Double standard

Israel/Palestine
on 353 Comments

Yesterday Amy Walters of NPR did a story about two fashion moguls. She introduced them in this manner (boldface mine):

Let me start by introducing you to Dov Charney, founder and CEO of American Apparel….  Charney is 44, Canadian-American, and he has a reputation for near-naked models , harassment suits – sexual and otherwise – and some serious trouble with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that pushed him to lay off over a third of his staff…

Do Won Chang, founder and CEO of Forever 21, is Korean-American, 58 and devoutly Christian. Chang also has his share of legal trouble, though – years of worker disputes over labor conditions and charges of design theft.

If NPR is going to identify people by religion, then it ought to tell us that Charney is Jewish (indeed, Jewishness, including family connections to the Middle East and the Holocaust, are very important to him, per his autobio). A small oversight, but revealing, I think: Walters’s reticence on this point reflects an inhibition on the part of journalists to identify Jewish business/cultural figures as Jewish because doing so would reveal the extent of our inclusion. Back when we were outsiders, it was fine to describe people as Jewish because it was a wholly different kind of signifier.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

353 Responses

  1. American
    March 14, 2013, 1:29 pm

    “A small oversight, but revealilng, I think: Walters’s reticence on this point reflects an inhibition on the part of journalists to identify Jewish business/cultural figures as Jewish because doing so would reveal how included we are. Back when we were outsiders, it was fine to describe people as Jewish because it was a wholly different kind of signifier. “…Phil

    I’m guessing that’s not really it……not showing how included Jews are….Jews are pretty much everywhere on NPR and featured all the time on NPR and everywhere in the media for that matter.
    My guess would be it was just the way the script crumbled and not a deliberate omission of him being Jewish …or if Walters is a member or fan of the tribe she might have deliberately omitted it because Jewish and sexual harassment and etc isn’t exactly favorable PR for Jewish…you know– might incite a holocaust or something. lol
    Although Dov I think is pretty much recongized as a common Jewish name isn’t it?

    • W.Jones
      March 15, 2013, 1:47 am

      “Dov I think is pretty much recognized as a common Jewish name isn’t it?”

      Among modern American young people, the names thing- as well as religious distinctions- mean little. Unless you are tuned in to the IP conflict, of course, because it divides itself that way. Years ago, Dov would sound like a sweet bird name and Peres would be Latin American.

  2. pabelmont
    March 14, 2013, 2:05 pm

    “[A]n inhibition on the part of journalists to identify Jewish business/cultural figures as Jewish” ? Well, perhaps, I’ll take your word for it. But THIS Jew is connected to 0– shocking — nakedness and harrassment suits, and we wouldn’t want to tell the NPR public that (euch!) Jews did such things.

    OTOH, how exactly was “devoutly Christian” pertinent to the story? Run that by me again?

  3. MLE
    March 14, 2013, 2:07 pm

    To be fair to the NPR piece, American Apparel doesn’t feature biblical verses printed on the plastic bags. Dov Charney may be Jewish and his religion might be important to him but he doesn’t bring his religion into his business the way Forever 21 does (also In and Out Burger has the bible verses as well)

    • American
      March 14, 2013, 4:45 pm

      ” the way Forever 21 does (also In and Out Burger has the bible verses as well)””

      I have noticed a lot of that, ‘a lot’ of it…going on in businesses. Someone around here started some Christian businesses advertising magazine..for businesses that “are Christian owned”.
      Lo and behold- when I went to have new tires put on my car recently I noticed a rack of Christian literature featured prominently on the counter…never saw it there before in all the years I’ve been using the same business.
      Religious ‘marketing” I guess.

  4. marc b.
    March 14, 2013, 2:27 pm

    funny that piece, which i heard in between jobs in the car. maybe a bit of anxiety also in there about the fading jewish superiority in matters financial. if i remember, the NPR story teller also made a point of comparing the relative success of the companies, mr. chang coming out on top by far.

    similarly, an asian professor from NWUniversity was on the local NPR affiliate the other day being interviewed as part of an hour long program on allegations of prejudice against asian-americans in the college admissions process at the ivies. she referred to ‘the jews’ several times when comparing the jewish experience in the early 20th century to that of asian-americans in the late 20th, early 21st centuriesand although she did quantify the jewish bias in current admissions, she didn’t expressly attribute that bias to ‘kinship networks’ or whatever other euphemism weiss has for jewish prejudice. ironically the (asian) former admissions advisor who was defending the current system, which he acknowledged incorporates parents’ donor status, ‘legacies’, etc. was perfectly comfortable with the current de-emphasis of grades and admissions testing, while ignoring the fact that jewish critics of the earlier discimination argued precisely that the lack of emphasis on grades and WASPish inclusion of intangibles such as ‘leadership skills’ or even ‘manliness’ was an opaque, prejudicial formula meant to favor the peabodys and lowells of the world over the epsteins and weiss’s.

    • Krauss
      March 14, 2013, 3:14 pm

      I think she’s been reading Unz’s article at American Conservative.
      Nonetheless, from a sociological standpoint I found it interesting that she neglected to mention that an even bigger share of discrimination is against gentile whites(although in absolute numbers).

      This suggests to me that Asian-American identity is evolving quite like Jewish identity, while integrating culturally, never quite assimilating.

      he acknowledged incorporates parents’ donor status, ‘legacies’, etc. was perfectly comfortable with the current de-emphasis of grades and admissions testing, while ignoring the fact that jewish critics of the earlier discimination argued precisely that the lack of emphasis on grades and WASPish inclusion of intangibles such as ‘leadership skills’ or even ‘manliness’ was an opaque, prejudicial formula meant to favor the peabodys and lowells of the world over the epsteins and weiss’s.

      Yes, but this touches upon Phil’s post. Namely the arrived status of Jews in America. I don’t know the percentage of Jews on American billionaire list but I’d wager it is probably quite high. Many legacies going into Harvard today are Jewish, and even if Harvard doesn’t break it down in their stats, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher than it was for WASPs.

      This, of course, changes priorities. And I’ve written before on this site when these topics come up that I still think we will see much more ethnic activism from gentiles whites once the GOP has been finally – and belatedely – buried under the demographic change.

      The question is, will Asians get there first? I’d assume so.
      But one last thing. Unz explicitly stated in his article that because of the over-admission of Jews, via ethnic networking(in the administration) and/or de-facto affirmative action in the Ivies, that the direct implication is that Jews of lesser talent are taking up places of Asians and gentile whites.

      I think Phil has written about this earlier but it too is a signifier that the outsiders are now the insiders and they’re the new ‘protestant establishment’ if you’ll excuse the historical anchor. The question is, will there be a such book for these new times. This is an important sociological question. I think it’s impossible to talk about why America is so monolithically supportive of Israel without that sociological discussion. And, increasingly, more and more people do too. A good example is the mainstreaming of Walt/Mearsheimer.

      • marc b.
        March 14, 2013, 6:31 pm

        krauss, yup, presumably she’s read unz, although i don’t remember her crediting unz during the interview. he recently wrote an article on social darwinism and the meritocracy in china, or something like that, which i haven’t had a chance to read just yet. and it is a delicate subject, the treatment of ‘jews’ and ‘whites’ as racial classifications. she was alternately lumping ‘jews’ into the category of ‘whites’, then referring to jewishness as a separate classification when discussing past discrimination and current discriminatory practices against asians. there was also a debate about the relative advantages/disadvantages of identifying yourself as ‘asian’ on a college application. there is no ‘box’ to check for religious affiliation, or for ‘jewish’, however you define jewishness, is there?

      • hophmi
        March 14, 2013, 6:55 pm

        “I don’t know the percentage of Jews on American billionaire list but I’d wager it is probably quite high.”

        Is this like the only thing you people care about? I can assure you that if you go to Brooklyn you’ll find plenty of Jews living in poverty. Is money the same thing as arrival? There were plenty of wealthy Jews in Europe before WWII. Does that mean they “arrived”? The whole idea of judging a community of 2 million people by the presence of a few dozen of them on a billionaire’s list is beyond repulsive.

        “Many legacies going into Harvard today are Jewish, and even if Harvard doesn’t break it down in their stats, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was higher than it was for WASPs. ”

        Unz’s study was ridiculous.

        His conjecture that Jews were getting dumber because their percentage of National Merit Scholarship was shrinking was based on the last names of the NMS list, an unscientific method that doubtless would have excluded anybody without a Jewish last name who was the product of an intermarriage in a country where more than half of the Jewish population is intermarried. He also did not include the stats from Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, which contain 1/8 of the nationwide Jewish population, and which almost certainly would have driven the overall percentage higher.

        He used the low percentage of Jewish students at Caltech as an example while failing to note that the percentage of Jews in elite institutions in low throughout California (around 10% at Stanford, 7 or 8 percent at the UCs), because most Jews live near or on the East Coast.

        His sample sizes are ridiculous. To draw conclusions about the overall merit of Jewish applications to the Ivy League on things like Math and Science Olympiads, (each one of these amounts to maybe five kids a year, and not everybody takes the Olympiad precursor tests), or Intel, which amounts to around 50 kids a year and is a scientific paper and therefore difficult to quantify, (I think they give about 10 awards a year) or even Phi Betta Kappa at Harvard (where grade inflation has distorted completely what PHK means), and where the top 10% would amount to maybe another few hundred people, provides no basis for any scientific conclusion. If you’re going by things like Olympiads and Intels, you might as well measure merit by Nobel Prizes too, because it’s just as scientific.

        The only measure that suggests anything at all is the NMS measure, since the sample size is reasonably large, the test is given to nearly all HS juniors, and everybody takes the same test. There is no question in my mind that he significantly under-estimated because he likely left out anyone who was Jewish but didn’t have a Jewish last name (a huge number of Jews) and three states with large Jewish populations. Even this underreported number is more than triple population representation.

  5. hophmi
    March 14, 2013, 2:35 pm

    “If NPR is going to identify people by religion, then it ought to tell us that Charney is Jewish”

    So telling that you would say this. Forever 21 prints John 3:16 on the bottom of every bag. It’s therefore relevant to mention his Christianity. The owner of American Apparel may be Jewish, but it has little to do with his business or his merchandising. Chang performs missionary work, gives a tremendous amount of money to churches through his foundation and cites the Bible as his book. He wears his religion on his sleeve, no pun intended.

    Maybe you research things like this before you make some grand conjecture about how journalists are afraid to mention the Jewishness of business or cultural figures because it would “reveal the extent of our inclusion.”

    As if it was a big secret to anyone that Jews are successful in American society.

    • Philip Weiss
      March 14, 2013, 2:52 pm

      Hophmi, There is no necessity for me to research that, a fact I learned from an earlier commenter. I take the piece on its face: If she deems his religion necessary for that reason, she ought to have provided that information. Phil

      • hophmi
        March 14, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Yes, but to claim there is a double standard is disingenuous. Who knows; perhaps a part of the interview originally focused on Chang’s Christian missionary work. It’s also not remotely accurate. I’ve read plenty of profiles in mainstream sources where a person is identified as Jewish. Honestly, the idea that you would make a big deal of this over a piece about making clothing in the United States shows how obsessed you are with this stuff. It reminds me of the crazier people at CAMERA, who see bias behind every headline.

        And again, you write about some inclination amongst journalists not to identify successful Jews because “doing so would reveal the extent of our inclusion” and then you wonder why people use the comment sections to talk in crass antisemitic tropes about how Jews control the media and control the financial industry and cover up their nefarious influence. This is what happens when you suggest, and you don’t back it up in any way, that Jews not only have too much power in this society, but somehow conspire to hide that fact.

        It’s also insidious and false. I’ve read many stories like this identifying subjects as Jews and many that were about Jews and Christians where neither were identified.

      • Kathleen
        March 20, 2013, 11:57 am

        ‘It reminds me of the crazier people at CAMERA, who see bias behind every headline.” Camera hears bias in every legitimate criticism of Israel. Every criticism. “The crazier people at Camera” can not shut the open channel at Washington Journal no matter how hard they try. Driving them even crazier

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 1:43 pm

        At least CAMERA sticks to Israel reportage. BDSers seem to hear philo-semitism in every piece of mainstream reportage in the news media period, even fashion pieces that have nothing to do with politcs.

      • just
        March 14, 2013, 3:09 pm

        Yes, Phil. You (and all of the folks at Mondoweiss that inform us) are asking the questions that need to be asked. If Charney and American Apparel were Muslim or employed Muslims, you can bet that NPR would have revealed it.

        Thank you.

      • hophmi
        March 14, 2013, 3:29 pm

        “If Charney and American Apparel were Muslim or employed Muslims, you can bet that NPR would have revealed it.”

        Total nonsense. American Apparel is in LA. It’s a big factory. It’s fair to assume that someone they employ is Muslim. I didn’t see it mentioned in the story.

        Here’s a whole interview with Rashid Khalidi from last year. No mention of his religion.

        link to npr.org

        Here’s a story about Mohamed El-Erian. No mention of his religion (he’s Muslim.)

        link to npr.org

        Here’s a story about Shirin Neshat, the Iranian-American director. No mention of her religion (she’s Muslim).

        So you’re simply wrong, and so is this conjecture.

      • Cliff
        March 14, 2013, 6:01 pm

        You’re choosing isolated examples.

        As if one instance disproves a pattern.

        Just more hoppy lies and dishonesty.

        The press, and especially NPR caters to Jewish group mobility.

      • hophmi
        March 15, 2013, 6:27 am

        “You’re choosing isolated examples.”

        LOL. The claim was that if NPR did a profile of a Muslim, they’d mention that the person was Muslim. I looked up a few prominent Muslims and Christians at random and in none of the profiles was the person’s religion mentioned. So it’s not isolated examples. In profiles having little to do with religion, NPR doesn’t mention the religion unless there’s some reason to. As I said, and as is clear to anyone who isn’t obsessively looking for a way to argue that Jews get a special ride, the only reason NPR mentioned Chang’s religion is because he prints bible verses on his bags, because he’s extremely involved in missionary work, and because he obviously wants it known that he’s a devout Christian.

        “The press, and especially NPR caters to Jewish group mobility.”

        Cliff, you’re entitled to your antisemitic, totally baseless opinion. Have a nice day.

      • W.Jones
        March 15, 2013, 1:57 am

        Hophmi,
        As you pointed out, there could be a legitimate reason for mentioning his Christianity. But then again, is Phil necessarily wrong to bring up the issue, when, as Phil wrote: “family connections to the Middle East and the Holocaust, are very important to him, per his autobio.”
        That is, if religious background is important to both, can’t Phil ask why only one is mentioned?

    • Chu
      March 14, 2013, 3:25 pm

      ‘As if it was a big secret to anyone that Jews are successful in American society.’

      wow. this is childish…

    • marc b.
      March 14, 2013, 3:29 pm

      hophmee, so telling that you would accuse weiss of this. did you listen to the program? no? if you did, you couldn’t have failed to notice that it was not strictly a financial piece, and that it delved into the personal lives of both chang and charney. and have you read dovcharney.com? are you aware of the lawsuit brought against him by woody allen? how could you come to the conclusion that his jewishness ‘has little to do with his business or his merchandising’? maybe you need to research things like this before you make some sweeping indictment of weiss and his alleged misrepresentations of the NPR report and (the creep) dov charney.

      • hophmi
        March 14, 2013, 6:04 pm

        “hophmee, so telling that you would accuse weiss of this. ”

        I think it’s more than fair. It’s childish of him to make the accusation. More importantly, it’s disingenuous.

        “did you listen to the program?”

        I read the entire transcript. This was a short segment comparing two clothing entrepreneurs about their business model, including interviews with both. Since one wears his Christianity on his sleeve, does missionary work, and writes John 3:16 on his bags, I’d say it’s a fair bet that he’s eager for people to know that he’s Christian. He literally makes his Christianity part of his business.

        “have you read dovcharney.com”

        I did. Charney talks about being Jewish, but it has little to do with his vertical integration model and is not a great part of his private life. Charney doesn’t go around the world telling everyone he’s Jewish. Chang does, literally, go around the world telling people he’s a Christian.

        Would you mind telling me what any of this has to do with a lawsuit? This is not about whether Charney is a great person. Are you more upset that the interviewer didn’t mention Charney’s religion, or more upset that interviewer mentioned Chang’s?

        What is childish (and ridiculous) is to make a conjecture, with zero proof, which is why I included other examples, that the interviewer was somehow less inclined to mention an interview subject’s Jewish because of some inclination to cover up the inclusion of Jews in the society. You make an claim like that, provide some proof for it.

        Because there’s always people like you out there:

        “maybe a bit of anxiety also in there about the fading jewish superiority in matters financial. if i remember, the NPR story teller also made a point of comparing the relative success of the companies, mr. chang coming out on top by far.”

        So now the accusation becomes some plot to cover up “fading Jewish superiority in matters financial.”

      • marc b.
        March 15, 2013, 8:41 am

        that’s nonsense, hophmi, all of it.’charney doesn’t go around the world telling everyone he’s jewish’? he published a biography on the internet detailing his family’s background, their various degrees of ‘jewishness’, i.e. religious devotion, the impact of the holocaust on their lives, etc. etc. ‘what does any of this have to do with the lawsuit’? the suit stems from an american apparel billboard of woody allen dressed in orthodox jewish garb, with a tag in hebrew, that’s what. charney may not be quoting bible verses, but his ‘jewishness’ is hardly divorced from his business. (and i’d disagree in the first instance with the premise that ‘economics’ can be separated from psychology. see for example, david graeber, among others, who go into great detail deconstructing the fallacy that ‘economics’ is a science that can be studied independently of psychology, ideology/propaganda, technological innovations, etc.) the minor point that i disagree with weiss about is the ‘failure’ to report charney’s jewishness. i would assume, and i assume that the NPR reporter probably assumed, consciously or otherwise, that regular listeners of NPR were already aware that charney is jewish. so in answer to your question, if i had to pick one or other (which frankly isn’t necessary) i’d say i’m more concerned that chang is identified as ‘devoutly christian’, which is liberal code for ideologically suspect, than i am about the omission of charney’s ethnic identity. and no, bad/biased reporting at NPR is not part of any ‘plot’ to cover up this or that. at this point in its evolution, it’s part of NPR’s DNA.

      • Cliff
        March 15, 2013, 11:30 am

        hoppy says:

        “So now the accusation becomes some plot to cover up “fading Jewish superiority in matters financial.”

        Oh but hoppy, according to you ‘everyone knows Jews are successful in America.’

      • hophmi
        March 15, 2013, 4:46 pm

        ” i’d say i’m more concerned that chang is identified as ‘devoutly christian’, which is liberal code for ideologically suspect”

        Where do you get this stuff? Seriously, where do you get it from?

        It’s plain English. Chang is, by any reasonable definition of the term, devoutly Christian. He’s a missionary. His main philanthropic pursuit is the church. He puts “JOHN 3:16″ on his bags. What would you like? Really Christian? OMG Christian? Fervently Christian? Ultra-Christian? “Without-a-doubt Christian? Triple-no-backsies Christian? (I notice only Jews are called “ultra-orthodox,” which really does have a derogatory connotation, and has led one modern orthodox intellectual to advocate that they be called fervently orthodox instead.)

        You pick. Last I check, devout is a word with a positive connotation. It means to me that he’s dedicated to practicing his faith.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2013, 12:39 pm

        devoutly Christian. He’s a missionary.

        lots of secular people consider the extremely devout ideologically suspect. and missionaries aren’t always welcome in societies of other faiths. for example, when someone comes to my home and tries to sell me a religious magazine i don’t really like it.

    • eljay
      March 14, 2013, 3:46 pm

      >> Chang performs missionary work, gives a tremendous amount of money to churches through his foundation and cites the Bible as his book.

      There’s no mention of any of that in the transcript of the story – it’s purely about the two men’s businesses. Mentioning Chang’s religion was unnecessary.

      And mentioning Chang’s religion in the paragraph that describes his legal troubles – while omitting Charney’s religion from the paragraph that describes his legal troubles – seems curiously…convenient (for lack of a better word).

  6. Clif Brown
    March 14, 2013, 3:08 pm

    On a related topic – I’ve noticed rather than saying “X is a Jew”, people will say “X is a Jewish person”, while there will be no hesitation in saying “X is a Catholic”, for example.

    I think the penetration of the Jewish experience in the 20th century is deep in the mind of Americans, with images of Jews being called out for persecution or destruction never far below consciousness. The word Jew is uncomfortable. Inhibition in expression results. In particular, appending “person” to “Jewish” is a direct indication that the speaker is identifying Jews as persons, something they were denied in the holocaust, though the speaker may well not be aware of this. The simple use of a three letter word carries baggage, the need to declare to oneself and others “I am not anti-Semitic” is there.

    • Krauss
      March 14, 2013, 3:19 pm

      True.

      I’ve also noticed, and this is only slightly related, that while people talk about ‘white people’, it is a lot more accepted to talk about ‘blacks’ as if they were a mere color and nothing else.

      Or, for that matter, that when adressing a white American, they tend to talk simply about them as ‘American’ but when it is someone who isn’t white, it’s “Asian-American”, “African-American” or just stuff like “Latino”. Their ethnicity is much more pronounced.

      I haven’t seen or heard people talk about Jews in terms of ‘Jewish-American’ however except on rare occassions where the context is usually explicitly Jewish.
      Which sort of melds into people’s view of Jews as basically white people, who tend to be more successful. Which is funny because I don’t see myself as a white person, but that is also because I see a cultural background to that phrase, a culture I don’t share, and I know many Jews who don’t consider themselves white. Yet the rest of America seems to not care at all. A good example of that was the whole ‘Girls whiteness’ crisis. That 50% of the main characters were Jewish didn’t seem to bother the critics. 20-30 years ago it would be hailed as progress, just as Seinfeld was a mark of achievement since it was so Jewish through and through, you didn’t have to hide it. Well, not anymore. Another sign of assimiliation.

      • American
        March 14, 2013, 6:32 pm

        “Another sign of assimilation.”

        Actually we are de-assimilating, haven’t you noticed? Everyone is “hyphened” now. Jews are referred to as jewish hyphen americans, blacks are african hyphen americans, asians are asian hyphen americans, hispanics are hispanic or latino hyphen americans, so far whites are the only ones without the hyphen maybe we’re next.
        Yep, we got more tribes now than any country in the world.
        I think the politicians now refer to the US as a tossed salad instead of the melting pot.

      • Citizen
        March 15, 2013, 12:19 am

        @ American
        Actually, the morphing of the metaphor went from melting pot to tossed salad to stew pot. Melted, tossed, lumpy. And, yes, whites are next in line for the hyphen–one of the (still pretty big) lumps in the stew pot.

    • Chu
      March 14, 2013, 3:24 pm

      I think it’s excessive to call someone a Jewish person, but I see where this stems from. You normally wouldn’t say ‘There’s Jon, he’s a Jew’, but ‘There’s Jon, he’s Jewish.’

      But if you say there’s a Muslim person it almost sounds like something a xenophobe would say.

  7. hophmi
    March 14, 2013, 3:34 pm

    ” I’ve noticed rather than saying “X is a Jew”, people will say “X is a Jewish person”, while there will be no hesitation in saying “X is a Catholic”, for example. ”

    That’s because grammatically, they’re different. People say all the time that “X is Jewish” just as they say “X is Catholic.” Catholic=Jewish grammatically; you can be a Catholic person or a Jewish person, but you can’t be a Jew person.

    • Cliff
      March 14, 2013, 5:59 pm

      The formula is not ‘Jew person = Catholic’.

      It’s Jew vs. Catholic.

      If not, then delete ‘Jew’ from the dictionary since its superfluous of we have Jewish+person.

      The reason is that it ‘sounds’ antagonistic. Especially, if you put a little stank on it (Louis C.K. joke).

      Jew and Jewish person are the same.

    • American
      March 14, 2013, 7:02 pm

      “X is a Jewish person”

      humm…that sound dumb to me….if you’re referring to” someone” the someone is obviously already a “person” so why add person? There’s a ‘person’, he’s a Jew …..or there’s John, he’s ‘Jewish’…..why add ‘person?
      I see nothing bad about the word Jew anyway (although evidently google says it is)…how exactly did Jew come to be unacceptable? How come it’s o.k. for Jews to call themselves ‘proud Jews”as we have seen but bad when non Jews do—sounds to me like another way of assuming or ascribing some anti semitic intent by using the word Jew.
      Catholic person sounds stupid, so does Muslim person, Jewish person sounds just as stupid. And if Catholic was the same as Jewish it would Catholicish or he’s Christianish.
      If Jews perceive Jew as an insult I would say they have a perfect right to request people say Jewish instead ,but I think it’s not generally some kind of slur like you think it is.
      What would we use instead of the pural Jews for instance?……Jewishers?

      • German Lefty
        March 16, 2013, 4:20 pm

        How come it’s o.k. for Jews to call themselves ‘proud Jews’ as we have seen but bad when non Jews do—sounds to me like another way of assuming or ascribing some anti semitic intent by using the word Jew.

        I really don’t understand why people in the USA keep saying things like:
        “I am a proud Jew.”
        “I am a proud black woman.”
        “I am a proud gay man.”
        I mean, the feeling of pride requires a certain achievement. And being Jewish, black, gay, female or male is not an achievement. That’s why there’s no reason to be proud of it. Imagine the reaction if I said, “I am a proud white woman.” I’d be called a racist. Or if a straight guy said, “I am a proud straight man.” He’d be called a homophobe. Also, if someone said that he’s a proud Muslim, then this would probably be interpreted as anti-Semitic or anti-Christian.

      • American
        March 17, 2013, 10:25 am

        @ German Lefty

        Exactly!…there’s the real double standard.

      • goldmarx
        March 18, 2013, 10:11 am

        Historically, in American society, Jews, blacks and gays have been discriminated against, oppressed and looked down upon, and made to feel ashamed of who they are. So, when members of said groups openly assert their pride, it is their way of saying that they are resisting this historic legacy.

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 12:47 pm

        @ goldmarx
        Yes, and as the power tables turn in America, more whites, especially males, are beginning to feel they are being discriminated against, and not allowed to feel pride, but rather guilt and humiliation for being born white males. I’m not talking about the tiny fringe of white supremacists. I’m talking about the average white guy. As well, the latest attack on affirmative action sitting in the SCOTUS is brought by a white female.

      • German Lefty
        March 18, 2013, 1:43 pm

        when members of said groups openly assert their pride, it is their way of saying that they are resisting this historic legacy.

        I know what they try to express. However, it is still a dumb thing to say.
        Besides, resisting history is pointless because it’s over.
        What bothers me the most is the double standard. For example, I know gay people who find nothing wrong with stating that they are proud of being gay. However, these very people get pissed off about straight people who more or less jokingly proclaim that they are proud of being straight. The thing is that when you demand equal rights and equal treatment, then you should not have double standards yourself.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 10:53 pm

        I support affirmative action, so I shed no tears for those who feel victimized who are members of a group – white males – that still benefit institutionally from racism and male supremacism.

        But, if you oppose affirmative action for women, African-Americans and Jews (Zionism), then at least you are being consistent, and I respect that.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:07 pm

        “I know what they try to express”.

        Really? So why did you say “I really don’t understand why people in the USA keep saying things like:…” That’s why I responded to your post in the first place!

        What would your reaction be if the founder of this very blog, Phil Weiss, who is Jewish, said that he is proud to be Jewish? Or does he get a free pass because he’s not a Zionist?

        Historically, being het in America has not been suffused with shame, so for hets to be “proud” is bragging about their privilege.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 11:54 pm

        I support affirmative action, so I shed no tears for those who feel victimized who are members of a group – white males – that still benefit institutionally from racism and male supremacism.

        i support affirmative action, so I shed no tears for those who feel victimized who are members of a group – jewish zionists– that benefit institutionally from hate-mongering and islamophobia.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 12:28 am

        What would your reaction be if the founder of this very blog, Phil Weiss, who is Jewish, said that he is proud to be Jewish? Or does he get a free pass because he’s not a Zionist?

        oh heck no, some commenters try chewing him into little pieces.

      • German Lefty
        March 20, 2013, 12:15 pm

        I support affirmative action, so I shed no tears for those who feel victimized who are members of a group that still benefit institutionally from racism.

        You claim to oppose institutional racism. However, you fail to see that affirmative action IS institutional racism.

        If you oppose affirmative action for women, African-Americans and Jews, then at least you are being consistent.

        What do you mean by “at least”? Of course I am consistent in my support for equal rights. Otherwise I would be a proponent of discrimination.

        So why did you say “I really don’t understand why people in the USA keep saying things like…”?

        Well, I understand WHAT they try to say. However, I don’t understand WHY they say “I am proud to be gay/black/Jewish/a woman.” when actually they mean “I am not ashamed to be gay/black/Jewish/a woman.” The thing is that “being proud” and “not being ashamed” do NOT have the same meaning. For example, when I say that I am not ashamed of the Holocaust, then this does NOT imply that I am proud of it. I am neither ashamed nor proud of it, simply because it happened before I was born and has nothing to do with me.

        What would your reaction be if the founder of this very blog, Phil Weiss, who is Jewish, said that he is proud to be Jewish? Or does he get a free pass because he’s not a Zionist?

        I apply my standards equally to all Jews and non-Jews, regardless of their political views.

        Historically, being het in America has not been suffused with shame, so for hets to be “proud” is bragging about their privilege.

        No, they just mock gay people’s self-declared pride in their sexual orientation.

    • RoHa
      March 14, 2013, 9:57 pm

      “Catholic=Jewish grammatically”

      “Jew” is a noun, so “He is a Jew” is grammatically correct.
      “Jewish” is an adjective.
      “Jewish theology” and “He is Jewish” are both grammatically correct.
      “Catholic” is bothe a noun and an adjective.
      “Catholic theology”, “He is a Catholic”, and “He is Catholic” are all grammatically correct.

      The “ish” ending has several uses. In “Spanish” it means “from Spain”. In “pinkish” it means “a bit pink, but not pink enough to be properly called pink”.
      So in “Jewish” it means …

      • Cliff
        March 15, 2013, 11:31 am

        Correct grammar is antisemitic.

      • RoHa
        March 16, 2013, 12:20 am

        What isn’t?

        (I’m pretty sure spelling “both” as “bothe” is anti-Something.)

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 12:06 am

        In “pinkish” it means “a bit pink, but not pink enough to be properly called pink”. So in “Jewish” it means …

        LOL! That’s the reason I’ve been known to describe non-observant Jews as Jew-ish;-) It doesn’t count as an official hyphenated-American identity‎.

  8. Stephen Shenfield
    March 14, 2013, 4:33 pm

    I think the reluctance to identify people as Jews at least partly comes from a very reasonable uncertainty about how such a statement will be understood or misunderstood. “Catholic” is generally understood to mean affiliation to a clearly defined religious institution. There is still a little room for confusion (as with “lapsed Catholics”) but not very much. When you identify a person as a Jew, are you referring to his or her religion, ethnicity, nationality, descent, politics, ethics, self-ascribed identity, or what? If you want to avoid misunderstanding, you either have to explain the matter fully or avoid it altogether. Which will naturally depend on the context.

    • just
      March 14, 2013, 5:34 pm

      Stephen–

      I suppose you use the same “logic”/explanation when it comes to identify Muslims.?….

      Or Christians……

    • American
      March 14, 2013, 6:18 pm

      “When you identify a person as a Jew, are you referring to his or her religion, ethnicity, nationality, descent, politics, ethics, self-ascribed identity, or what? If you want to avoid misunderstanding, you either have to explain the matter fully or avoid it altogether. “>>>

      Oh lord, let’s not confuse the matter any more than it already is , if someone says he’s Jewish or if he has a common Jewish name and you mistake him for Jewish when he’s not, or he doesn’t have a typical Jewish name and you don’t refer to him as Jewish when he actually is…..way too complicate for us all to have crystal balls……..whoever it is can always explain he’s religiously Jewish or not, ethnically Jewish or not and so on. There are so many definitions of Jewish depending on you ask there is no way you can say Jewish and be totally pc- identity- correct in every case and attach a whole paragraph of explaination to it.
      But I see your point anyway.

      • sardelapasti
        March 14, 2013, 7:07 pm

        “Oh lord, let’s not confuse the matter any more than it already is ”

        I’d say on the contrary let’s complicate it.
        Like: Oh so you are Jewish? Do you mean you are very religious? No? Then what do you mean exactly? What did you say, “ethnic”? You mean the same as the Ethiopians? and so on.
        There shouldn’t be this crass an exception to the commonly held definitions of religion and culture.

  9. Les
    March 14, 2013, 5:53 pm

    NPR considers it anti-Semitic to mention that the neo-cons are disproportionately Jewish, but definitely not anti-Semitic to report to its listeners just how many award winners are Jewish. If you think that such NPR policies originate from the bottom rather than the top management, let me offer to sell you a quite famous bridge.

  10. MLE
    March 14, 2013, 7:32 pm

    Maybe they don’t mention charney is Jewish because his name is really really Jewish.

    • Marco
      March 14, 2013, 9:34 pm

      You’d be surprised. Most Americans are not that aware of the ethnic origins of most names. We’re a very race-conscious society, but ethnic divisions among white people – and for non-Jewish people, Jews are simply white – have become very faint indeed.

      There’s a fundamental asymmetry in ethnic awareness when it comes to American Jews. Everyone who isn’t Jewish is much less aware of who is or is not a member of the tribe than his Jewish peers. And I daresay, the media helps keep it that way, hence the subject of this post.

      • Citizen
        March 15, 2013, 12:29 am

        @ Marco
        “There’s a fundamental asymmetry in ethnic awareness when it comes to American Jews. Everyone who isn’t Jewish is much less aware of who is or is not a member of the tribe than his Jewish peers.”

        This has been my experience except in places like NYC for example. Symmetry of awareness increases depending on the industry, career path chosen.

      • American
        March 15, 2013, 4:28 pm

        “Most Americans are not that aware of the ethnic origins of most names. ”

        No they aren’t unless they have a reason to be. I’ve become very aware since being involved in the US-Isr-I/P thing…in the sense that if I read something by a Jewish (person..lol) and that something isn’t quite clear or contains something fishy I will check his background to see about his zionist persuasion or no. However —I do the same thing with non Jewish names when it comes to opinions on Israel –check out their connections or any personal or political agenda that might be behind their opinion —so I guess I’m not discriminating.

  11. RJL
    March 14, 2013, 11:57 pm

    Phil, this was a silly, unnecessary story. The Korean businessman is proudly, openly a practicing Christian, while Charney’s Jewishness as religion isn’t. However, his being Jewish is probably important to him as an ethnic, historical identifier. Now, this won’t go over well with much of your “tight” readership/responders as some of them emphatically deny that Jewish is anything BUT a religion. To the rest of the world, be it under previous European Christian domination, and later Hitler, and under Moslem rule, Jews were seen as a religion, race, and nationality that didn’t fit in or belong to the nations in which they lived-outsiders, usurpers, troublemakers. My (late) European born and raised Holocaust survivor parents, in their respective countries of birth, frequently got taunted not just with the Christ killer slur, but were also told, “You belong in Palestine, not here.” My mother mentioned this bitter irony in her Speilberg testimony, that we aren’t seen as belonging there, either.
    No wonder some Jews “convert” to non-Jewish Jews, or anti-Jews. It’s difficult to be hated and victimized and not wonder if indeed there’s something really criminal about your identity.

    • Ecru
      March 15, 2013, 5:46 am

      I’m afraid you’re wrong about the status of Jews under Christian European and Muslim rule. For the vast majority of their history Jewish was considered a religion NOT a race. Nationality since you also bring that up, as a concept we would recognise, didn’t even really develop until the Renaissance.

      The first laws in Europe that treated Jews as anything but a religion were enacted in Spain in the late 15th century as part of its developing nationalism. Prior to this any Jews could convert to Christianity losing their Jewish identifier and be allowed to take up work for the state (Torquemada of well deserved infamy was himself the grandson of a Converso). It was only under these new laws that this began to be restricted with ideas of “Spanish blood”. Under Muslim rule too Jews were always able to convert and change status. In fact I’m not sure if Muslims EVER got round to enacting similar legislation. Certainly they never did in Spain where much antagonism from Christians was Jewish advancement in Muslim employ.

      Yes Jews were seen as “the Other” but considering they spoke different languages (Yiddish, Ladino, etc.), ate different food (pork has always been a staple of the European diet though obviously not the Muslim), were conspicuously endogamous, even wore different clothing, it’s hard to see how they could have been seen as anything else. Nor were Jews unique in this, other religious and “ethnic” minorities, such as Waldensians or Roma were also persecuted and accused of many of the same things that Jews were “guilty” of. Even the Blood Libel wasn’t solely associated with Jewish communities. Long before the Romans had levelled very similar charges against early Christians and the Witch Craze also used such imagery. Much of the persecution of Jews was less about them being Jewish, more about them being “Outsiders” in unstable and violent eras. In fact in many ways Jews were more protected than Christian or Muslim “heretics,” who were, in contrast to Jews until the 20th Century, marked out for complete annihilation by the forces of religious orthodoxy (e.g the Cathars).

      There’s a tendency to see Jewish identity, social role, and antisemitism as being stable through time, unfortunately the historical record does not support that position. In fact antisemitism as understood today only dates back 500 years to that nascent nationalism and the birth of our modern ideas of race, ethnicity and identity. Prior to that one can only argue for religious discrimination not ethnic or racial.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 15, 2013, 2:30 pm

        that’s a very interesting comment ecru. some of it coincides with a quote of arendt’s we were discussing in one of the threads the other day.

      • hophmi
        March 15, 2013, 2:47 pm

        ” For the vast majority of their history Jewish was considered a religion NOT a race. Nationality since you also bring that up, as a concept we would recognise, didn’t even really develop until the Renaissance.”

        It’s beside the point. Post-Enlightenment, many Jews tried to assimilate in general European society. As we know, it did not work. They were still persecuted and still killed in the end, and whatever comparison there is between the persecution of the Jews and the persecution of others in the Middle Ages, it has little relevance to what happened during WWII, when the Jews of Europe were targeted for annihilation and more than half of them were murdered in cold blood. And no, I’m not minimizing the fact that other groups were targeted as well, but there is no question as to who the main target was of the Nazis was.

        You’re also underplaying the role the deicide charge and the idea that the Christians succeeded the Jews played in the antisemitism of the last 1000 years when you say that it was really all about Jews being outsiders. As far as I know, anti-Roma iconography is not found in Catholic Churches. The Roma aren’t consider people the Christians succeeded as the chosen ones.

        And of course, the idea that others were persecuted doesn’t make the case for Jewish security and safety any less meritless.

      • Ecru
        March 15, 2013, 5:36 pm

        That’s interesting. I have to admit I’ve not read any of her stuff, would it be possible for you to link to that discussion please? Thank you.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2013, 12:36 am

        RJL says To the rest of the world, be it under previous European Christian domination, and later Hitler, and under Moslem rule, Jews were seen as a religion, race, and nationality

        Ecru says:For the vast majority of their history Jewish was considered a religion NOT a race. Nationality since you also bring that up, as a concept we would recognise, didn’t even really develop until the Renaissance.

        hophmi says:It’s beside the point….were still persecuted and still killed….whatever comparison there is between the persecution of the Jews and the persecution of others in the Middle Ages, it has little relevance to what happened during WWII, when the Jews of Europe were targeted for annihilation and more than half of them were murdered in cold blood. And no, I’m not minimizing the fact that other groups were targeted as well, but there is no question as to who the main target was of the Nazis was.

        it does sound to me like you are very much minimizing the annihilation of nine million people who were not jews. and ecru was addressing rjl’s argument, in that regard it didn’t seem beside the point or irrelevant. perhaps it is beside your point tho, like all those other dead people are beside your point.

      • Ecru
        March 16, 2013, 1:45 am

        Forgive me if I’m wrong but the years 1933 to 1945 are not the “vast majority” of Jewish history in Christian Europe. Or are they? Maybe you should read the whole thing again. And take refresher in European history while you’re at it huh?

        And you DO attempt to minimise the fact other groups were targeted when you try to claim special status for Jewish suffering. A claim that is both incorrect and morally repugnant.

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2013, 9:19 am

        You argue in bad faith. If you can’t acknowledge that Jews were Hitler’s primary target and that saying so does not in any way minimize the deaths of others, and if your response, when I go out of my way to acknowledge other victims is that I really think their deaths are “beside the point”, then I just have nothing else to say to you.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2013, 12:16 pm

        sure ecru, it starts here: link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2013, 12:29 pm

        You argue in bad faith. If you can’t acknowledge that Jews were Hitler’s primary target

        hops, go back and read the context being discussed. everything isn’t always about what you want it to be about. there are other people here too. if you want to divert the conversation, me staying on topic is not arguing in bad faith.

      • Ellen
        March 16, 2013, 1:04 pm

        Hop, Zionism and the Holocaust industry has completely minimized, if not tried to erase, the suffering of non-Jews under the Nazi regime of terror. Today most all Americans are educated to think that only Jews were victims of this terror, which is far from the truth.

        There is good reason for this: it increased political currency for a defined group. A currency that immensely supports a Zionist enterprise, which it has been a commercial enterprise from day one. That this abhorent use of all victims for gain seemed besides the point.

        Jews were very much integrated into central European life and society, and Zionism was not accepted by most all central European Jews. (The Jewish community of Munich did not even allow the first Zionist Congress to be held there — so it was held in a casino in Basel.) Before Zionism Jews had as much feelings for “the land of Israel” as for the sands of Giza. Historically fascinating….but that is it.

        Zionist rhetoric of the times did much damage to European Jews.

        Were Jews the primary targets of the Nazi regime? Reading German propaganda of the time (which I have) I would say certainty A Primary target. No doubt. But not The Primary target.

        Like all insane regimes, enemies were seen everywhere and the targets were moving.

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2013, 2:43 pm

        I didn’t divert the conversation. You did, by claiming, amazingly, that I do not care about other victims of the Holocaust.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 16, 2013, 3:26 pm

        ” You did, by claiming, amazingly, that I do not care about other victims of the Holocaust.”

        Oh, I wouldn’t find that claim “amazing.” It’s pretty fair, given your monomania.

      • Ellen
        March 16, 2013, 4:28 pm

        Hop, why would one need to, as you say “go out of my way to acknowledge other victims.” This does, indeed, reveal emotional priorities in thought of one over others.

        You know, going out of your way, making the effort for the other.

      • Keith
        March 16, 2013, 6:42 pm

        HOPHMI- “And no, I’m not minimizing the fact that other groups were targeted as well, but there is no question as to who the main target was of the Nazis was.”

        Over 20 million people of the former USSR were killed during World War II versus approximately 6 million Jews, yet you insist that Jews were the primary victims? According to Joel Kovel, “…the Nazis filled the first concentration camps with leftists, the crushing of whom was the first order of business for the Third Reich. At this time, Jews, though experiencing revilement of all sorts, were not singled out as particular victims.…the ‘Final Solution’ did not take shape until the invasion of Russia, or to be more exact, until the invasion began to run into trouble on the road to Moscow thanks to the unanticipated resistance put forth by the Soviets. It was then, with yet more millions of Jews in the newly invaded lands (chiefly Ukraine), and with the first presentiment that the mad scheme of world conquest was not going to happen as planned, that the pressure-cooker of Nazism began to germinate the scheme of mass extermination, and followed it through with all the nihilism, race-hatred, industrialization, sadism and cold malevolence that was the Nazi trademark.” (p75, 76, Overcoming Zionism, Joel Kovel, 2007)

        You continue to misinterpret history due to your Judeo-centric myopia. Eternal Jewish victim-hood remains an unshakeable part of your ideological narrative, regardless of the facts of the matter. To you, World War II reduces to one big anti-Semitic pogrom. Being the victim means not having to deal with the consequences of Jewish power and privilege. Very convenient.

      • Blank State
        March 16, 2013, 10:07 pm

        “Blahblahblah……then I just have nothing else to say to you”

        Egads, how come Annie gets such a gift? The rest of the commentors here are gonna get jealous of her good fortune.

      • mcohen
        March 17, 2013, 7:11 am

        “”You continue to misinterpret history due to your Judeo-centric myopia. “”

        when i visited venice i took a trip to the synagogues.chabad has a office there .they were quite beautiful.

        here is the link-take the trip ,see the future in the past

        ” The Jewish Ghetto
        The Jewish Ghetto, the world’s oldest, remains intact and is still marked by dark porticos, peeling paint, laundry hung out to dry, and windows placed so close above one another that you’re back aches just thinking about the low ceiling.”

        link to jewishvenice.org

        really i find your comments “morally repugnant” when you post this crap

        “And you DO attempt to minimise the fact other groups were targeted when you try to claim special status for Jewish suffering. A claim that is both incorrect and morally repugnant.”

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2013, 11:39 am

        @ Keith, @ Hophmi:

        Estimates of Non-Combatant Lives Lost During the Holocaust:
        1.) Ukrainians: 5.5 – 7 million
        2.) Jews (of all countries): 6 million +
        3.) Russian POWs: 3.3 million +
        3.5) Russian Civilians : 2 million +
        4.) Poles: 3 million +
        5.) Yugoslavians: 1.5 million +
        6.) Gypsies: 200,000 – 500,000
        7.) Mentally/Physically Disabled: 70,000- 250,000
        8.) Homosexuals: Tens of thousands
        9.) Spanish Republicans: Tens of thousands
        10.) Jehovah’s Witnesses : 2,500 – 5,000
        “Remarkably, historians have repeated what newspapers and the entertainment media have done. Even though historians had access to first-hand accounts and official government documents, they too have focused on only one group of victims to the near exclusion of all others. Some of the earliest histories of the Holocaust portrayed the event as a singularly Jewish experience. Not all, but the majority of the histories fall into one or more of the following three categories: (1) the author is Jewish; (2) the focus of the book is on Jewish victims; and (3) non-Jews are portrayed as rescuers, bystanders, or perpetrators, but are seldom highlighted as victims themselves.”
        Why this happened, and more, see:
        link to ukemonde.com

        We are slowly learning just how this state of Israel was allowed by the great powers, heavily assisted by them to be born and flourish, and why it has been so heavily supported by the US–and why the US should no longer write a blank check to Israel with its money and diplomatic cover, with America’s blood, sweat, and tears. By alerting the American public to just how many non-jews were systematically murdered by the Nazi regime, and this in the present time where the world is no longer “balanced” by the power of the former USSR versus the power of the USA, Israel loses
        its moral claim as victim state, it’s claim for unique immunity due to the Holocaust (Shoah) for its now decades old horrid policies and conduct. Hence the insistent frenzy of the Israel Lobby.

      • Ecru
        March 17, 2013, 12:00 pm

        Thanks Annie, I’ll give it a look.

      • Ecru
        March 17, 2013, 12:35 pm

        A very telling comment mccohen. You find it morally repugnant that Jews NOT be given special status for their suffering. Says all that needs to be said about you really. Just another Zionist Jewish supremist that thinks suffering doesn’t really count unless it’s Jewish suffering.

        I take it you’re unaware of the old anti-semitic (real as opposed to the usual imaginary rubbish) charge that Jews don’t care about anyone but Jews. Ironic how Zionists seem so intent on bringing almost every old lie back to life. Maybe we should get the ADL to look into it.

        And as for the Ghetto, oh my. I take it you’ve not been to many Medieval towns in Europe. A trip to “The Shambles” in York would show you houses so closely packed together that people on opposite sides of the street could shake hands with one another. Or shall I describe my own Medieval house? I jokingly call it a Hobbit House if that gives you an idea of the ceiling height. Not everything in Medieval Europe was a conspiracy against Jews believe it or not. And did you know that one of the functions of Ghettos was to protect Jews? No? What a surprise. I take it your guide missed the bit about how gates could be closed from inside as well as outside. Don’t get me wrong (and I’m sure you’re just itching to do so) the Ghettos were a vile imposition but guess what, Medieval Europe was a bit more than the Ghettos. There were other people there too you know.

        And incidentally, Roma were almost universally banned from even entering cities or towns.

      • mcohen
        March 17, 2013, 5:00 pm

        ec ru………et tu…………………brute

        “”There were other people there too you know.””

        you forgot to mention the last sentence of my link-the hobbit houses you remarked on .
        but not this-why

        “Before World War II there were still about 1,300 Jews in the Ghetto, but 289 were deported by the Nazis and only seven returned.”

      • Mayhem
        March 17, 2013, 5:16 pm

        Keith and Ellen have attempted to diminish the Holocaust as a ‘Jewish’ event. This phenomenon of diminishing the Holocaust is punishable by imprisonment in a number of countries under racial and religious vilification laws. Eleven million people were killed in the Holocaust. Six million of these were Jewish – Hitler’s most recognized victims and five million were not Jewish.

        They fail to realise that what was unprecedented about the Nazi Holocaust was that every Jew (man, woman and child) in every land was to be hunted down and killed. This had never happened before. Most important is that the mass murder was based on a fantasy view of the Jew that had no connection to reality. Not every victim was a Jew but every Jew was a potential victim.

        Furthermore they suggest that those who suffered from the Holocaust ignore the fact that others suffered as well and that Jews use the Holocaust to earn cheap political points.

        The first assertion is baseless as Jews have as a result of their own persecution always been particularly aware of the hurt done to others. On a number of occasions, despite the fact that Jewish Holocaust Centres that have popped up everywhere are essentially Jewish, exhibitions and events have frequently been staged to acknowledge the slaughter of other minorities like the Roma (link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

        The second claim is a mean-spirited view that shows a lack of understanding of victimhood. In fact if we look at the Palestinian Nakba as a parallel example we see greater evidence of this trumpeting of victimhood for the advancement of a political agenda.

        Perhaps Keith, Ellen and their ilk should take a look at this article link to israelcfr.com titled ‘Diminishing the Holocaust: Scholarly Fodder for a Discourse of Distortion’ to see an analysis of their behaviours.

      • susan1
        March 17, 2013, 11:03 pm

        On the subject of the second world war an author named James Heartfield has a book out called ” The Unpatriotic History Of The Second World War ” a fantastic book which shows the extent to which the so- called Good War brought six years of slaughter ( 60 million ), poverty,and exploitation and ought to have been known as the war against the people. The book is published by Zero books and you can buy it from Amazon ( U.K.)

      • Ecru
        March 18, 2013, 2:42 am

        The piece doesn’t say whether these people later people were still forced to live in the ghetto or just chose to do so. And from 1,300 losing 232 isn’t actually that “bad” given what was happening in WWII to Jews and Non-Jews alike. Again – there ARE other people in Europe apart from Jews you know. But yes – we know – they don’t count.

      • Ecru
        March 18, 2013, 2:59 am

        Your reply itself shows how you cannot see the suffering of others as being equal to that of Jews. You even call the inclusion of other groups a “diminishing!” Are you channelling Elie Wiesel or something?

        There is NOT anything unique about hunting down man women and children of a group for slaughter – this has happened repeatedly in history as any look at the books would show you. The only differences are that the Nazis, unlike most earlier genocidal regimes in modern history, were operating within their own region of control and using Industrial Age methods of logistics and murder.

        As for “…Jews have as a result of their own persecution always been particularly aware of the hurt done to others…” Then how on earth can you explain Israel and all the Hasbarites that defend it no matter what it does? Sorry, it’s a nice “we’re more moral” myth but I see no evidence to back it up.

        And no we don’t say Jews use the Holocaust to earn cheap political points we say Zionists do so. Bit of a difference there.

        And just a final note – not everybody who died in WWII did so in the death camps. The Nazis managed to murder plenty of people without them. And I’m not even counting the soldiers there.

      • eljay
        March 18, 2013, 9:35 am

        >> They fail to realise that what was unprecedented about the Nazi Holocaust was that every Jew (man, woman and child) in every land was to be hunted down and killed. This had never happened before.

        1 Samuel 15:3 – Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

      • marc b.
        March 18, 2013, 10:55 am

        Keith and Ellen have attempted to diminish the Holocaust as a ‘Jewish’ event.

        wrong. nobody’s denied that the holocaust was a jewish event. jews are by definition the victims of the ‘holocaust’.

        the Holocaust [is] the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5. oxford dictionary

        it’s the superlative status that you and hopmhi insist be granted to the ‘holocaust’ over the death and suffering to others caused by WWII that’s erroneous. and get it right hophmi, jews were not the ‘primary target’ of the nazis, nor was the plan to exterminate jews as a race, where ever they could found, unique. the nazis intended to exterminate the slavs as a race (and open up eastern europe to repopulation by aryan stock, something that could never be accomplished by the murder of jews alone), and began that task by murdering tens of thousand of the polish elite before they extended much effort at all rouding up polish jews.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 1:04 pm

        “it’s the superlative status that you and hopmhi insist be granted to the ‘holocaust’ over the death and suffering to others caused by WWII that’s erroneous. ”

        Blah, blah, blah. Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, annihilated at a rate approached only by the Roma, whom I would also call primary victims. If you can’t accept it, go live with your friends on the far right. I hear Chicago is nice this time of year. link to en.wikipedia.org.

        “get it right hophmi, jews were not the ‘primary target’ of the nazis, nor was the plan to exterminate jews as a race, where ever they could found, unique.”

        They were indeed, and that was indeed the plan, which is why 6 out of every 11 European Jews were murdered, and not on the battlefield either. In gas chambers. You know, those things where they pour in gas and the people slowly asphyxiated. And then cremated in ovens. Before that, it was mass shootings, like at Babi Yar, where close to 34,000 Jews were murdered in two days. Murdered. Before that, hundreds of thousands of them were herded into ghettos. Roma suffered these fates as well. They haven’t spoken up much since then, like the Jewish community has. How has not speaking up worked out for them?

        The Roma largely remained in Europe. Please let me know what Europe has done to improve their lives. The answer is less than nothing. They haven’t gotten reparations, and Europeans continue to persecute them. It’s disgusting. That’s what happens when you don’t make an issue out of your persecution. You get dumped on by heartless Europeans.

        Please let me know when you launch the boycott of the EU for their failure to treat Roma with any kind of dignity, let alone give them autonomy anywhere. As I’m sure you know, the EU is one the US’s biggest trading partners and the US effectively gives the EU tens of billions of dollars in indirect aid by spending several times what the continent does on its military so that it can protect the Western Hemisphere.

        Anybody? Virtually nothing of importance is manufactured there; it would be easy. Be glad I’m not calling for a boycott of China over Tibet, because then you’d really be up a creek.

      • Keith
        March 18, 2013, 2:12 pm

        MAYHEM- “Keith and Ellen have attempted to diminish the Holocaust as a ‘Jewish’ event.”

        Nothing I have said diminishes the Holocaust, which was but one aspect of World War II, and which you Zionists focus on and exploit shamelessly. In so doing, it is you who diminishes the suffering of non-Jews during World War II, in which over 60 million people perished, approximately 10% of which were Jews. What were the over 54 million Gentiles, chopped liver? And the Holocaust is properly considered yet another example of mass-murder, which has been rather common throughout history. Just ask the native Americans and Black Africans. The extreme focusing on the Holocaust as “unique” tends to imply that mass-murder is a rare occurrence, not an ongoing phenomenon. “…up to a certain point, the Nazi war crimes consisted largely of inflicting on white Europeans levels of brutality that had previously been reserved only for Asians, Africans, and the native populations of North, Central, and South America.” (Bertram Gross)

        “This phenomenon of diminishing the Holocaust is punishable by imprisonment in a number of countries under racial and religious vilification laws.”

        These shameful laws are a consequence of Jewish/Zionist power, and the ability to exploit the Holocaust for power-seeking.

        “From a purely instrumental standpoint, the Shoah proved the greatest asset ever acquired by Zionism, one sedulously cultivated over the years.” (p66, “Overcoming Zionism,” Joel Kovel, 2007)

        “In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of Jews killed by non-Jews. The extent of the persecution and discrimination against non-Jews by the ‘Jewish state’ with the support of the organized diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the suffering inflicted on Jews by the states hostile to them. Although the struggle against antisemitism (and of all other forms of racism) should never cease, the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism , which must include a critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.” (Israel Shahak, 1994)

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 2:37 pm

        “Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust, annihilated at a rate approached only by the Roma, whom I would also call primary victims.”

        In fact, some have calculated that the rate of murders of the Roma exceeded that of the Jews, albeit on a smaller population. And it is true that the Jews were specifically targeted by the Nazis, had the Nazis succeeded, the death of Slavs would have, by sheer number would have dwarfed the number of Jews killed.

        All this is interesting history. None of justifies anything done to the Palestinians from the mid 19th C. through today, though.

      • marc b.
        March 18, 2013, 2:54 pm

        really, hopmhi, i’ve tried to be civil, but it’s not worth the effort. number one, there can not be two ‘primary’ victims of the holocaust. that statement (the roma are also the primary victims) is inconsistent with the definition of primary in this context. two, the definition of the ‘holocaust’, which you’re also apparently unable to grasp, has a specific meaning, referring to the nazi murder of jews, not roma or other non-jews. third, i never said that the nazis didn’t intend to exterminate the jews, i said that there were other ‘inferior races’ they also intended to exterminate, which, again, would mean by definition that their plan for the jews was not unique.

        commenters here are debating history, not making a salad. get a dictionary. it may help.

      • Ellen
        March 18, 2013, 3:00 pm

        Keith, Mayhem’s classic and dishonest smear (including the threats to intimidate) was so over the top, I found it not worthy of response.

        Thanks for taking the time. You have much honesty and patience.

      • Ecru
        March 18, 2013, 6:24 pm

        @ Hophmi – You’re trying to compare Europe, a collection of nations with varied histories, cultures, languages, legal systems and baggage with the single nation of Israel and its mistreatment of Palestinians. And alas you show your ignorance of both Europe, its Nations and the Roma in doing so.

        The E.C. has and continues to attempt to improve the lives of Roma communities within its member states and has criticised France over its expulsion policies (it should have tried harder though). Further for decades the majority Roma population lived behind the Iron Curtain – so there was very little Western European nations could do to help them. Now that this has changed the E.C. targets funds, however imperfectly (and nobody can target money as imperfectly as the E.C.), towards projects to benefit Roma in those nations, while Israel withholds monies from the Palestinians out of spite.

        In the Western nations Roma have access to ALL the benefits of citizenship often specially tailored to their life-styles with the aim of permitting them to preserve as much of their culture as possible – such as specially equipped educational resources. Further unlike Palestinians under Israeli Jewish dominance, they also have equal access to social housing and those that already own properties are not discriminated against in planning law. Nor does marriage law favour non-Roma over Roma. Again a very different picture to Israel’s.

        There’s still way too much discrimination yes, especially in matters pertaining to camps, but nowhere NEAR or even vaguely comparable to the officially sanctioned discrimination against Palestinians in Israel. Even France, which shamefully expelled Roma 3 years ago, did not even once mention ejecting its own Roma population, and actually limited things to only those who had immigrated from recent E.C. member states and who had stayed beyond their 3 month grace period. How many Knesset members and public figures is it now who’ve called for Israeli-Palestinians to be expelled? And just to remind you, the last pogrom in Europe was decades ago, the last one in Tel Aviv only a few months back.

        And you also need to learn the differences between Roma in various parts of Europe. In most of Europe they’ve been settled communities for ages (e.g. in Spain), in the British Isles and Ireland they’re still more associated with a travelling way of life (a source of some friction with the settled communities). And yes I actually DO have Roma friends – Irish folk music (indeed folk music throughout Europe) is heavily indebted to the “Travelling People.” (That’s a ref. to Ewan MacColl btw).

      • Mayhem
        March 18, 2013, 6:51 pm

        @Ecru et al, you plainly haven’t bothered to read the reference link I provided to Robert Rozett’s ‘Diminishing the Holocaust: Scholarly Fodder for a Discourse of Distortion’.
        You prefer to just vent your lazy, entrenched views that display scant appreciation of what how the Nazis went about their extermination.
        Yale University professor Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin considers the Nazis’ anti-partisan crusade in Belarus in 1942.

        He demonstrates that both Jews and non-Jews were killed by the same methods and that anti-partisan activities by definition always included killing Jews. He describes the brutal destruction of entire villages suspected in some way of aiding the partisans, even though the murdered villagers were frequently innocent bystanders. Although the methods of killing were the same and the outcome was that thousands of innocent non-Jews were murdered, there is a very important distinction to be drawn between their fate and the fate of their murdered Jewish neighbors: All Jews were slated for murder simply because they were Jews, whereas the residents of destroyed villages were murdered because of the partisan activities in the region and the brutal and immensely disproportionate Nazi response to those activities.
        Of course here, too, there is an element of Nazi racism, since as Slavs, these villagers were certainly expendable to the Nazis, who did not weep or agonize over their fate. They were, however, certainly not victims of a policy akin to the Final Solution.

      • Mayhem
        March 18, 2013, 8:29 pm

        None of justifies anything done to the Palestinians

        @Woody, what you suggest was ‘done to the Palestinians’ is a direct result of their pathetic leadership that only really wanted one thing – the eradication of a Jewish state of any description in any part of the Palestine mandate.

        “ It’s wrong to suggest Israel was direct result of Holocaust” – refer link to haaretz.com

        Obama exposed his ignorance regarding Zionist movement’s history in his Cairo speech and he has now corrected that mistake. See link to mondoweiss.net

        their plan for the jews was not unique

        @marcb, it was more than unique it was UNPRECEDENTED.

        the Shoah proved the greatest asset ever acquired by Zionism, one sedulously cultivated over the years.

        Why would anyone not want to seek remediation or recompense after an event which threatened to destroy the entire Jewish people?

        The resentment over this FACT of history by anti-Zionists is unparalled; it is no wonder that diminishment of its significance is so important to them.

        These shameful laws are a consequence of Jewish/Zionist power

        Really Keith,surely you can do a better job of disguising your antipathy towards Jews. This kind of statement is the daily fare of those who like to blame Jews for all the world’s ills.

        In the last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the number of Jews killed by non-Jews.

        Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously observed during the Yom Kippur War that, “the Arabs can fight, and lose, and return to fight another day. Israel can only lose once.”

        This is not a numbers game it is a matter of survival.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 8:36 pm

        You’re missing the point here. I’m not comparing Roma and Palestinians. I’m comparing Roma (who continue to be oppressed by Europeans they pose no threat to at all, just as Jews were) and Jews. The Jews stood up for themselves and they’re doing well today. Do you think the Roma are doing well?

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 1:26 am

        “The Jews stood up for themselves and they’re doing well today. Do you think the Roma are doing well?”

        The European, Australian, and American Jews who are doing well are those who chose integration over separatism. The Roma are sticking to separatism. Which ones are “standing up for themselves”?

      • Ecru
        March 19, 2013, 1:41 am

        @Hophmi –

        You ARE comparing Israel with an entire continent of nations and you ARE comparing Roma discrimination with Palestinian oppression. How? You brought in the BDS thing. The instant you did that Hophi it was obvious what you were up to. You really must try harder, you’re still way too transparent. Does Hasbara not offer refresher courses?

        As for autonomy – the Roma haven’t asked for it, they’re content to live in REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACIES. You know those old fashioned things that give people rights based on their citizenship NOT on their ethnic identity. Ones that don’t indulge in ethnic cleansing to maintain the rule of one group at the cost of all others. I know Europe right, what strange ideas. And now, please detail the Oppression of Roma in Europe (not discrimination Hophi – oppression), nation by nation. Nope just “Europe” won’t do, you invited the comparison with a nation-state so stick to it. I already know Europe’s record isn’t good btw – let’s see how long you take to google it shall we. And remember Hophi it has to be “oppression.

        BTW your sudden concern with the Roma is truly touching. Just one question. If as you maintain the Roma were another “primary target” of the Nazis – why did you take so long to include them and not mention them in the first place, referring only to Jews when you stated “…but there is no question as to who the main target was of the Nazis was.”? No plural there – it’s in the singular. Hmmmm. Surely with your great concern for the Nazis second “primary target” you should have mentioned the Roma as well (if that is you actually believe the Roma were a “primary target” rather than just using their suffering as a debating ploy – which would be a REALLY scummy thing to do. So why do I suspect that exactly what you’re up to? Oh yeah – I’ve read your posts)

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 1:54 am

        Although the methods of killing were the same and the outcome was that thousands of innocent non-Jews were murdered, there is a very important distinction to be drawn between their fate and the fate of their murdered Jewish neighbors: All Jews were slated for murder simply because they were Jews, whereas the residents of destroyed villages were murdered because of the partisan activities

        there may be ‘a very important distinction’ in their fates to professor Snyder, but to me, their fates were the same: they’re dead. and what’s with the ‘simply’ framing? what if he had written ‘All Jews were slated for murder because they were Jews, whereas the residents of destroyed villages were murdered simply because of partisan activities’?

        is one worse or better than the other? did they spare the children of the non jews because they were not active in partisan activities? no. they were civilians slated for murder simply because of their affiliation..were they not? how is this any different, wrt their ‘fate’?

        what ‘very important distinction’? perhaps professor Snyder is biased.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 2:30 am

        You’re missing the point here. I’m not comparing Roma and Palestinians. I’m comparing Roma (who continue to be oppressed by Europeans they pose no threat to at all, just as Jews were) and Jews. The Jews stood up for themselves and they’re doing well today. Do you think the Roma are doing well?

        Since the Jews “stood-up” for themselves about 21,000 of them have been killed in various armed conflicts. About 1,100 since the second intifada began. link to mfa.gov.il

        Since WW-II the Roma have certainly not fared worse than the Israelis in that regard. In addition, they have not been accused of aggression, war crimes, apartheid, or other crimes against humanity.

      • American
        March 19, 2013, 10:21 am

        ”All Jews were slated for murder simply because they were Jews, whereas the residents of destroyed villages were murdered because of the partisan activities in the region and the brutal and immensely disproportionate Nazi response to those activities.”

        You are missing the point that to the Nazi mind the Jewish collective was also a ‘danger to the state’ ..i.e….bad for Germany,etc…..so the ‘ reason’ for executing Jews was basically the same as for excuting partisans –undermining Germany in their minds.
        The ‘difference’ was in their belief of all Jews as guilty as a ‘group’ instead of individual partisans. …..that was the ‘anti semitism’ of it.
        But as annie said ……. dead is dead……the final solution for a partisan or any other undesirable was the same as the final solution for a Jew.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 10:26 am

        “but to me, their fates were the same: they’re dead. ”

        If two people die, one of a heart attack, and one in a shooting, would you say how they died doesn’t matter because they’re “both dead”?

      • marc b.
        March 19, 2013, 10:44 am

        speaking of lazy, mayhem, you haven’t bothered to cite the quotation you provided. it appears to be from a review of ‘bloodlands’, not text from the book itself. i’ve read ‘bloodlands’ and some of the points snyder makes are that contrary to prior histories the nazis plans for exterminating european jews was extremely disorganized (which is an important point because it calls into question the narrative of the efficiency of the ‘german killing machine’ and the nazi penchant for record keeping. apparently neither trope is supported as much of the extermination program was ad hoc, and there is a significant divergence of opinion of the numbers killed, with greater than a 10% differential of jews killed, for example, the numbers being between the low 5Millions to more than 6 amongst reputable scholars), and the focus on european jews as the target of the nazis. as i have repeated ad nauseum, and as is reported in ‘bloodlands’, the mass extermination of slavs, not just the crushing of partisan activities, was an integral component of the nazi plan.

        you have apparently cherry picked a quote from a review to support your position, and that quote is inconsisent with the theme of snyder’s work, that the nazis and soviets were engaged in mass murder as part of their vision for the future, and that the jews were only one target for extinction in those plans.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 12:10 pm

        If two people die, one of a heart attack, and one in a shooting, would you say how they died doesn’t matter because they’re “both dead”?

        hops, how they died was the same. they were both targeted for extermination by the nazis.

        if 2 people were killed by the same man, one shot in the head because he had red hair, and one shot in the head because of their blue hair, would you say their fates were different?

        or even if one was strangled and the other stabbed in the back, but by the same killer, would you say their fates were different because one person was looking in the eyes of the killer and one could not see his face?

        isn’t that splitting hairs wrt ‘fate’. your conflation w/’heart attack’ is disingenuous and you know it.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:31 pm

        “hops, how they died was the same. they were both targeted for extermination by the nazis.”

        I’m seeing people here comparing Russian soldiers who died during battle and concentration camp victims. I don’t think that’s an appropriate comparison.

        “if 2 people were killed by the same man, one shot in the head because he had red hair, and one shot in the head because of their blue hair, would you say their fates were different?”

        I did not argue that there were not others targeted for extermination. I argued that the largest number of those who were targeted for extermination who died were Jews. Simply saying this seems to drive people here into a frenzy.

        “isn’t that splitting hairs wrt ‘fate’. your conflation w/’heart attack’ is disingenuous and you know it.”

        Not at all. Not when people are simply quoting general casualty statistics from WWII and telling me I’m callous for mentioning how many Jews died because I’m somehow ignoring how many Russians died. The Russians have surely done plenty to celebrate the sacrifice of Russians during the War, including putting big statutes of Russian soldiers liberating concentration camps up in East Germany (and minimizing the memorial of the victims of the camps). Visit Sachsenhausen in Berlin for an example. I don’t see people here pillorizing them (or the East Germans, for that matter) for more or less ignoring the Holocaust’s victims.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:35 pm

        ” the nazis plans for exterminating european jews was extremely disorganized (which is an important point because it calls into question the narrative of the efficiency of the ‘german killing machine’ and the nazi penchant for record keeping”

        The newest research shows the camps were far more pervasive than previously thought:

        link to nytimes.com

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:36 pm

        “they ran away ”

        You’re disgusting. They had everything taken from them and were put in DP camps. No, they should have stayed and gone back to nothing, if they weren’t being shot by the local Poles, right?

      • Keith
        March 19, 2013, 12:38 pm

        MAYHEM- “You prefer to just vent your lazy, entrenched views that display scant appreciation of what how the Nazis went about their extermination.”

        You totally ignore most of human history to focus on but one event to buttress your ‘victim-hood’ defense of Jewish power and privilege. The mass-murder of Jews was a historical aberration. Throughout much of history, Blacks and aboriginal peoples have been the primary victims of mass-murder and slavery, with Ashkenazi Jews frequently partaking of the spoils of conquest. Surely, American Jews wield unprecedented wealth and power, AIPAC hardly a weak and humble organization, Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon fearful for their future. Yet, you continue to focus on the Holocaust, ignoring not only a long history of warfare and mass-murder, but more deplorably, all of the mass-murder which has occurred SINCE the Holocaust. Or has it escaped your attention all of the death and destruction which the empire has visited upon the world, from Latin America to Korea to Viet Nam to Indonesia to Iraq? Never Again? Is that for Jews only, or do other people count for anything with you? Six million Jews? Is there a modern parallel? Do you know what is happening in the Congo right now as a consequence of Western intervention?

        “The U.S. tells the world it can’t figure out how six million people died in the Democratic Republic of Congo – while Washington writes the checks and arms the perpetrators to the teeth. Like Mafia Dons pretending to be honest businessmen, successive U.S. administrations subsidize and direct the worst genocide since World War Two. The United States has financed and given overall direction to the worst genocide since World War Two, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Washington has drenched Congo’s eastern provinces in the blood of over six million people. The governments of Rwanda and Uganda, the direct perpetrators of this holocaust, are in every sense of the word agents of U.S. foreign policy, who operate with impunity under the imperial umbrella.” (Glen Ford, Black Agenda Report)
        link to zcommunications.org

        If you are an American, you bear some responsibility for this, as do I, however, your victim-hood mentality allows you to pretend otherwise. Likewise, the nuclear weapons which Israel possesses and would likely use if advantageous would result in the deaths of tens of millions of people, mostly Arabs, and I suspect, not particularly high on your list of concerns. At this point in time, Zionism has devolved into narcissistic self-centeredness, the inability to see beyond the tribe. I leave you with a final quote.

        “What distinguishes Jewish tribalism is the inability to see any historical event absent a Jewish filter. Hence, as the brilliant Israel Shahak pointed out, when the serfs rose up against their rulers in more feudal times and turned their anger, understandably, on the landlord’s Jewish middle men, it was described as an “anti-Semitic pogrom.” When there were no Jews involved, they were described as what they actually were, peasant uprisings.” (Jeffrey Blankfort)
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:39 pm

        “Since the Jews “stood-up” for themselves about 21,000 of them have been killed in various armed conflicts. About 1,100 since the second intifada began. link to mfa.gov.il

        Since WW-II the Roma have certainly not fared worse than the Israelis in that regard. In addition, they have not been accused of aggression, war crimes, apartheid, or other crimes against humanity.”

        Thanks, Hostage. I’ll keep the state. 21,000 dead in your own state over 65 years is a lot better than 6,000,000 dead over six years, and hundreds of thousands of dead in the hundreds of years before that.

        You just go ask those Roma whether or not they’d prefer to have a state of their own rather than being a cause for you to cynically use.

      • marc b.
        March 19, 2013, 12:44 pm

        it’s bizarre annie, this whole murder calculus. it’s a funny formula too, as no matter what data is input, hophmi’s ancestors always had it worse. did the children of lidice have it better or worse than jewish children sent to concentration camps because of their race? did a child in leningrad have it better or worse because she froze to death in the streets rather than suffocating to death on a train on the way to auschwitz? who thinks like this?

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:48 pm

        “You ARE comparing Israel with an entire continent of nations and you ARE comparing Roma discrimination with Palestinian oppression.”

        I am not. Learn to read.

        “As for autonomy – the Roma haven’t asked for it, they’re content to live in REPRESENTATIONAL DEMOCRACIES.”

        And apparently, content to be treated like an underclass. How many Roma representatives sit in European parliaments? In the EU parliament?

        “You know those old fashioned things that give people rights based on their citizenship NOT on their ethnic identity. ”

        After a millenia of trying to convert them to Christianity and killing minorities nonstop. Yes, I get it. First kill enough people to establish 90% homogenity. THEN declare yourself a liberal democracy. THEN pass laws saying Muslims can’t wear burqas and can’t build mosques with minarets.

        “Ones that don’t indulge in ethnic cleansing to maintain the rule of one group at the cost of all others. ”

        Nope, the ethnic cleansing hasn’t happened since at least Kosovo in 1999, and then before that since 1945. Unless you count France’s expulsion of the Roma over the last couple of years. link to bbc.co.uk

        Or this: link to euractiv.com

        “BTW your sudden concern with the Roma is truly touching.”

        Thanks.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 12:53 pm

        “The European, Australian, and American Jews who are doing well are those who chose integration over separatism.”

        I wouldn’t say European Jews are doing particularly well. They are a fraction of what they once were, and to be a Jew in Europe is to be subjected to an existence where your houses of worship are under overbearing security, you are in danger of being attacked by radical Muslims and where many Christian Europeans still don’t quite view you as being the same as them.

        American Jews largely left European societies to escape persecution. They are doing well. Most support Israel nonetheless. Jews have tried to integrate many times in the past with their Christian neighbors. It has not saved them.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 12:55 pm

        “speaking of lazy, mayhem, you haven’t bothered to cite the quotation you provided. it appears to be from a review of ‘bloodlands’, not text from the book itself.”

        It’s from an article by Robert Rozett, the Director of Yad Vashem Libraries, called “Diminishing the Holocaust: Scholoarly Fodder for a Discourse of Distortion,” published by the Israel Council on Foreign Relations and which appears to be a hit piece on anyone who doesn’t toe the sui generis line concerning the Holocaust. This is all misguided, and is somewhat of the reverse of the falsehood that the Jews were just one of many victims of the Nazis. It simply is not true, as the Jews were especially targeted by the Nazis. But the approach that Rozett take (i.e., that because of that fact, that any comparison with other things [such as other genocides, the killing of non-Jews during WWII, other conflicts, etc.] is out of bounds) wanders into the inane.

        Take, for instance, the end of Mayhem’s quote, where Rozett claims that the Slavs did not suffer as part of any “Final Solution.” This is nonsense. The evidence of what the Nazis had intended for the Slavs, (Poles, Ukranians, Russians, Belarussians, etc.) is quite clear and would have constituted a genocide (a “Final Solution”), even if it would not have been a complete genocide (it would have maybe been an 80-95% genocide.) Indeed, had the Nazis been successful, the number of Slavic deaths would have easily dwarfed the total number of dead among the Jews by many, many times, even if every European Jew had been killed. The treatment of the villages in the USSR was part of that plan, and to deny it is unhistorical nonsense.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 12:55 pm

        hops, don’t move the goalposts in the context of when i referenced “fate. you know perfectly well what we are discussing was not in relation to “comparing Russian soldiers who died during battle”.

        i responded to and blockquoted mayhem’s ‘evidence’ he used to back up his argument. here:

        link to mondoweiss.net

        specifically, he said scant appreciation of what how the Nazis went about their extermination. Yale University professor Timothy Snyder in his book Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin considers the Nazis’ anti-partisan crusade in Belarus in 1942…..”He demonstrates that both Jews and non-Jews were killed by the same methods …..describes the brutal destruction of entire villages …. even though the murdered villagers were frequently innocent bystanders.

        try to keep up with the argument, and my point re ‘fate’. this is regarding “both Jews and non-Jews were killed by the same methods

        you can’t just grab some past argument from another thread and transpose it for the purpose of bypassing my meaning (re your ‘heart attack’ comment) and if you’d like to conflate i’ve ever compared exterminations and soldiers deaths please post supporting evidence with the link. thanks.

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 12:58 pm

        Hophmi,

        I’m seeing people here comparing Russian soldiers who died during battle and concentration camp victims. I don’t think that’s an appropriate comparison. M

        Citizen posted statistics for Non-Combatant Lives Lost During the Holocaust so the comparison is appropriate.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 1:05 pm

        marc b, it’s just impossible to acknowledge the death and victims and devastation that war caused without having that constant voice reminding you how much worse it was for the 6 million than the others. the others, their deaths were in vain. that’s the upshot. they mean nothing. the ‘uniqueness’ just gets so hammered in decade after decade. for what purpose this lesson, which diminishes the lives and executions of the others? as time goes on, i predict, the crime will be seen more and more as one crime perpetrated against all the victims targeted for execution. it is different for those who died in battle.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 19, 2013, 1:20 pm

        “I’m seeing people here comparing Russian soldiers who died during battle and concentration camp victims. ”

        Where is anyone mentioning Russian soldiers who died during battle? But there is nothing with pointing out that 3.3 Million Russian POWs were killed by the Nazis and that up to half a million were killed in the camps.

        “Visit Sachsenhausen in Berlin for an example. I don’t see people here pillorizing them (or the East Germans, for that matter) for more or less ignoring the Holocaust’s victims.”

        Exactly what do you object to about Sachsenhausen? It was primarily for political prisoners (foremost among them, communists) and the majority of the executions were of Soviet POWs. I don’t see how a statute commemorating the liberation of the camp by the Soviets, at the base of an oblisk dedicated to the camp’s political prisoners, located on one small section on the periphery of the camp, is that out of bounds.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 2:10 pm

        “it’s just impossible to acknowledge the death and victims and devastation that war caused without having that constant voice reminding you how much worse it was for the 6 million than the others. the others, their deaths were in vain.”

        No one says this. You’re making this up completely. It seem, more accurately, that you are incapable of hearing that six million Jews died in the Holocaust without thinking that to state this means to deny anyone else did.

        The irony of this disgusting conversation is that no one has done as much as the Jewish community has to ensure that all of the Holocaust’s victims are remembered. European governments took decades to acknowledge what happened; outside of Germany, no country has taken any kind of comprehensive approach to Holocaust education. It is my community that has pushed for Holocaust remembrance, set up monuments, and worked to create museums like the USHMM, which works hard to honor all of the victims, not just Jewish ones.

        The worst part is that you somehow expect the Jewish community to do what no one else has or would, to carry the burden for everyone else’s victimhood by asserting that we are somehow ignoring or minimizing the victimhood of others by calling attention to our own after hundreds and hundreds of years of not doing so in the hope that we might one day find acceptance among the people who kept murdering us.

      • Ellen
        March 19, 2013, 2:14 pm

        Hoppy, the “ranking” of suffering is abhorent. Think about it, why does one rank anything? To compete, to get something.

        But since you are not only ranking victimhood, but also changing to discussion to something it never was (in the mode of susan1) when talking about Russian combat casualties here goes on Dachau as a primary example of horrific state crimes against many targets, including the Jewish population:

        During the first year, the camp held about 4,800 prisoners. Initially the internees consisted primarily of German Communists, Social Democrats, trade unionists, and other political opponents of the Nazi regime. Over time, other groups were also interned at Dachau, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Roma (Gypsies), homosexuals, as well as “asocials” and repeat criminal offenders. During the early years relatively few Jews were interned in Dachau and then usually because they belonged to one of the above groups…

        The camp area consisted of 32 barracks, including one for clergy imprisoned for opposing the Nazi regime ….

        On April 26, 1945, as American forces approached, there were 67,665 registered prisoners in Dachau and its subcamps; more than half of this number were in the main camp. Of these, 43,350 were categorized as political prisoners, while 22,100 were Jews, with the remainder falling into various other categories.
        link to ushmm.org

        This example that is supported by many other historical sources (But I am citing the US Holocaust Museum here) does not support your argument.

        All those other figures you throw out are bunk and not supported by any historical fact. I will not go on and leave it with just this one example, as I find this disucssion of ranking horrible crimes against humanity to support dishonesty and culture of narcissistic victimhood disgusting.

        How were you educated?

      • marc b.
        March 19, 2013, 2:15 pm

        ope, my poor reading skills, woody. i didn’t notice any direct connection made from rozett to snyder. in any event, if that’s what rozett took from ‘bloodlands’ it’s a mischaracterization of the bulk of the book. as you point out, the nazis’ plans for the extermination of weaker races included the slavs, and certainly included extermination of ‘useless gobblers’ like the handicapped or other ‘defective’ individuals.

      • marc b.
        March 19, 2013, 2:23 pm

        it is different for those who died in battle.

        it is, you’re right. but even there it’s not so clear in every case. many of my polish relatives had the good fortune of being ‘volunteered’ for service in the red army because of where they fell in divided poland. given the circumstances of those millions who died on the front, i don’t imagine that the fates of many forced conscripts were more pleasant than that of forced laborers. in both cases i assume (although i’ll have to check again) that most deaths weren’t the result of some fatal trauma like a bullet to the head, but were due to exposure, disease, starvation, acute infection, etc. i got a pretty good imagination, but unless you’ve lived i don’t think anyone could appreciate what the war was like.

        i can understand the emotion of mourning your dead in such grotesque circumstances. it’s the need to elevate the historical memory above all else that is repugnant and just plain inaccurate.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 2:32 pm

        Excuse me, but Jaime Dimon? He’s of Greek ancestry – not Jewish at all.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 2:35 pm

        Yes, the Jews in the Weimar Republic chose integration and assimilation over separatism, and we know how well that worked out.

      • marc b.
        March 19, 2013, 2:35 pm

        and they’re doing well today.”

        i don’t take any joy in saying this, but if the fate of jews depends on the survival of ‘the’ jewish state, how could anyone be optimistic about the future? what 1st world country is closer to collapse than israel? belgium?

      • American
        March 19, 2013, 3:29 pm

        “What distinguishes Jewish tribalism is the inability to see any historical event absent a Jewish filter. Hence, as the brilliant Israel Shahak pointed out, when the serfs rose up against their rulers in more feudal times and turned their anger, understandably, on the landlord’s Jewish middle men, it was described as an “anti-Semitic pogrom.” When there were no Jews involved, they were described as what they actually were, peasant uprisings.” (Jeffrey Blankfort)
        link mondoweiss.net”

        Absolutely true. In almost every account of (real history) every deportation/ marginalization or uprising against Jews in Europe I have read about from the 1400’s was caused by the population turning on the Jews. The working class peasants were squeezed too much to increase their payment from what they collected for the crown. When the peasants revolted, the Crown would jettison the Jews to pacify the population and hold onto to their crown since the serf’s labor, production and taxes was the crowns only source of income and subsistence, the Jews were then expendable, the serfs were not.
        You can see how the excuse of Jews being ‘scapegoats could come from this ….the idea that Jews were blamed instead of the Crown.
        IMO however, while I am sure the Crown wasn’t overly concernd with the welfare of their peasants, there is truth in ‘patterns” and we are seeing this same ‘pattern’ now in the 21st century by Jewish leadership…..the squeezing, taking from the populations for the tribe’s or it’s leadership or elite’s benefit….a pattern now at it’s world zenith in case of Israel.
        So this makes me doubt the court Jews or whatever was the Jewish leadership during those eras were always ‘scapegoated’ or at least not as lily white and innocent of the charges of pushing the peasants into poverty for their own greed as they want to pretend.
        And why I also discount the ‘constant thru the ages’ anti semitism claim–things have ‘real and practical causes’ most of the time whether it is a faulty perception or accurate one, you don’t get a reaction without a cause.
        If the US population for instance was more aware that while cutting 9 billion from US programs like food for poor children, services to the elderly, US infrastructure, etc., the Jewish Lobby was able to command congress to continue giving Israel it’s 3 +billion you would see the same resentment arise in the US.
        This is in fact the number one complaint you see in anti Israel statements by non Jewish Americans on net boards..they outweigh the complaints about Israel on I/P.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 3:52 pm

        If two people die, one of a heart attack, and one in a shooting, would you say how they died doesn’t matter because they’re “both dead”?

        Hoppy I’ve commented that +20,000 Israelis have died in the various Israeli armed conflicts since WW-II. Yet you claim they stood-up for themselves and are doing better than the Roma. So do you think those Jews are better-off dead or what?

        If you take that view about armed resistance to oppression, then please tell us what’s wrong with Palestinians standing-up for themselves in similar fashion?

      • German Lefty
        March 19, 2013, 4:18 pm

        To be a Jew in Europe is to be subjected to an existence where your houses of worship are under overbearing security, you are in danger of being attacked by radical Muslims and where many Christian Europeans still don’t quite view you as being the same as them.

        That’s only because of Zionism, which gives Jews a bad reputation. Europeans don’t like racists.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 4:56 pm

        “Where is anyone mentioning Russian soldiers who died during battle?”

        ” But there is nothing with pointing out that 3.3 Million Russian POWs were killed by the Nazis and that up to half a million were killed in the camps.”

        No one is denying that. Or that anywhere from 500,000 to a million German POWs died in USSR hands.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 6:05 pm

        i’m sorry marc, i didn’t mean to diminish the death of anyones loved one(s). too many dead, i can’t even begin to comprehend those kinds of numbers. i pray we never have another world war.

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 6:24 pm

        “Hoppy, the “ranking” of suffering is abhorent. Think about it, why does one rank anything? To compete, to get something.”

        No one I know ranks suffering. Jews have simply worked externally hard to make sure no one forgets the Holocaust and internally to make sure we are not at the mercy of others again.

        “All those other figures you throw out are bunk and not supported by any historical fact.”

        Which figures did I throw out?

        Anyway, Dachau was not a death camp; it was a concentration camp mostly used for political prisoners. Most of the extermination camps were in Poland, where approximately 200,000 of Poland’s 3,000,000 Jews survived, a death rate of over 90 percent. At Auschwitz, about 1.1 million people were murdered. 960,000 of those were Jews, 140,000–150,000 ethnic Polish victims, and about 23,000 Roma and Sinti.
        link to en.wikipedia.org

        At Majdanek, about 59,000 out of the 79,000 killed were Jews.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        At Belzec, around 500,000 or 600,000 were murdered. More than 430,000 were Jews.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        At Sobibor, about 251,000 people were killed. 250,000 were Jews. 1,000 were Poles.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        At Treblinka, between 870,000 and 925,000 people were killed. According Nazi estimates, well over 700,000 were Jews.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        At Chelmno, around 152,000 people were killed. Some were Russian POWs. The vast majority were Jews, because the camp was primarily for them.

        link to en.wikipedia.org

        Those are the numbers.

      • susan1
        March 19, 2013, 6:25 pm

        Oh dear, german lefty don’t try claiming Europeans are paragons of virtue. Again, this is the problem, people like Lefty here claiming Israel is the very epicentre of racism, and Europe and America a sort of Disneyland model of racial harmony. I often wonder how it can be that our (European and American) societies with such blood- stained histories can so readily point the finger at others.

      • Keith
        March 19, 2013, 7:11 pm

        GOLDMARX- “Excuse me, but Jaime Dimon? He’s of Greek ancestry – not Jewish at all.

        There does seem to be a diversity of opinion on this, however, I should point out that it is possible to be both Greek and Jewish. In any event, he does not appear to be religious at all. In the future, I will substitute Sheldon Adelson or similar. My whole point being that American Jews are both secure and powerful. Where did I get the idea that Dimon was Jewish? Mondoweiss.

        “And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)?”
        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Ellen
        March 19, 2013, 8:00 pm

        Hoppy says “I wouldn’t say European Jews are doing particularly well.” Yet another made-up reality to support victimology, needed for the Zionist narrative.

        why is it that Jews are one of the fastest growing population groups, especially in Germany if they are not doing well? In Germany alone the trend has accelerated over the last two decades, especially since 2000.

        This is a sign of doing just swell!

        I live most of the time in Europe and in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood (it is a tight community that likes to live together) and it is doing just fine and growing in this city.

        More on why Jews are doing well in Europe:

        link to forward.com

      • RoHa
        March 19, 2013, 8:00 pm

        “I wouldn’t say European Jews are doing particularly well. ”

        Aside from those who are political leaders, High Court judges, academics, media moguls, top-level businessmen, film and theatre directors, actors, orchestra leaders, medical specialists, etc., perhaps not.

        “They are a fraction of what they once were,”

        ?

      • Ellen
        March 19, 2013, 8:11 pm

        Goldmarx, Jews have been living in Greece for thousands of years! And are Greeks.

        As for Dimon religion? Who cares. I think he does not identify with any religion. But FWIW, his Grandparents were from Greece and I believe — having read it somewhere a while ago — were of the Jewish faith.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 9:26 pm

        Hophmi if you can’t assimilate to life in the USA good riddance. But I doubt that you are sleeping in a fetal position under the bed.

        Before you deliver any more lectures about discriminatory laws in Europe, you’ll need to explain the much more severe forms of legal discrimination enshrined in the Israeli legal code. It’s impossible to take your concern about other minorities very seriously, since no one here at MW has advocated in favor of laws against minarets or face coverings. Your comments do amount to outright apologetics on behalf of Israeli’s discriminatory system and society.

        link to adalah.org

      • tree
        March 19, 2013, 10:39 pm

        Annie,

        there may be ‘a very important distinction’ in their fates to professor Snyder, but to me, their fates were the same:

        Mayhem’s quote is not from Snyder but from Rozett, who is mischaracterizing Snyder’s work due to his own bias. I highly recommend reading Snyder’s “Bloodlands”, although you should be prepared for a dismal recounting of the massive deaths in that part of Europe from the 1930’s through the end of WWII.

        Snyder agrees with you, not Rozett or Mayhem. Snyder makes no “important distinctions” about the deaths, as Rozett contends. Snyder points out the early Nazi plans for mass murder in the lands to its East, at a time when the “final solution” for Jews was still deportation and not death.

        . Under the general heading of “GeneralPlan Ost,” SS Stanadartenfuhrer Professor Konrad Meyer drafted a series of plans for a vast eastern colony. A first version was completed in January 1940, a second in July 1941, a third in late 1941, and a fourth in May 1942. The general design was consistent throughout: Germans would deport, kill, assimilate, or enslave the native populations, and bring order and prosperity to a humbled frontier. Depending upon the demographic estimates, between thirty-one and forty five million people, mostly Slavs were to disappear. In one redaction, eighty to eighty-five percent of the Poles, sixty-five percent of the west Ukrainians, seventy-five percent of the Czechs were to be eliminated.

        ….

        ( Also, t)he Hunger Plan, as formulated by 23 May 1941: during and after the war on the USSR, the Germans intended to feed German soldiers and German (and west European) civilians by starving the Soviet citizens they would conquer, especially those in the big cities. Food from Ukraine would now be sent not north to feed Russia and the rest of the Soviet Union but rather west to nourish Germany and the rest of Europe. In the German understanding, the Ukraine (along with parts of southern Russia) was a “surplus region,” which produced more food than it needed, while Russia and Belarus were “deficit” regions. Inhabitants of Ukrainian cities, and almost everyone in Belarus and in northwestern Russia, would have to starve or flee. The cities would be destroyed, the terrain would be returned to natural forest, and about thirty million people would starve to death in the winter of 1941-42. The Hunger Plan involved the “extinction of industry as well as a great part of the population in the deficit regions”. These guidelines of 23 May 1941 included some of the most explicit Nazi language about intentions to kill large numbers of people. “Many tens of millions of people in this territory will become superfluous and will die or must emigrate to Siberia. Attempts to rescue the population there from death through starvation by obtaining surpluses from the black earth zone can only come at the expense of the provisioning of Europe. They prevent the possibility of Germany holding out until the end of the war, they prevent Germany and Europe from resisting the blockade. With regards to this, absolute clarity must reign.”

        Snyder, Bloodlands

        As for the killings of Belarusian civilians, for which Mayhem makes excuses, here are a few examples of what they suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

        In the second half of 1942, German anti-partisan operations were all but indistinquishable from the mass murder of Jews. Hitler ordered on 18 August 1942 that partisans in Belarus be “exterminated” by the end of the year. It was already understood that the Jews were to be killed by the same deadline. The euphemism “special treatment,” meaning shooting, appears in reports about both Jews and Belarusian civilians.
        …..
        By the middle of 1942, the number of Jews was in rapid decline, but the number of partisans was in rapid ascent. This had no effect on Nazi reasoning, except to make the methods for dealing with Belarusian civilians ever more similar to the methods of dealing with Jews. As partisans became difficult to target because they were too powerful, and as Jews became difficult to target because they were too scarce, the Germans subjected the non-Jewish Belarusian population to ever more extraordinary waves of killing. From the perpectives of the German police, the Final Solution and the anti-partisan campaigns blurred together.

        To take a single example; on 22 and 23 September 1942, Order Police Battalion 310 was dispatched to destroy three villages for ostensible connections to the partisans. At the first village, Borki, the police apprehended the entire population, marched the men, women, and children seven hundred meters, and then handed out shovels so that people could dig their own graves. The policemen shot the Belarusian peasants without a break from 9:00 in the morning until 6:00 in the evening, killin 203 men, 372, women and 130 childen. … The battalion reached the next village, Zabloitse, at 2:00 in the morning and surrounded it at 5:30. They forced all of the inhabitants into the local school, and then shot 284 men, women, and children. At the third village, Borysovka, the battalion reported killing 169 men, women and children.

        ………………………

        In Belarus, Dirlewanger and his hunters did engage partisans. Yet more often they killed civilians whose villages were in the wrong place. Dirlewanger’s preferred method was to herd the local population inside a barn, set the barn on fire , and then shoot with machine guns anyone who tried to escape. The SS Special Commando Dirlewanger killed at least thirty thousand civilians in its Belarusian tour of duty.
        …….
        In May 1943 in Operation Cottbus, The Germans sought to clear all partisans from an area about 140 kilometers north of Minsk. Their forces destroyed village after village by herding populations into barns and then burning the barns to the ground. On the following days, the local swine and dogs, now without masters, would be seen in villages with burned human limbs in their jaws. The official count was 6,087 dead: but the Dirlewanger Brigade alone reported fourteen thousand killed in this operation. The majority of the dead were women and children; about six thousand men were sent to Germany as laborers.

        Operation Hermann, named for Hermann Goring, reached the extreme of this economic logic in summer 1943. Between 12 July and 11 August, German battle groups were to choose a territory, kill all of the inhabitants except for promising male labor, take all property that could be moved, and then burn everything left standing. After the labor selections among the local Belarusian and Polish populations, the Belarusian and Polish women, children and aged were shot.

        Ibid.

        These are the horrors that hophmi was comparing to “dying of a heart attack”, although, somewhat in his defense, I’ll guess that he’s probably just incredibly ignorant of the horrors inflicted on non-Jews during WWII.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 10:40 pm

        Yes, the Jews in the Weimar Republic chose integration and assimilation over separatism, and we know how well that worked out.

        About half the population, well over 300,000 chose to emigrate to other western countries. The remainder, including hundreds of thousands of Mishlings who were not fully acknowledged by either the Jewish religious authorities or the Third Reich, were the object of a business partnership between the Zionist Organization and the Third Reich. About 150,000 half Jews and quarter Jews served in the Wehrmacht, including a few Admirals and Generals. According to researchers, Hitler’s own signature could be found on many of their exemption orders. You can watch several of them talking about their experiences in a documentary here: link to archive.org

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:13 pm

        The Jews in Poland did not choose to be tax collectors – they were forbidden to own land, so the Polish royalty only allowed the Jews to live there if they did the dirty work of tax collecting from the peasants.

        The peasants knew that, but didn’t care. The Catholic Church preached that the Jews murdered Christ, and the peasants ran amok against the Jews as Christkillers. It’s a recurring pattern in European history.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:19 pm

        Certainly one can be both Greek and Jewish – and your point is OK as far as it goes. But if Dimon were Jewish, it would have been mentioned all over the Anglo-Jewish press. Where did Phil get that idea – did he think that Dimon is a variant spelling of Diamond??

      • Annie Robbins
        March 19, 2013, 11:22 pm

        thank you tree. yes, i have heard of this. the shovels but not the burnings (burning at the stake must be the worst way to die, so absent the stake…in a barn w/loved ones…). i tend to try not hold this stuff in my brain, it’s so unfathomable. so it passes thru and there’s a very very dark hole. it’s the present day atrocities i generally focus on. the past is so horrid. someone else pointed out it was not Snyder but from Rozett (perhaps it was you, threads to full to check) both names i do not know. coming up is my 6th decade. perhaps i will somehow find the fortitude to read bloodlands or other books about that gruesome era. or maybe sometime in my 70’s or 80’s if i have the good fortune to live that long. i still don’t even quite know what it is in a person, that allows them to not instinctively close their eyes and plug their ears when the chilling music starts during a scene in a movie indicating a murder is about to take place. it’s so unbearable, man’s inhumanity to man, i try to protect myself from it as much as possible while still,hopefully, preventing myself from living in denial.

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:37 pm

        So the way Europeans express their dislike of racism is by acting anti-Semitically?

      • goldmarx
        March 19, 2013, 11:49 pm

        FWIW, Wikipedia lists Dimon’s religion as Greek Orthodox. There was a long profile of him in the NY Times Sunday magazine a while back that dwelled on his family’s background.

        It’s important to get these facts right, especially because exaggerations of Jewish power is part of what gives anti-Semitism its kick.

      • Ecru
        March 20, 2013, 1:22 am

        @ Hophmi

        Just lying about things isn’t going to make things magically vanish you know. I mean I know, it’s Hasbara 101 – lie – but your posts are right here for everyone to see. So when you start comparing a continent with a nation state it’s pretty obvious. It’s not me who needs to learn to read Hophmi, it’s you who needs to learn how to be honest.

        As I said, the moment you invoked BDS you started the comparison. Live with it, you were caught out at least have the guts to own up to things.

        As for an underclass and politicians. Just having politicians doesn’t stop you being part of an underclass. Just look at the Knesset. Israeli-Palestinian politicians and they’re still most definitely part of an underclass. However, since you ask there’s Lívia Járóka, Mădălin Voicu, Nicolae Păun, Ágnes Osztolykán, Viktória Mohácsi, Dávid Daróczi etc. etc. etc. It is actually hard to tell for sure since, well we’re not generally as insane about our ethnicities in Europe as you Zionists are. That’s probably hard for you to understand.

        Then you start dragging up medieval history. Well it’s nice you finally get back on the subject I was initially responding to, after how many posts desperately trying to ignore it. Just a pity your grasp of European history is so, well honestly really really weak. Yes Christians tried to get people to convert. Ooh wow! Every monotheistic religion has done the same thing – including Judaism. Oh sorry is it “antisemitic” to bring that up? And then you get that “lets kill people” – again your putting forward the “Jewish victim” thing but missing out that most of the Christian Europeans Christian Europeans killed over the last 1000 years were funnily enough other Christian Europeans. Mainly ethnic groups massacring other members of the same ethnic group. Please learn some history. Pretty please, it gets tiring correcting you.

        Then you mis-characterise laws passed in Europe. Burqas are banned IN PUBLIC and not all throughout Europe. Again lumping an entire continent of people together. Tell me what would I be called if I made similar sweeping statements about Jews? Begins with “anti” doesn’t it? Careful there Hophi your petticoats are showing. Minarets, well where exactly are they banned? I used to live in the North of England – HUGE mosques complete with minarets all over the place. Although granted some didn’t have them. Might be down to the fact that the churches they converted came with steeples…..

        Ethnic cleansing next. Yep, it happened in Bosnia, lesser extent Kosovo. Did you miss the bit about NATO getting involved there? Or did you just “accidently” forget. You know like all those Zionists who “forget” about those Allied armies marching across Europe, all those Allied soldiers dying trying to stop Hitler? All those non-Jewish civilians who were murdered by the Nazis in WWII? And the expulsions in France. Ironic. You say I need to learn to read but if you could you’d have seen I’ve already addressed this one. To reiterate, France expelled Roma IMMIGRANTS who’d stayed beyond their three month grace period. They weren’t nationals, they weren’t citizens, they weren’t legal immigrants. If you’d bothered to read the facts behind it you’d have seen that the problem people had with France’s actions was not that expelling what amounted to illegal immigrants was wrong it was not checking each and every case individually, as European law demands. I actually agree with that criticism btw. Not ethnic cleansing. Sorry.

        As for you concern about the Roma, it’s so obviously crocodile tears its painful. Going back to your initial post about a “primary target” if you truly believed there was more than one such target you would have used the plural not the singular. Your twists and turns since then fool nobody you just think that deflecting onto the Roma will give you a better position to defend Israel. You’re a real piece of work (not a compliment) – using Roma suffering, Roma pain, to try and attack other people, all the while OBVIOUSLY not giving a damn about their dead or any other victims of prejudice, only about Jewish victims. And OK that would be fair enough but you then turn round, callous in your complete indifference to non-tribe victims, and castigate anybody else for daring to question your frankly sociopathic position. As I said before – scummy.

      • Ellen
        March 20, 2013, 5:19 am

        A varient of Dimitrios.

        If you google the question your answer will be that he is Jewish. But who knows if that is correct? It is not reliable.

        Who cares? It seems Dimon does not as he does not publicly identify with a religion, or has no interest in making his private faith anyone’s concern. So it seems the press is respecting that. And if he were Jewish, I would guess even the Anglo Jewis press respects that.

      • marc b.
        March 20, 2013, 8:23 am

        i didn’t mean to diminish the death of anyones loved one(s). too many dead,

        that’s not the way i took it at all, annie. your heart and head are definitely in the right place.

      • Citizen
        March 20, 2013, 9:13 am

        @ hophmi

        You now say:
        “I’m seeing people here comparing Russian soldiers who died during battle and concentration camp victims. I don’t think that’s an appropriate comparison.”

        And you now say: “I did not argue that there were not others targeted for extermination. I argued that the largest number of those who were targeted for extermination who died were Jews. Simply saying this seems to drive people here into a frenzy.”

        And you now say, “Not at all. Not when people are simply quoting general casualty statistics from WWII and telling me I’m callous for mentioning how many Jews died because I’m somehow ignoring how many Russians died. ”

        Please point out how my earlier comment, containing WW2 casualty statistics, illustrates your three points now made here –here’s a partial duplicate of my earlier comment here a few days ago:

        Citizen says:
        March 17, 2013 at 11:39 am
        @ Keith, @ Hophmi:

        Estimates of Non-Combatant Lives Lost During the Holocaust:
        1.) Ukrainians: 5.5 – 7 million
        2.) Jews (of all countries): 6 million +
        3.) Russian POWs: 3.3 million +
        3.5) Russian Civilians : 2 million +
        4.) Poles: 3 million +
        5.) Yugoslavians: 1.5 million +
        6.) Gypsies: 200,000 – 500,000
        7.) Mentally/Physically Disabled: 70,000- 250,000
        8.) Homosexuals: Tens of thousands
        9.) Spanish Republicans: Tens of thousands
        10.) Jehovah’s Witnesses : 2,500 – 5,000

      • Citizen
        March 20, 2013, 9:16 am

        @ Hostage
        Further, there’s some evidence Hitler exempted more than a few German Jews who were combat veterans of WW1 and not needed in key high slots. It’s unclear to me if he had a general rule treating them less harshly only if he personally received an individual plea, such as the one made by a former WW1 officer in charge of his unit at one point during that war, or if many cases were made at much lower levels on an ad hoc basis. Anybody know?

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 9:30 am

        “why is it that Jews are one of the fastest growing population groups, especially in Germany if they are not doing well? In Germany alone the trend has accelerated over the last two decades, especially since 2000. ”

        Yes, Germany’s population is growing. It’s now close to 1/4 of what it was before WWII. Yay. Let me tell you what doing well means. It means that German synagogues and Jewish institutions no longer require metal detectors and armed guards. It means Germans no longer feel the need to point out to you how the Holocaust memorial is built on valuable real estate (as a number of Germans took pride in doing when I was there). It means that Germans take care of their rural neo-Nazi problem, rather than pretending Berlin is the whole country. Those are starters.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 9:30 am

        And your point is…? That if Jews reject Zionism and assimilate, then they get to serve in the Wehrmacht, like that is a great thing, unlike being those big, bad Zionists?

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 9:38 am

        “So when you start comparing a continent with a nation state it’s pretty obvious.”

        That “continent” has asked to be considered as a unit.

        “It is actually hard to tell for sure since, well we’re not generally as insane about our ethnicities in Europe as you Zionists are.”

        LOL. You must be kidding. Not buying it. You have and endless supply of rightist politicians who say otherwise.

        “Yes Christians tried to get people to convert. Ooh wow! ”

        I’m glad your response to the auto de-fa and conversion by sword is “Ooh wow!”

        “Mainly ethnic groups massacring other members of the same ethnic group. ”

        I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars. It only goes to show that the religious hatred they showed for the Jews was similar to how they treated one another. It makes my point no less relevant.

        “Then you mis-characterise laws passed in Europe. Burqas are banned IN PUBLIC and not all throughout Europe.”

        Ooh, just in public? I said they were banned. In public is about the only place they could ban them, LOL. And I never said all of Europe. It’s in France. But France is part of the EU, and the EU has done nothing, and the policy doubtless has sympathizers throughout Europe.

        “Ethnic cleansing next. Yep, it happened in Bosnia, lesser extent Kosovo. Did you miss the bit about NATO getting involved there? ”

        Yeah, after a million people were killed and after the US has to literally shame the Europeans into doing something. You amuse me. And when NATO finally did get involved, the international left condemned them, over and over and over again.

        “France expelled Roma IMMIGRANTS who’d stayed beyond their three month grace period. They weren’t nationals, they weren’t citizens, they weren’t legal immigrants.”

        It’s always the “illegal immigrants”, isn’t it? They were criticized anyway. I guess you’re OK with Israel expelling Sudanese.

        “callous in your complete indifference to non-tribe victims”

        You’re the callous one here. I expressed sympathy with all the victims. You can even acknowledge that expelling Roma en masse from France was wrong.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 9:40 am

        “Before you deliver any more lectures about discriminatory laws in Europe, you’ll need to explain the much more severe forms of legal discrimination enshrined in the Israeli legal code. ”

        Europe has zero security threats. It does not have a population on its border that has killed its civilians and declared its desire to overtake European states. And it discriminates anyway. As usual, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

      • Cliff
        March 20, 2013, 10:20 am

        Israel has killed more Palestinian civilians.

        In fact, Israel kills 10 times the number of Palestinian children alone.

        Israel steals and colonizes Palestinian land.

        Israel steals Palestinian natural resources.

        Israel destroys the Palestinian economy (Gaza is the best example).

        Israel prevents Palestinians in the OT from marrying those in Israel.

        The list goes on and on and then there is the oppression of Israeli Arabs.

        Israel is not a victim and it’s dead civilians account for a fraction of the dead in the conflict as a whole.

        Israel did not have to embark on further colonization of Palestinian land.

        It chose to do so. So it reaps what it sows. It has been able to hold an entire people hostage with little to no resistance.

        Israel immediately placed the Israeli Arabs under martial law until 1960, following the destruction of Palestinian society and the expulsion of the indigenous population of 800K Palestinians in 1948.

        Israel started the war by ethnically cleansing Palestinians months before the declaration of Statehood.

        Moreover, the Partition Plan was not a law or some kind of official decree. It was a recommendation.

        Israel declared itself a State unilaterally and after a campaign of terrorism and ethnic cleansing.

        Israel’s security concerns should thus be put in the proper context:

        Israel is a Jewish ethnocracy. Israel is a terrorist State/colonial-settler State.

        It has security concerns because it is destroying the remnants of the indigenous Palestinian majority.

        Israel has no right to exist. States are political entities and rise and fall with the times – they have no inherent legitimacy. People have a right to exist though. And the Jewish State destroyed a people and their society – the Palestinian society, contiguous and free, and replaced it with a Jewish ethnocracy where Jews lord over non-Jews.

        So don’t compare yourself to Europe indeed. Compare yourself to South Africa.

        I’m sure the Whites in SA had security concerns as well. That doesn’t make them look better and it doesn’t give them any moral authority.

        You have none, Zionist.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 10:22 am

        “I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars.”

        Really? I wonder how you would respond if they said that they could care less that Muslims and Christians killed Jews in endless intraAbrahamic religious wars…

        “I expressed sympathy with all the victims.”

        Unless, of course, they happened to be innocent Christians killed in intraChristian wars, in which case you could not care less.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 10:23 am

        “Europe has zero security threats.”

        And israel’s are of their own making.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:29 am

        So the way Europeans express their dislike of racism is by acting anti-Semitically?

        goldmarx, when there are several commenters posting in threads with hundreds of comments it’s helpful to reference whom you are addressing when commenting. generally by either citing something the person wrote or using their name.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:31 am

        Europe has zero security threats.

        lol, the wisdom of hops strikes again.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:34 am

        It means that German synagogues and Jewish institutions no longer require metal detectors and armed guards.

        required? is that a law or something? one of the local synagogues in marin has metal detectors and armed guards. i think it’s their choice tho.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 10:42 am

        they were forbidden to own land

        unlike peasants who owned land?

        so the Polish royalty only allowed the Jews to live there if they did the dirty work of tax collecting from the peasants.

        do you think tax collecting was dirtier work than work the peasantry had to do? by ‘dirty work’, you don’t mean literal dirt.

        just out of curiosity, the work of the israel lobby, do you think this is dirty work? getting the politicians and peasantry to support israel?

      • marc b.
        March 20, 2013, 11:03 am

        Europe has zero security threats.

        so why are europeans and americans being constantly bombarded with news of the jihadis in their midst fighting to establish this or that caliphate? and why are they being told this by zionists like that mental case pamela geller, israeli MKs, etc.? maybe you should make a call to europeans and let them know there is no threat, it’s all made up. i’m sure they’d like to hear from you.

        I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars.

        thanks for your candor. so amongst the millions that died in europe over thousands of years, there is no such thing as a christian victim in your pathological world view. not a christian child starved to death in the midst of war, not a christian woman raped by enemy soldiers, it’s their fault for being born on continent dominated by a particular religion. what a hopeless racist.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 11:05 am

        “Really? I wonder how you would respond if they said that they could care less that Muslims and Christians killed Jews in endless intraAbrahamic religious wars…”

        Why should I care, exactly? The Christians fought plenty of wars over religion and territory. Is this somehow supposed to make me think Europe was a better place for Jews over the last millenium?

        “Unless, of course, they happened to be innocent Christians killed in intraChristian wars, in which case you could not care less.”

        LOL. You really have no shame.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 11:07 am

        “required? is that a law or something? one of the local synagogues in marin has metal detectors and armed guards. i think it’s their choice tho.”

        I don’t think it’s their choice. It’s provided by the government because of an ongoing risk to Jewish institutions. In Vienna, one of the main synagogues is surrounded by police because it was bombed – in 1980.

      • German Lefty
        March 20, 2013, 11:25 am

        So the way Europeans express their dislike of racism is by acting anti-Semitically?

        Sigh. You don’t get it. The problem is that most Jewish Europeans are Zionists, opt for self-segregation and tend to misinterpret mere disagreements as anti-Semitism. Of course, non-Jewish Europeans find such a mindset annoying.

      • German Lefty
        March 20, 2013, 11:43 am

        It means that German synagogues and Jewish institutions no longer require metal detectors and armed guards.

        These safety measures are not a sign of German anti-Semitism. They are a sign of Jewish paranoia.

        It means Germans no longer feel the need to point out to you how the Holocaust memorial is built on valuable real estate (as a number of Germans took pride in doing when I was there).

        They were just friendly to you and gave you some information they thought would be of interest to you. I can’t find anything wrong with that.

        It means that Germans take care of their rural neo-Nazi problem.

        If Israelis take care of their Zionism problem…

      • marc b.
        March 20, 2013, 11:45 am

        they were forbidden to own land

        unlike peasants who owned land?

        so the Polish royalty only allowed the Jews to live there if they did the dirty work of tax collecting from the peasants.

        do you think tax collecting was dirtier work than work the peasantry had to do? by ‘dirty work’, you don’t mean literal dirt.

        perfect response, annie. they wouldn’t know a metaphor if it hit them in the head. and what a grand time all those land owning peasants had in poland! oh the etates they had, with the riding stables, organic produce, private vineyards, the whole nine yards. (but at least they didn’t have to wash the metaphorical dirt out from under their finger nails at the end of the day.)

      • talknic
        March 20, 2013, 12:09 pm

        @ hophmi

        “Europe has zero security threats.”

        Israel has zero security threats within Israel. Outside of Israel in the occupied territories it has the security threats any occupier of 64 years would face. (yes 64 years link to mfa.gov.il )

        “It does not have a population on its border that has killed its civilians … “

        Uh huh WWI and WWII didn’t happen. WOW I wonder if the French et al know.

        BTW Israel has overtaken more than 50% of what remained of Palestine after Israel was declared. You don’t think that small matter might have anything to do with why the Palestinians might have resisted Israeli aggression

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 12:14 pm

        “Why should I care, exactly?”

        Because they were human beings. Because we share a common humanity.

        “LOL. You really have no shame.”

        You really have no conscience. Nor character.

      • American
        March 20, 2013, 12:33 pm

        “The Jews in Poland did not choose to be tax collectors – they were forbidden to own land, so the Polish royalty only allowed the Jews to live there if they did the dirty work of tax collecting from the peasants”…goldmark

        roflmao…such bullshit…… Many times Jews owned land and owned it ‘because’ they got favorable treatment from the government…as in Russia in the 1800’s…but guess what? ..even then they stuck to their ”trading in money only’, not actually producing anything. So if you wonder where the ‘stereotypes’ about Jews as strictly middle money men came from, it came from history cause that’s always how they operated and how they preferred to operate.

        ”The state councilor Ivashentsev, an official with 40 years experience in agriculture, was sent in 1880 to investigate the situation with the colonies. He had reported that in all of Russia “no other peasant community enjoyed such generous benefits as had been given [to Jews]” and “these benefits were not a secret from other peasants, and could not help but arouse hostile feelings in them.” Peasants adjacent to the Jewish colonies “‘were indignant … because due to a shortage of land they had to rent the land from Jews for an expensive price, the land which was given cheaply to the Jews by the state in amounts in fact exceeding the actual Jewish needs.’ It was namely this circumstance which in part explained … ‘the hostility of peasants toward Jewish farmers, which manifested itself in the destruction of several Jewish settlements’” (in 1881-82).[lxxxv]

        And yet the experience of the development of Palestine where the Jewish settlers felt themselves at home had showed their excellent ability to work the land; moreover, they did it in conditions much more unfavorable than in Novorossiysk. Still, all the attempts to persuade or compel the Jews toward arable farming in Russia (and afterwards in the USSR) had failed (and from that came the legend that the Jews in general are incapable of farming).

        However, as early as the end of the 1860s, some members of the Jewish intelligentsia began voicing opposition to such a conversion of Jewish intellectuals into simple Russian patriots. Perets Smolenskin was the first to speak of this in 1868: that assimilation with the Russian character is fraught with ‘national danger’ for the Jews; that although education should not be feared, it is necessary to hold on to the Jewish historical past; that acceptance of the surrounding national culture still requires preservation of the Jewish national character[cxcviii]; and that the Jews are not a religious sect, but a nation.”[cxcix]

        link to 200yearstogether.wordpress.com

        And the background to Russia giving the Jews land on cheap terms:…the Jews lost their chief money making source which increased Jewish p0verty when the reformation liberated the Russian peasant farmer from having to do business ‘thru’ the Jews. So to alleviate Jewish poverty Russia gave land to Jews to farm….but did they farm it?..no,…they re-leased it at a higher price to farmers who would farm it. Which…you guessed it….this price gouging by the Jews who had received more land and at a cheaper price than the peasants resulted once again in the population rising up against the Jews.

        ”Yet precisely the most important of these Alexandrian reforms, the most historically significant turning point in the Russian history — the liberation of peasants and the abolition of the Serfdom in 1861 — turned out to be highly unprofitable for Russian Jews, and indeed ruinous for many. “The general social and economic changes resulting from the abolition of peasant servitude … had significantly worsened the material situation of broad Jewish masses during that transitional period.”[liv] The social change was such that the multi-million disenfranchised and immobile peasant class ceased to exist, reducing the relative advantage of Jewish personal freedom. And the economic change was such that “the peasant, liberated from the servitude, … was less in the need of services by the Jew”; that is, the peasant was now at liberty from the strict prohibition against trading his products and purchasing goods himself — that is, through anyone other than a pre-assigned middleman (in the western provinces, almost always a Jew). And now, as the landowners were deprived of free serf labor, in order not to be ruined, “they were compelled to get personally engaged in the economy of their estates — an occupation where earlier Jews played a conspicuous role as renters and middlemen in

        An intelligent contemporary conveys to us the Jewish mood of the time. Although access to government service and free professions was open to the Jews and although “the industrial rights of the Jews were broadened” and there were “more opportunities for education” and “on every … corner” the “rapprochement between the Jewish and Christian populations was visible” and although the remaining “restrictions … were far from being strictly enforced” and “the officials now treated the Jewish population with far more respect than before,” yet the situation of Jews in Russia “at the present time … is very dismal.” “Not without reason,” Jews “express regret … for good old times.” Everywhere in the Pale of Settlement one could hear “the Jewish lamentations about the past.” For under serfdom an “extraordinary development of mediation” took place; the lazy landowner could not take a step without the “Jewish trader or agent,” and the browbeaten peasant also could not manage without him; he could only sell the harvest through him, and borrowed from him also. Before, the Jewish business class “derived enormous benefit from the helplessness, wastefulness, and impracticality of landowners,” but now the landowner had to do everything himself. Also, the peasant became “less pliant and timid”; now he often establishes contacts with wholesale traders himself and he drinks less; and this “naturally has a harmful effect on the trade in spirits, which an enormous number of Jews lives on.” The author concludes with the wish that the Jews, as happened in Europe, “would side with the productive classes and would not become redundant in the national economy”‘

      • Ecru
        March 20, 2013, 12:48 pm

        Ahh Hophmi you really are TOO easy. Me thinks you desperately need that refresher course from the Hasbara kindergarten (you’re obviously not ready for big boy pants yet).

        That “continent” has asked to be considered as a unit.

        Firstly why have you put the word continent in quotation marks? Europe actually IS a continent you know. It not like Israel that’s a “western style democracy.” Anyway I live here and can’t recall anybody making that request, on the contrary we usually view each other with cordial disdain. However I’m going to let it slide I’m feeling charitable towards your made up facts today.

        So you maintain that since Europe has “asked to be considered a unit” your wild and negative generalisations about a very varied area and people are OK. Hmm. Forgive me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Zionism ask for all Jews to be considered as a “unit” – one “people?” In which case wild generalisations, negative ones like yours about Europeans, are not only not anti-semitic, they’re completely valid. Oh joy! I bet the brown shirts will be SO pleased. You know Hopy it’s very hard to type when laughing so hard, could you please stop walking right into things. LOL!

        Ethnic cleansing now. Europe reacted too slowly that’s true. Though at the time I was living in the UK and lots of people, British people, were calling out for intervention of some sort. Funnily enough almost everyone calling for that at the time was a Lefty. Don’t recall any Lefties condemning anything except for how long the intervention took. For that matter many on the right were making the exact same complaint. Unfortunately the way things worked was that International Law required the UN to rule on things. Oh sorry of course, you’re not familiar with Int’l Law are you, Zionist don’t believe in it (although funnily you all suddenly seem to when Israel might benefit). Well anyway, Europeans do. Gods aren’t we an odd lot. Anyway prior to NATO involvement there were UN troops on the ground. Many of whom if not most were European who’s presence had to be authorised by, can you guess, Europeans. Is there ANY history you know anything about? And if you want to know why they were initially dubious about NATO airstrikes, well the fact that they had led to 400 UN Peacekeeper troops being taken hostage may have had something to do with it. One other question – did Israel help out at all? Yes they did. BUT ONLY TO HELP JEWS. Sod everyone else huh?

        “You have and endless supply of rightist politicians who say otherwise [about ethnicity]”

        Well firstly you haven’t responded to the point I ACTUALLY made, all you’ve done is respond to a point you made up (generally doesn’t mean absolutely – look it up in a dictionary). We all know you can find loons in any community but we in Europe haven’t based our political models on ethno-nationalism for some time (Ex-Yugoslavia being a very good example why). In fact when we really tried it around 80 years ago, well you might recall it didn’t work out very well. Oh and unlike Israeli Jews, those few politicians from that extreme of the spectrum, well we don’t vote them in to rule the actual country. There’s a certain irony in the “primary victims” of the last European ethno-nationalist loon copying so many of his ideas.

        Now the expulsions. Again you haven’t read what I wrote or you’d know I already made my view on that clear. Go back try again. Go on – the English isn’t that complicated I’m sure if you take a run-up you’ll get there. But here’s the thing. According to the accession agreement between the EC and Romania, until 2014 immigrants have to have find work in 3 months or return. This applies to ALL Romanians, not just the Roma and not all those expelled by France were Roma. Oh didn’t you know that? Of course not because as you’ve already shown you don’t give a damn about the Roma you just want to use them in an attempt to basically score bigoted points against Europeans. Nice piece of work you are. You do realise Roma are European too don’t you? As for the Sudanese it’s a pity you can’t tell the difference between an immigrant and a refugee. Maybe you should look that up too. But out of curiosity (and I’ll be looking up your comment history about this so be honest if that’s a possibility) did YOU condemn the Sudanese expulsions?

        And now the money shot.

        I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars.

        Yes so massively sympathetic aren’t you. But at least you finally admit what we all already know, you don’t give a damn about any deaths except Jewish ones. And just so you know – the Roma are Christians too. Oops!

      • Ecru
        March 20, 2013, 1:03 pm

        @ Hophmi

        Europe has zero security threats.

        Are you completely delusional? In Spain we have ETA, in Ireland and the UK we had the IRA or the UVF (take your pick), to the East and South our borders are porous and to the North we have Putin’s Russia that has carried out assassinations on European soil. No security threats my shiny metal ass!

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 1:55 pm

        And I’ll quote mine again.

        “Most of the extermination camps were in Poland, where approximately 200,000 of Poland’s 3,000,000 Jews survived, a death rate of over 90 percent. At Auschwitz, about 1.1 million people were murdered. 960,000 of those were Jews, 140,000–150,000 ethnic Polish victims, and about 23,000 Roma and Sinti.

        At Majdanek, about 59,000 out of the 79,000 killed were Jews.

        At Belzec, around 500,000 or 600,000 were murdered. More than 430,000 were Jews.

        At Sobibor, about 251,000 people were killed. 250,000 were Jews. 1,000 were Poles.

        At Treblinka, between 870,000 and 925,000 people were killed. According Nazi estimates, well over 700,000 were Jews.

        At Chelmno, around 152,000 people were killed. Some were Russian POWs. The vast majority were Jews, because the camp was primarily for them. ”

        Saying this does not discount the fact that other civilians were killed, as civilians generally are during war. You seem to think it does for some reason. However, the numbers are clear. Jews proportionally died in far, far greater numbers than any of these other groups did (in Poland, the death rate was over 90% for a group that was about 10% of the population) because they were specifically targeted for extermination and were largely exterminated. In Nazi-occupied areas, according to Martin Gilbert, 5.7 out of 7.3 million Jews were murdered. That’s a overall rate of 78%, and it includes . Of the Nazi-occupied countries, the highest civilian death total was in Poland, which lost a total of 2 million civilians. That’s a lot of people, and it’s horrible. But it constitutes around 17% of the population in a country where the Jewish casualty rate was well over 90%, and many of the people who participated in the mass murder were themselves Poles. It’s the same elsewhere. Lithuania had a high civilian casualty rate of raound 14%. Pretty bad. But its Jewish casualty rate was 92%, 143,000 out of 155,000 people murdered.

        So yes, it’s terrible that many civilians lost their lives in WWII. So there’s a good reason we talk about Jewish deaths separately from other civilian deaths during the war.

        So it’s just not the same thing.

        The same is true in Western European countries like France and Holland, which lost most of their Jewish populations.

        The argument, again, is that after the war, Europe was not a place Jews could reasonably be expected to return to.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 2:09 pm

        First, it’s Goldmarx, not goldmark, and I was referring to the Jews of Poland, to which you respond with the alleged situation of the Jews of Russia.

        You do realize that Poland and Russia are two different countries, right?

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 2:16 pm

        Sorry – that was meant for German Lefty, who has since responded.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 2:27 pm

        Why isn’t my post about Holocaust casualty numbers being approved?

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 2:28 pm

        Pointing out that Jews were disproportionate victims during WWII does not discount the fact that other civilians were killed, as civilians generally are during war. You seem to think it does for some reason. However, the numbers are clear. Jews proportionally died in far, far greater numbers than any of these other groups did (in Poland, the death rate was over 90% for a group that was about 10% of the population) because they were specifically targeted for extermination and were largely exterminated. In Nazi-occupied areas, according to Martin Gilbert, 5.7 out of 7.3 million Jews were murdered. That’s a overall rate of 78%, and it includes . Of the Nazi-occupied countries, the highest civilian death total was in Poland, which lost a total of 2 million civilians. That’s a lot of people, and it’s horrible. But it constitutes around 17% of the population in a country where the Jewish casualty rate was well over 90%, and many of the people who participated in the mass murder were themselves Poles. It’s the same elsewhere. Lithuania had a high civilian casualty rate of raound 14%. Pretty bad. But its Jewish casualty rate was 92%, 143,000 out of 155,000 people murdered.

        So yes, it’s terrible that many civilians lost their lives in WWII. So there’s a good reason we talk about Jewish deaths separately from other civilian deaths during the war.

        So it’s just not the same thing.

        The same is true in Western European countries like France and Holland, which lost most of their Jewish populations.

        The argument, again, is that after the war, Europe was not a place Jews could reasonably be expected to return to.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 2:36 pm

        German Lefty: Sigh? Double sigh. A commenter (Hophmi?) said, “To be a Jew in Europe is to be subjected to an existence where your houses of worship are under overbearing security, you are in danger of being attacked by radical Muslims and where many Christian Europeans still don’t quite view you as being the same as them.” And you responded that Europeans (Christian and Moslem) act this way toward its Jews because they don’t like racism.

        Are you approving of these attacks on European Jews? Or are just “understanding” of them?

        Do you not understand that acting in a racist manner is no more of a just response to racism than the actions of the Israeli government and settlers are to the Palestinians? It’s like, “Racism is OK as long as we’re doing it!”

        And this business of “self-segregation”? Really? Like it’s not OK for Jews to have privacy time, like it’s mandatory for them to mingle? Do Christians feel some entitlement to Jews mingling with them?

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 2:57 pm

        “Before you deliver any more lectures about discriminatory laws in Europe, you’ll need to explain the much more severe forms of legal discrimination enshrined in the Israeli legal code. ”

        Europe has zero security threats. It does not have a population on its border that has killed its civilians and declared its desire to overtake European states . . . As usual, you’re comparing apples and oranges.

        Hasbara fail! As usual, it’s you who is being completely disingenuous and trying to divert attention away from the subject of the racism of the Zionist State against its own citizens. Educating, housing, and employing your own citizens on a non-discriminatory basis has nothing at all to do with any external security threats.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 20, 2013, 2:57 pm

        “You do realize that Poland and Russia are two different countries, right?”

        Goldmark, you do realize that the time frame American was talking about (the 1800s) was after the Third Partition of Poland and that the area of pre-partition Poland in which the Pale of Settlement (where the Jews lived) was located was controlled by Russia, right? Oh, of course you don’t. You’re a big bucket of ignorant.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 3:03 pm

        That “continent” has asked to be considered as a unit.

        Wrong again as usual. The USA is a federal union that consists of one state for the purposes of international law and foreign relations. The European Union is not a federal one. Each of the states has retained control over its foreign relations and treaty relationships with other peoples.

      • lysias
        March 20, 2013, 3:58 pm

        Dimon now lists himself as Greek Orthodox. It’s in his Wikipedia entry.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 4:09 pm

        you are in danger of being attacked by radical Muslims

        do you say that about jews? that muslims are in danger of being attacked by radical Jews? why do you reference ‘the actions of the Israeli government and settlers’ instead of the actions of the radical Israeli government and radical settlers? there’s so much more evidence of violence coming from one group. and what about our drone operations. do you reference this as radical terrorism?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 4:20 pm

        Why isn’t my post about Holocaust casualty numbers being approved?

        you mean your third list? hops, take a breather.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        link to mondoweiss.net

        you get lots of comments cleared, there are other threads here and other commenters waiting to get their comments cleared.

      • German Lefty
        March 20, 2013, 5:06 pm

        Are you approving of these attacks on European Jews?

        No, of course not. Whom do you take me for?
        Look, there are only very few attacks on Jews in Europe. The attackers aren’t particularly educated and therefore don’t understand the difference between Jews and Zionists. All they know is that there’s a self-declared “Jewish state” that oppresses, dispossesses and/or kills the Palestinians. Also, these attackers confound justice and revenge. They want to take revenge on “the Jewish people” for stealing Palestine.
        Besides, the mainstream media almost totally ignore the existence of anti-Zionist Jews. That makes it even more difficult for less educated people to learn to make the necessary distinctions.

        Or are just “understanding” of them?

        If I find out that a Jewish victim happens to be a Zionist, then I don’t feel sorry for the victim.

        Do you not understand that acting in a racist manner is no more of a just response to racism than the actions of the Israeli government and settlers are to the Palestinians? It’s like, “Racism is OK as long as we’re doing it!”

        You are the one who approves of reverse discrimination, not me.

        And this business of “self-segregation”?

        By self-segregation I mean lack of assimilation. For example, they don’t like “mixed marriages” and don’t want to hang out with non-Jews. As if we are not good enough for them.

        Like it’s not OK for Jews to have privacy time, like it’s mandatory for them to mingle? Do Christians feel some entitlement to Jews mingling with them?

        Don’t twist my words.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 5:08 pm

        “Wrong again as usual. The USA is a federal union that consists of one state for the purposes of international law and foreign relations. The European Union is not a federal one. Each of the states has retained control over its foreign relations and treaty relationships with other peoples.”

        There is an EU Parliament, an EU human rights court, and even an EU foreign policy. It’s a unit to me for these purposes.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 5:10 pm

        “To be a Jew in Europe is to be subjected to an existence where your houses of worship are under overbearing security, you are in danger of being attacked by radical Muslims ”

        Actually, this statement was a little unfair; it suggests that Jewish orgs in Europe have security because of a radical Muslim threat. It is just as much because of an ongoing neo-Nazi threat as well. The neo-Nazi are, unfortunately, far from dead in Europe.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 5:14 pm

        “do you think tax collecting was dirtier work than work the peasantry had to do? by ‘dirty work’, you don’t mean literal dirt. ”

        Who was it that said that antisemitism was the communism of fools?

        “just out of curiosity, the work of the israel lobby, do you think this is dirty work? getting the politicians and peasantry to support israel?”

        Peasantry? No, I don’t think it’s dirty work. I think it’s essential work. Israel is a cause worth fighting for me, just as Palestine is a cause worth fighting for for you. Do you consider your work dirty?

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 5:39 pm

        “So if you wonder where the ‘stereotypes’ about Jews as strictly middle money men came from, it came from history cause that’s always how they operated and how they preferred to operate.”

        What utter BS. You focus on a 15 year period of history to make it seem like Jews were treated well by the Czar, when the fact of the matter is that Alexander II is the exception that proves the rule. It’s another version of blaming the Jews for their own persecution. What will it be next? It’s exactly what Hitler said – Jews are bloodsuckers.

      • hophmi
        March 20, 2013, 5:50 pm

        “Don’t recall any Lefties condemning anything except for how long the intervention took.”

        Oh really. In Kosovo too?

        “Unfortunately the way things worked was that International Law required the UN to rule on things. ”

        Oh yes, I’m familiar with international law. Moral people don’t watch others die and say, well, f*ck it, we can’t do anything because of international law. That’s basically what the left said about Kosovo.

        “Anyway prior to NATO involvement there were UN troops on the ground. ”

        Whoopty-do.

        “Many of whom if not most were European who’s presence had to be authorised by, can you guess, Europeans.”

        LOL. So your comeback to my history that Europeans let Bosnia fester for years is that there were some blue helmets on the ground? LOL.

        “One other question – did Israel help out at all? Yes they did. BUT ONLY TO HELP JEWS.”

        LOL. Was it supposed to help out? Let’s be honest. One big reason Europe didn’t want to help because the victims were Muslims.

        “We all know you can find loons in any community…”

        These are elected officials or people with large minorities voting for them. What’s wrong with you? These are not marginal individuals.

        “we in Europe haven’t based our political models on ethno-nationalism for some time (Ex-Yugoslavia being a very good example why). ”

        ROTFLMFAO. Yugoslavia broke up into a collection of small micro-nationalist states.

        You stopped basing your political systems on ethno-nationalism because there was no need. You’re 90% homogenuous, you fool.

        “Maybe you should look that up too. But out of curiosity (and I’ll be looking up your comment history about this so be honest if that’s a possibility) did YOU condemn the Sudanese expulsions?

        I sure did.

        “But at least you finally admit what we all already know, you don’t give a damn about any deaths except Jewish ones. ”

        LOL. No, I can’t say I give a crap about Protestant-Catholic turf battles from the Middle Ages in a conversation where people are telling me I’m selfish because I say the deaths of Christians who died in these endless civil wars are a little different than the deaths of Jews who were frequently murdered, ethnically cleansed, and accused of killing the Christian god.

      • Ecru
        March 20, 2013, 5:54 pm

        @ Hophmi

        Question. If Europe is a “unit” as you maintain and you can just ignore national boundaries, cultures etc. etc. so that when Belgium does something bad for example you can just blame ALL of Europe…..how come when you start talking about figures of the dead during WWII you start to break things down European country by country?

        This “unit” you insist on seems to vanish awful quick when it suits the argument your trying to present doesn’t it.

      • goldmarx
        March 20, 2013, 6:22 pm

        Is this directed at Hophmi or me? It doesn’t seem to track with my disagreement with German Lefty.

      • Hostage
        March 20, 2013, 6:44 pm

        So it’s just not the same thing.

        Hophmi there were a number of ethnic groups that the Nazis targeted for extermination. You don’t annihilate 3 million non-Jews in the Ukraine without wiping out a number of ethnic sub-groups. Your pity party is pretty illogical if you think that getting exterminated for being a member of a targeted Slavic or Romani ethnic group was any different than the targeted extermination of the Jews.

      • Ellen
        March 20, 2013, 6:44 pm

        Lysia, that is interesting as just 24 hours ago his Wikepedia site had no religious listing.

        Nor did it have any discussion about the London Whale mess.

        The guy is in the very deep stuff , and not only for lying to Congress last summer. (think of the millions in pay that are going to be clawed back!)

        Maybe he suddenly found some religion. He is going to need all the help he can get.

      • Donald
        March 20, 2013, 10:30 pm

        “I could care less that Christian killed Christians in endless intraChristian wars. It only goes to show that the religious hatred they showed for the Jews was similar to how they treated one another. It makes my point no less relevant.”

        You could care less, eh? This is the problem with victim thinking on all sides–you start out concerned for a victim group and then you demonize the perpetrators and turn into the same sort of bigot you allegedly despise.

        I’m wondering, hophmi, if you know about that one occasion in ancient/medieval history when Jews had the power to slaughter Christians on a massive scale and took it? It was during the reign of the Emperor Heraclius. You can read about it here–

        link

        There’s also this at the Jewish virtual library —

        link

        What’s interesting to me is that this isn’t better known. You’d think it would be at first glance–the Emperor Heraclius wanted to enact a Final Solution back then, like some 7th century Hitler, but I’d never heard of any of this until I read a popular history of the Byzantine Empire several years ago. I think maybe it doesn’t fit into the usual victim narrative.

        It’s not that important, ultimately–it’s just another example of interethnic strife and massacre and there’s no reason to be surprised that when Jews had the power they’d slaughter Christians by the tens of thousands in the early 600’s. It’s how people have acted all through history. You hate a group of people, maybe for good reasons or bad, so if you can you kill them or enslave them and you’re not fussy about distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. They’re all guilty. Until very recently, the notion of universal human rights simply wasn’t in anyone’s head, or certainly not in enough heads to make a difference. It’s literally medieval to still think like this, to look back at what people did hundreds of years ago like it is relevant today. It’s only relevant to people who wallow in ancient grievances as though there was some collective link between the people then and the people now.
        One thing I’ve noticed is that people often invoke this collective sense of identity when it suits them. Do you feel any collective guilt, or is it only collective victimhood?

        I know perfectly well that Christians have persecuted Jews for centuries, using religious justifications for it. It bothers me and so I think Christians should be honest about it and about the parts of the Bible that people have used to justify it. But I don’t really think that there is some deep connection between me and what Christians did centuries ago. It was a different moral universe in all sorts of ways. And I doubt you have that much in common with medieval Jews either.

        We can see in the modern era that Israel isn’t some paragon of virtue, which you’d expect from your bigoted view of history. Rather, they seem very much like a typical Western settler colonial state, not as bad as the worst (the Palestinians haven’t been completely exterminated as happened in some settler states), just the usual hypocrisy, greed, and arrogance that Western settlers have been displaying for centuries. More or less what I’d expect –given that there’s just one Jewish state, one formed in someone else’s land, you wouldn’t expect it to be either the worst country in history or a paragon of virtue. But then I think people are people and don’t believe that one group is basically good and another basically prone to evil.

        “Ethnic cleansing next. Yep, it happened in Bosnia, lesser extent Kosovo. Did you miss the bit about NATO getting involved there? ”

        “Yeah, after a million people were killed and after the US has to literally shame the Europeans into doing something. You amuse me. And when NATO finally did get involved, the international left condemned them, over and over and over again.”

        A million people weren’t killed. At the time it was claimed about 200,000, though later research brought it down to 100,000. Part of what the international left complained about was the bombing of civilians– even Human Rights Watch criticized this, though they were very hawkish in general. And Chomsky (who I will take as representative) also complained about the hypocrisy of bombing Serbia for doing the same thing that Turkey was doing to the Kurds at the same time, using American F-16’s. Not to mention the fact that the Serbs were sometimes the victims of Croatian and Bosnian crimes, but that was downplayed.

      • marc b.
        March 21, 2013, 8:19 am

        Why isn’t my post about Holocaust casualty numbers being approved?

        what a friggin’ hysteric. your post wasn’t approved quickly enough? do you think that your comments are administered any differently than the rest? the sense of paranoia and entitlement is astounding.

      • MRW
        March 21, 2013, 9:58 am

        The number of Russian civilians far exceeded 2 million.

        In 1993, the Russian government [G.F. Krivosheev] released their own figures:
        Total: 26,600,000
        Military Dead: 10,700,000
        Civilian Dead: 15,900,000

        In the 1941-1945 timeframe, “Soviet military dead and Missing by nationality (1941–45)”

        Total Percentage
        Russians 5,756,000 66.402%
        Ukrainians 1,377,400 15.890%
        Belarusians 252,900 2.917%
        Tatars 187,700 2.165%
        Jews 142,500 1.644%
        Kazakhs 125,500 1.448%
        Uzbeks 117,900 1.360%
        Armenians 83,700 0.966%
        Georgians 79,500 0.917%
        Others 545,300 6.291%

        [G. I. Krivosheev Rossiia i SSSR v voinakh XX veka: Poteri vooruzhennykh sil ; statisticheskoe issledovanie OLMA-Press, 2001 ISBN 5-224-01515-4 Table 121]

        link to en.wikipedia.org

      • marc b.
        March 21, 2013, 11:40 am

        The number of Russian civilians far exceeded 2 million.

        In 1993, the Russian government [G.F. Krivosheev] released their own figures:
        Total: 26,600,000
        Military Dead: 10,700,000
        Civilian Dead: 15,900,000

        which makes perfect sense. in modern warfare, civilian casualties normally outnumber military casualties.

        waiting. waiting.

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 1:32 pm

        @ American
        Ah, so easy to see why the great Russian novelist of the 20th Century has yet to have his last major work translated and published in English. Anybody have an update on that?

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 1:34 pm

        “You don’t annihilate 3 million non-Jews in the Ukraine without wiping out a number of ethnic sub-groups. Your pity party is pretty illogical if you think that getting exterminated for being a member of a targeted Slavic or Romani ethnic group was any different than the targeted extermination of the Jews.”

        The numbers are self-explanatory. The death rate of Ukrainian Jews is hard to determine because the USSR figures are not broken down by country. But it is without question several times the death rate of Ukrainian civilians. You can argue that Hitler intended to kill all the Slavs. You can argue that Hitler had it in for all non-Aryans. But the numbers are the numbers. When you have examples like Lithuania, where the civilian death rate was 6% and the Jewish death rate was 92%, or Poland, where it was 17/91%, I don’t think you have a valid historical comparison. And I don’t think it’s accurate to label what happened to non-Jews in the Ukraine as an “annihilation,” certainly not in the same way Jews were annihilated. The civilian death rate was around what it was in Poland, 16.3%. The Jewish death rate was several times that. It’s not the same experience.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 1:39 pm

        No argument there. The civilian casualty rate in the USSR during WWII was 13.7%. The death rate of Jews is estimated at between 25% and 39%, but that’s the entire USSR, including the parts the Nazis did not occupy.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 1:50 pm

        You can argue that Hitler intended to kill all the Slavs. You can argue that Hitler had it in for all non-Aryans. But the numbers are the numbers.

        hops, you’re implying because more slavs were not killed there was not ever an intention to kill them. by this same theory one could speculate because all jews were not killed that was the intent all along. even wiki says hitler originally planned on killing all the slavs. and as everyone knows by now wiki is one of the most biased sources for allegedly ‘legitimate’ jewish history on the web.

      • sardelapasti
        March 21, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Annie, I believe that if Hopfme is not boycotted by the saner population here he’ll continue dragging all posts in the bottom mud. Look at the kindergarten-like back-and-forth, this is pitiful.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 2:10 pm

        “hops, you’re implying because more slavs were not killed there was not ever an intention to kill them. ”

        Not at all. This is not at all what I said. You could argue Hitler intended to kill everyone in the world who wasn’t an Aryan. The point is what actually happened, and what that meant for the people it happened to. And that’s why it’s misleading to cite raw numbers of civilians as a basis of comparison. It is common in 20th century warfare for there to be high levels of civilian casualty. But you can’t argue that Slavs, who counted in the hundreds of millions and fought Hitler tooth and nail in armies, and themselves killed Nazi POWs left and right, had the same collective experience during the war as Jews did.

      • marc b.
        March 21, 2013, 2:17 pm

        The number of Russian civilians far exceeded 2 million.

        In 1993, the Russian government [G.F. Krivosheev] released their own figures:
        Total: 26,600,000
        Military Dead: 10,700,000
        Civilian Dead: 15,900,000

        which makes perfect sense. in modern warfare, civilian casualties normally outnumber military casualties.

        waiting. waiting.

        here it is.

        The civilian casualty rate in the USSR during WWII was 13.7%. The death rate of Jews is estimated at between 25% and 39%, but that’s the entire USSR, including the parts the Nazis did not occupy.

        so, if the total number of jews killed in a particular nation was greater than the total number of non-jews, that total count is central to measuring relative suffering. but if the total number of non-jews killed is greater than jews in a particular nation, then the proportion of deaths is the critical figure in the suffering calculus. or you can mix total numbers with proportions, and you still get the same result. the jewish people had it worse.

      • marc b.
        March 21, 2013, 2:21 pm

        You can argue that Hitler intended to kill all the Slavs.

        it’s not an allegation, it’s an historical fact, it just doesn’t square with your own racial argument.

      • Citizen
        March 21, 2013, 2:29 pm

        @ hophmi
        It’s not the same experience? OK, now let’s look at the ratio of Jews to Palestinians murdered in the I-P conflict. That’s not the same proportion either, right? My country, the USA gives Israel the largest chunk of its foreign aid to Israel to do what it does; it gives Israel over $3 billion in direct military aid, plus more like the Iron Dome and cutting edge promise to give Israel whatever it takes to stay ahead of whatever we sell to Arab countries’ military, plus we underwrite Israel’s debt so that it has a better credit rating than the USA–how should I view this as an American? We give the Palestinian natives zero military aid in comparison, and what we give in humanitarian aid is filtered through Israel at Israel’s whim. What’s your point? What did the Palestinians have to do with the Shoah?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 21, 2013, 3:55 pm

        But you can’t argue that Slavs, who counted in the hundreds of millions and fought Hitler tooth and nail in armies, and themselves killed Nazi POWs left and right, had the same collective experience during the war as Jews did.

        i’m not aware anyone was arguing the ‘collective experience’ except for yourself. i must have misunderstood you. i thought when you mentioned who Hitler intended to kill …..But the numbers are the numbers. you implied because the numbers were not there his intention was… not there.

        i’m not sure we need to continue this conversation. i think it’s really struck a nerve. i understand there are differences of opinion regarding collective experiences. some people seem to be taking things very personally, which is completely understandable.

        i’m going to write phil and adam about having someone else moderate the rest of this discussion because it is getting out of my range of expertise.

      • hophmi
        March 21, 2013, 4:57 pm

        “i’m not aware anyone was arguing the ‘collective experience’ except for yourself. i must have misunderstood you. i thought when you mentioned who Hitler intended to kill …..But the numbers are the numbers. you implied because the numbers were not there his intention was… not there.”

        That’s not what I meant. I meant the war was a different experience for Jews collectively than it was for Ukrainians collectively.

        This conversation bothers me a great deal, but it’s somewhat of a revelation to see how people here think about it. If the solution to conflict is to understand the parties to conflict, there are many people here who are doing a poor job of understanding.

        Often here, I ask people to do the same thing President Obama asked Israelis to do today – to put themselves in the shoes of Israelis and Jews they criticize who carry with them the burden of the collective Jewish experience during the war, the Jewish leaders who feel an acute need to worry, and the Israelis, who take every threat seriously, sometimes too seriously, because their reaction to the events of the last few hundred years is extreme vigilance, which they have made a part of their society.

        I have tried to do that vis-a-vis the Palestinians, which is why, despite growing up in quite a right-wing atmosphere, I am strongly critical of Israel’s policy in the territories and believe strongly in a two-state solution.

        Unfortunately, I get the feeling here that most people, like partisans are apt to do, find it much easy to level criticism and vitriol than to engage constructive approaches that take into account the many levels of injustice that got us to where we are today. I had not imagined that most people here would adopt the thesis that it somehow diminishes the sacrifices of others by asserting that the Jewish experience during the Holocaust was generally different from the experiences of civilian populations in Nazi-occupied countries, different in terms of the way people died and the way in which they were targeted. I don’t see how it’s somehow an expression of pro-Israel sentiment to say that. But it does explain the callous attitude of some in the pro-Palestinian movement that Jews in Israel ought to “go back to Europe” or “back to Poland” or “back to Germany.”

      • RoHa
        March 21, 2013, 8:13 pm

        “had the same collective experience during the war as Jews did.”

        That would be the mainland European Jews you are talking about, and the Eastern European Jews in particular.

        American (North and South), Australian, South African, and British had the collective experience of their respective countries.

      • Hostage
        March 21, 2013, 9:30 pm

        The numbers are self-explanatory. The death rate of Ukrainian Jews is hard to determine because the USSR figures are not broken down by country. But it is without question several times the death rate of Ukrainian civilians.

        That’s an appeal based upon ignorance, not one based upon known facts. Guess work about the unknown does not speak for itself. That’s why you’re still hanging around trying to attach a special significance or status to the extermination of Jews, as opposed to the extermination of the members other groups.

        The bottom line is that its a hasbara exercise (and failure). FYI, do you publicly trivialize or deny crimes against other ethnic groups on a regular basis Hoppy? That’s considered incitement, not a subject for serious research in most parts of Europe.

      • Ecru
        March 23, 2013, 12:22 pm

        @ Donald

        Sorry for this, it’s just the historian in me, I’m not trying to demonise Jews (but given Hophmis attitude I think they could do with humanising a bit, y’know taken down from that spotless divinity he seems to think they have)

        The massacre in Jerusalem wasn’t the only time Jews murdered Christians en masse. It happened before in Yemen at Najran in the 6th Century. After resisting forced conversion to Judaism the Christians of Najran were massacred. Figures claim 20,000 which might seem high but it’s also reasonable given the religious make-up of Arabia at that time. Israel even named a street in Jerusalem after the leader and instigator of this event, which, personally I think speaks volumes about their real attitude to Christians.

        Later on in Islamic Spain, a Christian who had converted to Judaism attempted to have all Christians forced into converting to either Judaism or Islam. Fortunately, thanks to the Muslim ruler it never happened.

        The point is that Jews are just as nasty as the rest of us when they have power, there’s nothing in the history (or in the actions of Israel and its cheerleaders) that supports the contention of some higher standard of morality in the culture, this is just another supremist myth. The fact is that Jews throughout most of history didn’t massacre Christians or anyone else simply because they lacked the power to do so, not because they believed in some anachronistic concept of “human rights.”

        Further I would say that those who deny a people’s capacity for evil deny that people’s humanity as surely as those who deny their capacity for good.

      • Citizen
        March 24, 2013, 8:53 am

        @ Ecru

        Dhu Nuwas St. The BBC did a special about what happened to those 20,000 Christians in Najaran in the 6th Century. Some Jews protested, saying it lacked sufficient context, and that Dhu Nuwas was a convert to Judaism, and that Jews don’t run around trying to convert Christians. But others, including a rabbi scholar in Israel, countered that, yes they did, way back in history. Others say his mother was Jewish. BBC did not change the special, offering its documentation to what it depicted.

        This link gives historical examples through the centuries of other examples of Jews inflicting violent harm on Christians when they had the power to do so:
        link to en.metapedia.org

      • Ecru
        March 24, 2013, 5:33 pm

        @ Citizen

        Yes the BBC program was about the Spice Trail and it was only one small part of an entire series, but that didn’t stop the British Board of Deputies from complaining of “anti-semitism” and, even when corrected by Israeli scholars, continuing to complain. It just shows how debased the anti-semitism charge has become when it’s claimed to be anti-semitic to discuss historic truths.

        As for Jews killing non-Jews well of course they did when they had the power to do so, just like everybody else. I know it must come as a terrible surprise to Zionists but Jews are people too.

      • Hostage
        March 26, 2013, 3:53 pm

        Thanks, Hostage. I’ll keep the state. 21,000 dead in your own state . . . You just go ask those Roma whether or not they’d prefer to have a state of their own rather than being a cause for you to cynically use.

        I don’t need to ask the Roma or the millions of Jewish people living in Gentile majority-ruled western countries if they would be better off dead. Full stop. It’s 1) a stupid question; and 2) the state of Israel is not the panacea that it’s cracked-up to be. Nothing about having your own state prevents genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

      • hophmi
        March 29, 2013, 2:57 pm

        “I don’t need to ask the Roma or the millions of Jewish people living in Gentile majority-ruled western countries if they would be better off dead. ”

        LOL. I guess it’s straw man day.

        How about this: Offer the Roma a state of their own and see if they take it.

      • Ecru
        April 1, 2013, 3:48 am

        @ Hophmi

        Cynically use the Roma experience? That’s rich coming from you. I’d ask if you have no shame but your posts to date clearly show you don’t.

    • Hostage
      March 15, 2013, 1:35 pm

      Now, this won’t go over well with much of your “tight” readership/responders as some of them emphatically deny that Jewish is anything BUT a religion.

      I’m a regular here. I’ve always pointed out that Jews are legally recognized as a national ethnic group or groups under the applicable international treaties signed by the United States and under the terms of US civil rights laws. That does not mean that the US government views us as a single “people” (a spatial or territorial entity) entitled to exercise the right of self-determination.
      * link to nytimes.com
      * St. Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, link to supreme.justia.com
      * Shaare-Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, link to supreme.justia.com
      * Whiteman’s Digest of International Law, Volume 8, U.S. Dept. of State, U.S. Govt. Print. Office, 1967, page 35

      My mother mentioned this bitter irony in her Speilberg testimony, that we aren’t seen as belonging there, either. No wonder some Jews “convert” to non-Jewish Jews, or anti-Jews.

      Or it might just be the fact that no sane intellect can read the Talmud and not be disturbed by the rank superstition, misogyny, and racial bigotry that permeates so much of its content.

      • hophmi
        March 15, 2013, 2:50 pm

        “Or it might just be the fact that no sane intellect can read the Talmud and not be disturbed by the rank superstition, misogyny, and racial bigotry that permeates so much of its content.”

        Lots of sane intellects can separate the bad parts from the good in what is a 1500 year old text, as well as read the myriad commentaries on what is essentially a mess of lecturers notes and poorly understood by anyone not familiar with it, especially when they’re not looking to defame the religion in the first place.

      • Ellen
        March 16, 2013, 12:35 pm

        But that 1500 year-old text and associated notes are used as a basis for the Zionist Nationalist claims over others.

        How sane is that?

      • hophmi
        March 16, 2013, 2:45 pm

        Some. Most find Israel’s right to exist in the ashes of Holocaust and international law. No Talmud required.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 3:23 pm

        “Most find Israel’s right to exist in the ashes of Holocaust”

        Obama got in trouble for saying something like this in his speech in Cairo. Evidently he was supposed to say that the Israeli people (meaning Jews) had a commitment to the land that goes back to Biblical times, yadda, yadda, yadda. Now if you were arguing the case with me, invoking the Holocaust and all the 20th century examples of anti-semitic persecution would be your best approach. (The 2000 years of anti-semitism argument, on the other hand, is not impressive, because practically every minority group in history has a sad story. It’s only the recent past that matters.) I suspect that’s true of most self-described liberal/lefty types. The problem will come when you try to justify expelling the Palestinians so that the demographics are right.

        One can also argue that Israel exists now, even if born in sin, and has the legal right to exist. I won’t deny it. I’ll let hostage then respond regarding what Israel’s legal obligations are.

      • Donald
        March 16, 2013, 3:36 pm

        In fact, by coincidence I just found Jeffrey Goldberg was talking about this issue (how Obama got into trouble with Israelis for linking the existence of Israel to the Holocaust)–

        link

      • eljay
        March 16, 2013, 3:49 pm

        >> Most find Israel’s right to exist in the ashes of Holocaust …

        Most are either unaware – or uncaring enough to accept – that this involved / involves using the suffering of one people to justify and excuse causing the deliberate and prolonged suffering of another.

        There’s nothing sane – or just or moral – about that.

      • Ellen
        March 16, 2013, 3:51 pm

        Israel makes claims based on Zionist interptation of the Talmud.

        So Israel exists because of the Holocaust?

        Much of the world community agreed to the establisment of an Israeli State in 1947. The terms of that declaration of recognition are still to be upheld by Israel.

        No state anywhere on the planet has a “right” to exist. They simply do as recognized by the world community.

        As Israel still has no declared borders, does it exist?

      • Cliff
        March 16, 2013, 3:54 pm

        Israel has no right to exist.

        There is no such thing as a right to exist for States.

        States simply exist and their legitimacy is enforced by power – military and diplomacy (whether ‘good’ or ‘bad’).

        Israel exists as a Jewish majority and without ridding the land of the non-Jewish majority there is no Israel.

        The Zionist leadership always talked about obtaining more land and that accepting partition was the first step.

        There is no precedent in the history of the Zionist movement to assume Jewish colonists would be content with the partition borders.

        The Holocaust is irrelevant to the ‘legitimacy’ of a Jewish State.

        Jewish nationalism and colonialism was imposed on the indigenous Palestinian Arabs by power, brute force. Not by convincing the Arabs that Jews deserved a State because of the Holocaust.

      • German Lefty
        March 16, 2013, 5:28 pm

        Most find Israel’s right to exist in the ashes of Holocaust and international law.

        Being a victim of ethnic cleansing doesn’t give anyone the right to do ethnic cleansing.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2013, 8:14 pm

        In fact, by coincidence I just found Jeffrey Goldberg was talking about this issue

        yeah, it’s an up and coming hasbara theme for his trip. they are hitting it from all quarters. whenever that happens you know it’s by design. in fact i just sent this to phil this morning. i can sniff this stuff out a mile away.

        link to jpost.com

        The Israel Museum and Har Herzl, where he will lay a wreath on the burial sites of slain premier Yitzhak Rabin and Zionist visionary Theodor Herzl.

        At the museum, Obama will view the Dead Sea Scrolls, which Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes described as “a testament, of course, to the ancient Jewish connection to Israel.”

        In his first term, Obama visited Cairo and gave a much-touted speech reaching out to the Arab world. Many Israelis, however, were critical of the link he seemed to make in that address between Israel’s founding and the Holocaust while not providing any reference to Jews’ historic attachment to the Land of Israel.

        The Dead Sea Scrolls and the visit to Herzl’s grave both suggest an attempt to correct that omission and assuage Israeli concerns about Obama’s views on the country’s history and legitimacy.

        Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, said that the White House is still trying to change the negative narrative that the Cairo speech first implanted in the minds of Israelis, and that the unusual stop at the grave of the founder of Zionism demonstrate that intention.

        “I don’t recall … a president laying a wreath on the tomb of Theodor Herzl,” the seasoned diplomat noted.

        yawn

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2013, 12:19 pm

        @ German Lefty
        I wish Huckabee would read your memo. He misses the point entirely. I wish he did not have such a significant following here in the USA. To him, Israel is always just defending itself from jew-haters. I’m sure you can guess that his TV show’s audience is totally ignorant of any facts about the establishment of Israel and the maintenance of it as it is.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 4:48 pm

        Lots of sane intellects can separate the bad parts from the good in what is a 1500 year old text

        Sorry, but I don’t think the “devil made me do it” or appeals to the invisible “Guy in the Sky” are a sign of a sane intellect. You can have a philosophical discussion without the need for any of that.

      • Citizen
        March 24, 2013, 8:59 am

        @ hophmi
        I guess that would not include the Jews who protested when Obama suggested in a speech that the state of Israel was authorized due to the Holocaust? So this time around, Obama in Israel changed his tune and visited the site of the dead sea scrolls (which were discovered on Palestinian land).

      • Mayhem
        March 17, 2013, 1:36 am

        @hostage, would you say the same about the Koran or is that not politically correct?

      • MRW
        March 18, 2013, 3:00 pm

        @hostage, would you say the same about the Koran or is that not politically correct?

        lol. You’ve never read it.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 5:39 pm

        @hostage, would you say the same about the Koran or is that not politically correct?

        I’d say that your question doesn’t logically follow from your original premise: No wonder some Jews “convert” to non-Jewish Jews, or anti-Jews.

        I found nothing in the Koran to change my mind about superstitious supernatualism, misogyny, or racism.

      • marc b.
        March 18, 2013, 6:48 pm

        lol. You’ve never read it.

        there seems to be alot of that going around. my favorite reference this week by a zionist to a work that s/he has never read goes to josh blumberg.

        As a student in Write On For Israel, The Jewish Week advocacy program for high school students, I had been aware of Dr. Mearsheimer and his book. But I had no idea that he was a graduate of my high school.

        too funny. he had been ‘aware’ of his book. i’m aware of ‘war and peace’ and ‘in search of lost time’. not going to read them anytime soon.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 7:12 pm

        I’ll bet you a used candy he read it in memri

  12. traintosiberia
    March 15, 2013, 9:35 am

    Dov is a lot better model than the other religious practioners from other faith – Muslim,Hindu,and Chritian . Large number of them wear religion on beard,sacred thread,and hanging cross to purify their dirty wares . But so do other organizations and groups. I have ads for FLAMES in Nation Magazine in every issue quite prominently laid out next to articles on peace or justice or anti military

  13. Blank State
    March 15, 2013, 1:42 pm

    I can see underscoring religion as a means to explain an individual’s actions or alleged mindset. So it is not unreasonable for a mention of religion to be used on one individual, and not on another, in the context of an article that both individuals are discussed. I really think Weiss put far too much into this.

  14. Blank State
    March 15, 2013, 1:46 pm

    “No wonder some Jews “convert” to non-Jewish Jews, or anti-Jews. It’s difficult to be hated and victimized and not wonder if indeed there’s something really criminal about your identity”

    Well, is being a liar “criminal”??? Perhaps not, but in an ethical sense…..

    So, uh, maybe you needn’t wonder.

  15. lyn117
    March 15, 2013, 2:11 pm

    A few years ago, someone I was talking to said she was from New York, and then called it “Jew Town” (she was Jewish). When put like that it sounded like a pejorative, a little defensive. Of course it shouldn’t but sad to say, there is a pejorative hint in the word “Jew” particularly if used as an adjective. Not so with “Christian.” So for these instances, I don’t think so much should be made of avoiding the religious label in one case and not in the other, in one case the NPR person is avoiding what could be considered a pejorative to some and in the other generally not. Of course both men seem like cads (that’s putting it nicely) and for all I know Do Wan Chang is exploiting the Christian label to sell more goods.

    “Zionist,” that’s a real pejorative.

    • Ellen
      March 16, 2013, 1:13 pm

      lynn, great comment and agreed. Don’t know anything about Chang, but using Biblical text to sell his wares is offensive and would keep me out of his stores. “Cad” for Charney — who found it appropriate to humiliate a female interviewer by masturbating as he sat across from her — is a very mild characterization.

      Why would NPR give either of them attention?

  16. RJL
    March 15, 2013, 3:30 pm

    Ecru-knocking the Talmud was the favorite pasttime of Jews who converted to Christianity during medieval times, there were several famous “debates” between such converts and Jewish scholars (such as Nachmadides-Moses ben Nachman, of Spain), and plenty of public burnings of the Talmud and related religious books.
    There are some derogatory remarks in the Talmud against idol worshippers, but the only “people” were are told to hate, and that’s in the bible itself, is the long non-existent nation of Amalek, from whom the antagonist, Haman-book of Esther-was descended. Please, don’t quote me from the crazy professor at Madison, Wisconsin about his views.
    I’ve read the new Testament, and each section gets more violently anti-Jewish as the apostles move on. Look who’s talking. The Talmud says clearly, every man, not just Jews, is made in His Image, and each man, if he lives a righteous life, earns a place in the world to come/afterlife. That’s hateful? Just as in any religion, some people may misconstrue to think they can take advantage of someone from another religion, but that’s clearly against Jewish law/halacha. I’ve not read the Koran cover to cover, just many quotes, and the Prophet had a mix of good and bad to say about Jews, but his later preachings were all not just negative, but genocidal. I can see why some folks dismiss all religions, but don’t use the Torah and Talmud to attack Jews and justify our horrific treatment by other religions throughout the centuries.
    Shabbat shalom.

    • Ecru
      March 15, 2013, 5:21 pm

      Uhm where exactly did I even mention the Talmud?

      You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about Jews converting to Christianity during the Medieval period, but you do know that conversion ran both ways don’t you? For example Bodo/Eleazar (Christian name/Converted Jewish name). A Christian advisor to Charlemagne’s son Louis the Pious, he converted to Judaism and moved to Spain where he settled and began arguing theology with Paul of Cordoba. And not content with that he then petitioned his Muslim ruler to pressure the Christians of the domain to give up their religion. No? Not heard that one? How about the others, the ones alluded to in 7th Century Spain? The Toledoth Yeshu? My what a selective blind spot your knowledge of Medieval Europe has.

      And Amalek being one people? Please. We all know that ANYONE can be declared Amalek – just listen to Nutter-yahoo.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 15, 2013, 5:21 pm

      “The Talmud says clearly, every man, not just Jews, is made in His Image, and each man, if he lives a righteous life, earns a place in the world to come/afterlife. That’s hateful?”

      How is “righteous” defined? From my understanding, it’s defined by the so-called “laws of Noah.” That’s very problematic, because it defines as precluding rightiousness, things that are irrelevant to the question (one who worships idols and blasphemes YHWH [to the extent blasphemy is actually a thing] are not, thereby, lacking righteousness) and fails to prohibit things that are (such as holding human slaves.) Is it hateful? In a way, sure.

    • American
      March 16, 2013, 3:32 pm

      ‘but don’t use the Torah and Talmud to attack Jews and justify our horrific treatment by other religions throughout the centuries.”…RJL

      I looked into this long ago and discovered that there have been half a dozen ‘revisions’ of the ‘translations” of the Talmud throughout the years.
      However….separate (non religious) history is clear about the fact the Talmud ‘originally’ (the Babylon) contained such hate or sacrilege that it did start to be burned and banned from the 1200’s by Christian rulers and others.

      The most honest of the Jewish scholars explain it by saying it was written in ‘primitive times’ like some other religious text….. so you should go with that explaination because it’s the true one.

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2013, 12:24 pm

        @ American
        Good luck finding an English translation of the Talmud that has not been redacted of its disparaging anti-Gentile text. Anyone know where such a publication is accessible?

  17. Cliff
    March 16, 2013, 8:21 am

    MW has covered NPR’s bias in the past:

    link to mondoweiss.net

    On a related note: NPR’s pro-Israel bias and deference to authority and mainstream Establishment sources.

    (Doesn’t Lendmen post here sometimes?) We should cover this article. It’s from 2010 but relevant still and with sources.

    link to dissidentvoice.org

    Excerpts

    In its May/June 2004 issue, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) asked “How Public Is Public Radio?” in examining its guest list choices — on all issues (including Israel), mostly government officials, corporate think tank representatives, professionals representing their interests, and other elite sources, the public comprising a tiny 7%.

    In December 2001, FAIR’s Seth Ackerman discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “Illusion of Balance” along with a companion November/December 2001 “Study of NPR’s Coverage of Deaths in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.”

    It found an 81% likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported compared to 34% for a Palestinian. Among under age 18 Palestinians, only 20% were reported compared to 89% of Israelis, FAIR concluding that “being a minor makes your death more newsworthy to NPR if you are Israeli, but less” so, or not at all, if Palestinian.

    Etc.

  18. susan1
    March 16, 2013, 2:32 pm

    Slavery has been such a common and all-pervasive practice throughout human history.To single out the Talmud is ahistorical and ignorant.

    • Donald
      March 16, 2013, 2:48 pm

      “Slavery has been such a common and all-pervasive practice throughout human history.To single out the Talmud is ahistorical and ignorant.”

      How fortunate, then, that no one here denies that slavery has been such a common and all-pervasive practice. This does not mean one can’t discuss particular books that might sanction it. (I know absolutely nothing about the Talmud, however, so I can’t comment on that.)

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 16, 2013, 3:31 pm

      “Slavery has been such a common and all-pervasive practice throughout human history.To single out the Talmud is ahistorical and ignorant.”

      No, noob, it is you who is ignorant, because no one is “singling out” the Talmud. We are discussing the Talmud and point out that one of the reasons why it is hateful is because it not only permits, but invites chattel slavery. It certainly isn’t alone in being hateful for this reason. Most of the so-called “holy” books are hateful in this way.

    • American
      March 16, 2013, 3:51 pm

      The truest thing to say is there have always been and always will be all kinds of people in every race on earth…Slavery is no exception.
      This is an excellent Black History site, btw, featuring black writers and historians and supported in part by PBS..

      link to theroot.com

      ”One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War. For me, the really fascinating questions about black slave-owning are how many black “masters” were involved, how many slaves did they own and why did they own slaves?

      The answers to these questions are complex, and historians have been arguing for some time over whether free blacks purchased family members as slaves in order to protect them — motivated, on the one hand, by benevolence and philanthropy, as historian Carter G. Woodson put it, or whether, on the other hand, they purchased other black people “as an act of exploitation,” primarily to exploit their free labor for profit, just as white slave owners did. The evidence shows that, unfortunately, both things are true. The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, states this clearly: “The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property.” But, he admits, “There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status.”

      In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves “in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery,” at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

      And for a time, free black people could even “own” the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler “regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade,” Halliburton wrote.

      Perhaps the most insidious or desperate attempt to defend the right of black people to own slaves was the statement made on the eve of the Civil War by a group of free people of color in New Orleans, offering their services to the Confederacy, in part because they were fearful for their own enslavement: “The free colored population [native] of Louisiana … own slaves, and they are dearly attached to their native land … and they are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana … They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought [to defend New Orleans from the British] in 1814-1815.”

      These guys were, to put it bluntly, opportunists par excellence: As Noah Andre Trudeau and James G. Hollandsworth Jr. explain, once the war broke out, some of these same black men formed 14 companies of a militia composed of 440 men and were organized by the governor in May 1861 into “the Native Guards, Louisiana,” swearing to fight to defend the Confederacy. Although given no combat role, the Guards — reaching a peak of 1,000 volunteers — became the first Civil War unit to appoint black officers.

      1234
      next ›
      last »

    • RoHa
      March 16, 2013, 11:58 pm

      “Slavery has been such a common and all-pervasive practice throughout human history.To single out the Talmud is ahistorical and ignorant.”

      But if these religious writings – Talmud, New Testament, Qur’an – are to be taken as moral guides, one would expect them to denounce such an immoral institution. They don’t. The best they can offer is acceptance with alleviation.

  19. susan1
    March 16, 2013, 3:39 pm

    Then why not give the Talmud the benefit of the doubt? It seems to me that this site and those that post comments here advocate multiculturalism .That requires a tolerant attitude towards others. So why the intolerant and misanthropic attacks on other peoples religion and their holy books?

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 17, 2013, 10:36 am

      Sorry, noob, but you don’t get to tell people what they can and cannot criticize. Being respectful of other people need not extend to withholding criticism of their “holy” books, except to right wing fools who don’t understand or respect multiculturalism but try to use it as a club to shut people up from being critical of those same right wingers.

      So you don’t like my opinions about your book? Fine. Believe what you want but don’t dare for a second believe that because you think well of it somehow obligates me to not think it’s crap or obligates me to keep from telling you that I think it’s crap.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 12:40 pm

      @ susan1

      Appreciation of multiculturalism does not mean one can not criticize negative aspects of any culture and the things that prop such up. What culture does not carry aspects that, if done by everyone, would be horrendous? Can’t U ken Kant?

  20. susan1
    March 17, 2013, 1:13 am

    Well done! You have now broadened the misanthropic and intolerant attack to include all three monotheistic religions! Bravo! I mean it isn’t as if (collectively speaking) at least a billion people worship all three religions…That’s a LOT of fellow human beings to look down your nose at! That’s a lot of intolerance from those purporting to be supporters of multiculturalism! By the way, just to clarify things I posted my second comment about 14 hours ago, at that point only the Talmud was being defamed on this thread.

    • Woody Tanaka
      March 17, 2013, 10:44 am

      All the people in the world could believe something and that doesn’t mean it’s true. Your statement is a logical fallacy.There’s nothing intolerant or misanthropic about pointing out a truth. A statement doesn’t become free of the ability to criticize it simply because someone d decides it is “holy.”
      Finally, it’s a book. Nothing more. You can’t”defame” a book. It’s just criticism

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 12:45 pm

      @ susan1
      Surely you are aware of what has been negatively done historically to fellow humans in the name of all three Abrahamic religions? There are those who practice their religion in a way beneficial to all humans, and those who do not. To the extent that any scripture or religious commentary was, and can be used to harm fellow humans in fact, is fodder for enlightened, objective analysis. So what’s your problem?

    • Stephen Shenfield
      March 17, 2013, 1:24 pm

      Why should being critical of the beliefs held by large numbers of people make someone a hater of humanity (misanthrope)? Why should criticism not be rooted in love? That is, can I not criticize beliefs because I see that they cause misery in the believers, as well as in others whom their beliefs lead them to victimize, and because being a lover of humanity I want to reduce human misery?

      And why should it be worse to criticize beliefs held by many people than beliefs held by only a few? Surely, other things being equal, beliefs held by many people are capable of causing more misery than beliefs held by only a few?

    • Donald
      March 17, 2013, 1:40 pm

      Susan1–

      I’m a Christian myself–if you are Jewish we share much of the Bible in common. The fact is that it contains some passages that are morally dubious or even horrifying, along with some passages that are quite the opposite. (That’s true of both the Hebrew scriptures and also of the New Testament.) I don’t object to non-believers pointing out the horrifying parts. They exist. You need to develop a thicker skin when people point this out. As for what to do about them, no doubt I’d probably learn a lot from reading whatever Jewish scholars have said, as my vague impression is that they sometimes have a more sophisticated approach to such things than, say, Christian fundamentalists. (Jewish fundamentalists are presumably just as bad.)

      • MHughes976
        March 17, 2013, 4:50 pm

        You’re absolutely right. I’m a Christian too, quite a keen one, but I acknowledge that our religious convictions are among the least defensible in rational terms that we have, so shielding them from objection, even mockery, is itself irrational. Your remarks about the Pope elsewhere are well judged, also – and I hope I’m not just showing Protestant prejudice or pretending that I would certainly show heroism when called for. But uncritical admiration of religious leaders is dangerous.

      • Donald
        March 18, 2013, 12:24 pm

        Thanks MHughes. Uncritical admiration of any leader, political or religious, is a bad idea.

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 1:31 pm

        @ MHughes

        It mystifies me where you and Donald are getting ‘uncritical admiration’ in my presenting the conditions in Argentina and the Church’s likely place and or split in between them all.
        This is why I am so thankful that I’m not really religious—I don’t have the built in religious prejudices that comes with it for most.

        When I look at Donald’s rant…no personal insult intended, I mostly like Donald’s usual comments but he has some kind of problem….I see someone in flames over his personal ideological certainty “in all cases” over who the Devil(s) is/are……in religious and moral ideology like this all is either back or white—-well, somethings are black or white…but other things are gray.

        But where that kind of personal religious or ideological ‘hubris’ reveals itself most is in this statement…”On Pope Francis, how do you know he is a good and holy man? He might be, and then again he might not…” Because guess what?……I never said he was.
        But because he wanted to ‘justify’ his own condemnation and expound on the evils of the church it didn’t matter that I didn’t say that….he wanted a platform to preach from.
        When you think you know who the devils are and will tolerate no other devils before the devils ‘you personally most hate’…..you’re always looking for a way to get on stage to set us all straight on who is evil and who’s not….according to your own personal gospels.
        I rarely see many religious in any religion who don’t have religious prejudice of one kind or another…..it seems to come with the territory for believers.

      • Donald
        March 19, 2013, 12:43 am

        “But where that kind of personal religious or ideological ‘hubris’ reveals itself most is in this statement…”On Pope Francis, how do you know he is a good and holy man? He might be, and then again he might not…” Because guess what?……I never said he was.”

        Hey, guess what? Not everything in that thread was about you and nothing in my post here was either. There was someone else who praised your post who said Francis was a good and holy man. I did my rants in the other thread mainly because I think the 70’s and 80’s in Latin America were an important and very revealing period in a lot of ways, not least in showing the sorts of strange alliances that developed among the rightwingers of the time. Neocons writing in “Commentary” defending a fascist anti-semitic government, for instance. I think sometimes people here have tunnel vision when they focus too much on Israel–I don’t mean that Israel shouldn’t be focused on, but maybe people miss other things they should find relevant (even from an Israel-centric viewpoint.)

        “When you think you know who the devils are and will tolerate no other devils before the devils ‘you personally most hate’…..you’re always looking for a way to get on stage to set us all straight on who is evil and who’s not….according to your own personal gospels.”

        Yes, that describes me in certain moods–for instance, 98 percent of the time when I’m online and about 75 percent of the time when I’m conscious. What’s hilarious, though, is that you could type this without any apparent sense of self-awareness. I know perfectly well how this blog would strike the average person if strapped to a chair and forced to read us everyday. It would look like a bunch of people constantly jostling to get on stage and denounce their personal devils and jump on people who don’t denounce hard enough. I’m not saying we’re wrong–I’m here, after all. You’ve jumped on me for comparing Israel to Jim Crow–evidently our personal devil list doesn’t quite match up. No doubt it’s because of my religious prejudice.

        Don’t take this too harshly. I agree I get on a soapbox a lot, but then, so do you and so do a lot of people around here. It’s what blogs are about, to some degree anyway.

      • American
        March 20, 2013, 1:33 pm

        ”I agree I get on a soapbox a lot, but then, so do you and so do a lot of people around here”…Donald

        Well yes I and we do…….but I think I’m a bit more objective and less hampered by any religiousness connected to morals….more practically pragmatic ……. but then I admit I am ‘prejudiced’ toward my own method of analyzing things…..:).

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 1:44 pm

        I am ‘prejudiced’ toward my own method of analyzing things…..:).

        what an unusual quality! lol

    • eljay
      March 17, 2013, 2:14 pm

      >> That’s a lot of intolerance from those purporting to be supporters of multiculturalism!

      Tolerance is what happens when people let you believe what you want (as long as it causes no harm to others).

      Intolerance is what happens when you insist that people must respect you for your beliefs, regardless of how foolish those people may find them or how foolish they may seem to society in general.

      And just because a lot of people believe in something doesn’t make it real, valid or accurate.

      • susan1
        March 17, 2013, 8:38 pm

        I say I am a supporter of the values of the Enlightenment. Also I don’t happen to believe respecting the opinions of others is a great necessity. On the contrary, pretending to respect another’s opinion you don’t believe shows the ultimate disrespect. However, its clear a multicultural society requires tolerance of views one might find ridiculous or wrong, otherwise how could any multicultural society ever properly cohere. Finally what is crucial in such a society is free speech ( up to the point of crying “Fire!” in a crowded place ), which is the fundamental flaw of the BDS so called strategy because while the supporters of Boycotting Israel demand the right of free speech for themselves they also insist in curbing or denying others right to free speech. The Israel/ Palestine conflict is not a morality play where you have the utterly angelic Palestinians and the forces of evil as represented by Israel. It is a struggle over land , territory between two different nationalities , and ultimately it will be resolved by those two parties to whom the conflict actually BELONGS. Personally I wish both the Palestinians and the Israelis well, they will get there eventually…but I don’t think outsiders who seem to have hijacked this cause because they obviously don’t find sorting out problems in their own countries quite glamorous enough, will or should be allowed to shape the conflict ,because that is to follow a pattern of outside forces provoking and intensifying regional conflicts ( like the I/P dispute ) which means the people to whom ,again, the conflict actually BELONGS have less and less control over their own destinies and are left unable to determine the final outcome of that conflict themselves. Third party involvement by those ,for example , in the so- called BDS movement who are only motivated by their own narcissistic need for self-aggrandisement by co -opting another peoples desperate struggle is not needed. Presumably focusing on problems in your own country is just too prosaic, not enough of a Great Cause Of Our Time that this site has built the essentially local conflict in the middle east up to , in much the same way the conflict in the Balkans was built up by washed up intellectuals and “activists” seeking self aggrandisement into a rerun of the struggle against fascism , turned into a simple-minded battle between Good and Evil by journalists eager to elevate their status beyond that of here today – gone-tomorrow hacks to the status accorded historians who see no need to investigate what is actually occurring in the conflict because that might get in the way of the Greater Truth.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 17, 2013, 11:12 pm

        ultimately it will be resolved by those two parties to whom the conflict actually BELONGS.

        not necessarily. outside intervention isn’t unheard of in geopolitical outcomes. israel’s no different in that regard.

      • susan1
        March 17, 2013, 11:54 pm

        Well yes, I happen to believe it must be resolved by the Israelis and the Palestinians if the solution if to have any legitimacy. Attempts to impose settlement on both parties ( with the Palestinians much the worse off of course ) in particular the Oslo Accords twenty odd years ago only served to deepen the division between the two peoples. Oslo was built on the notion of the Palestinians defeat and to the benefit of an America ,which after the end of the cold war has much less need of its Israeli client state. So the well being of neither people the Israelis nor the Palestinians was the intention of Oslo peace accords, not in the long or short term. What followed after Oslo was a bloody intensification of the dispute. Baruch Goldsteins brutal assault on Muslim worshippers followed and on the Palestinian side an equally nihilistic response- suicide bombings which then led to creation of the Wall between the two people. The former Mayor of Jerusalem Meron Benvenisti has commented on how the situation BEFORE Oslo had been moving more naturally towards a virtually bi-national arrangement. After all Israelis and Palestinians (though still under brutal military occupation) before Oslo, had had a much greater degree of interaction with one another, via Palestinian workers, including those from Gaza, travelling to work in Israel and both Palestinians and Israelis were doing business with each other. The Oslo peace accords brought nothing but vastly increased nihilistic violence and actions on both sides. To my mind this bloodied history since Oslo shows that only the people directly involved in the conflict can resolve it Outsiders must stop treating both parties as though they are small children unable to manage their own affairs. Oslo and other outside meddlers and international so- called diplomacy have only served to disempower both peoples,but especially the Palestinians .

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 12:12 am

        The Oslo peace accords brought nothing but vastly increased nihilistic violence and actions on both sides.

        don’t forget the settlements.

        I happen to believe it must be resolved by the Israelis and the Palestinians if the solution if to have any legitimacy.

        should i infer from that statement israel is not a legitimate state? no i didn’t think you’d agree to that. anyway, yes we’ve heard your theory repeatedly. however, life doesn’t work like that.

      • susan1
        March 18, 2013, 12:33 am

        And what legitimises your desire to put yourself and other anti Zionist “activists” in the picture along with the Palestinians and Israelis ? It isn’t your land we are talking about, it isn’t your conflict or future security, nor that of your children. No ,you can sit in America and question the legitimacy of Israel all you wish but if you claim to believe in justice you ought to fight for the Palestinians and Israelis to be allowed to assume responsibility for their own futures and not to be dictated to by vastly more powerful countries such as America

      • susan1
        March 18, 2013, 12:43 am

        The whole problem with the BDS people is lack of legitimacy. They aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves. The Palestinians turned to the boycott strategy out of desperation, out of the defeat of their national liberation movement , a time when they were able to stand on their own two feet ,independently of others, before the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto them and their cause like so many parasites.

      • talknic
        March 18, 2013, 2:24 am

        @ susan1 March 17, 2013 at 11:54 pm

        “Oslo and other outside meddlers and international so- called diplomacy have only served to disempower both peoples,but especially the Palestinians”

        Uh? Israel has been acting “outside the State of Israel” for 64 years. link to wp.me UN Member states have a DUTY to call to task any UN Member State acting outside their sovereign extent especially when they’re an Occupying Power under Chapt XI of the UN Charter link to un.org

      • justicewillprevail
        March 18, 2013, 7:22 am

        You talk as if Israelis and Palestinians were equal powers and simply had to resolve their differences. If only. Israel is the occupying power, has all the power and all the resources. Palestinians need, and have requested, all the help they can get. They themselves have requested BDS. International laws also apply here, ones which Israel has consistently ignored and broken. We would love it if Palestinians could assume responsibility for their own future, but they are prevented at every turn by a crushing occupation and the refusal of any human rights under the deliberate statelessness which Israel keeps them in. It is an international problem, with international repercussions, as well as a simple question of human rights. Since these rights are universal, every citizen wherever they are has a keen interest in seeing them upheld. Palestinians want international recognition of their plight, and assistance. Anyone who has a conscience should be only too glad to help.

      • Woody Tanaka
        March 18, 2013, 11:10 am

        “And what legitimises your desire to put yourself and other anti Zionist “activists” in the picture along with the Palestinians and Israelis ? It isn’t your land we are talking about, it isn’t your conflict or future security, nor that of your children.”

        No, it’s the Palestinian’s land that the zios have been stealing for generations, with the help of the US. After billions per year and political and military cover that the US has given the judeosupremacist aparthied state, it’s WAY too late in the game for you to ask other people to butt out as you try to drive the final nail into the Palestinians coffin.

      • Light
        March 18, 2013, 11:44 am

        you can sit in America and question the legitimacy of Israel all you wish but if you claim to believe in justice you ought to fight for the Palestinians and Israelis to be allowed to assume responsibility for their own futures

        Only equals can negotiate. This is not a conflict between equals.

        the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto them and their cause like so many parasites.

        As opposed to supporting BDS in solidarity with Palestinian civil society because the world refuses to enforce international law and countless UN resolutions.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 12:42 pm

        “The whole problem with the BDS people is lack of legitimacy. They aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves.”

        That’s exactly right. But don’t depend on them to admit that. It hasn’t worked in the past with Western activists and it will not work now. BDSers really do not seem to much care what happens to people in the region, as long as they get to make their stand.

        “The Palestinians turned to the boycott strategy out of desperation, out of the defeat of their national liberation movement , a time when they were able to stand on their own two feet ,independently of others, before the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto them and their cause like so many parasites.”

        Again, exactly right. And those in the entrepreneurial class, trying to build the country by constructing new cities like Rawabi, hate the internationalists who proscribe from afar breaking off relations with peace-minded Israelis whose only crime is not agreeing to take part in the dismantling of their state at the command of international leftists.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 1:04 pm

        And what legitimises your desire to put yourself and other anti Zionist “activists” in the picture along with the Palestinians and Israelis ? . . . the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto them and their cause like so many parasites.

        Susan I’d suggest you get your facts straight before you call anyone but the Israelis and Zionists narcissistic self-aggrandizing parasites.

        What legitimizes Israeli governments when they cite letters from US Secretary of State Warren Christoper or US President George Bush and claim that those officials gave them the right to retain territories captured as a result of war in the Jordan river valley or the so-called settlement blocks in the West Bank and East Jerusalem? Anti-Zionist Jews have never suggested that Palestine is US territory that can be ceded to Israel.

        By what right do Israelis and their Zionist supporters demand the use of the US veto in the Security Council in order to quash criminal investigations of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli officials? By what right do Zionists and Israelis demand that the US cutoff funding to any international organ which admits Palestine as a member state?

        What right do those parasites have to picked the US taxpayers pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the last 60 years, while our own citizens have witnessed a steady decline in their real incomes and benefits? What right do Israelis have to $30 billion of our tax dollars over the next ten years, when the government can’t meet its own commitments to provide vital services and unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare assistance for its own citizens?

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 1:30 pm

        The whole problem with the BDS people is lack of legitimacy. They aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves.

        In fact, the government of Israel has backed statutes and civil rights or civil tort lawsuits here in the US and at home which specifically target boycott and aid flotilla organizers.

        Regarding accountability: the majority of UN member states accept the decisions of the International Court of Justice, but not Israel or the United States. The majority of the international community of States belong to the International Criminal Court, but not Israel or the United States. Both of those Courts provide all of the legal safeguards that are recognized by civilized peoples.

        Although both Israel and the United States are signatories of the UN Charter and the Rome Statute, they routinely violate the customary prohibition against a signatory acting to defeat a treaty’s object and purpose prior to, or after ratification.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 1:37 pm

        Again, exactly right.

        ah the glory days when the palestinian national liberation movement …. were able to stand on their own two feet, independently of others

        please link to hophmi. i look forward to your further applause an admiration of the palestinians standing on their own two feet.

        the BDS people is lack of legitimacy. They aren’t answerable to anyone but themselves.”….That’s exactly right. But don’t depend on them to admit that.

        au contraire! i will gladly admit i am not answerable to anyone but myself.

        just out of curiosity, regarding internationals, what do you think this means in relation to the ‘legitimacy’ you’re demouncing: link to en.wikipedia.org

        First they came…

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 1:40 pm

        @ Light
        Yes. An honest broker, who is also the sole superpower, would take account of the fact it writes Israel the biggest blank check, no strings attached, while it gives up a tiny bit of US tax dollars to the Palestinians, and the US defends Israel with a diplomatic blank check, against every attempt, by no matter how many UN member nations, to make Israel accountable for what it does.

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 1:45 pm

        Was the BDS campaign against apartheid S Africa problematic because those who participated in it were not answerable to anyone but themselves? How about the civil rights movement in the USA led by ML King?

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 1:50 pm

        susan1 – “And what legitimises your desire to put yourself and other anti Zionist “activists” in the picture along with the Palestinians and Israelis ?”

        Something called simple human decency. In exceedingly short supply in the Zionist entity.

        And what makes you say something as revolting as: “in the picture along with… Israelis”? Who on earth would follow a murderer’s orders as to the conduct of his trial?

      • Citizen
        March 18, 2013, 1:51 pm

        @ Hostage
        Yes. Can’t wait for Susan’s response.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 2:52 pm

        “By what right do Israelis and their Zionist supporters demand the use of the US veto in the Security Council in order to quash criminal investigations of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli officials? ”

        It’s called “we’re next.” It’s called the US not allowing the Security Council to be used for UN politics or the prosecution of US soldiers.

        “By what right do Zionists and Israelis demand that the US cutoff funding to any international organ which admits Palestine as a member state?”

        Hey, Congress signed on. There’s a lot of Israel who couldn’t care less and either way and probably would oppose this. But you’d have to ask Congress.

        “What right do those parasites have to picked the US taxpayers pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the last 60 years, while our own citizens have witnessed a steady decline in their real incomes and benefits? What right do Israelis have to $30 billion of our tax dollars over the next ten years, when the government can’t meet its own commitments to provide vital services and unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare assistance for its own citizens?”

        Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. A few billion to Israel every year has nothing to do with the decline in incomes and benefits. Talk about nonsense demagoguery. Better, ask why the US spends tens of billions a year protecting Europe or on nukes we will never use. Parasites. Now we’re parasites. It’s like we’re the ones completely dependent on the UNRWA trough.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 2:58 pm

        “In fact, the government of Israel has backed statutes and civil rights or civil tort lawsuits here in the US and at home which specifically target boycott and aid flotilla organizers. ”

        Which one, pray?

        “Regarding accountability: the majority of UN member states accept the decisions of the International Court of Justice, but not Israel or the United States.”

        Great. Let me know how many accept it when the court makes a decision against their country on an important political issue.

        ” The majority of the international community of States belong to the International Criminal Court, but not Israel or the United States.”

        Or China. Or India. Or Russia. Hey, that’s like half the earth’s population right there. And three of the big five. OMG. The only members of the big five to sign on are Britain and France, the two countries who arguably have the weakest claim to belong to the club.

        “Both of those Courts provide all of the legal safeguards that are recognized by civilized peoples. ”

        So, according to Hostage, half the earth is uncivilized, because India, China, and Russia are not ICC members.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 3:07 pm

        Now we’re parasites. It’s like we’re the ones completely dependent on the UNRWA trough.

        i think it was your new buddy susie who dragged ‘parasites’ into the thread.

        Hey, Congress signed on….Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.

        to aipac’s legislation again, how shocking. but i noticed your didn’t address the question. by what right? they should be required to register under FARA, as they are foreign agents and yes, israel is dependent on american handouts and i can’t think of anything of value we get from israel. nothing but trouble, one way street, israel is dependent on the US trough.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 3:18 pm

        “i think it was your new buddy susie who dragged ‘parasites’ into the thread.

        No, it was Hostage.

        “to aipac’s legislation again, how shocking.”

        Why is it shocking? Did you do anything to organize an opposing resolution?

        “but i noticed your didn’t address the question. by what right?”

        I’m not interested in dignifies those kinds of questions. I don’t need to prove my right to you.

        “they should be required to register under FARA, as they are foreign agents”

        Snore. Do you ever get tired of trotting this out? It’s a lobby that supports a strong US-Israel relationship. You may disagree with that idea, but that does not make it a foreign lobby. And it won’t make your lobby foreign either when it stands for a strong US-Palestinian or US-Arab relationship.

        “israel is dependent on american handouts ”

        According to a few. According to others, hardly.

        “i can’t think of anything of value we get from israel.”

        Regional alliance, defense cooperation, new technology, and people who don’t burn American flags on a daily basis.

        “nothing but trouble, one way street, israel is dependent on the US trough.

        You’ll have to convince the 96% of America who don’t sympathize with the Palestinians of that argument.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 3:49 pm

        It’s called “we’re next.” It’s called the US not allowing the Security Council to be used for UN politics or the prosecution of US soldiers.

        So much for Susan’s bullshit about accountability.

        Hey, Congress signed on. There’s a lot of Israel who couldn’t care less and either way and probably would oppose this. But you’d have to ask Congress.

        I don’t have to ask the two-faced Congress about the disproportionate influence of a few Zionist donors and the Israel Lobby. Congress adopted legislation which says Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. At one and the same time, the Congress adopted laws that punish international organizations for recognizing the State of Palestine which say the status of Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem can only be determined through negotiations.

        Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. A few billion to Israel every year has nothing to do with the decline in incomes and benefits. . . . It’s like we’re the ones completely dependent on the UNRWA trough.

        Anyone remotely familiar with the special relationship knows that US military aid to Israel in 1973 set-off an Arab Oil Embargo which resulted in an upward spiral in prices that has had global implications in every sector of our battered economy ever since.

        The costs of operating the UNRWA are directly attributable to the steadfast refusal of the State of Israel to fulfill its legal obligations under UN resolutions and the customary international laws reflected in the Geneva Conventions regarding repatriation of war refugees. So yes, the Zionist are a parasitic burden on our society.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 4:33 pm

        “i think it was your new buddy susie who dragged ‘parasites’ into the thread.

        No, it was Hostage.

        You’re wrong as usual. A simple check of the time stamp on Susan1’s comment shows that she said the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto the Palestinians and their cause like so many parasites on March 18, 2013 at 12:43 am.

        “In fact, the government of Israel has backed statutes and civil rights or civil tort lawsuits here in the US and at home which specifically target boycott and aid flotilla organizers. ”

        Which one, pray?

        Don’t play stupid, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel responded to questions from the Israeli press about government involvement in the nuisance lawsuit against the Olympia Food Coop by saying that it was necessary to use every legal tool at the government’s disposal.
        link to richardsilverstein.com

        Israel itself has adopted an anti-Boycott law. See Israel law targets boycott campaigns link to articles.latimes.com

        Israel’s parastatal organs, like the Jewish Agency for Israel and the World Zionist Organization, provide Israeli and Israeli-trained political operatives to serve as anti-boycott movement spokesmen and staffers for Campus Hillel & etc. Campus organizations have conducted a coordinated campaign against the BDS movement using Title VI civil rights complaints. See for example The Center for Academic Engagement and the Louis D. Brandeis Center seminars, reserach, and actions on the subject:
        link to israelcc.org
        link to brandeiscenter.com

      • Light
        March 18, 2013, 4:34 pm

        Hophmi, go back and read the thread. It was Susan1 who first used the term parasite.

        link to mondoweiss.net

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 4:44 pm

        “By what right do Zionists and Israelis demand that the US cutoff funding to any international organ which admits Palestine as a member state?”

        “What right do those parasites have to picked the US taxpayers pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the last 60 years, while our own citizens have witnessed a steady decline in their real incomes and benefits? What right do Israelis have to $30 billion of our tax dollars over the next ten years, when the government can’t meet its own commitments to provide vital services and unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare assistance for its own citizens?”

        hops: I’m not interested in dignifies those kinds of questions. I don’t need to prove my right to you.

        so transparent.

      • hophmi
        March 18, 2013, 4:52 pm

        “so transparent.”

        Transparent? As in, I don’t feel the need the constant prove the right of Israel to exist to you?

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 5:12 pm

        So, according to Hostage, half the earth is uncivilized, because India, China, and Russia are not ICC members.

        Nice try, but there is a customary obligation for signatories not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty. You aren’t discussing States that have signed the Rome Statute. In any event, all of those countries have voted to refer one or more criminal cases to the ICC Prosecutor and have not expressed any concern that the defendants won’t receive a fair trial.

        Only the US and Israel have actively taken steps as signatories to knowingly violate the object and purposes of the Rome Statute. The US has done that by signing into law things like the American Service-Members’ Protection Act (aka The Hague Invasion Act) which authorizes the use of force against the Court to free prisoners awaiting trial in the Hague.

        Israel continued to build settlements, even after the head of its delegation to the Rome Conference admitted that establishing settlements would be a serious crime of international concern after the Statute entered into force.

        The unprecedented attempts by both countries to somehow “un-sign” the Rome Statute was simply more evidence of a guilty conscience over the knowledge that they were deliberately violating their customary obligations.

      • Donald
        March 18, 2013, 6:10 pm

        “By what right do Israelis and their Zionist supporters demand the use of the US veto in the Security Council in order to quash criminal investigations of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Israeli officials? ”

        “It’s called “we’re next.” It’s called the US not allowing the Security Council to be used for UN politics or the prosecution of US soldiers.” hophmi

        I’ve been saying that for years–one reason the US opposes having Israeli officials be brought up on war crimes charges is because of the precedent it would set–Western officials being held accountable. Of course hophmi embraces the BS justification that American officials use–they’re so concerned that low-ranking US soldiers will be prosecuted. Yeah, right. What they’re afraid of are prosecutions of the likes of Kissinger or Bush or Cheney. Justice is for the lower forms of life, not Westerners. Palestinians can be arrested and tried for terrorism, or links (real or imaginary) to terrorist organizations. American and Israeli officials can do what they want with impunity. Apparently hophmi likes it that way.

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 6:36 pm

        rotflmao….let’s take the Israelis ‘rights’ away from them.
        A good first step is calling out their bought politicians.
        Soooo…clink on this link, then click each bill number link to each bill and a window will open so you look at the sponsor and co-sponsors to see if your politician is one of the Israeli traitors in our congress .
        Then call them…tell them move to Israel and out of the US, they don’t belong here. Dont’ feel you have to be respectful or nice for gawds sake, these asses are corrupt ”employees’ looting the company and they need to be fired.

        link to salsa.democracyinaction.org

        Oppose AIPAC Agenda, Support Palestinian Human Rights
        Please take action to oppose AIPAC’s legislative agenda, and ask your Members of Congress to support human rights and hold Israel accountable for its misuse of U.S.-supplied weapons.

        Before you send letters to your Members of Congress, please call their offices (numbers will appear below after you enter your zip code) and voice your opposition to the resolutions recently proposed by AIPAC. We’ve provided talking points below to help convey your message — please also mention the specific bills you oppose, listed above the talking points.

        To find out if your Members of Congress are supporting this legislation, click on the bill number below and then click on ‘cosponsors.’

        In the House, we are opposing:
        H.R. 938 — Designates Israel a ‘major strategic partner.’
        H.R. 850 — Increases punitive sanctions that harm Iranian civilians and brings U.S. closer to war.

        In the Senate, we are opposing:
        S. 462 — Designates Israel a ‘major strategic partner.’
        S. Res 65 — “Backdoor to war with Iran.”

        Talking Points

        1. I urge you to oppose AIPAC’s agenda of pushing for greater U.S. support for Israel and for sanctions and war against Iran.

        2. In the midst of across-the-board budget cuts to many vital programs, I strongly oppose any attempts to exempt military aid to Israel from cuts imposed by sequestration.

        3. Israel routinely discriminates against Palestinian-, Arab-, and Muslim-Americans by refusing them entry, and therefore does not provide ‘reciprocal privileges’ to U.S. citizens and should not be included in the U.S. visa waiver program.

        4. Unconditional U.S. military aid and diplomatic support for Israel run counter to our commitment to human rights and have hindered the ability of the United State to build relationships and conduct diplomacy around the world. Israel is a strategic liability, not a strategic ally, and I oppose any resolution designating Israel a ‘major strategic partner.’

        Loading data, please wait ….
        In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
        Please enter your zip/postal code:

      • hophmi
        March 19, 2013, 5:05 pm

        “Anyone remotely familiar with the special relationship knows that US military aid to Israel in 1973 set-off an Arab Oil Embargo which resulted in an upward spiral in prices that has had global implications in every sector of our battered economy ever since. ”

        That’s the fault of OPEC, not of Israel. The best answer would be not to give in to blackmail, and no, Hostage, OPEC was not created in 1973. They manipulate the prices at will and always have.

        “The costs of operating the UNRWA are directly attributable to the steadfast refusal of the State of Israel to fulfill its legal obligations under UN resolutions and the customary international laws reflected in the Geneva Conventions regarding repatriation of war refugees. ”

        Hardly. They’re directly attributable to the refusal of Arab states to stop using the Palestinians as a pawn. There’s no reason Palestinians in Lebanon should still be in camps or that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza should have remained in them during Arab rule.

        “So yes, the Zionist are a parasitic burden on our society.”

        Good luck convincing mainstream America.

      • Cliff
        March 19, 2013, 5:42 pm

        Mainstream America is who exactly? The TV? Hollywood? Congress?

        ‘Most Americans’ support neither side but an even-handed approach. This even-handedness is diametrically opposed by Jewish nationalists and colonists in our country like you.

        The 30% that support Israel over the Palestinians are Christian eschatologists who are fanatics who also supported genocidal Latin American dictatorships.

        There is no widespread support for Israel in our country.

        The emphasis is rather on the lack of support for Palestinian agency. Islamophobia as opposed to philo-semitism – although both are related.

        The reason cultural institutions in the US are pro-Israel is due to identity politics, Jewish group mobility over time (markedly since WW2), etc.

        There has NEVER been an honest and open discussion of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the ‘mainstream’ press.

        ‘Mainstream America’ is a talking point to a Zionist fanatic like you who thinks ‘ordinary’ Americans give a **** about a Jewish country club in the Middle East.

      • Shingo
        March 19, 2013, 6:01 pm

        The best answer would be not to give in to blackmail

        Unless it’s the Lobby doing it.

        They’re directly attributable to the refusal of Arab states to stop using the Palestinians as a pawn.

        Cut the crap Hophmi. Israel used the Holocaust and Holocaust survivors as pawns but that does not mean that the victims do not have legitimate claims.

        Good luck convincing mainstream America.

        That won’t be difficult. All they have to know is the truth and they’ll be easily convinced – especially when they know that the US is giving Israel billions while US infrastructure, hospitals and schools are closing down.

      • Light
        March 19, 2013, 6:03 pm

        Hophmi

        They’re directly attributable to the refusal of Arab states to stop using the Palestinians as a pawn.

        What a silly argument. If I take your house and a neighbor takes me in temporarily, you blame the neighbor for not letting me live there permanently.

        Yes, Lebanon could have treated Palestinians better but that does not negate a refugee’s right to return to Palestine or receive compensation for losses.

      • eljay
        March 19, 2013, 6:57 pm

        >> ‘Most Americans’ support neither side but an even-handed approach. … There has NEVER been an honest and open discussion of the Israel/Palestine conflict in the ‘mainstream’ press.

        hophmeee is full of typical Zio-supremacist hypocrisy. If the roles of Israelis and Palestinians were reversed in the media, he’d be criticizing and denouncing as invalid any survey that showed clear support for the Palestinians.

        But because his tribe/nation/people/collective/religion/civilization have the upper hand in this instance and, so, the surveys favour them, it’s all good and valid.

      • Hostage
        March 19, 2013, 9:47 pm

        That’s the fault of OPEC, not of Israel. The best answer would be not to give in to blackmail, and no, Hostage, OPEC was not created in 1973. They manipulate the prices at will and always have.

        And when was the UN Security Council arms embargo and truce regime lifted? How many UN resolutions was the US violating by providing arms to Israel so that it could retain captured Arab territory?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 20, 2013, 12:02 am

        hops 4:52 pm I don’t need to prove my right to you. …As in, I don’t feel the need the constant prove the right of Israel to exist to you?

        yeah, like dude..i got it the first time. that’s what ‘so transparent‘ means. you think the right of Israel to exist is your right, i just don’t happen to agree with you.

        you think Zionists and Israelis have a right to ‘demand that the US cutoff funding to any international organ which admits Palestine as a member state‘, i just don’t happen to agree with you.

        you think Zionists and Israelis have a right to ‘pick the US taxpayers pockets to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in the last 60 years, while our own citizens have witnessed a steady decline in their real incomes and benefits, have $30 billion of our tax dollars over the next ten years, when the government can’t meet its own commitments to provide vital services and unemployment, Social Security, and Medicare assistance for its own citizens‘, i just don’t happen to agree with you.

        like i said, so transparent.

    • RoHa
      March 17, 2013, 7:52 pm

      ” You have now broadened the misanthropic”

      I support humans over imaginary gods and the religions that oppress people and retard civilization. How is that misanthropic?

      “and intolerant attack”

      I have a very low tolerance level for nonsense, irrationality, and evil.

      “to include all three monotheistic religions!”

      There are more than three. Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Baha’i are also monotheistic. There are probably other monotheisms that I don’t remember.

      “That’s a LOT of fellow human beings to look down your nose at!”

      My nose can take the strain.

      ” That’s a lot of intolerance from those purporting to be supporters of multiculturalism!”

      I have never claimed to be a supporter of multiculturalism.

    • eljay
      March 18, 2013, 8:16 am

      >> … pretending to respect another’s opinion you don’t believe shows the ultimate disrespect.

      In light of your recent attack on W.T., this comment is quite amusing.

  21. mcohen
    March 17, 2013, 1:38 am

    i used to be a Slave to the rhythm.
    now i just tremble with the treble

  22. susan1
    March 17, 2013, 2:15 am

    The People Of The Book !!

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 12:46 pm

      You mean the “nation of priests”?

      • susan1
        March 17, 2013, 9:26 pm

        Muslims refer to the Jews and the Christians as People of the Book.

  23. susan1
    March 17, 2013, 2:44 am

    Read the Babylonian Talmud as translated into English by Michael. L.Rodkinson and on Quran.com get the English translation of the Quran. Go to the ORIGINAL texts people! I defy you to find any passage sanctioning slavery in either the Quran or the Talmud.

    • American
      March 17, 2013, 10:38 am

      “I defy you to find any passage sanctioning slavery in either the Quran or the Talmud.”…..susan1

      You defy us?….listen I don’t know what kind of nutcase you might be but religious historians have been writting about slavery found in religious text for ..oh, ….several centuries now. ..and before Jewish scholars, in particular, tried to clean up the crap with umpteen dozen “revised” translations.

      Talmudic Era

      In the early Christian era, the regulations concerning slave-ownership by Jews apparently became the subject of some confusion, and efforts were undertaken to revise the slavery laws.[18] The precise issues that necessitated a revision to the laws is not certain, but it could include factors such as ownership of non-Canaanite slaves, the continuing practice of owning Jewish slaves, or conflicts with Roman slave-ownership laws.[18] Thus, the Talmud (circa 200-500 CE) contains an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different than the original laws found in the Jewish Bible.

      The major change found in the Talmud’s slavery laws is that a single set of rules – with a few exceptions – governs both Jewish slaves and non-Jewish slaves.[8][19] Another change was that the automatic release of Jewish slaves after 7 years is replaced by indefinite slavery, in conjunction with a process whereby the owner could – under certain situations – release the slave by a written document (a manumission).[8][19][20][21] However, historian Josephus wrote that the seven year automatic release was still in effect if the slavery was a punishment for a crime the slave committed (as opposed to voluntary slavery due to poverty).[22] In addition, the notion of Canaanite slaves from the Jewish Bible is expanded to all non-Jewish slaves.[23]

      One of the few rules that distinguished between Jewish and non-Jewish slaves regarded found property: items found by Jewish slaves were owned by the slave, but items found by a non-Jewish slave belonged to the slave owner.[24] Another change was that the Talmud explicitly prohibits the freeing of a non-Jewish slave, which was stricter that the biblical law[25] which was silent on the issue, and simply permitted slaves to be owned indefinitely.[26] However, non-Jewish slaves could be converted to Judaism and then freed, in some circumstances.

      It is apparent that Jews still owned Jewish slaves in the Talmudic era, because Talmudic authorities tried to denounce the biblical permission[27] that Jews could sell themselves into slavery if they were poverty-stricken. In particular, the Talmud said that Jews should not sell themselves to non-Jews, and if they did, the Jewish community was urged to ransom or redeem the slave.[20]

      In antiquity, Jewish society allowed slavery.[4] Slaves were seen as an essential part of a Jewish household.[5] It is impossible for scholars to quantify the number of slaves that were owned by Jews in ancient Jewish society, or what percentage of households owned slaves, but it is possible to analyze social, legal, and economic impacts of slavery.[6]

      The Jewish Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Jewish slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1][7] The main source of non-Jewish slaves were prisoners of war.[5] Jewish slaves, in contrast to non-Jewish slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to a Jewish owner) or because of inability to pay a debt.[4]

      In biblical times, non-Jewish slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations,[8] and the Jewish Bible provided religious justification for the enslavement of these neighbors: the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham,[9] but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Jewish slaves.[10]

      The laws governing non-Jewish slaves were more harsh than those governing Jewish slaves: non-Jewish slaves could be owned permanently, and bequeathed to the owner’s children,[11] whereas Jewish slaves were treated as servants, and were released after 7 years of service.[12] One scholar suggests that the distinction was due to the fact that non-Jewish slaves were subject to the curse of Canaan, whereas God did not want Jews to be slaves because he freed them from Egyptian enslavement.[13]

      The laws governing Jewish slaves were more lenient than laws governing non-Jewish slaves, but a single Hebrew word, ebbed (meaning slave or servant) is used for both situations. In English translations of the Bible, the distinction is sometimes emphasized by translating the word as “slave” in the context of non-Jewish slaves, and “servant” or “bondman” for Jewish slaves.[14]

      Most slaves owned by Jews were non-Jewish, and scholars are not certain what percentage of slaves were Jewish: one scholar says that Jews rarely owned Jewish slaves after the Maccabean era, although it is certain that Jews owned Jewish slaves during the time of the Babylonian exile.[4] Another scholar suggests that Jews continued to own Jewish slaves through the Middle Ages, but that the Biblical rules were ignored, and Jewish slaves were treated the same as non-Jews.[15]

      Scholars are not certain how faithfully Jews obeyed the slavery laws. Jeremiah 34:8-22 describes, in very forceful terms, how God punished the Israelites for not properly following the laws on slavery, and that suggests that the laws were not followed very strictly.[1]

      Essenes
      Slave ownership was widely accepted by the majority of early Jewish societies, but the Essenes were a small, ascetic sect that reportedly renounced slavery,[16] although some scholars question whether the Essenes actually renounced slavery.[17][18]

      • susan1
        March 18, 2013, 12:07 am

        Its the constant pillorying of ONE set of religious texts that I find so unedifying. I just feel people can discuss these matters in a less hysterical insulting manner and ultimately people would get more out of this site , more knowledge and less rhetoric.

      • sardelapasti
        March 18, 2013, 12:37 am

        susan1 – “Its the constant pillorying of ONE set of religious texts that I find so unedifying.”
        A lie. You were yapping like somebody stepped on your tail yesterday or so when all religions were being justly attacked –something about how horrrible it is to be against all monotheistick religions! Now it is about one, eh.
        Of course it was about just yours all along.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 12:43 am

        more knowledge and less rhetoric.

        you mean this kind of rhetoric:

        Boycotting Israel … insist in curbing or denying others right to free speech.

        utterly angelic Palestinians and the forces of evil as represented by Israel.

        outsiders …. obviously don’t find sorting out problems in their own countries quite glamorous enough,

        the so- called BDS movement who are only motivated by their own narcissistic need for self-aggrandisement

        focusing on problems in your own country is just too prosaic, not enough of a Great Cause Of Our Time

        “activists” seeking self aggrandisement into a rerun of the struggle against fascism , turned into a simple-minded battle between Good and Evil by journalists

        no need to investigate what is actually occurring in the conflict because that might get in the way of the Greater Truth.

        link to mondoweiss.net

        or do you exclude your own rhetoric when you launch into a ” values of the Enlightenment” lecture?

        and this is classic:

        a time when they were able to stand on their own two feet ,independently of others, before the international BDS “activists” seeking their own narcissistic self aggrandisement latched onto them and their cause like so many parasites.

        if you repeat “self aggrandisement” over and over will it grow roots? i doubt it. is this your idea of knowledge based rhetoric? link to mondoweiss.net

      • susan1
        March 18, 2013, 1:05 am

        As I have asked you before, where or from what source do you derive YOUR legitimacy? Why not focus on putting things right in YOUR country where you and your children live? In fact, if maintaining adherence to international law is your concern, let us say you put aside U.N. Resolution 242, and instead turn your attention to the decades long imposition by America of an economic embargo considered ILLEGAL by the United Nations upon Cuba? Or why not focus your attention on the destruction wrought by YOUR country the U.S., on another small neighbour of your country , Haiti?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 1:31 am

        where or from what source do you derive YOUR legitimacy?

        that’s for me to know and you to find out.

        ;)

      • susan1
        March 18, 2013, 1:50 am

        Everything I have said is a means of trying to open up the debate. Rather than going over the same old tired reductive formula which is as follows : the Palestinians are really like poor defenceless children who need “international activists “to come and protect them from the big bad pure evil that is Israel ( and therefore provide those “activists” , who are otherwise painfully aware of their own impotence to change their OWN societies , can act out a fantasy in which they save the poor,pathetic Palestinians from the evil , Nazi like Israelis, and in short feel good about themselves.) .It seems you prefer to conflate my argument about the right of Palestinians and Israelis to practice self-determination free from outside interference, which you ought to support, with an entirely separate attack I made on the legitimacy of those so -called international anti Israeli “activists” of whom I imagine you must count yourself among. Clearly it made you uncomfortable. As it happens to answer one more of your questions, I made those remarks in the context of what I see as other commenters relentless attacks on only ONE religion. People on this site should be more thoughtful before setting Judaism up time and time again as the supposed root of all evil.Also I consider that this setting up of the Israel lobby or the jewish lobby as a prime mover in your countrys foreign policy. The simple fact is your countrys foreign policy is driven primarily by your countrys ruthless and crazy drive to maintain global supremacy at all costs.THAT is why Iraq is in ruins, that is why you still occupy Afghanistan.All of this nonsense about “the Israel lobby” is an EXCUSE. Why do you americans have so many hundreds of military bases all around the world? Is that the work of the convenient scapegoat, the Israel/Jewish lobby? No, again it is all about Americas desire to maintain its GLOBAL power. Resorting to the myth of the “Lobby” as furnished you by Walt and Mearsheimers mis-direction of a book is analogous to the “socialism of fools” , you believe it because you want to abdicate responsibility.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 18, 2013, 2:28 am

        me: “is this your idea of knowledge based rhetoric?”

        susie: “Everything I have said is a means of trying to open up the debate.”

        i guess that would be a yes. okay, we’ll see if there are any takers on your theories re ” same old tired reductive formula” vs ‘new susie spin’. me, i’m not really interested. i don’t find your argument very compelling. good luck, i’ll make popcorn if anyone is gullible enough to take you on. i can’t really think of any of our regulars (off the top of my head) that would be interested. you never know tho.

      • mcohen
        March 18, 2013, 6:23 am

        susan 1

        i agree with you -america is out of control-the whole thing started with rock and roll and now its out of control
        just ignore these americans they are so unwithitnoshit

        countrys is spelt countries

        love mike

      • American
        March 18, 2013, 10:29 am

        “It seems you prefer to conflate my argument about the right of Palestinians and Israelis to practice self-determination free from outside interference, which you ought to support, “….susan1

        Listen honey…when Israel returns all the stolen Palestine land and retreats to within their own Un awarded parcel and minds their own business so the Palestines can practice self determination, then we’ll quit interferring.
        Until then it is the bizness of anyone who has humantarian feelings about it and the bizness of Americans who don’t want their country enabling Israeli crimes.

      • Ellen
        March 18, 2013, 10:53 am

        susan, your comments here continue to respond to something imaginary, a discussion that is not taking place. You keep projecting and responding to stuff no one has ever written. This is a defense mechanism.

        And then interjecting the ole’ tactic of telling posters to start concerning themselves with the imperialism, criminality, global domination crimes of the USA.

        The US and political forces within the US use the forces and motivations of the Zionist enterprise to aid exactly these crimes in the ME. That is the point.

        Challenging yourself to consider other views will introduce you to greater truth — by either seeing new information and facts or by confirming your held truth.

        Emotional projection onto others is blinding.

        Good luck.

      • Donald
        March 18, 2013, 6:20 pm

        “.Also I consider that this setting up of the Israel lobby or the jewish lobby as a prime mover in your countrys foreign policy. The simple fact is your countrys foreign policy is driven primarily by your countrys ruthless and crazy drive to maintain global supremacy at all costs.THAT is why Iraq is in ruins, that is why you still occupy Afghanistan.All of this nonsense about “the Israel lobby” is an EXCUSE. ”

        What rings false about all this is that it’s not either/or and it seems to me that anyone who seriously believed what you say here would know that. Yes, the US is an imperialist power. To some degree our support for Israel is part of this. Chomsky argues that this explains all of it, and I think it explains part, but not all. It’s not in America’s interest–I hate that phrase, but meaning our “imperialist interest”–to support Israel’s stupid little apartheid project on the West Bank. It makes things more difficult for our oil lobby types who want to be on good terms with Arab nations. The Israel lobby is largely responsible for that. If Israel never existed, our foreign policy would still stink, but it stinks just a little more because of the Lobby.

        You’re a weird sort of leftist, if that’s what you are. You come across as someone who simply wants to shut down American criticism of Israel, even though our nation’s support is obviously very important to Israel and has helped them squash any hope for justice for Palestinians. Any American who is critical of US imperialism is also going to be very critical of Israel and our support for them.

      • Hostage
        March 18, 2013, 6:46 pm

        It seems you prefer to conflate my argument about the right of Palestinians and Israelis to practice self-determination free from outside interference, which you ought to support, with an entirely separate attack I made on the legitimacy of those so -called international anti Israeli “activists” of whom I imagine you must count yourself among.

        To put it bluntly, I’ve noted on many occasions that since the early 19th century Jews have led the vanguard against the notion that States could practice self-determination, free from outside interference, with respect to the treatment of their ethnic minorities.

        It was Jewish philanthropists, political activists, and lawyers, like Sir Moses Montefiore, Judah Touro, Lucien Wolfe, and Jacob Robinson who lobbied to make minority rights in the Middle East a principle of public international law that has been applied ever since with respect to the creation of other states, cessions of territory, and recognition of new governments. You are the one who is advocating a double standard in the case of Israel and Palestine.

        Eli Likovski wrote an essay on the Status of the Jewish Agency and WZO which explained that when the Zionist Congress said “to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine, secured under public law” that they meant “public international law”. See page 32 of Daniel Judah Elazar, Alysa M. Dortort (editors) “Understanding the Jewish Agency: a handbook, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs*, 1984. *Note: the JCPA does not represent the views of the BDS movement.

        Carol Fink explained that in 1878 the Concert of Europe dictated the conditions on internal governance of four new states. She says that is when the concept of granting title to a territory on the basis of minority rights treaties started, with the cases of Serbia, Montenegro, and Romania. See Defending the Rights of Others, page 37 link to books.google.com

        French Prime Minister Clemenceau noted in an aide-memoire attached to the treaty that created Poland that the minority protections were part of European public law:

        This treaty does not constitute any fresh departure. It has for long been the established procedure of the public law of Europe that when a State is created, or when large accessions of territory are made to an established State, the joint and formal recognition of the Great Powers should be accompanied by the requirement that such States should, in the form of a binding International convention undertake to comply with certain principles of Government. In this regard I must recall for your consideration the fact that it is to the endeavors and sacrifices of the Powers in whose name I am addressing you that the Polish nation owes the recovery of its independence. It is by their decision that Polish sovereignty is being restored over the territories in question, and that the inhabitants of these territories are being incorporated into the Polish nation…. …There rests, therefore, upon these Powers an obligation, which they cannot evade, to secure in the most permanent and solemn form guarantees for certain essential rights which will afford to the inhabitants the necessary protection, whatever changes may take place in the internal constitution of the Polish State.

        link to macalester.edu

        In 1932 the Council of the League of Nations adopted a resolution which required the mandated states, including Palestine to accept a minority rights undertaking in a formal declaration or treaty as a condition for the termination of a mandate regime. The UN General Assembly addressed that requirement in a minority protection plan contained in Part C of their resolution of 29 November 1947. The League of Nations also acknowledged that “the ability to stand alone” did not include the ability to withstand foreign aggression, which was a matter of collective responsibility under Article 10 of their Covenant and Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. See The General Principles Governing the Termination of a Mandate, Luther Harris Evans, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Oct., 1932), pp. 735-758 Stable URL: link to jstor.org

        During the 48th session of the Ad Hoc Political Committee that was considering Israel’s application for membership, the representative of Cuba asked if Israel had supplied the required declaration on minority rights? He noted that the rights were under United Nations guarantee. See pages 2-3 of the .pdf A/AC.24/SR.48

        Mr Abba Eban said he could answer in the affirmative and needed a little time to produce the documents. But he assured the Ad Hoc Committee that a declaration had been made by the Foreign Minister to the Secretary General on 15 May 1948.

        At the 51st session Mr Eban said that the rights stipulated in section C. Declaration, chapters 1 and 2 of UN resolution 181(II) had been constitutionally embodied as the fundamental law of the state of Israel as required by the resolution when the Declaration of Independence had been promulgated as law in the official gazette. See The Palestine Question, Henry Cattan, page 86-87 and the verbatim UN record, A/AC.24/SR.51

        Mr. Eban’s explanations and Israel’s acknowledgment of those undertakings were specifically noted in the text and footnotes of General Assembly Resolution 273 (III) “Admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations”, 11 May 1949.

        The UN considers the minority protection plans that it concluded after WWII to be legal agreements that are still in force. See Chapter III The United Nations Charter And The Treaties Concluded After The War, resolution 181(II) of 29 November 1947, “The Future Government of Palestine”, pages 22-23 in the Secretary General’s 1950 study on Minority Rights Legal Instruments, E/CN.4/367 link to un.org

      • Cliff
        March 22, 2013, 7:34 pm

        @susan

        The Palestinians are absolutely defenseless – they are virtually defenseless.

        And the Lobby is not a myth. It is real and has been proven to be real.

        The only people who still question the validity of the Israel Lobby argument are ‘true believers’-type Zionists like you and the hoppy (‘Palestinians supported Hitler’).

        There is no scapegoating going on.

        Israel is a racist, apartheid, colonial settler-State. It is hated for all the right reasons.

        Just as Native Americans would hate the US. Palestinians have every bit as much moral authority to hate their own usurpers and oppressors.

        This is not a perfect dichotomy but implying one is irrelevant. There are none in history.

        There are no perfect victims.

        You are – like all other Zionists – dishonest.

        There is no dialogue with people who cannot agree on the most basic concepts of human decency.

        This is a conflict of tribal politics – but mainly Jewish tribalism (Zionism).

        So as a non-Jew and a non-tribe member, it’s me (and other anti-Zionists) with our morals and principles versus you and your ‘whats good for the Jews (who are as dishonest and nationalistic and hateful as you are)’.

        You pat yourself on the back as having been open to ‘dialogue’? Spare us.

        You’re no different from the countless trolls on the Web who have nothing else to say other than tired, debunked Zionist propaganda.

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 12:55 pm

      Rodkinson has been widely criticized, both from traditionalist Jews who feel that translating the Talmud is not an acceptable practice (Why is that? Airing dirty laundry comes to mind–anything else?), as well as from those hostile to the Talmud and Judaism in general. The political spectrum seems to be a Mobeius loop. All of these viewpoints are abundantly represented on the Internet. Some quote material out of context, or ascribe hostile intent to what may or may not be innocent passages. Some critics claim that Rodkinson deliberately left out material to conceal an evil Jewish agenda. So, Yeah, read Rodkinson’s version, and also read the criticisms of it.

      Oh yeah, Rodkinson only translated one third of the Talmud.

      And consider the source of translation: Michael Levi Rodkinson (1845–1904) was an American-Jewish publisher, known for being the first to translate the Babylonian Talmud to English.
      Born with the surname “Frumkin”, Michael Levi was the son of Alexander Sender Frumkin and half brother of Israel Dov Bär Frumkin, the editor of The Havatzeleth newspaper in Jerusalem.

      • susan1
        March 17, 2013, 10:45 pm

        I don’t see the problem with Rodkinson’s familial connection with the Frumkin’s nor with their connection to Jerusalem. the Havatzelet newspaper published articles on religious subjects written by rabbinical scholars. I consider it natural for the Frumkin ‘s as Jews to have a feeling of attachment to Jerusalem. I don’t see a political Zionist agenda there, though probably a cultural and religious one. Its the case that Rodkinson didn’t complete the translation.A reform rabbi named Kaufmann Kohler was a fierce critic of Rodkinson .

    • Citizen
      March 17, 2013, 1:30 pm

      @ susan1

      So, what’s your take on the notion of all people being born equal as Americans are officially taught, and as taught in Christian homes, if not in all Jewish American homes? Here’s some discussion of the subject I’m sure you will read, since you are such a big fan of a particular version of the Babylonian Talmud. Yes, it touches on slavery, and lots more:
      link to vbm-torah.org

    • RoHa
      March 17, 2013, 7:59 pm

      “I defy you to find any passage sanctioning slavery in either the Quran or the Talmud.”

      The Qur’an makes firm condemnations of, and out and out forbids, many social practices. But it accepts slavery as part of the socio/economic system. As far as I can tell, nowhere is there a criticism of the system, nowhere an injunction to eliminate slavery.

      • Light
        March 18, 2013, 5:46 pm

        Slavery was accepted and justified by Christianity and Judaism at one time or another. However, those days are long past so is there any point debating this further?

        Christians across the Confederacy were convinced that they were called not only to perpetuate slavery but also to “perfect” it. And they understood the Bible to provide clear moral guidelines on how to properly practice it. The Old Testament patriarchs owned slaves, Jewish law clearly assumed its permissibility and the Apostle Paul’s New Testament letters repeatedly compelled slaves to be obedient and loyal to their masters. Above all, as Southerners never tired of pointing out to their abolitionist foes, the Gospels fail to record any condemnation of the practice by Jesus Christ.

        link to opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

      • RoHa
        March 18, 2013, 9:26 pm

        “However, those days are long past so is there any point debating this further?”

        The point is that religions and religious writings which are claimed to be great moral guides actually failed totally to condemn a great evil. This is a good reason for thinking that those religions and the writings are not the best source for moral guidance.

  24. Kathleen
    March 20, 2013, 1:56 pm

    NPR’s double standards:
    Hiring practices in regard to who moves up the ladder. Host of programs etc. Not unlike what has gone on here at Mondoweiss even though Phil other say they have their reasons. link to current.org Her action brings to six the number of known discrimination suits filed … and failed to give her the same promotions and support that it gave white managers.

  25. Citizen
    March 21, 2013, 2:04 pm

    I don’t think this is irrelevant to the topic of double standards when it comes anything relevant about Jewish power or lack of it, that is, about double standards in this context:
    After over a decade of publication in Europe, why hasn’t a world-recognized really great writer’s book about Russian-Jewish relations over 200 years not been published in English in the original home of free speech, America? link to en.wikipedia.org

    • susan1
      March 22, 2013, 1:40 am

      Probably because it is a book which has been discredited by most scholars

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 11:41 am

        do you care to back that up? which unbiased scholars?

      • piotr
        March 22, 2013, 12:35 pm

        Actually wiki article about Solzhenitsin book cites quite a few very reputable intellectuals criticizing it, e.g.

        In his interview another Russian dissident writer, Vladimir Voinovich, specifically describes Two Hundred Years Together as a work that is “long, tedious, and slanderous.”[27]
        When interviewed for Radio Liberty on the first anniversary of Solzhenitsyn’ death, Vladimir Voynovich has stated [28] that Solzhenitshyn harbored antisemitic sentiment all his life, as attested by the 1964 manuscript he later developed into “Two Hundred Years Together”, and that he deliberately concealed it, because he knew it would have prevented him from receiving the Nobel Prize.

      • hophmi
        March 22, 2013, 12:49 pm

        Well, Annie, did you bother to read the wiki entry? The criticisms are discussed in detail.

        This is yet another instance here of a book generously described as historically inaccurate by real historians and described by many historians as antisemitic for its downplaying of persecution against Jews and its historically inaccurate claims that Jews were cowards during the war and bore collective responsibility for the Bolshevik revolution (where have we heard that before), being cited at length to suggest that Jews were in part responsible for their own persecution.

        This is a pattern here. You have to ask why that is.

      • Ellen
        March 22, 2013, 1:59 pm

        Annie, Susan1 cannot back it up because it is not true. Ergo, “Probably.”

        Like many statements susan1 makes here, it is something the poster desperately wants to believe.

        Truth is simply too painful and difficult. Made up realities are easier for the weak of mind.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 2:22 pm

        hops, i think if someone has a point to make about a scholarly review it’s helpful to make it with an example or two, even if it is just from blockquoting wiki (i am not even a fan of wiki). although i am guilty of drive-by critiques on occasion when discussing a book not translated into english (which is the lion’s share of what i know about the book other than the titles give away) merely stating it was discredited isn’t much of an explanation or rebuttal for why it was never translated since he was an esteemed (by many) author.

        so there’s an argument to be made it goes beyond discreditation. it’s a form of silencing even if the book is untruthful. Mein Kampf was published in english for heavens’s sake. lots of controversial discredited ideas are published in english. are they not?

        oh, and another thing wrt ‘most scholars’, ‘most scholars’ have probably not even read the book!

      • susan1
        March 22, 2013, 2:30 pm

        Ellen, Its there in the wiki entry, regarding the worth of the book. IN any case, I’m sure any American could easily buy the book from an overseas publisher. I doubt there is any conspiracy about it .

      • marc b.
        March 22, 2013, 2:51 pm

        so there’s an argument to be made it goes beyond discreditation. it’s a form of silencing even if the book is untruthful.

        that’s really the point. we don’t have or need a 1st amendment panel composed of ‘most scholars’ to decide whether a particular book should be published in english and made available in the US.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2013, 3:14 pm

        Ellen, Its there in the wiki entry, regarding the worth of the book.

        longer susan; ‘Its right there in the wiki entry, so by all means go on a fishing expedition and don’t stop til you find what i think is the most relevant passages that fit my narrative, because i have better things to do than blockquote and use actual text to back up my drivebys, so there. ‘

        The reception of Two Hundred Years Together has been quite varied. A distinguished historian Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern of Northwestern University have published a refutation of Solzhenitsyn’s claims and has bluntly accused him of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, distinguished historians such as Geoffrey Hosking[12] and Robert Service have defended Solzhenitsyn against his opponents.

        oh my! quite varied? hm…

        IN any case, I’m sure any American could easily buy the book from an overseas publisher.

        but susan, your oh so dependable wiki says right in the very introduction “there is no English translation to date (December 21, 2012), aside from some excerpts in “The Solzhenitsyn Reader”[6]

        so what good is it to buy it from an overseas publisher if it’s not translated into english! we can all go eat cake i suppose.

      • susan1
        March 22, 2013, 4:30 pm

        What is really relevant is that Solzhenitsyn’s book has become part of a battle by some on the right who seek to relativize Nazi crimes ,so creating equivalence ( as they see it ) between Nazi crimes and those of Stalinism.

      • Donald
        March 22, 2013, 4:45 pm

        Well, I read the wiki piece and tree’s link below and have never felt the need to lionize Solzhenitsyn in the first place. He was heroic in standing up to the Soviet regime, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t be wrong on other things. (He supported the Vietnam War, for instance.) It sounds to me like the book is flawed, but Solzhenitsyn isn’t someone who hates Jews. What is confusing is that many of the critics say he exaggerated the level of Jewish membership in the Bolshevik regime, while Robert Service claims he is on to something. It’d be helpful if the article laid out all the various numbers and figures.

        Where I thought the critics went unrefuted was in complaining that he downplayed repression of Jews under the Czars. The picture I get is of a man who is unwilling to fully admit the crimes of traditional Russian culture, though on the other hand he apparently did condemn the anti-semitic killings of the Russian Whites. It also sounds like he said some stupid things about Jewish cowardice in WWII.

        The picture I get is of someone who is somewhat critical of his own side, but still with biases that don’t let him fully admit to unpleasant truths about the people he identifies with. That’s all too common a failing.

        As for conspiracies, I would bet that precisely because Solzhenitsyn is so widely respected American publishers would be reluctant to publish a work by him that would be denounced as anti-semitic. In fact that seems sort of obvious to me. If the book is anti-semitic in some places (even if unintentionally), this could even be seen as publishers protecting his reputation from himself. I think they should publish it. If he’s full of barnyard fecal matter on this subject, then fine–let his reputation be taken down a notch. If not–if the critics are misrepresenting what he said– then all the more reason to publish it.

      • lysias
        March 22, 2013, 5:56 pm

        Solzhenitsyn’s book was translated into German and French within a year of its appearance in Russian. (I happen to own the two volumes of the German translation, although I regret to say I have not read it.)

        When both German and French publishers reacted so quickly to the publication of the book in Russian, it is mighty peculiar that no publisher in any English-speaking country was found to publish an English-language translation.

      • American
        March 22, 2013, 6:09 pm

        ‘Well, Annie, did you bother to read the wiki entry? The criticisms are discussed in detail.
        This is yet another instance here of a book generously described as historically inaccurate by real historians and described by many historians as antisemitic for its downplaying of persecution against Jews and its historically inaccurate claims that Jews were cowards during the war and bore collective responsibility for the Bolshevik revolution “…..hoppie

        No, ‘real historians’ have not describe the book as inaccurate or anti semitic…only Jews and zionist like you have. And it isn’t anti semitic.

        I have read all the chapters available in English….(go to my archives, I posted the link there). The book is extremely even handed about the Jews and their political involvements/movements in Russia and tells the good and bad about them as well as the good and the bad about all the other groups in Russia’s long civil wars.
        It simply tells the truth and doesn’t white wash the Jewish part…..that’s what your kinsfolks are calling anti semtic and don’t like……that it doesn’t present the Jews as totally innocent little victims. Well, they weren’t totally innocent little victims.

        Get a life, grow up and read some ‘real history’ and not the fact redacted and mythical Zio version of Jewish history…it’s making you stupider and stupider.

      • Ellen
        March 22, 2013, 6:16 pm

        susan1, give it a better shot.

        Wikipedia is a tainted source. It is not a source.

        As for the cheerleader, hoppy: unamed “real” historians or “many” historians are not sources of anything at all.

        Point is cultural histories of a people are complex, layed and never black or white. One will find whatever idea they want to support.

      • American
        March 22, 2013, 6:21 pm

        “and its historically inaccurate claims that Jews were cowards during the war and bore collective responsibility for the Bolshevik revolution “……………hoppie

        BTW, idiot….if you read any of the book you would know that Solzhenitshyn ”specifically debunked the lie” that Jews didn’t serve in the military and talked about the Jews who did.
        Like I said…rent a brain, read some real history….you waste everyone’s time with your uninformed crap.

      • Cliff
        March 22, 2013, 7:36 pm

        There is no pattern, hoppme.

        You haven’t read the book – you’re simply deferring to authors you agree with IDEOLOGICALLY.

        There are defenders for the book as well who are ‘many historians’ or ‘real historians’ – those monolithic categorizations you LAZILY ‘cite’ as proof.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2013, 11:29 am

        What is really relevant is that Solzhenitsyn’s book has become part of a battle by some on the right who seek to relativize Nazi crimes ,so creating equivalence ( as they see it ) between Nazi crimes and those of Stalinism.

        susan, What is really relevant is that Solzhenitsyn’s book has become part of a battle by some on the right who seek to abolish all relativism wrt Nazi crimes, so any relationship (as they see it) between Nazi crimes and those of Stalinism is viewed as a threat with conspiratorial undertones.

      • American
        March 23, 2013, 1:26 pm

        The most relevant thing about Solzhenitsyn’s book is this:

        “”If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”>>>

        It is the taboo of telling any truth regarding Jewish responsibility for anything, ever —->because it will raise’ anti semitism’.

        Now, a lot of people think they are doing the Jews a favor by going along with the Zio falsehoods of Jews as always innocents.
        Well, they aren’t doing them any favor with that……it will, in fact, ensure that the Zio led Jewish light bulb will eventually go out again.

        link to guardian.co.uk

        Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression

        Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
        The Guardian, Saturday 25 January 2003 05.32 EST
        Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career – the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.
        In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together – a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population – contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.

        But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn’s motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia.

        Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period “consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians” as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation’s ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.

        In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: “If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw – their life was softer than that of others.”

        Yet he added: “But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

        Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides – and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.

        “My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews – their spiritual component,” he said. “I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

        But Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”.

        “This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes,” said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. “Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.

        “This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit.”

        But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn’s biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-semitism. “I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”

        Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”.

        Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.

        “Trotsky’s idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.

        “It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn’s book seems much more measured than that.”

        Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn’s pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: “The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change.

        “If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”

      • Citizen
        March 24, 2013, 10:12 am

        @ lysias
        With fake history books like From Time Immemorial by Ms Peters finding a publisher so easily in the USA, and considering Solzhenitsyn’s high international stature for the great works he’s produced, and that he’s a Noble Prize winner to boot–it sure is “mighty peculiar” that no publisher in any English-speaking country has been found for over a decade now to publish 200 Years Together in translation.

      • tree
        March 22, 2013, 2:39 pm

        Probably because it is a book which has been discredited by most scholars.

        That can’t be true, since Joan Peters book, “From Time Immemorial”, which has been thoroughly discredited, got a second printing in 2001, after being exposed as shoddy, biased, and falsified work shortly after its original publication in 1984.

        And then there is Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”, which has been discredited by numerous scholars, but has also had a multitude of printings in the US.

        If being discredited was the basis for determining what doesn’t get published, the publishing industry would be a slim shadow of itself.

      • Citizen
        March 24, 2013, 9:06 am

        The book has been widely published across Europe; it simply has not been translated into English although the author was internationally known and respected, wrote many books, with high acclaim. When his Gulag book came out, the USSR critics of course panned it. The small part of 200 Years Together that has appeared in English has bee praised.

    • tree
      March 22, 2013, 3:14 pm

      Thoughtful interview with Solzhenitsyn on the book here:

      link to orthodoxytoday.org

  26. Cliff
    March 22, 2013, 7:45 pm

    Benny Morris writes similarly to this Solzhenitsyn guy.

    Especially when you consider this favorable review of the latter’s book:

    From the horrible Wikipedia article (which no doubt had a bunch of partisans quibbling at one another over NPOV and blah blah):

    Another critical analysis was published by the Russian-American historian Semyon Reznik. According to Reznik Solzhenitsyn is careful in his vocabulary, generous in compliments toward Jews and maintains neutral tone throughout, but at the same time he not only condones repressive measures against Jews, but justifies them as intended for protection of the rights of Russians as the titular nation that supposedly “greatly suffered from Jewish exploitation, alcohol mongering, usury and corruption of the traditional way of life”

    Zionist Jews like hophmi or susan are Nakba deniers and/or justify the Nakba as being both the fault of the Arabs and necessary for ‘security reasons’.

    Here they get a taste of their own medicine.

    The theme is the same: tribal politics of Jews – whether it be in the Soviet Union or in the Middle East.

    And I think thats how these controversies should be analyzed.

    Ignore the hysteria (created by and perpetuated by partisan Jews – whether they be academics or civilian observers like hophmi or susan). Look at the facts and come to the appropriate conclusion.

    This is just like the various other discussions we’ve had in this thread. When I was an undergrad, I took a social inequality class and we read an article about how ‘Jews’ had become ‘White’.

    We also read and discussed articles on poverty and the concept of social class (dealing with variables like religion – for example, a documentary wherein a WASP marries a lower middle class Jew; cute couple, funny exchanges since they were interviewed prior to getting married led me to think it didn’t last).

    This partisan hysteria by Zionist Jews is just like the reaction to the Israel Lobby thesis.

    Its rooted in a sense of entitlement.

    You have none, hoppy.

Leave a Reply