminal Courts
          [as corrected by the procés-verbaux of 10 November 1998 and 12 July 1999]
          PART 2. JURISDICTION, ADMISSIBILITY AND APPLICABLE LAW

          You say you understand the above yet you do deliberately down play and refuse to recongize or admit the genocidal acts Israel has already committed.

          Why do you insist that because Israel has not yet killed a million Palestine that no other elements of genocide apply?

          It has never been a question of whether or not Israel is” as bad” as the Nazis in the’ numbers’ they have killed.
          The Question is– are they ”like the Nazis” in their mentality and intent and acts. The answer is yes based on actual acts they have already committed.

        • Hostage says:

          It has never been a question of whether or not Israel is” as bad” as the Nazis in the’ numbers’ they have killed.
          The Question is– are they ”like the Nazis” in their mentality and intent and acts. The answer is yes based on actual acts they have already committed.

          The problem stems from the fact that several of the constituent acts of the crime of genocide do not result in the physical destruction of the members of the targeted group:
          (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
          (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
          (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
          (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

          The convention itself makes participation in failed conspiracies or attempts to commit genocide punishable offenses. Most Courts have ruled that genocidal intent can be inferred from the defendants actions. Israeli officials reacted to the ICJ advisory opinion and ICRC and UNRWA reports of widespread malnutrition caused by the establishment of walled-off racial enclaves and closures by doubling-down on its destruction of vital civilian infrastructure, and its restrictions on movement and the flow of international aid.

          Under those circumstances I don’t see anything inappropriate in making comparisons between the Nazi regime and the predictable results of the illegal policies and practices of Israeli officials. The same applies to the policies of our own US government officials in carrying out assassinations, murder, kidnappings, torture, and wrongful imprisonments. Many believe that the proper role of intellectuals in society is to speak out about these issues. Individuals, like Hannah Arendt and Sir Gerald Kaufman have never hesitated to do that sort of thing, e.g. See “UK Jewish MP: Israel acting like Nazis in Gaza”

          We all share the same human condition and can’t afford to carve-out exceptions that grant our particular leaders the boundless discretion to commit murder and other serious crimes under the color of law. That’s true whether its justified by a “Führer” or a “Zionist” leader on the basis of ancient national rights or on the basis of occult Presidential “war powers”.

        • American says:

          @ Hostage

          good answer…agree on all points.

        • Donald says:

          “I don’t know what it is Donald but you appear to have some personal reason for your fixation on the Jim Crow comparsion and for down playing what Israel is actually doing. What it is?”

          I’m about five days late getting back to this–got other stuff to do besides argue with people on blogs. The other people are defending the use of the term “genocide”. I think if you’re going to use the legal one favored here then you’re going to have to explain to the ordinary person that it’s a much broader definition than “mass slaughter” and includes many other things. I think the emotional impact of the word stems from its association with mass slaughter, which is why I don’t use it, but whatever. I think we can win the argument with the average open-minded person by pointing out the similarities to South Africa and Jim Crow, but if we start comparing Israel’s crimes to those which were hundreds of times worse (in terms of death toll), then we’ll get bogged down arguing about whether the similarities outweigh the differences.

          To American’s question–right back at you. I think from this and other conversations that you have a rather whitewashed (no pun intended) view of Jim Crow. In my case the way it worked is this–I was a Christian Zionist as a teenager, because everyone I knew was one. I even read “The Late Great Planet Earth” when I was 12 or 13, which was sort of the Christian Zionist bible, so to speak. As a young adult I read Michener’s “The Source”, which is a liberal Zionist hasbara-filled historical novel. It was about that time, reading that novel and other things, that I started to notice just how similar the Zionist defenses of Israel were to southern white rationalizations about our history with blacks. I mean the similarities just go on and on. It’s perfectly understandable–when you are part of a culture that has mistreated another group of people then you have to come up with some rationalizations, and they’re always going to sound pretty much the same, maybe with minor variations.

          So contrary to your accusation, it’s precisely because I grew up in a white racist environment immediately after Jim Crow had ended that I was able to see the similarities to the hasbara that we discuss here.

    • On further thought, it was not necessary to my argument that I rank-order the various undoubted genocides in the 20th century, with the Holocaust at the top.

      we know. so why do you think you did it? i think you’ve mentioned it before.

      • Jerry Slater says:

        Annie wonders–in all seriousness, I am sure–why I think I made the tactical mistake I admitted to above, namely arguing that the Holocaust was, in several important ways, the epitome of evil, therefore even worse than the other horrible genocides. Here’s my explanation:

        First, I conceded a tactical mistake, not necessarily a substantive one. That is, there is an extensive body of serious, informed, and scholarly literature that considers the Holocaust to be in a special category, the very epitome of evil–even as compared with other horrible genocides. And it is important to note that not all of this literature has been the work merely of Jews, “Zio-supremicists,” or racists who consider genocides in the non-white world to be unimportant.

        Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this literature is convincing, for it is clear that there are serious counterarguments. However, I don’t wish to take a position in this debate–especially since, as I’ve said, my argument in no way depends on any rank ordering of genocides. Thus, it was a tactical mistake to have waded into that thicket.

        The second explanation is this: in serious writing before you publish anything you review and rewrite your draft many times, and then when you think it is more or less ready, you circulate it as widely as possible to people whose judgment you respect. Inevitably, there will be criticisms, some of which you think are justified, so you revise. And then you revise again. And then you revise, yet again. Only then do you publish.

        Needless to say, that’s not what happens in blogs, and even less so in commentaries on blogs.

        So yes, it was certainly a tactical mistake, and possibly–I admit I’m not sure–even a substantive one. But even if it was, it is irrelevant to the real issue, which–to repeat–is whether Israeli policies should be compared to those of real genocides.

        • Avi_G. says:

          Jerry Slater says:
          February 23, 2013 at 12:47 am

          Annie wonders–in all seriousness, I am sure

          [...]

          Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that this literature is convincing, for it is clear that there are serious counterarguments.

          [...]

          for it is clear that there are serious counterarguments.

          [...]

          The second explanation is this: serious writing before you publish
          [...]

          I find it quite strange that you use a subjective, relative, ambiguous and vague term to describe things that otherwise require scientific, precise, and qualitative evaluations.

          Why do you suppose you use the adjective “serious” so often?

          In your view, does any research or fact become “serious” once you wave your special Slater wand over it?

    • American says:

      ”That was entirely irrelevant to my main argument and served only to obscure it: which is that the Israeli crimes are not comparable to the Holocaust or to other true genocides”…Slater

      No, Israel hasn’t committed a ‘complete’ or true genocide, I agree.
      But Israel already has committed “some genocidal acts” according to the Rome Sta. definitions.

      But the reason you get so much push back on this is partly reflexive—people who have been around the Irs issue a while are totally over dosed on hearing about your holocaust, how yours was worst than any others and so forth.
      It’s bizarre, sick, sick,sick, this demand to have Jewish suffering “worshipped’…and I’m not saying you Jerry Slater are demanding that… I’m talking in general about the constant shenanigans of the holocaust crowd and their daily outrages about how could the entire world not stop on Holocaust Remembrance Day and a thousand other idiotic made up ‘slights’ they seize on to screech and holler about the world disrespecting and not paying homage to their suffering, ad nauseam.
      It’s gotten to the point where it triggers a gag reflex in people every time the Jewish holocaust is trotted out to demand something or excuse something.
      It’s been used and abused too much and the more it’s used the more people become desensitized to it for one thing, and on the I/P issue the victimizer crying holocaust victim all the time is going to bring up the nazi and hypocrite words/comparisons.

  20. The Palestinian genocide is an ongoing slow motion abuse of an indigenous population by a colonial enterprise supported by the west.
    But the best part is that from the entire myth about the birth of that nation to the news that is allowed to be printed about it, is suppressed and controlled.

    This excerpt below is from the magneszionist its called israel’s arab problem part deux nov 2, 2010

    Was Meir Kahane so far away from the mainstream, after all? Was he, as his supporters maintain today, simply ahead of his time? And will we soon hear the same arguments emanating not merely from neoconservative writers but from more liberal Zionist ones? After all, as Rabbi Gordis points out, the historian Benny Morris has complained that the Israelis in 1948 were not thorough enough in their ethnic cleansing, and Morris is considered by Israelis to be a liberal, even a left-winger.

    • andrew r says:

      Re-reading that infamous interview where he comes out in favor of ethnic cleansing, this stood out as an egregiously stupid remark.

      “You don’t have to tell me that. I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only for yesterday’s closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us, but nevertheless I don’t see African terrorism in London, Paris or Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the Palestinians, but we aren’t blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg. So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with Islam and Arab culture.”

      link to counterpunch.org

  21. andrew r says:

    I’m certainly guilty of using Israel-Nazi analogies, albeit in a more indirect way. In the comments on one TabletMag article, I said “never again” should be for Palestinians and Jews alike; since the interlocutor took that as likening Israel to the Third Reich, I replied that while the numbers may not be equivalent, the Palestinians killed by Israel, like the Jews killed by Germany, had a sacrifice imposed on them for the cause of creating a racial utopia. It would be sophistry to say that Zionism and Nazism have nothing in common, especially since they were both guided by 19th century eugenics (Although the Zionist movement was less extreme in their application, it did lead to a selective immigration process by the Jewish Agency. And of course Ben-Gurion and Weizmann believed the Palestinians as a group had a weak biological link to the land, which the former cited as the reason they fled during 1948).

    However, at some point there’s a line between forming an argument and throwing out rhetoric, and the invocation of the Nazis can become intellectual laziness. Also, I think relying on such a reference point is in fact a mirror image of the claim that the Holocaust defies comparison to other atrocities. People who revere the European colonial regimes as the foundation of our civilization but who are (hypocritically) appalled by the killing centers and police battalions are not likely to care about Palestine, no matter how good the argument.

  22. yourstruly says:

    no comparison between hitler and netanyahu?

    what about hitler & sharon?

    closer, the one to the other?

    but so far there’ve been no ovens or gas chambers?

    gaza and the warsaw ghetto

    same place

    different time

    while the world stands by

    genocide

    live

    & while its been slow motion in gaza?

    otherwise?

    near lookalikes?

    same or different endings?

    now being decided?