Trending Topics:

On the use of provocative analogies (Nazism, fascism)

US Politics
on 148 Comments

Soon after Israel’s sweeping victory in the 1967 war with Egypt and Syria, it became clear that rather than returning the territory it conquered, Israel intended to occupy the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, and much of the Golan Heights. Foreseeing where occupation might lead, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, one of Israel’s most prominent and acclaimed public intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists—and an Orthodox Jew—warned that if the occupation and the repression that enforced it continued, Israel would be in danger of succumbing to “Judeo-Nazism.”

How has that prediction turned out? Until recently it has been unthinkable in Israel to suggest comparisons between Nazi Germany and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians– at least in writing. With the latest attacks on Gaza, however, the criminality of the Israel occupation has become so extreme that among some Israeli dissidents that barrier is starting to break down: although usually couched in very careful language, allusions to Nazi Germany are unmistakable.

Most remarkably, last month 327 Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors published an anything but allusive letter in the New York Times that clearly compares the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians to the Holocaust. Here are the key excerpts.

As Jewish survivors and descendants of survivors and victims of the Nazi genocide we unequivocally condemn the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza and the ongoing occupation and colonization of historic Palestine. ….Genocide begins with the silence of the world.

We are alarmed by the extreme, racist dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society, which has reached a fever-pitch. In Israel, politicians and pundits ….have called openly for genocide of Palestinians and right-wing Israelis are adopting Neo-Nazi insignia…..We are disgusted and outraged by….Israel’s wholesale effort to destroy Gaza and the murder of more than 2,000 Palestinians, including many hundreds of children. Nothing can justify bombing UN shelters, homes, hospitals and universities. Nothing can justify depriving people of electricity and water.

We must raise our collective voices and use our collective power to bring about an end to all forms of racism, including the ongoing genocide of Palestinian people. We call for an immediate end to the siege against and blockade of Gaza. We call for the full economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. “Never again” must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE.

Although exceptionally powerful and moving—and as immune from the charge that it is “anti-Semitic” as it is possible to imagine—the question still remains: is it accurate? Has Leibowitz’s famous prediction come true? Not quite: things are really bad, but not that bad.

Even though a good deal of what Leibowitz feared and predicted has either already occurred or is well on the road to occurring, the term Nazism is still much too strong. On the other hand, it is increasingly common for Leibowitz’s successors today—the Israeli philosophers, academicians, journalists, writers and even ordinary citizens who despair of their country—to use the term “fascism” to describe the dominant trends in Israel.

Fascism is not the same as Nazism which represents, on a scale of 1-100, absolute evil. Israel, of course, doesn’t come close, obviously not in its internal policies—though its claim to be a true democracy is increasingly in question. Even its policies towards the Palestinians are not comparable to Nazism, for they are obviously not “genocidal” or anywhere near it. After all, even after the Nakba—the violent expulsion from Israel/Palestine, accompanied by a number of massacres, of some 750,000 Arabs in 1948–hundreds of thousands of other Arabs were allowed to remain in Israel.

Of course, since 1948 this Israeli Arab minority has faced economic, social, and political discrimination–but nothing remotely on the order of what European Jews faced under Nazi Germany. And even when Israel repeatedly attacks Gaza (or, earlier, the West Bank), its intentions are clearly not to wipe out the Palestinian people—which it certainly has the technological capability of doing. It is sufficient for Israel’s purposes merely to impose great suffering on the Palestinians, so as to deter or crush any resistance to Israel’s ongoing colonization of Jerusalem and the West Bank and the continuing repression not just of Hamas but of the Gazan people as a whole.

Consider the full range of the Israeli repression of Gaza in the last ten years, even in addition to the two massive military attacks–“Operation Cast Lead” in 2008-09 and the recent “Operation Protective Edge”– that killed several thousand Palestinian civilians (including hundreds of women and children) and wreaked enormous damage to the economy, civil infrastructures, and even thousands of private homes and apartment houses in Gaza. Beyond that are the years of assassinations of Palestinian activists and periodic attacks on Gazan government institutions, transportation and communications networks, roads and bridges, electrical generation plants and power lines, industrial facilities, fuel depots, sewage plants, water storage tanks, and various food production systems, including farmlands, orchards, greenhouses, and fishing boats.

In addition to these military attacks, Israel has imposed an economic blockade or siege on Gazan trade and commerce. Although the blockade has eased somewhat since 2010, Israel continues to prevent Gaza from exporting its goods and products to other countries, severely restricts Palestinian drinking and agricultural water, places substantial restrictions on the use of electrical power (mostly imported from Israel), and often prevents farmers from reaching their lands and orchards and fishermen from fully plying their trade.

Finally, even in the West Bank, where nearly all violent Palestinian resistance has ended, the Palestinian people continue to be occupied, to suffer grave economic damage from that occupation, and in a variety of ways to be humiliated, reminded on a daily basis of their powerlessness. Even nonviolent resistance is either ignored or violently crushed by Israel, increasingly by deadly force.

Given these undeniable facts, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that while far short of Nazism, Israel is well on its way to fascism and to be widely regarded as an international outcast, indeed a criminal one. And it is not just the behavior of the Israeli state that is criminal, for the actions of the state are wholeheartedly supported by a large majority of the Israeli Jewish population—indeed, far more Israelis demand even greater Israeli violence and repression than deplore it.

In this light, if we compare Israel’s behavior to the Palestinians, not to the full range of Nazism but to Nazi Germany’s occupation of European countries, is it really the case that the comparisons or analogies are outrageous? One way to approach this question is to reexamine the question of what constitutes legitimate self-defense.

After both Cast Lead and Protective Edge, even strong critics of the scale of those Israeli attacks have typically argued that “of course, Israel has the right to defend itself” from Hamas rocket attacks, but its response has been “excessive” or “disproportionate.” That criticism is far too weak: aggressor states have no “right of self defense” when it is their criminality that has provoked violent resistance—and that holds true even if their response is somehow “proportionate.” In any case, throughout its history Israel has engaged in massively and deliberately “disproportionate” attacks on Arab (and not merely Palestinian) civilians, their homes, their businesses, their economy, and their civil infrastructures.

Consequently, some analogies are appropriate. For example, suppose the French resistance to the German occupation in the 1940s, lacking any other effective means, had sent rockets into Berlin, resulting in German “retaliation” that killed hundreds or thousands of French civilians. Would the Germans have been acting in “self-defense,” although—regrettably—in a “disproportionate” manner?

To be sure, comparing the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians with Nazi Germany’s occupation of Europe is risky, for it will surely be seen, even by many critics of Israel, as “counterproductive,” resulting in an outraged rejection of all legitimate criticisms of Israeli behavior. And it is also the case that less provocative analogies can make the same point: for example, suppose Hungarian groups, lacking any other means of resisting the Soviet invasion of 1956, had fired rockets into Moscow: would the Soviets then have had the right of massive retaliation in the name of “self-defense?” The problem with the hypothetical Soviet-Hungarian analogy, however, is that it doesn’t have the same impact as the Nazi-French Resistance one, and would therefore be less likely to result in a productive shock of recognition in Israel and among its friends. After all, even the most severe criticism of Israel can hardly be counterproductive, in light of the fact that nothing else has proven to be productive. That is not to deny that any even limited or hypothetical analogies to Nazi Germany are risky. Nonetheless, because Israel has gone so far down the road to fascism (not Nazism), the risks must be run– desperate times require desperate measures.

A final observation. Handwringing and ineffectual critics of the massive Israeli military attacks on Gaza five years ago and again last month ask: but how else can Israel respond to Hamas terrorism? It is a sign of the ignorance and poverty of discourse in this country concerning Israel’s behavior that this question even is asked. It ought not to be necessary to spell out the obvious, but evidently it is: end the occupation, end the repression, let the Palestinians have their own state. But what if Palestinian attacks continue, which in those circumstances could no longer be considered as resistance? Then–and only then– Israel would have a true right of self-defense.

This post first appeared on Slater’s site under a slightly-different title. 

 

About Jerome Slater

Jerome Slater is a professor (emeritus) of political science and now a University Research Scholar at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He has taught and written about U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for nearly 50 years, both for professional journals (such as International Security, Security Studies, and Political Science Quarterly) and for many general periodicals. He writes foreign policy columns for the Sunday Viewpoints section of the Buffalo News. And his website it www.jeromeslater.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

148 Responses

  1. lyn117
    September 13, 2014, 11:30 am

    Israeli policy may not be genocidal, but there’s plenty of evidence that many Israelis have genocidal intent towards Palestinians, including leading religious and political figures. Some in the army undoubtably take their cues from religious and settler leadership who have such genocidal intent.

    I agree that it’s nothing like the nazi death camps. Nevertheless, I think you’re underplaying the genocidal intent. Suppose global warming raised the sea so that there was absolutely no fresh water in Gaza and people started dying in mass numbers, the Israeli leadership would be quite happy, blame the Palestinians for not spending their resources building alternative sources, despite the fact that Israel bombs water treatment plants that could provide alternative sources.

  2. Mooser
    September 13, 2014, 11:31 am

    Yeah, I know, once the Palestinians agree to a two-state solution it’ll be like splitting up a gold mine.

  3. JohannBorck
    September 13, 2014, 11:36 am

    Even its policies towards the Palestinians are not comparable to Nazism, for they are obviously not “genocidal” or anywhere near it.

    Dear author, you obviously haven’t bothered to look up the legal definition of genocide:
    Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    And you claim that Israels policies towards Palestinians aren’t anywhere near “genocidal”?

    That’s gross.

    • Jerome Slater
      September 13, 2014, 1:18 pm

      Legal definitions require interpretation and application to specific cases. In any case, in common usage the term “genocide” is restricted to the very large-scale intentional killing of members of groups, simply because they are members of the specified groups, independent of any other cause–such as the wholesale Hutu murder of Tutsis, per se.

      If you don’t take into account scale, then according to the definition you choose to invoke, killing or causing serious harms to, say, 15 members of a group would constitute “genocide.”

      Relevant distinctions are always necessary in serious analyses–otherwise we couldn’t distinguish the murder of one or two people from mass murder, and mass murder from genocide. And since such distinctions are often important, we’d just have to invent other words to describe them.

      Try to avoid characterizing arguments that you disagree with as “gross,”
      particularly arguments and distinctions that, for good reason, are very common in serious discussions of these issues.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 1:26 pm

        “Try to avoid characterizing arguments that you disagree with as “gross,”
        particularly arguments and distinctions that, for good reason, are very common in serious discussions of these issues.”

        Don’t say “gross” It’s just like calling somebody a Nazi!

        Would you like to give us a list of acceptable terms, Slater?

      • lyn117
        September 13, 2014, 1:34 pm

        If the motive in killing 15 members of a group was the desire to kill all the members of a group or to see them disappear as an ethnic or racial group, I think you can say it was a genocidal act.

        It isn’t a genocide of course under the common definition.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 2:12 pm

        “Legal definitions require interpretation and application to specific cases”

        Concerning “genocide”, that’s always a comforting thought, I’m sure. Especially for a man bound by an Officer’s rigid military code of honor.

      • American
        September 13, 2014, 9:10 pm

        ”Legal definitions require interpretation and application to specific cases. In any case, in common usage the term “genocide” is restricted to the very large-scale intentional killing of members of groups – Slater

        Wrong.
        The elements of genocide ‘as legally defined’ are not dependent on the ‘number’ of people killed.
        ‘In the law” it is INTENT and RESULTS and even if the intent was not genocide if the result of the actions contain any of the elements of genocide than a genocide crime has been committed.
        Actions of Israel such as bulldozing homes to run Palestines off of land, bulldozing olive groves to deprive them of a making a living, bombing water facilities to deny them water necessary to life, imprisoning people and mostly young people without trial and ‘transfering them to Israeli prisons would also be an element of genocide.
        “If’ you have read the articles, and it seems you havent, you would also know that in your “Legal definitions require interpretation and application to specific case” in the crime of genocide the court relies on the PATTERN of the perpetrator’ actions as part of it’s ‘interpretation’ of the perpetrators INTENT and RESULTS.
        The entire world knows what the Pattern of Israel has been and what the Results have been.
        The only thing gross here is your trying to minimize Israel’s crimes.

      • Nite_Owl
        September 14, 2014, 2:47 am

        In Israel’s last assault on Gaza alone over two thousand died, not fifteen. Is that a relevant enough distinction for you?

      • amigo
        September 14, 2014, 9:29 am

        “If you don’t take into account scale, then according to the definition you choose to invoke, killing or causing serious harms to, say, 15 members of a group would constitute “genocide.” -” Jerome Slater.

        A dead Palestinian here, a dead Palestinian there.Before you know it , you are talking genocide. As long as the intent is the same.

        Who says they all have to be killed in a few efforts.

        Creeping genocide is none the less , genocide.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2014, 10:59 am

        Can the title of the article be changed to “Just don’t call it genocide”?

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 8:01 am

        People should read the original UN document.

        JohannBorck is correct. Article II of the General Assembly resolution 260 (III) of 9 December 1948 (Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) reads:

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

        1. Killing members of the group;
        2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
        4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
        5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

        #4 is actually what Harvard Professor Martin Kramer suggested at the Herzliya Conference in 2010.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaJXFbH4McM

        Article III says

        The following acts shall be punishable:

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

        It says nothing about numbers. Or about being as big as the Holocaust or Rwanda (presumably wiping out Amazon tribes to make way for US transnational corporate activity in the Amazon would be considered an act of genocide even if the tribal numbers were less than 500…or 15, and all of Latin America agrees with that definition).

        Article IV says

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

        The sophistry displayed here surrounding the meaning of genocide–is it big or just little big, or maybe baby big?–is repellent, intellectual gutlessness and flaccidity on steroids.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 10:21 am

        Shmuel,

        I was unable to access parts of Pegorier’s words; namely, the salient parts on genocide.

        Pegorier’s (see googlebooks link in previous comment) reflections on the crime of ethnic cleansing in peacetime are particularly relevant to Israel.

        Reads like a cheater-sheet for Israel’s legal arguments. ;-)

    • Donald
      September 13, 2014, 1:28 pm

      I knew this would happen–Slater argues that in many respects the Nazi comparison is valid. For instance, he says that Israel has no right to self-defense in the current circumstances, any more than Nazi Germany had a right to self-defense against the French resistance, even if the resistance had been able to fire rockets at Germany. But Slater quarrels with the term “genocide” and correctly points out that Israel’s crimes are not in the same league with the Holocaust and so rather than note the points where they agree with him, some Mondoweissers jump on that.

      The legal definition of genocide is much broader than the one that is used by most people–most people who use the word “genocide” are thinking of the Holocaust or Cambodia under Pol Pot or Rwanda or some circumstance where the killers are apparently trying to kill as many people who are members of group X as they possibly can. That’s why “genocide” in popular speech is the worst crime a government can commit. The legal definition would include any form of repression against members of a group by a government. By that definition, Iran is guilty of genocide against the Bahai. Is Iran’s treatment of the Bahai in the same league as what Germany did to the Jews? No.

      If we use the legal definition of genocide that you cite then there is a need for a new and harsher term to describe the crimes of Nazi Germany, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Rwanda, which is what most people think of when they use the term “genocide”.

      • Philip Weiss
        September 13, 2014, 1:34 pm

        I’m with you on this Donald. It’s a big distraction

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 1:38 pm

        “I’m with you on this Donald. It’s a big distraction”

        As much of a distraction as constantly worrying about and trying to control the terms, the words used in the arguments?

        If you can control the words, you can control the situation.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 1:43 pm

        “But Slater quarrels with the term “genocide” and correctly points out that Israel’s crimes are not in the same league with the Holocaust”

        That’s a good point. After all, the Nazis, in their work and death camps, killed everybody or anybody who got in their way or who they feared or racially despised, that was within their reach. Jews, and Polish Catholics, Roma, gays, Communists, and on and on. Plus they had a general military war on.

        The Israelis pretty much confine themselves to one class of person, in pursuit of one objective. So there is that big difference, right?

      • Donald
        September 13, 2014, 1:49 pm

        Slater said that Israel is sinking into fascism and has no right to self-defense against the Palestinians. In the American context those are shocking assertions and yet obviously correct. If people use the term “genocide” because it fits the legal definition, then every government with discriminatory policies against an ethnic or religious group is guilty of genocide. Jim Crow was genocide. For that matter, our drug policies and mass imprisonment of black men today is genocide. If people want to use this term in that fashion they can, but then we need a new term for what happened to the Armenians and the Tasmanians and the Jews under Hitler and Cambodians and the Tutsi in Rwanda and so forth.

        Or we can just stick to the utterly shocking assertions which are irrefutable, which is that Israel is guilty of apartheid, is sinking into fascism, recently committed massive war crimes in Gaza and in many ways is acting like the Nazis did in France or the Soviets did in Hungary during the 50’s.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 2:22 pm

        “If people use the term “genocide” because it fits the legal definition, then every government with discriminatory policies against an ethnic or religious group is guilty of genocide. Jim Crow was genocide.”

        And you want to contend that wiping out, at least as a polity, if not completely, groups of humans other groups of humans (or even individuals, tech is powerful) see as “other” or less than human is not a part of history, possibly an integral part of human nature, and even not worrying about that (man’s corrupted whatever) certainly part of every nation-state type thingie? Sure, go ahead if you want.
        Yeah, genocide, there’s a lot of it around. Believe me, I’m not saying that makes it any better. But are we going to set a level of polity-killing, and say everything below that level (of course, set by the Nazis in their single-minded, exclusive murder of the Jews) is just politics-as-usual?

      • Shmuel
        September 13, 2014, 2:25 pm

        William Schabas on genocide:

        We don’t need genocide anymore in order to convict perpetrators, except that we should keep it for the really bad cases; keep it being the crime of crimes rather than to abandon the concept altogether. That would be my view. But I see the Courts going the other way and — and I think that’s probably going to continue actually. So what we’ll see actually is probably a merging of the two concepts in a way. I think it’ll be a shame because it will mean then that we don’t have this term to describe the crime of crimes, that perhaps was only committed three times in the last century in — with the Armenians, the Jews, and the Tutsi in Rwanda. But reasonable people disagree on this and I don’t purport to have a monopoly on the wisdom on this. I sense that the trend is in the other direction and I’ll just have to live with that. So these are some comments on the evolving law of genocide.

        http://www.ushmm.org/confront-genocide/speakers-and-events/all-speakers-and-events/genocide-in-international-law-a-discussion-with-william-schabas

      • Shmuel
        September 13, 2014, 2:27 pm

        The “two concepts” Schabas refers to are “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 2:39 pm

        “Slater said that Israel is sinking into fascism and has no right to self-defense against the Palestinians.”

        Luckily, he found one by the end of the article. Of course, Israel will be in a state of constant conflict with the “Palestinians State”. He anticipates that.

      • Donald
        September 13, 2014, 2:42 pm

        “And you want to contend that wiping out, at least as a polity, if not completely, groups of humans other groups of humans (or even individuals, tech is powerful) see as “other” or less than human is not a part of history,”

        No. I just think the use of the term “genocide” is distracting, because outside the range of people who are already convinced it’s going to lead to people asking “Do you really mean to compare what the Israelis do to the Holocaust?” And I’ll answer no. I’d rather be asked “Do you really mean to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa?” Because then I can answer “yes and if anything, Israel might be worse.”

        Anyway, that’s all I’ll say on this, as I’m now part of the distraction.

        Shmuel–thanks for the link.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 2:57 pm

        “Do you really mean to compare what the Israelis do to the Holocaust?”

        Well, gosh, wouldn’t that naturally lead to the question: “And where are you getting your picture of what the Nazis did (and who to) and how it was down?”

        And ROTFL, I gotta wonder what the answer to that would be?

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 3:14 pm

        “the question still remains: is it accurate? “

        Oh my God. You have no shame, do you, None. “Is it accurate?” Really, Jerry? “Is it accurate”?

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 3:54 pm

        ” not in the same league”

        What’s a league in genocide? Okay, never mind, I get your point; Israel is still in the minors, not yet been called up to the big show.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 13, 2014, 4:32 pm

        Donald, i respect your opinion even while disagreeing with you here. first of all, i don’t believe “The legal definition would include any form of repression against members of a group by a government. ” if this was the case the police action against the occupy movement would be considered genocide.

        the preface of a thru e says “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such”

        so there is a difference between “b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” and causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

        when you say: “genocide” is distracting, because outside the range of people who are already convinced it’s going to lead to people asking “Do you really mean to compare what the Israelis do to the Holocaust?” And I’ll answer no.

        i don’t think it’s wise to define a crime, whether it be the crime of apartheid or the crime of genocide based on what people might be led to believe. apartheid and genocide are not merely “ideas”, they are based on actions backed up by intent. if we set a standard for genocide that is pitted up against a comparison to the holocaust we risk losing the ability to recognize markers that alert us to future crimes in the making.

        genocide is not necessarily an action that takes place over a couple years or even a couple decades. like our genocide of native americans (and i believe it was a genocide regardless if everyone in society did not have the intent to genocide all the indigenous people) took well over 100 years manifesting in many forms.

        the definition of genocide should be broad enough that warning signs protect the victims/the target, usually indigenous people. so when you see a combination of factors working together to destroy a culture, in conjunction with a campaign to; deny the culture ever existed to begin with/denial of their past; their identity; appropriate their cultural traditions/holy places and claim them as their own (all which might fall into b.”mental harm”); a conscious division of the people both physically as in the WB and Gaza as well as denying access to large portions of the diaspora; methods employed that will lead to mental and well as physical illness (diet, contaminated water in gaza and this doesn’t even include the killings and mow the grass policy) there are strong clues of an attempt, over a long period of time, to wipe out a culture. also, statements made like “the old will die the young will forget” also point towards intent.

        by making a standard of genocide so stringent (millions killed in a few years) it allows for long term global planners with ill intent the ability to carry on towards wiping out a culture. this is what the criminalization of genocide is supposed to prevent. defining genocide is not very helpful if it’s only applied after the fact. to prevent genocide it needs to be identified while it’s happening.

        if you find it “distracting” leading people to ask “Do you really mean to compare what the Israelis do to the Holocaust?” it should be a teaching moment. a time to compare it to the definition of the crime.

        let’s take another crime, murder for example. if a young mother who was raped gives birth in a back alley and in a state of panic, with intent to kill, puts her hands around the child’s neck and squeezes the life out of the child do you think it’s fair to compare her and what she did to ted bundy who killed and mutilated over 30 women? because i wouldn’t do that. but did she murder her child? of course. the crime is not defined by the comparison to other cases of murder, the crime is defined by the definition of the law.

      • irishmoses
        September 13, 2014, 7:44 pm

        “If people use the term “genocide” because it fits the legal definition, then every government with discriminatory policies against an ethnic or religious group is guilty of genocide. Jim Crow was genocide.”

        Not genocide, just a 100 year long pogrom.

      • American
        September 13, 2014, 9:31 pm

        @ Donald

        Also Wrong.
        The legal definition of genocide Does Not ‘include any form of repression’.
        It is specific to actions ‘intended’ to cause (or that result in) the destruction of a ‘group’ OR a ‘part’ of that group.

        And No, we dont need a new term for Nazi Germany.

        And No, any of what might be called oppression or discrimination of black people in the US is not a crime of genocide unless it is intended to or results in the destruction of the group.

        What Israel did in the Gaza slaughter, *indiscriminate killing of Gazans’ *just because they are Gazans * was a genocide in intent and/or result—in whole or in part of a group.
        What Israel does to Arabs within Israel is racism, same as with blacks within the US.

        Learn the difference.

      • ritzl
        September 13, 2014, 9:37 pm

        Great comment, Annie.

        As you point out the legal definition of genocide was meant to head off a big-G Genocide. To prevent millions of people being killed by addressing the early warning signs.

        That people deeply affected by the aftermath of WWII big-G Genocide chose this definition and called it genocide is not a distraction. It’s the point. It was/is the legal implementation of “Never Again.”

        It is inarguable that what Israel has done and is doing to the Palestinians is small-g genocidal. It fits the definition. Has Israel gotten to big-G Genocide yet? No, but they’re on the path toward it that was specifically laid out by people who experienced the biggest of big-G Genocides.

        Thanks for the Schabas link, Shmuel.

      • Donald
        September 14, 2014, 12:48 am

        From the link Shmuel provided–

        “In 1948 – again we must remember the context – the United States, which played a very prominent role in the drafting of the convention, was concerned that a practice that was wide-spread at that time in the United States, lynching of African Americans, would be subject to the Genocide Convention. They were very nervous that it might be exploited by people who wanted to say, “You see, genocide not only took place in Nazi Germany, but it’s taking place in the United States because African Americans are being lynched in the South”.”

        From the definition of genocide cited above–

        “Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
        (a) Killing members of the group;
        (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
        (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;”

        So by the legal definition that people wish to use, the US was guilty of genocide during the Jim Crow era. And that phrase “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” seems wide enough to encompass any serious level of discrimination, including what the US is doing now to black men, who are sometimes killed by police in rather suspicious circumstances and who populate jails in rather extraordinary numbers in part because of drug laws that seem aimed at blacks.

        Again, I think this is a distraction. Israel is guilty of apartheid, war crimes and arguably crimes against humanity (which I think means massacres of civilians.) The accusation of genocide has tremendous force precisely because people associate it with the greatest crimes of the 20th century–the Holocaust, the slaughter of the Armenians, Rwanda, Cambodia, Stalin’s famine in the Ukraine and maybe a few others. If one extends it, then it applies to any country with ethnic strife where civilians are deliberately killed. Palestinian terrorists are also guilty of genocide by that standard. If people want the word to mean this, then that’s what it will mean, but then people will probably also want a word that separates out the most extreme cases like the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine and the others where the government tried to wipe out a very large fraction (or even 100 percent) of the target group.

        And that’s my last comment on this.

      • Nite_Owl
        September 14, 2014, 2:50 am

        If you take your time and do it slowly over decades it’s not genocide anymore? Or maybe it’s a kinder gentler genocide by the most moral people in the world!

      • aiman
        September 14, 2014, 12:16 pm

        Great comments Mooser, Annie and American.

        People should also look up Ben Gurion’s Plan D.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 8:07 am

        Shmuel September 13, 2014, 2:27 pm
        The “two concepts” Schabas refers to are “genocide” and “crimes against humanity”.

        But he makes the distinction that genocide can occur during times of peace and war; crimes against humanity occur during war.

      • Shmuel
        September 15, 2014, 8:38 am

        crimes against humanity occur during war.

        A view not lost on the Israeli government: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4558023,00.html

        I think the “warnings” to civilians in Gaza should also be seen in terms of legal posterior-covering (see Geneva Conventions on “precautionary measures”).

      • Shmuel
        September 15, 2014, 8:51 am

        Although I think Schabas was only referring to the evolution of the crime of genocide, not the current legal interpretation of crimes against humanity. See http://books.google.it/books?id=7X2krxSJIKQC&lpg=PA52&dq=Ethnic%20Cleansing%3A%20A%20Legal%20Qualification%20%223.4%20Conclusion%22&hl=it&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false

        In any event, Israel would certainly prefer (and insist on) the narrower interpretation of the law.

      • Shmuel
        September 15, 2014, 8:55 am

        MRW,

        Please excuse the multiple comments, but no edit function to accommodate afterthoughts.

        Pegorier’s (see googlebooks link in previous comment) reflections on the crime of ethnic cleansing in peacetime are particularly relevant to Israel.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 10:06 am

        Shmuel,

        but no edit function to accommodate afterthoughts.

        No shit, sherlock. And the absence of sensible reply buttons. Do you have any influence?

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 10:24 am

        Shmuel, I replied to your Pegorier post, but it’s planted somewhere near the top of the comments, so you’ll have to search my name. [This new design is getting unwieldy. sigh.]

      • W.Jones
        September 15, 2014, 3:36 pm

        As much of a distraction as constantly worrying about and trying to control the terms, the words used in the arguments?

        If you can control the words, you can control the situation.

        Good point, Mooser. It’s like saying that you can’t call massacres of thousands of an indigenous people in an African village region a “genocide”.

    • W.Jones
      September 13, 2014, 9:33 pm

      Johann,

      I wish Slater would reconsider his belief that 75% of the Palestinian population in the UN-designated Israeli state should have been transferred, albeit with financial compensation. I would like to discuss alternatives with him, because it seems like it would simply be a more palatable form of ethnic cleansing.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 8:09 am

        I wish Slater would reconsider his belief that 75% of the Palestinian population in the UN-designated Israeli state should have been transferred

        Which has nothing to do with Israel’s genocidal activity.

    • W.Jones
      September 13, 2014, 9:40 pm

      Johann,

      It’s true that the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba didnt kill nearly as many people as the Holocaust did. However, they both involved genocide.

      One time some resistance fighters killed a Nazi in Czechoslovakia, and the Nazis destroyed the whole town, killing a lot of people, maybe practically the whole village. They did that in lots of villages across Eastern Europe. Didn’t that count as genocide?

      Likewise, in Plan Dalet, in 1948 the Israeli government decided to “destroy” villages that resisted them- including villages outside the UN-designated territory. The Israeli army sometimes killed many people in those villages – even though the villages were actually defending themselves against an attacker, being outside the UN lines. Didn’t those women, children, and men undergo genocide too?

      The fact is, the Israeli government does distinguish between groups based on their race and ethnicity and religion when it comes to meting out harsh measures, and that includes the killing of many civilians.

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 9:18 am

      +1

      • AbigailOK
        September 15, 2014, 9:38 am

        Accurate comments by Mooser, MRW, American and W. Jones, JohannBorck. Yes, the law is the law and saying: Yes, but there’s jurisprudence. Well, they hung on to the texts and the actions.

        Apparently, cf. Schabas only recently legal thinking is expanding if that is even the right word. Which in any case does not mean watering down or changing the ways “genocide” would be taken up and weighed in court altogether. But as precedent is concerned: I have my doubts.

        Very telling otherwise this shameless piece in many respects, came up. And about provoking: Isn’t that exactly what Slater did and maybe was trying to do i.e. probably has written this with an eye on how people think?

        Wonder how many eyes are reading this too who should be very afraid by now but aren’t given their incurable sense of arrogance, misplaced sense of being in power and invincibility since they are a vassal of the USA war, oil/gas machine.

        Wait and see.

      • W.Jones
        September 15, 2014, 12:42 pm

        Thanks, Abigail and MRW.

        I believe that Donald and Slater should agree that genocide means killing a large group of people because of their ethnicity. I believe that the ethnic cleansing performed in Palestine involves cases of genocide as a result.

        As a general matter, Israeli nationalists since 1947, and probably earlier, planned to make their territory have far fewer Palestinians. Even Slater called for this, although he did not want it to involve force. But it realistically only could have used force to achieve mass expulsion of their ethnicity, because they would not voluntarily agree en masse.

        One defense to genocide is the scale. It’s true that “only” perhaps from a few thousand to a few ten thousand Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israeli ethnic demographic policy over the last few decades (especially if we include casualties in Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai). However, that is still a large number. If an army comes in and massacres thousands or tens of thousands of people, that is still a genocide.

        The second defense would be that the killing was not done for reasons of ethnicity, but because of some other reason like a military objective. However, that defense only works if the military objective is significant and its action is legitimate. The reason it doesn’t work is because otherwise we would be talking about an illegal military act for a race-based objective.

        For example, the Turks claim that the Armenian genocide was not genocide because it happened during a war and the Armenian villages were resisting. However, massacring an Armenian village is not a legitimate military act.

        When it comes to massacres of Palestinian villages that have occurred over the past several decades, these can count as genocide too. The broader objective in the Nakba was ethnic cleansing, and the massacres of Palestinian villages, ranging from Deir Yassin to the Christian village of A-Bassa, to achieve the goal were illegal military acts.

      • W.Jones
        September 15, 2014, 12:45 pm

        Why is Slater, who is overall a progressive, writing an article saying that massacres of Palestinian villages is not genocide?

  4. Shmuel
    September 13, 2014, 11:54 am

    Whether you agree with Leibowitz’ characterisation or not, he stated it not as a prediction (although he may have done that as well), but as a fact, on numerous occasions. He spoke of “Nazi mentality” and “Judeo-Nazis” within the institutions of the Israeli state (singling out former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau, for his role in legalising torture).

    • seafoid
      September 13, 2014, 3:31 pm

      He was a seer . Thanks for the video, Shmuel. It’s a keeper.

      • NoMoreIsrael
        September 13, 2014, 8:54 pm

        Fantastic clip. Someone we Jews can be proud of, for sure.

        Liebowitz calls the Israelis Nazis.

        Einstein calls the Israelis, Nazis.

        Primo Levi calls the Israelis Nazis.

        Guess what? They’re Nazis. And they deserve no better fate than the original Nazis who inspired them.

    • DICKERSON3870
      September 14, 2014, 7:13 am

      ■ אין נביא בעירו – 1/2 – No man is a prophet in his own land [53:42] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQ1C5RJ2Vk

      • DICKERSON3870
        September 14, 2014, 7:26 am

        P.S. PART TWO
        published on Aug 24, 2012
        film of Emil Weiss, 1989,
        part 2 of 2.
        Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz talks about: Do values are berry achievable?; under his skin and that the desolate; the morality; heroic integrity; modern science; science in reality social-political; religion and science; status of women; termination of pregnancy; euthanasia; democracy; the Holocaust; about the achievements and what
        ■ אין נביא בעירו – 2/2 – No man is a prophet in his own land [VIDEO, 55:22]

      • DICKERSON3870
        September 14, 2014, 7:28 am

        ■ אין נביא בעירו – 2/2 – No man is a prophet in his own land [VIDEO, 55:22] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVYGRwVfSSQ

      • DICKERSON3870
        September 14, 2014, 7:42 am

        P.P.S.

        REGARDING PART 1

        Published on Aug 24, 2012

        His film of Emil Weiss, 1989,
        part 1 of 2.

        Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz talks about its uniqueness of the Jewish people; Leibowitz presents himself; talks about Zionism; the future of the Jewish people; the mysticism ומשיחיות; the Torah written ושבעל-here; study the Bible; values and needs; Jewish identity; war perspective of Judaism; the State of Israel’s wars; the Israeli nationalism, and what to do now about it.
        http://www.leibowitz.co.

        ■ אין נביא בעירו – 1/2 – No man is a prophet in his own land [VIDEO, 53:42] – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buQ1C5RJ2Vk

    • MRW
      September 15, 2014, 9:00 am

      Good video. And so is Dickerson’s longer interview with professor Leibowitz.

      MODS: your selection color–the light ochre– is a tad too light. Please check–yes, test–reading this site on an iPad in a lit room or outside.

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 12:08 pm

      And why? Because the Sixth Day War was a war of conquest not of defense as the story goes that everyone including moi grew up with. A conquest to get both the West Bank and Gaza into their hands and yes, massacres of Palestinians galore. Hence, he witnessed it in some form or other since he has lived there from 1934 on if my memory serves me right.

      The man was a visionary in some respects, but also spoke on the basis of pure living through the times. How on earth this could be kept under wraps is work by some intelligence agencies. Otherwise it is impossible. No one knows about the ethnic cleansing (sterile words if you think about it and about what it stands for) which also took place then in 1967.

      • seafoid
        September 16, 2014, 3:13 pm

        http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/jerusalem-babylon/.premium-1.600000

        “Yeshayahu Leibowitz understood this already 60 years ago, when he wrote in his seminal essay “After Kibiyeh” (collected in “Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State,” edited by Eliezer Goldman, Harvard University Press 1995) of “the fear of losing religous-moral supremacy, which is easy to hold on to when there is no risk to it and difficult under other circumstances.”
        Less than six years after the creation of a sovereign state with a powerful army, Leibowitz wrote that the “real religious and moral meaning of our political rebirth and the return to our hands of the use of force” would be a severe test for Jews who were too accustomed to being victims. “Can we prove capable not only of suffering for these values we exalted, but also acting upon them?” he asked. “It’s easy to suffer, physically and materially for values, even to sacrifice our lives: that necessitates only physical courage which exists in surprising quantities among all human gatherings. It’s difficult to suffer for values, when this suffering means also giving up things which are also seen as values.”
        In the decades after 1967, Leibowitz would be excoriated by the right wing for his fierce criticism of the occupation which he, perhaps inexcusably, described as “Judeo-Nazi.” But he was speaking as a fervent Zionist who was one of the first to see how the success of Zionism meant we had to realize we were no longer victims and that victory came with a moral price. It was “the great test we are faced with by national liberation, political independence and sovereign power — as a nation, a society and a culture which for generations had the privilege of mental and spiritual enjoyment in exile, foreign-rule and self-impotence.” “

  5. German Lefty
    September 13, 2014, 12:32 pm

    It is sufficient for Israel’s purposes merely to impose great suffering on the Palestinians, so as to deter or crush any resistance to Israel’s ongoing colonization of Jerusalem and the West Bank and the continuing repression not just of Hamas but of the Gazan people as a whole.

    There are two reasons why Israel doesn’t commit outright genocide. The first reason is the one that you mentioned: Bullying is sufficient in order to get rid of the Palestinians. The second reason is that Israel fears punishment by the international community. It is necessary for Israel to be more subtle than Nazi Germany, because otherwise Israel risks getting the same response as Nazi Germany.
    So, what I am trying to say is that the Zionists hate Palestinians as much as the Nazis hated the Jews. They are equally evil. And it’s only for tactical reasons that the Zionists refrain from treating the Palestinians in exactly the same way as the Nazis treated the Jews.

    • yonah fredman
      September 13, 2014, 4:23 pm

      german lefty- It is true that the heart of Zionism has not been proved to preclude genocide by the fact of the nongenocide until this point in time. Neither have you proved that it is only for tactical reasons that the genocide has not taken place. You are making an assertion without any proof.
      the inherent tension between nazism and jews was created by the Nazis in their ideology. it is not clear to me why precisely the jews were the prototype of the human being that needed to be overcome or exterminated, but it was central to the nazi ideology. as such the existence of any jew anywhere in the world was antithetical to the nazi dream world.
      the relationship of zionists versus palestinians is very much attached to a specific land and not to the entire planet. the zionists say we need this specific land for our existence and the palestinians are in the way. palestinians who are attached to their land are antithetical to the zionist need for the land. but the existence of palestinians in other parts of the world as long as they abandon the land are in no way a threat to zionism.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 4:55 pm

        “as such the existence of any jew anywhere in the world was antithetical to the nazi dream world.”

        Gee, the Nazis didn’t find the idea of Jews living in Palestine too objectionable. and proved amenable to some cooperation with Zionists.

        Yonah, don’t go down the Holocaust exclusivity road. It’s been blocked off for years bridge to an Zionist state washed out.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 4:57 pm

        “but the existence of palestinians in other parts of the world as long as they abandon the land are in no way a threat to zionism.”

        Aww, so you’ll let them live. How nice. And again I don’t think the Nazis had any objection to Jews living in Palestine, and Palestine was within reach of the Nazis.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 5:06 pm

        So let me get this straight, Yonah, if a man kills me because he wants my belongings or my property, that’s alright, but if he kills me because he sees me, a Jew, as essentially sub-human, that’s not alright?

        So what the Nazies should have done was was keep reminding the world that they were killing Jews because they wanted their stuff (assets, money, property) but really, really liked them as people.

        And gee Yonah, if all Zionism wants is the land (that’s all) what’s all this “Death to Arabs” about? Why not “We Need More Land”?

      • Philip Munger
        September 13, 2014, 11:19 pm

        the zionists say we need this specific land for our existence and the palestinians are in the way. palestinians who are attached to their land are antithetical to the zionist need for the land. but the existence of palestinians in other parts of the world as long as they abandon the land are in no way a threat to zionism.

        That really is problematical, especially if one doesn’t swallow the religious angle you base this upon. Your male sky god gave you the land, right?

        How does your quote work in Iceland, for instance?

        The Icelanders say we need this specific land for our existence and the Jews are in the way. Jews who are attached to their land [here in Iceland] are antithetical to the descendants of Vikings’ need for the land. But the existence of Jews in other parts of the world as long as they abandon [our] land are in no way a threat to Viking purity and worship of Wotan.

      • American
        September 14, 2014, 2:33 pm

        @ Mooser.

        What yonah is saying is that if someone murders you for your stuff you’re not really as dead as you would be if they killed you for being a Jew.

        I think the ‘not as dead’ would dispute that distinction.

      • yonah fredman
        September 14, 2014, 4:28 pm

        Why did the Nazis exterminate Jews in what Snyder calls the bloodlands? What role did exterminating Jews play in Hitler’s mindset. The timing of decisions in the Nazi ruling group in the summer and fall of 41 is a topic in Ian Kershaw’s top 10 decisions of WWII.

        I do not need a particular label in order to feel rebellious against the killing of civilians by Israel’s army and leaders. It does not particularly help me to crystallize my attitude.

    • jon s
      September 14, 2014, 5:30 am

      Once again, I wonder whether someone calling him/herself “NoMorePalestine” would be allowed to post here.

      Prof.Leibovitz didn’t call” the Israelis” (in general ) Nazis. He said that the occupation would inevitably bring about the emergence of “Judeo-Nazis”. He thought that using provocative terms like that served a good purpose.

      Albert Einstein was pro-Zionist, was even offered the Presidency of Israel.

      • Shmuel
        September 14, 2014, 5:41 am

        Prof.Leibovitz didn’t call” the Israelis” (in general ) Nazis.

        Correct. Such generalisations are wrong.

        He said that the occupation would inevitably bring about the emergence of “Judeo-Nazis”.

        No, he said that “Judeo-Nazis” and a “Nazi mentality” already existed within the Israeli state system – and were actively promoted by that system (watch the clip).

        He thought that using provocative terms like that served a good purpose.

        Correct. I disagreed with him then (in the ’90s) and disagree with him now. I think the use of such terms is a bad idea.

      • Shmuel
        September 14, 2014, 8:23 am

        I wonder whether Leibowitz’ use of “Nazi mentality” and “Judeo-Nazi” specifically with regard to former Supreme Court President Moshe Landau had anything to with the fact that Landau was German-born and culturally very German.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2014, 11:17 am

        “Albert Einstein was pro-Zionist, was even offered the Presidency of Israel.”

        Yes, considering Prof. Einstein’s own admissions concerning his political ability and acumen, I shouldn’t wonder they offered it to him.
        Einstein, by his own admission, was a political niaf in many ways, but he was smart enough to refuse that poison pill.

      • smg
        September 14, 2014, 7:08 pm

        jon s,

        Einstein was a cultural Zionist who, as he told the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, opposed the creation of an ethnic Jewish state. In 1938 he said the following:

        “I should much rather see reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together in peace than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from the practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks, against which we have already had to fight without a Jewish state.”

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 10:01 am

      @ German Lefty How’s that? Because Israel does not use gas chambers to kill a thousand a day? Their weapons and mass murder on a grand scale on the ground and with high-tech ammunition and weapons by air, also to test them out on the Palestinians (they use the latter description even for sales purposes with a smile even, this depraved lot) can compare. And they know they would not get away with killing a thousand people a day. The USA could not keep defending that.

      How many have they purposely annihilated, assassinated, starved, tortured to death, burned, shot and hanged since 1946, not as accidents but by deliberate plan? Often on a massive scale. To hurt, to wipe out, to exterminate by orders starting with this little murderer Ben Gurion? They just could not get away with it and genocide does not mean that all has to be happening within let’s say a few years.
      If the nazis (BTW fascism and racism both very present since its inception and now burst out like pus from an infected wound in Israel, is the definition of nazism) would have had their way after the jews, would be the half-jews (according to their race laws), then the Poles, then the Russians. All Untermenschen. One has to be a half-wit not (willing) to see what the zionists willfully and purposely have embarked upon since the mid-forties if not earlier, actually. They want all of Palestine for themselves. Without any Palestinian around. And be sure, the Palestinian Christians and other minorities feel the heat too nowadays(or rather since some twenty years) and many have left already.

      I’m done with semantics and mitigating, holding pseudo-intellectual lectures trying (only the cups of tea, the scones, and the home libraries are lacking), trying to find some pseudo exonerating lame excuse in some nook or cranny for this bunch of utterly wicked racist murderers/thieves.

      And yes, they deserve the same fate as the nazis of whom only a few, unfortunately, were hung on the gallows. Many who are guilty already died.

      My father is certainly rotating in his grave. Worked in the illegality in WWII. Let’s stop finding excuses and call a spade a spade. And seek the necessary punishment if laws have been transgressed. Well, ….need I say more?

      • jon s
        September 16, 2014, 5:26 am

        smg, On Albert Einstein: in 1938 there were several “dovish” Zionist groups and individuals , such as “Brit Shalom ” and Hashomer Hatzair who supported the concept of a bi-national state. But after WW2 , the Holocaust and the establishment of the state, they supported Israel, including Einstein.
        Certainly Ben Gurion wouldn’t have offered him the presidency , if he had any doubts regarding Einstein’s Zionism.
        Also note that according to his will, Hebrew University owns his archives and copyrights .

      • smg
        September 16, 2014, 9:33 am

        jon s,

        As I noted above, at the 1946 Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry (after the Holocaust), Einstein argued against the establishment of Jewish state in Palestine.

    • DICKERSON3870
      September 15, 2014, 1:20 pm

      RE: “I do not need a particular label in order to feel rebellious against the killing of civilians by Israel’s army and leaders.” ~ yonah fredman

      MY REPLY: In response to that, I say “good on you” (borrowing from Thom HartmannThom Hartmann).

      BUT, AS TO: “palestinians who are attached to their land are antithetical to the zionist need for the land. but the existence of palestinians in other parts of the world as long as they abandon the land are in no way a threat to zionism. ~ yonah fredman

      MY REPLY: I think the existence of people anywhere calling themselves (and/or being called by others, or perhaps even just being seen by others as) “Palestinians” (regardless of whether they are “attached to their land” or “abandon the land”) would inevitably be seen as “delegitimizing” Israel from the perspective of the Likudnik, Jabotinsky-worshipping adherents to Revisionist Zionism. Consequently, they would see Palestinians anywhere and everywhere (even in, or perhaps especially in, the U.S.) as an “existential threat” to Israel, (or, at least, to the notion of Israel as a Jewish, democratic nation-state). Therefore, the Israeli right will always feel the need to categorically deny the legitimacy of the Palestinian people, no matter where they might happen to live. For instance, as Golda Meir said back in 1969: “There is no such thing as a Palestinian people…It is not as though there was a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away. They did not exist.” – Golda Meir, June 13, 1969

    • AbigailOK
      September 17, 2014, 9:58 am

      You last paragraph summarizes it or says it all i.e. as how American somewhere in this comment section said it very concise : if it walks, talks and quacks like a Nazi it is a Nazi. And goes on to say that it does not matter whether you go quick, slow or at whatever way or in whatever pace (paraphrasing him here obviously). And he’s right in my opinion. You basically say the same and come to the same conclusion. Namely, that for tactical reasons the zionists refrain from treating the Palestinians in a same manner as the nazis. Which I mentioned somewhere here also. If the zios could get away with it they would eliminate them with whatever means on a much grander scale more often if not daily. But the US cannot permit that. The world would eventually find out. Where have all the Palestinians gone? And then both would be damned, the Yanks and the zios.

      • AbigailOK
        September 17, 2014, 10:02 am

        @German Lefty your comment of September 13 It is sufficient for Israel’s purposes merely to impose great suffering on the Palestinians, so as to deter or crush any resistance to Israel’s ongoing colonization of Jerusalem and the West Bank and the continuing repression not just of Hamas but of the Gazan people as a whole.

        You last paragraph summarizes it or says it all i.e. as how American somewhere in this comment section said it very concise : if it walks, talks and quacks like a Nazi it is a Nazi. And goes on to say that it does not matter whether you go quick, slow or at whatever way or in whatever pace (paraphrasing him here obviously). And he’s right in my opinion. You basically say the same and come to the same conclusion. Namely, that for tactical reasons the zionists refrain from treating the Palestinians in a same manner as the nazis. Which I mentioned somewhere here also. If the zios could get away with it they would eliminate them with whatever means on a much grander scale more often if not daily. But the US cannot permit that. The world would eventually find out. Where have all the Palestinians gone? And then both would be damned, the Yanks and the zios.

      • Citizen
        September 17, 2014, 1:32 pm

        @ AbagailOK

        Where have all the Palestinians gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the Palestinians gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the Palestinians gone?
        Young Israelis have picked them off everyone.
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

        Where have all the young children gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the young children gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the young children gone?
        Gone for living everyone.
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

        Where have all the other children gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the other children gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the other children gone?
        Gone into IDF everyone
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

        Where have all the IDF soldiers gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the IDF soldiers gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the IDF soldiers gone?
        Gone to make Palestinian graveyards, everyone.
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

        Where have all the graveyards gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the graveyards gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the graveyards gone?
        Gone to flowers, everyone.
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

        Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?
        Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?
        Where have all the flowers gone?
        Young girls have picked them everyone.
        Oh, when will they ever learn?
        Oh, when will they ever learn?

  6. German Lefty
    September 13, 2014, 12:49 pm

    For example, suppose the French resistance to the German occupation in the 1940s, lacking any other effective means, had sent rockets into Berlin, resulting in German “retaliation” that killed hundreds or thousands of French civilians.

    The analogy isn’t quite correct.
    Germany wasn’t built on French land. So, Frenchmen sent rockets into other people’s land.
    Israel, however, was built on Palestinian land. So, when the Palestinians in Gaza (most of them refugees from the area of Israel) send rockets into Israel, then they merely fire rockets into their own land.

  7. Mooser
    September 13, 2014, 1:22 pm

    You know, I was reading the other day about how hard Zionism has worked to change Jews image of themselves and their history, and their present circumstances. Much, much harder than I could have ever imagined, and with much more success than I could have conceived of.

    Then I had a sickening thought. What if a person was to try and acknowledge the tremendous problems Zionism has created, but couldn’t rid themselves, or were unaware of, the absurd and destructive Jewish-Israeli ethnocentrism and false history given by Zionism?
    Luckily, I found an answer, but I suggest you get something decent to drink instead of slugging the cooking-sherry.

    • DaBakr
      September 13, 2014, 8:36 pm

      Zionism absolutely did change many Jews self-image of themselves. But while there is a majority who felt much better about their ‘self-image’ there has been a constant drone from the rear since at least the early ’30s and earlier about Zionism doing more harm then could to the so-called Jewish self image. Seems like this back-and-forth is continuing to this day and the %’s havn’t really moved all that much. If there was a shift of more then 15% between pro and anti Zionist Jews since the 30s I would be pretty surprised. But then its pretty obvious if one reads any of what this blogs founder writes that he’s a glass-half-full kind of guy. Every little % helps is how the thinking goes I suppose. Ideas, and especially lofty ones change quickly but human nature always lags far behind.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 9:28 pm

        “But while there is a majority who felt much better about their ‘self-image’”

        DaBakr, we get it already, why do you have to keep repeating it?
        Jewish self image is worth more than Palestinian lives.

        And of course, Jewish “self-image” was just one of the big problems Zionism could solve!

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 9:39 pm

        Hey DaBakr, when were Jews, any Jews, asked whether they wanted to support Zionism or not? When were they polled?

  8. Mooser
    September 13, 2014, 2:29 pm

    “It ought not to be necessary to spell out the obvious, but evidently it is: end the occupation, end the repression, let the Palestinians have their own state. But what if Palestinian attacks continue, which in those circumstances could no longer be considered as resistance? Then–and only then– Israel would have a true right of self-defense.”

    Jeez, talk about spelling out the obvious. Okay, give the Palestinians their Bantustans, their separated enclaves, and escape any accountability for what has already been done, into the bargain!
    Then when they find life hard in their impossible situation, and somebody sets off a rocket, whack ’em good!!!

    • DaBakr
      September 13, 2014, 8:44 pm

      Just because something (a potential solution e.g.) is “obvious:” is not the same thing as saying its readily possible to accomplish. Its not so much that things are “obvious” as it is that one party must accept that the risk of giving up sovereignty and security will gain them anything, let alone the so-called obvious-which in this region -is never quite as obvious as people assume.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 9:30 pm

        Anybody who was interested in “sovereignty” would delineate their borders. Israel isn’t interested in “sovereignty” it’s interested in expansionism.

        Except delineating the borders would only make Israelis feel more secure, and Zionism can’t have that!

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 9:36 pm

        DaBakr, you just said the present sutiation is more to Israel’s liking than peace would be! Thanks, and I’m glad you are not trying to cover it up, like some people, with their two-state solutions.

        So the present situation, a slow and murderous reduction of the Palestinians until they are gone (oh whichever they want to go, but gone) and Israel can steal the rest of the territory is what you think is Israel’s best course, DaBakr? Rather than peace, which of course “obviously” can’t be trusted.

        Yes sir, Hasbara central knew what they were doing when they sent you DaBakr.

  9. seafoid
    September 13, 2014, 3:16 pm

    http://www.jewlicious.com/2009/04/leaving-the-west-bank/

    “I vividly recall Yeshayahu Leibovitz in a talk I attended where he asserted how evil it was for Israel to be engaged in an occupation of another people. He predicted it would tear up Israeli society and compromise the moral standing of its soldiers. ”

    I don’t think it matter if you call it Nazi or not. It’s a slow suicide, and that is all that counts.

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 10:34 am

      Reading some of his books and seeing some interviews, no one should misjudge the utter revulsion Leibowitz had for the unconscionability of the occupying state of Israel and its actions.
      He also in some respects was a visionary. From Judaism, Human Values and the Jewish State p. 234 ff : “But in addition to endangering our security and foreign relations, “unpartitioned Eretz-Israel” is internally unstable. Even if the Arabs do not become the majority, the state will no longer be a Jewish state. Its problems, needs, and functions will not longer be those of the Jewish people in Israel and abroad, but those arising from the specific tasks of government and administration of this strange system of political domination. They would be the problems of ruling over two peoples that do not cohere as a single nation. To the intense national antagonism between them will be added the passionate hatred evoked by the rule of one people by the other. There would be a deep social rift, similar to the one that existed in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe, with its constant fear and insecurity caused by the strained relations between whites and blacks. All that country’s resources were consequently channeled into the one endeavor of maintaining white dominance over the blacks. The state of “unpartitioned Israel” is already beset by such problems, which are not problems of the Jewish people at all, but those of governing an Arab-Jewish “unpartitioned Eretz-Israel.” (The “…” are in the book, not done by me.) He goes on a.o. to call De Gaulle “a great patriot” who freed the French people from the bane of ruling over the Algerians. (After losing a colonial war to keep Algeria but he does not mention that)

  10. Mooser
    September 13, 2014, 3:48 pm

    “I vividly recall Yeshayahu Leibovitz in a talk I attended where he asserted how evil it was for Israel to be engaged in an occupation of another people”

    Some people might say the slow suicide started the minute people realized that a nationalist con could take in a lot of Jewish people.

    • Mooser
      September 13, 2014, 5:13 pm

      Wow, I hope I’m not around the day Israel stops the occupation, and it becomes apparent that far from being the only thing holding Israel back, it’s the only thing holding it up. Gonna be a lot of long faces.
      Or maybe I’m the only one who thinks the people in charge of Israel aren’t stupid.

      • American
        September 13, 2014, 9:39 pm

        ” Wow, I hope I’m not around the day Israel stops the occupation, and it becomes apparent that far from being the only thing holding Israel back, it’s the only thing holding it up. Gonna be a lot of long faces ”…Mooser

        The occupation’ is’ the major if not the only thing holding Israel up. As long as they occupy they can claim, false as it is, that they need ‘security’ from the Palestine terrorist who want to throw them into the sea. Besides the occupation bringing them Palestine water, farm land and other resources it brings them billions in aid for their ‘security needs”.

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2014, 11:05 am

        Exactly.

  11. irishmoses
    September 13, 2014, 4:16 pm

    Professor Slater’s distinction between Fascism and Nazism doesn’t really work as Nazism was really an extreme version of Fascism which venerates the state as the highest ideal coupled with devotion to a strong autocratic leader, and a corporatism economic model as the most efficient means of attaining the state’s goals. Ultranationalism, militarism, and imperialism were all part of the overall Fascist package.

    Nazism was unique in its emphasis on Aryan racial purity and superiority and the inferiority of other “racial” groups like the Slavs, the Jews, and others. Nazi treatment of the Jews in Germany and Austria went through several stages: Antisemitic political propaganda in the 1920s, antisemitic laws once Hitler came to power in the 1930s, followed by often violent oppression of Jews and Jewish businesses, ethnic cleansing of Jews (“voluntary” and involuntary) by a variety of means (including cooperation with the Zionists), and later, forced emigration to ghettos in Poland and other countries in Eastern Europe, followed by internment in forced labor concentration camps, followed by extermination camps beginning around 1942. Until the war began in earnest in late 1939 with the invasion of France, the Nazi preference seemed to be ethnic cleansing of the Jews, including the so-called Madagascar plan. For instance, the release of thousands of German and Austrian Jews imprisoned at Dachau after Kristalnacht was conditioned on their agreement to immediately leave Germany.

    Analogizing Likud-Zionist Israeli behavior to something less than Nazi-Fascism doesn’t really work because it is the early and middle versions of Nazi antisemitic behavior that are becoming more and more reflective of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (past and present). There’s certainly plenty of anti-Palestinian political propaganda, and a whole host of anti-Palestinian laws in Israel-proper, not to mention the separate but unequal legal systems of Jews and Palestinians in the occupied territories. Massive involuntary ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 is a historical fact, along with a constant, more gradual cleansing that never stops.
    There certainly was forced emigration to ghettos in the form of refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and Gaza itself seems little more than the world’s largest Palestinian concentration camp since Israel has total control over its borders, air and sea space, and economy, and every couple of years invades, kills, and destroys in the process of mowing the inmates’ lawns.
    On the other hand, there are no Palestinian forced labor camps in Israel or the occupied territories, nor are there any Palestinian extermination camps, so the Nazi analogy does have its limits.
    Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians imperfectly resembles the earlier stages of Nazi-Fascist treatment of the Jews in Germany, not the Italian version of Fascism. While the Nazi analogy is accurate to some extent, it’s imperfect at best. Watering it down to mere “Fascist” behavior makes it meaningless.

    Analogizing Likud-Zionist Israeli behavior to something less than Nazi-Fascism doesn’t really work because it is the early and middle versions of Nazi antisemitic behavior that are becoming more and more reflective of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (past and present). There’s certainly plenty of anti-Palestinian political propaganda, and a whole host of anti-Palestinian laws in Israel-proper, not to mention the separate legal status of Jews and Palestinians in the so-called territories. Massive involuntary ethnic cleansing in 1948 and 1967 is a historical fact, along with a constant, more gradual cleansing that never stops.

    There certainly was forced Palestinian emigration to ghettos in the form of refugee camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, and Gaza itself seems little more than the world’s largest Palestinian concentration camp since Israel has total control over its borders, air and sea space, and economy, and every couple of years invades, kills, and destroys in the process of mowing the inmates’ lawns.

    On the other hand, there are no Palestinian forced labor camps in Israel or the occupied territories, nor are there any Palestinian extermination camps, so the Nazi analogy does have its limits.

    Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians imperfectly resembles the earlier stages of Nazi-Fascist treatment of the Jews in Germany, not the lesser forms of Fascism. The Nazi analogy applied to Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is an uncomfortable one to make, particularly for Jews. But watering it down to mere “Fascist” behavior makes the analogy largely meaningless because it’s the similarities to Nazi-Fascist behavior that is striking the chord.

    • Mooser
      September 13, 2014, 5:18 pm

      “Nazism was unique in its emphasis on Aryan racial purity and superiority and the inferiority of other “racial” groups like the Slavs, the Jews, and others.”

      Unique? Sounds a lot like the Zionist (not the religious!) conception of what Jews are. (Cough, cough, chosen people, harrumph, cough) And that Aryan racial purity could be compared to Zionist conceptions of who the exiled and returned Jews are. And don’t both have about the same respect for factual history? Just sayin.

      • irishmoses
        September 13, 2014, 5:58 pm

        What are you saying Mooser, Jews are the Aryans of the Middle East, the creme of the Semites?

        Man’s age-old quest for tribal purity. Nazis turned it into an art form. Zionists may have invented the concept, justified by the old “they’ll never leave us alone until we are alone so we need a land without people for a people without a land”. Great idea; they just haven’t solved the “people” part yet.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 7:18 pm

        “Great idea; they just haven’t solved the “people” part yet.”

        Well, I think that “Aryan” is just as good an identifier, maybe even better, than “Semite”. Especially in practical, everyday, useful-to-the-average-guy terms.

        But no, they never solved the “people” part. Only half of it. They were never really sure who the Jews are, but they could be flexible with that, and the Zionists sure as hell knew who the the Jews aren’t.

    • DaBakr
      September 13, 2014, 8:57 pm

      the fact that someone is devoting so much energy and time to parsing the differences between the Nazis and fascism is just further proof of how ridiculous, idiotic and absurd to be wasting so much time on nazi-Zionist comparisons. The Jew-haters will always-in the most clueless of ways-always draw parallels between , ironically, Jews and Nazis. Its pretty much built into their neurotic make-up.
      But a serious scholars of Israel and the conflict with Arabs and Pal;estinians rarely engage with any dignity in this dubious excercise. I understand the compulsion some have to draw parallels-especially when on the surface they seem so ‘correct’. But if one really wants to claim their interest is in helping the Palestinians realize their own nation-Naziism is a at best-a useless distraction and at worst-a poison pill that destroys any hopes of bringing together to tenacious and implacable rivals. There is no question that national egos have a lot to do with why its been impossible for either side to commit -with any real seriousness-to any of the hardest final status issues. These are the issues where Israel must accept that it alone must take potentially dangerous risks for the greater good of their future. The Paletinians have much less they have to risk but are faced with the decision that will tap into a very deep well of the thing that has given them strength to fight over the years-that being their national sense of pride and commitment to resistance of any kind as their national right and responsibility. Giving any of that up maybe as difficult for them as risking security of sovereignty is to Israelis. It has very little to do with nazism which was meant to be a world dominating land mass of epic proportions and meant to last a 1000 years. While many Arabs believe in the ‘protocols od Zion’ as truth- they would be a laughing stock if they really espoused that Israel was seeking world domination via the extermination and genocide of Arab peoples in 2014.

      • Mooser
        September 13, 2014, 10:32 pm

        And DaBakr goes for the muttering-in-the-corner-with-his-hands-working-in-his-pockets stance, and does it well.

      • Talkback
        September 13, 2014, 11:10 pm

        DaBakr.: The Jew-haters will always-in the most clueless of ways-always draw parallels between , ironically, Jews and Nazis.

        Yeah, Leibowitz was a Jew hater, right. ROFL.

        The real irony is that you implicitely claim than none of the crimes that Jews have commited against Palestinians had been commited against Jews by Nazis. You are a Palestinian hater and Holocaust denier, DaBakr.

      • irishmoses
        September 14, 2014, 2:44 am

        DaBakr said:

        “The Jew-haters will always-in the most clueless of ways-always draw parallels between , ironically, Jews and Nazis. Its pretty much built into their neurotic make-up.”

        Where to start?

        1. I was responding to a discussion begun by Professor Slater in which he was saying Israeli behavior was better described as similar to fascism rather than Nazism.

        2. The parallels I was making were specifically directed at “Likud Zionist Israeli behavior” and not at “Jews”.

        3. I gave several examples of the parallels and also specifically excluded the worst forms of Nazi behavior. You describe my efforts as “clueless” but offer no basis for your judgment.

        4. Instead of responding like a “serious scholar of Israel…” by perhaps disputing the factual accuracy of the parallels I drew, you instead descended into the gutter of the scurrilous ad hominem response, accusing me of being the most extreme version of antisemite, the “Jew Hater”. Worse yet, I’m apparently a “neurotic” Jew hater.

        5. You then throw out a smoke screen of straw dogs and wandering conjecture in the vain attempt to return your comment to the level of “serious” scholarship.

        As a person who cares deeply about Israel’s security, perhaps it’s time you came to terms with the fact that Israel’s problems are not generated by the Jew Haters of the world, but are instead the result of Israel’s atrocious behavior. The “poison pill” that is preventing Palestinian self-determination and statehood is Israel’s unwillingness to allow that to happen, not the occasional distraction of Nazi parallel-making, nor the failure of the Palestinians to “tap into very deep well(s)” of understanding.

        It might be useful for you to venture into a deep well or two on your own and tap into a more accurate picture of what Zionism has done to the Palestinians. I’ll know you’ve done that when I see your responses to comments you disagree with are thoughtful and substantive rather than wild ad hominem accusations.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 9:59 am

        @DaBakr,

        The Jew-haters . . . .

        There’s nothing wrong with hating Jews. Or Catholics, or Muslims for that matter, as many Zionists and Christian Zionists do in this country, and are extremely vocal stating it and use the public airwaves to express it.

        Everybody has a right to hate whomever they want. It’s acting on that hatred that is prohibited. By law, here at least.

        So don’t think that Jew-hater is a term of opprobrium, or that it makes a Jew-hater any more neurotic than the nutcakes that hate Muslims because they exist.

  12. irishmoses
    September 13, 2014, 4:28 pm

    I edited the final 4 paragraphs (beginning at “Analogizing”) then deleted the earlier version. When I posted my comment, both versions showed up and the new system doesn’t allow editing.

    Please ignore the first section that begins with “Analogizing” (two long paragraphs and 25 lines total) and read only the final 4 paragraphs that also begin with “Analogizing”. SURE WISH WE HAD AN EDITING CAPABILITY.

    • MRW
      September 15, 2014, 10:02 am

      SURE WISH WE HAD AN EDITING CAPABILITY.

      I second, third, and fourth that. ;-)

  13. surewin
    September 13, 2014, 4:42 pm

    Large historical phenomena such as the Third Reich, the USSR under Lenin, the USSR under Stalin, Red China under Mao, Israel under Likud, and the USA after 9/11 are all vastly different from each other and unique. And it is possible to imagine something more evil than the Third Reich, which means that Nazism was not absolute evil. Absolute evil can’t possibly be surpassed. Nazism was plenty evil, but it was not an abstraction; it was a specific, real historical phenomenon.

    As we know, there have been many Israeli leaders, including early Labor socialists, who would have killed or expelled all of the Palestinian Arabs if possible. But that would have been bad form, resonating too closely with the Nazi Holocaust. The public relations consequences would be unacceptable. The Nakba was bad, but it was measured, one might say, and then intensely covered up.

    If the Arabs are going to be eliminated, it has to happen very slowly, with endless finger-pointing at the victims. Because of this difference, it’s foolish to liken Israel to Nazi Germany. It’s also foolish to use anything like a 1-100 scale of evil. The right thing to do is to bear witness, to describe the phenomenon as it is, in granular detail, and to trust people to respond appropriately.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2014, 6:41 am

      @ surewin

      See German Lefty’s comment above in this thread on what you describe (some call it “incremental genocide”). The tactical and PR motivation for same.

  14. gracie fr
    September 13, 2014, 5:21 pm

    Respected jurist Marjorie Cohn weighs in …..

    http://jurist.org/forum/2014/08/marjorie-cohn-israel-crimes.php

  15. NoMoreIsrael
    September 13, 2014, 8:38 pm

    Very unpersuasive.

    The United States, while enabling all manner of Israeli barbarity, will not permit the wholesale genocide of the Palestinians. The split second the US gives Israel the green light, Israel will enthusiastically carry out the stated wishes of the Israeli leadership and virtually the entirety of Israeli society, namely the extermination of 100% of the Palestinian people, every man, woman and child, within Israel and in the Occupied Territories.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2014, 12:14 pm

      The funny part is, (and it just hit me) Mr. Slater is saying Israeli Jews (and those in a position to make accurate comparisons, too) talking to other Israeli Jews and invoking similarities to the Nazis are “going too far”.

      Incredible.

      • irishmoses
        September 15, 2014, 10:06 am

        Not to mention they were also holocaust survivors.

  16. American
    September 13, 2014, 9:49 pm

    The bottom line is…..if it walks, talks, and quacks like a Nazi, its a Nazi.
    Call them midget Nazis, slow motion Nazis or whatever kind of Nazi you want,

    The ‘mentality’ of a racial ‘master/ruling class’ and conquering/confiscating others land/country for the benefit or enrichment of their “‘ethic nation” is the same.

  17. Nite_Owl
    September 13, 2014, 9:51 pm

    In some ways Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is worse than Germany’s treatment of the Jews. Look at the recent operation in Gaza. That slaughter was supported by 95% of Israelis. What was actually going on in the concentration camps wasn’t even known by anywhere near 95% of the German population and I seriously doubt that that many would support it. The murder of innocent men,women and children was inhuman. German civilians saw Jews rounded up and taken away to concentration camps during wartime much like they and the Americans saw US citizens of Japanese decent (but not US citizens of German decent for some colourful reason) rounded up and taken to concentration camps and Canadians saw Ukrainian-Canadians, Jewish refugees (who for some reason were sent to the same camps as German POW’s), German-Canadians, Italian-Canadians and Japanese Canadians rounded up and taken to concentration camps. What the hell were we afraid of??? WW2 only lasted 6 years though. The Israeli occupation has been going on for over 6 decades with the country’s citizens increasingly becoming a cheering section for the abuses, degradation and murder of Palestinians. Any Palestinian will do. They’ll shoot them from the safety of their gun towers for sport. They’ve become addicted to it. Sometimes just a few targeted assassinations with the proper amount of collateral damage will satisfy their hunger but theres nothing like the slaughter of thousands, including children and the complete destruction of of the entire infrastructure for a million people to really slake their appetite. It won’t hold them over for long though. Soon enough they’ll be calling for more.

    5

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 12:46 pm

      @ Nite_Owl. Wow. Indeed, German Americans were not sent to concentration camps as Japanese Americans were. I am sure there were good reasons for that given the fact that some industrialists and bankers and later politicians did business with nazi-Germany. (Rmember the 1933 almost succeeded coup d’etat against FDR by same sources). My opinion. But it is very telling.
      Murder for some gives them more appetite for more blood thirst since their conscience is more or less if not totally subdued.

      What’s the matter with this board? Even when you want to delete stuff you can’t mark it and delete. As much annoyance as not being able to edit. Why do the non-editors ignore our complaints? Maybe we should stop commenting for a while en masse until our wishes are met.

  18. Mooser
    September 13, 2014, 9:54 pm

    Okay, I’m gonna spit this out.
    Why would a Jew be provoked into calling Zionists “Nazis”?
    Gee, could it be maybe because he notices the essential correspondence which, no matter what the intent which drives it, always produces the same results? That is the idea of the Jews as a special people, “race” or “nation”. With a “destiny”. And offers “solutions” to our “Jewish problems”.
    Yes, frankly, right about there I’d be very tempted to bark out a “Sieg Heil” or two. Or maybe even a “One people, one nation, one leader”.

    And we haven’t even gotten to the Palestinians yet.

    • AbigailOK
      September 15, 2014, 12:49 pm

      @ \mooser How about a RRRRRausss!!!!! Or in contemporary talk: Mavet le Aravim (Death to the Arabs). Even the word Palestinian is not allowed. See, they have some self-censorship. Only the wrong one.

  19. Talkback
    September 13, 2014, 11:17 pm

    I consider the inherent claim that no Jew has ever commited a war crime or crime against humanity against Palestinians which Nazis have commited against Jews to be indirect Holocaust denial.

  20. Keith
    September 14, 2014, 12:06 am

    JEROME SLATER- “Fascism is not the same as Nazism which represents, on a scale of 1-100, absolute evil.”

    Nazism defined as absolute evil? I guess it takes a PhD to cut through the messy details and cut to the emotional essence.

    Jerome Slater: “Handwringing and ineffectual critics of the massive Israeli military attacks on Gaza five years ago and again last month ask: but how else can Israel respond to Hamas terrorism.”

    By not provoking it? AS Noam Chomsky notes: “This is, however, just the most recent of a series of ceasefire agreements reached after each of Israel’s periodic escalations of its unremitting assault on Gaza. Throughout this period, the terms of these agreements remain essentially the same. The regular pattern is for Israel, then, to disregard whatever agreement is in place, while Hamas observes it — as Israel has officially recognized — until a sharp increase in Israeli violence elicits a Hamas response, followed by even fiercer brutality. These escalations, which amount to shooting fish in a pond, are called “mowing the lawn” in Israeli parlance.”
    http://zcomm.org/znetarticle/whats-next-for-israel-hamas-and-gaza/

    When all is said and done, Professor, you are a Zionist in deep denial, forever engaged in verbal gamesmanship to twist reality to accommodate your biases.

    • seafoid
      September 14, 2014, 9:15 am

      I think Nazism is not the fullest expression of absolute evil. At least they left behind a functioning global climate .

      Climate denial and what it will mean in places like India mean the Kochs are probably worse than Hitler given what is going to happen in terms of global food.

      • Keith
        September 14, 2014, 5:58 pm

        SEAFOID- “At least they left behind a functioning global climate .”

        That is exactly what I am talking about, the misuse of labels to define reality. The two greatest threats to the survival of our species is nuclear warfare and environmental destruction, particularly global warming. The US empire pioneered the use of nuclear weapons, then proceeded to greatly expand the nuclear arsenal as a means of world domination, refusing to seriously work to eliminate nuclear weapons in clear violation of the nuclear non-proliferating treaty. Even now, the US and Israel oppose efforts to make the Middle East a nuclear free zone as advocated by Russia, China, Iran and most of the world. The US has also led the way in promoting an energy intensive lifestyle and sabotaging efforts to reduce global warming. As things now stand, it is difficult to imagine humanity not experiencing catastrophic climate change and other environmental calamities. By focusing on the crimes of the Nazis as consummate evil, Professor Slater is de facto minimizing the current greater evil of empire.

        I might add that if Professor Slater were to review history he would discover that historically mass murder is the rule, not the exception. Third World peoples have experienced centuries of recurring holocausts at the hands of the Europeans and Americans. To help the good Professor along, I provide a quote and a link to Andre Vltchek on this subject.

        “And at present again, EU companies are responsible, together with US companies, of course, for another bloodletting of near to 10 million Congolese people (in DRC); simply because that unfortunate country is very rich in strategic minerals like Coltan and uranium, that those greedy Westerners simply cannot control their cravings. The West supports murderous regimes in Rwanda and Uganda that are killing and plundering on its behalf, by manipulating mass media, and creating insane historical narratives about the 1994 genocide… The French are openly plotting to carve off the mineral rich East Kivu from DRC, and to give it to Rwanda, so it could be ravaged in a much more organized way.”

        When it comes to the list of crimes against humanity committed by Europe, in the past and now, I never know where to begin and where to end. The list is so long, so horrible, that an entire book would, perhaps, be needed to simply compile the most exhaustive list.

        But just to give a short summary, such a list would have to include the German holocaust against the local people of what is now Namibia; Belgian super-genocides in all of their ‘dependencies’, Dutch plunder of what is now Indonesia, Portuguese ‘activities’ in Brazil, India and China, Italian barbarities in Africa, British and French holocausts and devastation in basically all the continents, which goes on to this day, unopposed and ignored.” (Andre Vltchek)
        http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/12/are-europes-horrid-crimes-forgiven/

  21. RoHa
    September 14, 2014, 12:22 am
  22. Philip Munger
    September 14, 2014, 12:25 am

    This is a fascinating article and comment thread.

    I have always stayed entirely away from direct comparisons between Nazi ideology and militant expansionist Zionism. Comparing the rise of racism and state veneration in Israel to the rise of those elements of National Socialism in Germany can be meaningful, though. Wilhelm Reich, in his book, The Mass Psychology of Fascism, devoted sections pertaining to how Nazi ideology came to dominate German political and legal structure to race theory, and to the role of reactionary Christian sects in setting the platform for Hitler’s acquisition of power.

    His book is a highly flawed masterpiece (in that it thought entirely outside of the box, so to say), but it wasn’t alone in linking religious mysticism to race theory and state policies that can lead to genocidal results.

    I agree with a commenter above who wrote that the various powerful states in the past century that ran amok are all unique in how they turned bad for some. Israel has become at least as fascist as the USA. Better analogies can be found, though, than direct Nazi or 3rd Reich comparisons.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2014, 6:57 am

      How has Israel become “at least as fascist as the USA”? Are Americans settling in some occupied territory, other than those who choose to be Israeli settlers? If so, where?

      • Mooser
        September 14, 2014, 1:06 pm

        Holocaust denial in the service of the two-state solution is ok!

  23. kalithea
    September 14, 2014, 1:55 am

    I’m often impressed by the articles put out here and the daily reports from Palestine that help to bring awareness to the depth of suffering of the Palestinian people and others in the region such as those in Lebanon and even in Syria and which articles ultimately help advance globally just an inch more the cause of these victims of Zionist occupation, Zionist interference and aggression.

    But when I read individuals like Slater here I think: this is Zionism creeping in here again; and this is: hasbara lite! Every time this kind of Zionist tool-like interpretation of reality gets published a step is taken backwards to whitewash Zionism or rescue it from the necessary fall that it is destined for.

    Israel is well on its way to fascism[…]Nonetheless, because Israel has gone so far down the road to fascism (not Nazism), the risks must be run…

    I’m sooooo tired of those who want to save Israel from itself. It’s maddening to think that there’s something worthy about Zionism that deserves saving when it’s so clear there’s not! And it’s those who say stuff like it’s not as bad as Nazism, it’s not there yet who refuse to see the truth about Zionism when it’s staring them in the face over and over again!

    But what if Palestinian attacks continue, which in those circumstances could no longer be considered as resistance? Then–and only then– Israel would have a true right of self-defense.

    Get this through your head if you’re honest about your empathy with the suffering of Palestinians, as opposed to the real mission of so-called liberal Zionists which is to rescue Israel, – so long as Zionism exists, Palestinians have every right to resist it, whether they get a so-called state of their own which would be nothing more than the grand swindle of the Century, or not.

    Zionism is and has always been founded on the combination of mythic supremacism and the crime of ethnic cleansing of the other through terrorism! So swindle consolation prize or no swindle. Palestinians must and should resist Zionism until it is defeated. I really could care less about the endless parsing and analysis of what we know is evil at first sight! That Israelis, Zionists are turning into fascists and even Nazis is really no surprise and was predictable from day one to anyone who allows truth to lead them. What really bothers me is that people still don’t get that Zionism is a threat to the spiritual and moral evolution of mankind and to humanity’s legitimate aspiration towards peace, because it is a serious threat, and it is proving to be so in every way. Zionism was a backward turn in history that must be corrected.

  24. Citizen
    September 14, 2014, 7:03 am

    What are “crimes against humanity”? ICC says:

    “Crimes against humanity” include any of the following acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    murder;
    extermination;
    enslavement;
    deportation or forcible transfer of population;
    imprisonment;
    torture;
    rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
    persecution against an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or gender grounds;
    enforced disappearance of persons;
    the crime of apartheid;
    other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious bodily or mental injury.

    • Citizen
      September 14, 2014, 7:10 am

      The Nuremberg Charter marked the first time crimes against humanity became part of positive international law, not merely moral law. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/crimes-against-humanity/

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2014, 7:11 am

        “To some extent, crimes against humanity overlap with genocide and war crimes. But crimes against humanity are distinguishable from genocide in that they do not require an intent to “destroy in whole or in part,” as cited in the 1948 Genocide Convention, but only target a given group and carry out a policy of “widespread or systematic” violations. Crimes against humanity are also distinguishable from war crimes in that they not only apply in the context of war—they apply in times of war and peace.”
        – See more at: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/crimes-against-humanity/#sthash.By5qNnSX.dpuf

      • seafoid
        September 14, 2014, 9:29 am

        Israel doesn’t respect international law or the laws of war.
        Not a good sign in terms of fascism.

  25. JohannBorck
    September 14, 2014, 7:08 am

    Surprising. All I’m pointing out is that ‘obviously not genocidal or anywhere near it’ can easily be understood as ‘not sharing any features with what constitutes genocide’, which is absolutely wrong, by whatever definition you choose.
    The author should have, at the very least, made clear which concept of ‘genocide’ he is talking about. The way the legal definition is being dismissed here by some, strikes me as very odd. It’s not like the term ‘genocide’ was part of a significant number of everyday conversations, and it’s not like “most people” tend to question their use of terminology on a regular basis.
    That the ‘civilized world’s mainstream narratives of history tend to pick and choose what to mention at all when it comes to large-scale crimes against humanity shouldn’t be news to the audience of Mondoweiss, and that “common” use of terminology follows those narratives should neither.
    As an indicative side note, in the context of Cambodia, it’s interesting to see Pol Pot being mentioned here, but neither Kissinger nor Nixon.

  26. MHughes976
    September 14, 2014, 9:37 am

    Just to add my voice to annie’s and Johann’s. Our governments have made grand gestures in the way of signing up to legal definitions of ‘genocide’ – maybe these gestures were in many ways hollow and hypocritical. We push them firmly towards hypocrisy if we laugh off every example as it appears and we give aid and comfort to those who are legally genocidaires if we allow, even encourage, them to use the excuse that there are certain extremes to which they have not gone.
    The extremes to which people go depend on their specific circumstances rather than on their general readiness to break moral rules. The circumstances of WW2 will never recur, neither will the circumstances in which Euros arrived in America, so all future atrocities will fall short of full likeness to the atrocities of those times. Those who perpetrate future atrocities will always state as loudly as possible that they are not doing what those perpetrated the atrocities of the past did – and this argument will always lack logical force. If the moral rules are broken, with massive suffering resulting, massive wrong has been done.
    I would have liked Professor Slater to say what he means by ‘fascism’ – I can’t really see that modern Israel is very like Mussolini’s Italy.
    Slater’s main point, that in principle oppressors and marauders do not gain the right to oppress, kill and maraud some more just because they meet resistance on the scale of ‘rockets on Berlin’, is worth making.

  27. German Lefty
    September 14, 2014, 9:50 am

    OT: Right now, there’s a big rally in Berlin against anti-Semitism. It was organised by the Central Council of Jews in Germany. According to German media, there are thousands of participants. The mayor of Berlin, several ministers, the Chancellor, and the President give speeches.
    You can watch a live stream here: http://www.bild.de/politik/inland/antisemitismus/tausende-demonstrieren-in-berlin-gegen-judenhass-37654476.bild.html
    The logo of the event has a blue Star of David, then it says “raise your voice” in white letters and “Nevery again Jew-hatred” in blue letters. I find the choice of colours very suspicious and disgusting. Blue and white, just like Israel’s flag. I assume that the Central Council intentionally picked them to suggest that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism. It’s a Zionist propaganda event that is supposed to distract from the real problem, which is Zionist settler-colonialism. There will even be a 45-minute special report about this event on German TV.
    The right-wing publishing house Axel Springer put a huge logo of the event on the wall of their building. See here: http://www.bild.de/news/inland/antisemitismus/berlin-vor-antisemitismus-kundgebung-am-sonntag-axel-springer-setzt-zeichen-gegen-judenhass-37640360.bild.html

    • German Lefty
      September 14, 2014, 10:08 am

      Look at the photos of the audience. There are Israel flags everywhere. The chancellor is speaking now. She constantly equates negative criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. For example, she said that it is scandalous when German Jews are attacked for defending Israel.

      • Kay24
        September 14, 2014, 4:34 pm

        I wish Merkel would make clear that crimes against Jews are anti-semitism, and that criticism for Israel’s apartheid policies and the brutal slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza is NOT anti semitism. There is no point whining about anti-semitism without making clear distinctions.

      • Citizen
        September 14, 2014, 5:33 pm

        @ Kay24

        Merkel conflated Jews and Israel; so did a bunch of Germans on Twitter.

      • MHughes976
        September 15, 2014, 1:29 pm

        As well as I remember, the conflation of Jews and Israelis was mentioned in the famous ‘working definition of anti-Semitism’ as an actual indication of anti-Semitic sentiments.

      • Citizen
        September 15, 2014, 1:53 pm

        From US State Dept web site:

        Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism
        Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews (often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion).
        Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
        Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
        Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
        Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations.

        What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?
        EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include:

        DEMONIZE ISRAEL:

        Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis
        Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis
        Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions
        DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ISRAEL:

        Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
        Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations
        DELEGITIMIZE ISRAEL:

        Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist
        However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.

    • German Lefty
      September 16, 2014, 3:12 pm

      The German YouTube channel “publicsolidarity” posted a video of anti-Zionist protesters. It shows how the police denied them entry to the rally against anti-Semitism. The protesters are from the German groups “Jewish voice for a just peace” and “Non-Zionist Jews”.
      http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m_A9iyhLKO4

      • AbigailOK
        September 17, 2014, 9:44 am

        I guess that if those came onto TV the whole staged PR campaign would be ruined. What, antizionists are also against antisemitism. The audience that way cannot be brainwashed. And remember: Germans are loathe to be remembered about antisemitism. They will be the very last part of the globe to see and then utter the likeness of zionism and nazism. Whoa, it might remind some of their background or past. Dass is doch nicht gut, nah?

        Hypocrites. Esp. the Axel Springer publishing house. Another form of Wiedergutmachung? They’d better shape up then!

      • AbigailOK
        September 17, 2014, 9:45 am

        Conflating Jews with Israel….er….is that not…er..antisemitic? Hmm, Frau Bundeskanzlerin? Doch!

      • German Lefty
        September 17, 2014, 4:27 pm

        @AbigailOK

        “They will be the very last part of the globe to see and then utter the likeness of zionism and nazism.”

        Actually, that’s not true. I don’t have the links right now, but I remember two surveys which show that 40 to 50% of Germans agree with the statements “Israel does to Palestinians what the Nazis did to Jews.” and “Israel conducts a war of extermination against Palestinians.” Furthermore, there was a study about the perceptions of European Jews. A high percentage of German Jews stated that they hear the Nazi comparison very often.
        The mere fact that the Nazi comparison is included in surveys indicates that it is so widespread that it can’t be ignored anymore.
        Germans usually don’t talk publicly about their opinion on Israel. However, just because Germans don’t state publicly that Zionists are like Nazis doesn’t mean that they don’t think it or don’t say it privately.

        “Whoa, it might remind some of their background or past.”

        I don’t quite understand this statement. Present generations of Germans don’t identify with Nazi-era Germans. Old Germans, such as my grandmother, were only innocent children when it happened. They had nothing to do with Nazi crimes. Therefore, the Nazi comparison does not evoke painful memories. The only thing that my grandmother remembers is how US soldiers came and wanted to confiscate the cameras from Germans. My grandmother said, “When the soldiers asked for our camera, my sister was stupid enough to admit that we have one and to give it to them.”

      • Citizen
        September 17, 2014, 6:43 pm

        Both the Americans and the Soviets “confiscated” a lot of key Nazi scientists and technical guys too. Both went to the moon on the backs of those confiscated.

  28. JohannBorck
    September 14, 2014, 11:08 am

    Child mortality in Palestine vs. child mortality in Israel

    Further, I also contest the notion that the sheer number of the victims of the occupation is not in a range where the “common” understanding of the term genocide might justifiably be applied, but in any case can’t be dismissed as “obviously not anywhere near it”. There is a hidden death toll that stems from the conditions imposed on Palestinians, that is a lot higher than the numbers killed by direct force. The following was meant to be published later, but I’ll give an excerpt, as I see it fitting in the context of this discussion.

    “To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the occupying power must ensure sufficient hygiene and public health standards, as well as the provision of food and medical care to the population under occupation.”

    Both child mortality rates (The probability that a child born in a specific year will die before reaching the age of five if subject to current age-specific mortality rates. Expressed as a rate per 1,000 live births. As defined by UNICEF) and infant mortality rates (The probability that a child born in a specific year will die before reaching the age of one, if subject to current age-specific mortality rates. Expressed as a rate per 1,000 live births. As defined by UNICEF) are commonly used as indicators for public health standards.

    Since Israel, as the occupying power, demonstrably capable of providing certain health standards to its own people, is obliged to ensure public health standards for the people under occupation, the differences between infant mortality rates in the oPt and Israel, or between child mortality rates in the oPt and Israel, can be taken as indicators to calculate at least a part of the hidden death toll of the occupation.

    For the years 1975 through 2012, along with indicators for total population and the crude birth rate (births per 1000 population), we can use the difference in child mortality rates to calculate the number of children who didn’t survive until their fifth birthday only due to the difference in health standards deliberately imposed by the occupying power (emphasis, because this could be easily understood as ‘blaming’ the total child mortality rate of Palestinians on the occupation, which expressly isn’t what these numbers display):

    That makes a total of about
    125,000 children between 1975 and 2012 or
    3300 children per year or
    275 children per month (a rate of children killed similar to that during the latest assault on Gaza) or
    63 children per week or
    9 children per day.

    I’ll leave the interpretation of these figures and application of adequate terminology to you.

    The data sources I used are from http://www.gapminder.org.

    • piotr
      September 14, 2014, 1:57 pm

      One can quibble if “excess infant mortality” means “victims of the occupation”. However, it is instructive to compare the table from gapminder.org with a frequent Hasbarah point that nowhere Arabs enjoy more freedom and prosperity than under Israeli rule.

      When we compare infant mortality rates for 1992 and 2012 in USA, Israel, Lebanon and “West Bank and Gaza”, we have 8.8, 8.7, 24.8 and 31.7 for 1992, while for 2012 we have 6, 3.3, 8, 19.2.

      Thus over last 20 years, improvement of medical care of mothers and children in Israel were in line with most of advanced countries. Less so in USA where public health policies seem inferior to West Europe and Canada. Lebanon is clearly catching up. But the deprivation in West Bank and Gaza effectively removed those territories from word-wide progress in care of mothers and children.

  29. Abuadam
    September 14, 2014, 4:45 pm

    JS
    You take the term ‘splitting hairs’ to the extreme. Your in the same league of Avit Schalit character. Refusal to say “Israel’s creation was wrong, how it was created was wrong, its continual present existence is wrong and the two state solution is wrong,” will keep you in your present state of convoluted denial.

    • Mooser
      September 14, 2014, 6:48 pm

      “present state of convoluted denial.”

      Abuadam, I am getting the very sickening feelings that there are two main components (speaking roughly) to a person’s understanding of and attitude toward Zionism. One of course, is their reactions to current events in Palestine, the actions of the Zionist state. The other is part is their understanding of being Jewish (or if they are not Jewish, of Jews), and their understanding of the history which brought us to Zionism and motivates it.
      Well, it might be that one can have a decent or normal reaction to what Israel is doing now, it’s right in front of one’s nose (Occupation, expansion, terror, the internal politics). But a faulty or incorrect or absurdly ethnocentric, mythical, legendary understanding (the self-serving understanding promulgated by Zionists) of the second part could keep somebody trapped in a very convoluted position. And not having been exposed, or rejecting any other viewpoint, they wouldn’t even know another point-of-view is possible.
      I’m hoping it’s not true.

      • MRW
        September 15, 2014, 10:53 am

        Mooser,

        ut a faulty or incorrect or absurdly ethnocentric, mythical, legendary understanding (the self-serving understanding promulgated by Zionists) of the second part could keep somebody trapped in a very convoluted position. And not having been exposed, or rejecting any other viewpoint, they wouldn’t even know another point-of-view is possible.
        I’m hoping it’s not true.

        Then, let’s help them out. Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism

  30. irishmoses
    September 15, 2014, 1:59 am

    Mooser said:
    “But a faulty or incorrect or absurdly ethnocentric, mythical, legendary understanding (the self-serving understanding promulgated by Zionists) of the second part could keep somebody trapped in a very convoluted position. And not having been exposed, or rejecting any other viewpoint, they wouldn’t even know another point-of-view is possible. I’m hoping it’s not true. ”

    Spot on but faint hope. The Zionist-promulgated narrative is powerful and continuously reinforced. Whatever doubts are created by recognition of present day oppressive actions by Israel are made less believable and easily rationalized when seen in the light of that perfect narrative. Obvious war crimes become legitimate acts of self defense in the convoluted world of the liberal Zionist. Those convoluted rationalizations are psychologically essential or the entire facade crumbles leaving the true believer exposed and untethered.

    Much easier to accept the narrative and filter one’s present day observations so that they are consistent with that narrative..

  31. Mooser
    September 15, 2014, 10:40 am

    “Much easier to accept the narrative and filter one’s present day observations so that they are consistent with that narrative”

    I don’t want to talk about it. It makes me feel sick. Can we just drop it now? I’m sorry I brought it up, if that helps.

  32. Stogumber
    September 15, 2014, 12:29 pm

    I don’t like those generalizing analogies between Israel and Nazi Germany.

    Notwthstanding, I would like to see a proper study who compares German “Aryanization”of Jewish property with Israeli disappropriation of Arabs – the legal ways to justify it, the administrative ways to handle it, the ways the acquiring people make it palatable in their own eyes. similarities and differences. That might be an eye-opener.

Leave a Reply