Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 2252 (since 2010-06-04 05:29:53)

Showing comments 2252 - 2201

  • Israeli soldier shoots Palestinian taxi driver in head by mistake, then Israel seizes his car and entry permit
    • Marnie: "No one does subtle like the zionists – ‘operation wrath of God’.

      Must be because they trained with the Brits who came up with "Operation Gomorrah"

      Still defended, btw, in the paper you quote, as a worthwhile undertaking in a "good war"

      link to

  • Meet the Palestinian volunteers on the frontline of Europe's refugee crisis
    • "And why is no one the least bit surprised that Israel isn’t taking in any refugees? Disgusted, but not surprised. "

      How welcome are refugees in countries who illegally invaded Iraq and bear major responsibility for the refugee crisis?

      The US. GB. Australia. Poland.

      Disgusted, but not surprised.

  • Thank you, Chief Rabbi. Now I know: Judaism is to blame for the Nakba
    • I would agree that all Abrahamic religions (and plenty of others, too) are "bloodthirsty". It is therefore both pointless and misleading to posit some unbridgeable gulf between Judaism and Zionism, or even between Christianity/Islam and colonialism, imperialism, or fascism.

      It all depends on how one reads religious texts that are, in essence, completely contradictory, thus leading to the paradoxical view of any of these religions as religions of peace, and/or of war and genocide.

      From a recent article published in Haaretz on the topic:

      Calls for genocide. Instructions for how to manage sex slaves captured in battle. Death penalty for homosexuals. When you read these words, what comes to mind? ISIS?  Boko Haram? Al Shabaab?
      Keep thinking. Every year, Jews across the world gather weekly to read consecutive portions of the Torah, Judaism’s holiest text, which features the morally repugnant list above as well as many other offensive passages (genocide: Deuteronomy 20:16-17; sex slavery: Deuteronomy 21:10-13; death penalty for homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13). The completion of this annual reading cycle is celebrated on a holiday called Simhat Torah, which begins next week.
      Is there any justification for Jews continuing to celebrate the completion of a book that reads in part like an instruction manual on how to be a terrible person?
      The answer depends on how we approach the text. The Talmud states that the Torah can be a “deadly poison” or an “elixir of life” depending on the mindset of the person who studies it (Ta’anit 7a). For those who approach the Torah unquestioningly as a guidebook, these passages can, quite literally, be "deadly." One need not look further than the past few months: The ultra-Orthodox murderer at this year’s Gay Pride Parade in Jerusalem and the fundamentalist Jews who burned a Palestinian family alive are chilling examples of what happens when people blindly follow the words of a book that advocates homophobia and genocide.
      There is, however, another way to read the Torah -- one that turns it into an “elixir of life.” Under this approach, the Torah is not an instruction manual. Instead, it is a mirror that forces us to grapple with all of the beautiful, complicated and ugly parts of our humanity.
      In addition to genocide, sex slavery and homophobia, the Torah contains deeply moral messages about pursuing justice (Deuteronomy 16:20), giving charity generously (Deuteronomy 15:7-8), and caring for the most vulnerable in society, like the stranger, the orphan and the widow (Exodus 22:20-22). By revisiting these drastically contrasting passages within the same holy book every year, we are forced to continually ask ourselves what our position is on these issues, to answer the very first question in the Torah: Where are you? (Genesis 3:9).

      read more: link to

  • Human Rights group: Gaza power crisis has led to death of 29 Palestinians, mostly children, since 2010
    • Are you serious? Your response is more of the usual nonsense, and you obviously don't understand that a society (Israel) whose view of itself and the rest of the world is based on a specific memory of the Holocaust can not be expected to react rationally, or even humanely, to any threat, be it real or imagined.

      link to

    • "The Holocaust was one of the terrible events in history, but it was over 70 years ago....The Palestinians have been suffering for over 60 years "

      This is an opinion many people share, and find rational. But it is incompatible with the Holocaust as a religion, rather than a historical fact.

      I first realized that the Holocaust was not merely a historical event/fact but also a religion when I read the following definition on the Auschwitz Memorial website, on the issue of various forms of Holocaust denial:

      "In essence, this [the Holocaust] was not only the most tragic of human experiences, but also the most significant—not only in terms of the past, but also of the present and the future. "

      link to

      According to this definition, it simply does not matter whether the Palestinians suffer for 60 years, 6000 years, or 6 million years. Their suffering will by definition remain insignificant compared to the Holocaust.

      Questioning this constitutes Holocaust denial and an affront to Jewish victims and their descendants.

      Obviously, this is irrational. The argument also follows quite closely the traditional Christian/Catholic view of the suffering of Christ as the greatest suffering in all history - past, present, and future. No human suffering could match, even dare to compare itself to Christ's suffering. This would constitute a major blasphemy and heresy (or, in this case, Holocaust denial)

      It is perhaps unsurprising to find such views expressed on a Polish website: the comparison of Poland/Poles with the suffering of Christ is a regular blasphemy in Polish political culture since the 19th century.

      Either view is an insult to human reason and universal values

  • Anti-Semitism is considered a serious moral failing. But no one calls out anti-Palestinian bigotry
    • MHughes, re: the "nasty things" - the British obsession with the Germans is interesting, I think, given the fact that extreme anti-German sentiment predates both WW II and I. But since I am travelling around Europe right now, I have to get back to you on this rather complicated issue.

      As for assigning the German Nakba to the memory hole: I am not sure this is even the case. Granted, many people have no knowledge of it but it has never been a secret either. Worse, I think, than denial, is toleration, if not outright support for what in either case/Nakba must be considered a major crime against humanity.

    • "nobody cares about anti-Palestinian bigotry."

      "No other human rights movement I can think of is automatically accused of being racist."

      I can think of at least one, but nobody cares about anti-German bigotry either.

      Here is a typical take on the issue, from a pro-Israel perspective. And lets remember that the Palestinian/German (Sudeten German) comparison goes way back to the 1930s, popularized by none other than Hitler. Which helps neither the Germans nor the Palestinians

      link to

  • Another interview on Israeli TV
    • @ Stepehn Shenfield:

      Here is what I found on Wikipedia:

      "Metapedia is an electronic encyclopedia which states that it focuses on European culture, art, science, philosophy and politics. It contains far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, white separatist, antisemitic, and neo-Nazi[2] points of view.[3][4][5] It was officially launched on 26 October 2006 with the Swedish-language edition.[6][7] The English section was launched on 28 April 2007.[6][8] The Hungarian version has the most articles: 144,189 as of 27 September 2013."

      That the Hungarians are particularly prolific on this site can hardly surprise anyone familiar with the European right-wing, xenophobic scene. And yes, anti-EU, anti-immigration, "Poland for the Poles", Ukip, FN and the German AfD are definitely on the rise since the financial crisis brought down Greece, and the recent wave of refugees from the ME, Syria, and Africa followed in its wake.

      It's not the whole story , though. Certainly not in Germany.

      link to

  • 'NYT' exposes Clinton as most hawkish candidate when it's too late for readers to choose
    • "I’m glad we’re hearing more of you again, Antidote."

      Love you, too, Martin, seriously, without sarcasm, always. Not that I always agree with you but I respect and appreciate your contributions. They frequently go much deeper than what I can counter in a brief, straightforward reply, and that's the only reason why you don't always get a reply from me. Remember that.

      Regarding your reply to the ongoing FBI investigation as a sham, I am not sure what you mean. . Consider the past role of the FBI as a kingmaker.

      Anyway, I have some 30 people coming for dinner in half an hour, and just burned the gravy.

    • citizen,

      fine, re msm, nothing new here. But why on earth is there no recognition of the problem among Clinton supporters throughout the primary process, or some kind of mass protest against this absurdity? Not even the Sanders campaign has made an issue of it, despite the ability to rouse a mass movement.

      I guess she can pardon herself, if indicted, once she is elected. Or Obama could pardon her during his lame duck period. No less absurd.

    • True enough. Even worse: The FBI just announced it is in no hurry to finish its investigation of Clinton, which may well go on beyond the DNC date.

      WTF does that mean?

      Would it not be of the utmost urgency to know once and for all whether a presidential frontrunner is actually a legitimate candidate, rather than a possible felon about to go to jail?

      Is she just a tool to run Sanders into the ground up to and/or beyond the DNC, then indict her, and give the Dems full liberty to run whoever they want as candidate in November?

      Or, let's say HRC is indicted AFTER she is elected POTUS in November. Will her VP then be president? What if Bernie is her running mate? Will it be the speaker of the house? Or will Congress decide on the next POTUS? Will Netanyahu give another big speech to Congress before they vote on Obama's successor? Or will the FBI indict as soon as President HRC does sth they or whoever does not like?

      This is insane.

      I don't understand why there is not enormous pressure on the FBI to publish the results of their investigation asap

  • Clinton will hold fundraiser in Tel Aviv
    • Voting for Clinton to avoid Trump is a YUUGE mistake. This kind of strategic lesser evil voting practise MUST stop. It sinks the great majority of the US population into apathy, and the feeling that their concerns don't matter, and that there is no hope for change

      It's not that I disagree on whatever fair or unfair criticism one may have on Trump. Essentially, he is a wild card, and definitely not a status quo promoter. He will not seek any more wars. Hillary will. She said as much when she revealed, during the Brooklyn debate, that she will not abandon NATO even if everyone else does, and, literally, seek military missions Nato partners will support.

      In other words: no military missions are not an option at all but let's stick to the ones supported by our allies.

      The status quo is not sustainable. Hence, voting for Stein, or crossing out Clinton and write in Sanders is the only way to go.

    • so what citizen? Two things happening at the same time automatically mean one is the cause of the other?

    • “Foxman caused Sanders to have to fire Simone Zimmerman as Jewish outreach director.”

      A bit of a stretch. Sanders had to fire SZ because she unfortunately phrased her criticism of Netanyahu (with which Sanders most likely agrees) in foul language wholly unsuitable to Sanders' promise not to run a negative campaign but to stay on the issues. "Asshole" is not an argument. Sanders had no choice. Foxman had nothing to do with it other than seize an opportunity to pretend he is still taken seriously, and has some influence.

  • The end of apartheid in Israel will not destroy the country, it can only improve it
    • @qnnie

      "the problem with your logic is ..."

      if logic was a sufficient approach to human affair, I would be glad to accept your argument

      "what does matter is if the apartheid meets the definition of the crime of apartheid as it’s defined by the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court"

      As Israel apologists have pointed out repeatedly, that definition also fits Saudi Arabia, and on the whole, even better.

      of course there have been plenty of calls, from Medea Benjamin to Rand Paul, from Christians, Muslims, Jews or Hindus, for boycotting KSA, also using SA as a model.

      Has it made any difference over the past decades, and if not, why not?

      "if someone commits a crime, do we say Does it make sense to charge that person based on whether the charge will have any resonance for the criminal? do we say or concern ourself with whether the charge will be accepted by the criminal? no. if the crime meets the definition as it applies to the law — the person will be charged and tried based on the evidence available."

      That is perfectly reasonable. But I also can't help noticing that this is not common practice.

      "Why isn't Wall Street in Jail?"read a headline in Rolling Stone Magazine in 2011, and the open question is still a major focus of the current presidential election campaign.

      "Nobody goes to jail. This is the mantra of the financial-crisis era, one that saw virtually every major bank and financial company on Wall Street embroiled in obscene criminal scandals that impoverished millions and collectively destroyed hundreds of billions, in fact, trillions of dollars of the world's wealth — and nobody went to jail. Nobody, that is, except Bernie Madoff, a flamboyant and pathological celebrity con artist, whose victims happened to be other rich and famous people."

      It's a long article, still worth reading. Yet Rolling Stone has just endorsed Clinton for president.

      link to

      "Article 7
      Crimes against humanity
      For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

      the criteria is not what ‘most originally intend to do’ or whether the oppressors are indigenous or not or whether their self-concept is that they are ‘simply returning to their ancestral homeland’. the criteria is whether there is “widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack“. so even if someone didn’t intend to commit a crime, once they have knowledge of the crime and perpetuate the crime, they are complicit."

      Yes, I know. So what? Do you think the expulsion of 14 million Germans in the mid-1940s was not a crime against humanity? Do you think they were not committed under the same international laws as the Nakba? Has anyone gone to jail for either? Have the "Big Three" at Potsdam and Nuremberg been universally condemned? Do we not constantly trip over hagiographic tributes to FDR and Churchill in the West, and to Stalin in Russia? I see no moral difference between Churchill and FDR, Stalin and Hitler, unless you think it is more moral to kill as few as possible of your own people/citizens, and as many as possible of those of your enemies AND your allies.
      If it had been up to Churchill, WW III would have started immediately after the German capitulation, with Allied and defeated armies going to war against the SU. The man felt lonely without a war, by his own admission. Google "Operation Unthinkable". By that time FDR was dead, and Truman still needed the Soviets to defeat Japan.

      Has there been a global, or even national (German, Finnish, Japanese) movement to force Poland, the Czech Republic, or Russia to return land annexed by no other right but the law of conquest, occupied, ethnically cleansed and resettled with their own ethnic group?

      No post-war German government has ever accepted this as "just". But it has been accepted in the peace treaty that followed German reunification, some half century after the event, as "irreversible".

      Unless you think Palestinians are more deserving of justice than, say, Sudeten Germans, or Polish or Hungarian Germans etc, you would have to agree that it's time the Palestinians and their supporters do the same.

      If you do, you are not applying the law consistently, but selectively and, presumably, viewed through your ideological prism, however required.

      A selective and arbitrary application of either criminal or international law can never lead to anything but a travesty of justice, and the absurd and dangerous world we live in

    • good point , sib, no objections except that I don't see that or how either Israel or Palestine, or a unified post-apartheid state ever did or in the future would escape the very same impositions of a neoliberal economic regime. Remember Stalin refusing the Marshall Plan, and forcing all Soviet satellites and occupied zones to do the same. How did that work out? Cold war, proxy wars, arms and space race, collapse of the Soviet Union, American triumphalism

      "Once I'm dead", he predicted, "the capitalists will drown you like kittens"

      And no, this is NOT an endorsement of Stalin.

      Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Jacob Rothchild got a 3 year contract to assess the oil situation in the Golan Heights. Let's say Assad prevails both in Syria and against Israel, and the latter would somehow be forced to adhere to international law and return the Golan, in whole or in part. Let's say Assad, or a democratically elected government with or without him, would then nationalize the oil industry. Would we see another liberation movement, coup or assassination a la Mossadegh, Lulumba etc etc?

    • I find this article rather shallow. It would no doubt be rejected in Israel, and not just in Israel, as a typical example of the utopian solutions offered by the 'lunatic and suicidal left' bent on inflicting another round of genocide on the Jews. This concern can not simply be shouted down as racist, supremacist, and what not. The question is:

      Does it make sense to advocate post Apartheid SA as a positive model for Israel, and hope for any resonance among the majority of Israelis, be they on the left or the right?

      The first problem with this is that the "Rainbow Nation" has not yet materialized. The debate whether SA was better off during or after Apartheid is ongoing. Bishop Tutu, the moral voice of SA and hardly an apartheid or Israel apologist, laments the fact that the painful disillusionment came so quickly, while finding comfort in the fact that Mandela did not live to experience the wreckage. Not every black South African is a Mandela. Not every Palestinian an Abuelaish.

      link to

      The second problem is that the analogy Israel-SA is problematic and obviously not widely accepted in Israel. Apartheid does not equally apply to the situation of Palestinians in Israel, Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. More important, Zionists, or most of them, do not see themselves as colonists but as a long-suffering people who finally came home. The white colonists and settlers in SA had suffered plenty of violent and occasionally genocidal religious persecution in Europe as well but they never considered themselves to be the indigenous people of Africa. One would have to go back very, very far in history to make that claim, and nobody would have come up with any such notion at the time of colonization. The same applies to the settler folk in the New World. The people who came with the Mayflower were, after all, illegal immigrants and religious fanatics not wanted in their country of origin. Nobody is going to ask them or their descendants go go back to where they came from. One should also note demographics which are pretty much opposite wrt SA and USA.a post-apartheid Israel would be much more like SA than the US.


      link to


      Adam and Moodley note that Jewish historical suffering has imbued Zionism with a subjective sense of moral validity that the whites ruling South Africa never had: "Afrikaner moral standing was constantly undermined by exclusion and domination of blacks, even subconsciously in the minds of its beneficiaries. In contrast, the similar Israeli dispossession of Palestinians is perceived as self-defense and therefore not immoral."[56] They also suggest that academic comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa that see both dominant groups as "settler societies" leave unanswered the question of "when and how settlers become indigenous", as well as failing to take into account that Israeli's Jewish immigrants view themselves as returning home.[57] "In their self-concept, Zionists are simply returning to their ancestral homeland from which they were dispersed two millennia ago. Originally most did not intend to exploit native labor and resources, as colonizers do." Adam and Moodley stress, "because people give meaning to their lives and interpret their worlds through these diverse ideological prisms, the perceptions are real and have to be taken seriously."[


      I am neither for nor against BDS. I just don't think it will work in this case. May instead prolong the conflict

  • American Voices: Who are you voting for and why?
  • Thousands of Israelis fill Tel Aviv's Rabin Square in support for soldier who executed Palestinian
    • "The people were less constrained than at the Nuremberg rallies. They were there following their own free will, in fact, as free will is defined in Western democracies."

      The Nuremberg rallies were the annual convention of the NSDAP, or Nazi party. They started in 1923, moved from Munich to Weimar, then Nuremberg, where they were, in the later 1920s, either cancelled by the party for lack of funds, or by the city of Nuremberg because of violent clashes between Nazis and Communists. They were regularly held at Nuremberg, for about a week in September, after Hitler came to power, from 1933-1938. The last rally, in 1939, was announced as the 'Rally for Peace', but cancelled on short notice. The invasion of Poland was on Sept. 1st, 1939.

      So, to correct your absurd comparison: the early nazi rallies did indeed occur in a perfectly liberal democracy that was way ahead of, say, contemporary Jim Crow America: One person, one vote (including women), across the country. Nobody HAD to go there, and most Germans did not. During the actual Nazi period, maximum attendance was 500 000 people, and they did not HAVE to go there either. So that's less than 1% of the German population, or about the number of registered Jews in Germany at the time. A lot of people, no doubt, but not some big majority.

      And the great majority of Israelis did not attend the rally above either, nor did they have too.

      "The people that have so spoken with impressive unanimity have deserved whatever is coming to them. The few deluded decent Meistervolk citizens who are still there are doing no good anymore. They better move out now."

      You are not only a moron, but also advocating a crime against humanity: collective punishment and ethnic cleansing.


    • link to
      link to

      What strikes me is just how different German soldiers look from other soldiers, you know with the two horns on their foreheads, and real tanks and machine guns. They actually killed people - unarmed soldiers of tiny enemy armies, with airplanes dropping leaflets with peace offers, also unarmed resistance fighters, and scores of civilians. No army before or ever since has done any such thing. I will never understand why they did not just go back home when they realized they couldn't win the war, like the Americans do, regularly, pulling out their troops from places like Vietnam to Iraq, returning to business as usual. It's routine by now for a country that has been at war every single year of its existence, save bout 20-25. How many of those can be called defensive wars, or aggressive wars that turn into a desperate struggle to save the homeland from being entirely destroyed, occupied, abolished as a state, and divided among the victors?

      I do hope it never gets to this in the US. Samson option would be likely. The exceptional country won't just implode and concede failure, as did the USSR

  • 'Say Hello to Zenobia': A report from Palmyra rising from the ashes
    • Ok… I will not take up comedy but it was too apparent.

      - See more at: link to

      good decision, geezer, keep your day job. Canadian humour pains me, I know it all too well.


      edit NATO?

      NATO diet?

      NATO tied?

    • "big boy"

      girl, actually ;)

    • thsnks, gamal, very interesting. Unfortunately, I don't read Arabic. Yet:)

    • From the horse's mouth:

      link to

      Try to disagree with the "butcher" without sounding like a hypocrite

    • Not that difficult. Google: Israel Syria Golan Heights. Also the alliance trying to destabilize Syria in the late 70s/early 80s. A familiar line-up including Israel. Do some research on the history of Syria, and the Six-Day War.

      Attention here and elsewhere tends to be on the Palestinians. Why? The Golan Heights Syrians were also subjected to massive expulsions in 1967, with 2/3 of the Golan subjected to Israeli occupation and Jewish colonization, and, in 1981, actual annexation. The difference: The remaining Syrian minority - Alawites and Druze - were offered Israeli citizenship, and, like Palestinians in Israel, posed no 'demographic problem'.

      The annexation, however, was only recognized by Micronesia, not the US or anyone else. The violation of international law, however, is exactly the same as in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

      Difference: the expelled were not stateless but fled, like Palestinians and many others since, to Syria, were they were, unlike Palestinian refugees in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, or Lebanon, still Syrian citizens. The Israelis then made the usual land for peace offer to Syria etc etc

      The collapse of Syria means: to which state should Israel eve return the Golan Heights? Syria? Islamic State? The "International Community" is obviously in a pickle here: If Assad falls - as has long been the objective of the US, the Saudis, and Israel, it would be insane to return the Golan Heights to a failed state torn up in civil war. Hence, Netanyahu just announced, over the protests of the US and Germany, that the Golan Heights will be part of Israel forever.

      And the Golan Heights are prime territory for Israel, from all perspectives, including climate change and rising sea levels: way above sea level, with fertile agricultural l land suitable for crops, cattle and vineyards, plenty of fresh water, oil, and a booming tourist industry. 100 000 new houses for Jewish settlers are in the works.

      For Syria, the loss of the Golan heights, for the same reasons, are pretty much a death sentence. The Alawites, a heretical sect from the point of Muslims (not unlike Jews from the point of view of Christianity) are concentrated on the coast and pretty much marked for genocide if Assad falls, or pushed into the sea when sea levels rise

      Now what?

  • Segregation of Palestinians and Jews in maternity wards becomes an issue in Israel
    • "Actually, this can be argued to be perfectly reasonable and not racism at all."

      Actually, no. More accurately, to let people get away with such requests is a sure way to perpetuate and entrench racism, and simultaneously enable them to deny that it exists. It is Orwellian and pathological. People who make such requests should be respectfully asked to go give birth at home, or wherever they feel safe.

      Let's try a few other scenarios:

      Do you think it would be reasonable for a straight patient to request not to share a room with a gay or lesbian? Or be treated by one? Or vice versa?

      Or a Muslim man refusing to be treated by a female doctor or nurse, or take any orders from them? A German, French or Belgian citizen refusing to share a room with a fellow Muslim citizen, or Syrian refugee because he or she may be a terrorist, or carrier of disease?

      Now find a coherent, reasonable response to all of those requests.

      And do have a look at this page published by an institute chaired by neocon Bolton. Read the comments, too. Then apply to the original Israeli scenario while remembering that you were talking about citizens of the same state, with allegedly equal rights

      link to

  • Sanders slams Clinton for ignoring Palestinian needs and thinking Netanyahu is 'right all the time'
    • theo

      sanders warren?

    • "He will be 75 by the inauguration, not an age when a human being can take on the stress of what is needed to govern this huge country and all parts of the empire we built for us over the years. "

      Well, at least his hair can't turn any whiter, so the stress won't show as much. And Clinton is not that much younger, nor Trump.

      Sanders could pick a great VP who'd take over if he collapses. As long as it is not Clinton.

    • "it would have been the cherry on top, if Sanders had asked her WHY she thought Hamas was sending those rockets, and doesn’t an occupation lasting more than 60 years and land thefts warrant some kind of human reaction, even violence (quoting Ban Ki-Moon’s statement saying it is a human reaction). "

      It is, of course, a perfectly human reaction, and everybody knows that NOT sending rockets has never really had any positive impact on the Palestinian situation either. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The entire Israel / Zionist project , pretty much like the American project, has been based on the premise that the Palestinians (Native Americans) in particular, and the Arabs/Muslims (British/Spanish) in general cede land to an independent Jewish (American) state they never wanted. Any resistance to this has been requited with the seizure, occupation and Jewish settlement of more land, and more or less sanctioned by Israel's various friends abroad, also called "the international community" (US and allies).

      100% supporters of Israel (and the latter group quite clearly includes Clinton, Sanders, all other presidential candidates, and Obama) will forever insist that Israel, just like the US, or their allied countries in Europe, have a right to defend themselves against terrorist attacks, whether their actions have provoked such terrorism or not.

      This is not new, and the new Pearl Harbour essentially no different from the old one, in that respect. It was perfectly clear to Americans such as, for instance, Herbert Hoover, that FDR's policies against Japan would sooner or later produce such an attack, wherever. Still, the attack was loudly pronounced as the ultimate "day of infamy", just like 9/11. The provocations are spelled out clearly in Osama BL's open letter to America, and include the unforgivable crime against the Palestinians, among other horrors launched by the US against Muslims in the ME. You can read the letter online.

      One cannot deny that OBL, or more recently ISIS, make some valid points. Terrorism in the US and Europe is blowback, not just some wholly unwarranted aggression launched by religious fanatics against innocent countries and their populations.

      However, with the possible exception of Germany, there is no country in the world that will turn the other cheek and say: "We (via our leaders/politicians/armies etc that we supported or at least tolerated at the time) did horrible things to them, and it is only natural and just that they, or some of them, strike back at us, and kill innocent people, including women and children, as we have killed theirs."

      Do you think that's a normal human reaction?

      Do you think Sanders would win votes in NYC or elsewhere in the US by offering this cherry?

      He can criticize the Iraq war (including Bush and Clinton), and Netanyahu, of course.

      Because there is widespread agreement that the Iraq war was a YUGE mistake a view shared by Sanders, who voted against it, but not so much by Clinton who voted for it and has to defend her judgment in order to appear as a qualified CiC. She has done so by stating that her priority was to help NYC. If voting for the war was the prerequisite for obtaining support from the federal government to do so, I don't think she would be losing any sleep over that. I think she is perfectly genuine in defending her yes vote, and she has done the same wrt Libya: the decision was not wrong, but the lack of support from the Libyans and the Europeans turned the whole thing into the mess it has become. Besides, it was ultimately Obama's decision. It's called passing the buck, but along lines that are pretty mainstream and uncontroversial

      But neither Sanders, nor Clinton, or Americans in general will concede that the Iraq war was a monstrous crime along the lines of Nuremberg - "conspiracy to wage war" - that will oblige Americans to take responsibility for and suffer all consequences of that war. Likewise, Israelis are not inclined to suffer for the policies and actions of Netanyahu, or any previous PM, much less the IDF.

      I think it's all pretty normal human behaviour, and yes, I do find it a bit bigoted, to expect other countries to act more nobly than one's own.

      That does not mean one should just accept things as they are. I'm just saying that if you want change, and if you think it's absolutely necessary, it would be a good idea to start with yourself/the US.

      Because if the US does not make some very major changes in how it conducts its domestic and foreign affairs, we are all doomed.

      It is not just banks and corporations that are too big to fail, and therefore perhaps too big to exist, as Sanders, among others, put it.

      Size matters.

  • Israeli forces have killed over 5,500 Palestinians in the last 15 years and not one soldier has been prosecuted for murder
    • "Are the US politicians like Hillary ignorant of these facts, or is it far more convenient for them (and their need for shekels) to pretend they don’t? "

      It's either shekels or shackles. They are certainly not ignorant of the facts.

      eljay replied to one of my comments a week ago, noting:

      "I wasn't aware that one of the requirements of being American is supporting (war) criminal states. Interesting."

      - See more at: link to

      As an American citizen, entitled to freedom of speech, you are indeed free to condemn or glorify war crimes committed by anyone, and including the US. But different rules apply to US government.

      It is indeed US law to protect all members of the US military and US officials from prosecution at the ICC in de Hague. And this law extends to all allies, including Israel.

      If you don't understand this, you will forever get yourself trapped in nonsense arguments and false notions re the power of AIPAC over the US. So read this, the whole thing:

      link to

  • Bernie Sanders and the Brooklyn dream
    • I tried to reply to you, mooser and eljay.

      looks like I got censored despite not posting any ad hominems

    • @ gamal, mooser & MW censors

      Comments policy:

      "4. No personal attacks. We encourage spirited, passionate debate, but if you have to resort to vicious personal attack, you’re not advancing the discussion. Stay on the issues. "

      Thank you, censors, for letting gamal's comment pass, even though it obviously violates the rules. It gives me the opportunity to respond to it.

      Gamal has called me, in that order:

      an idiot

      a fool

      illiterate ("can you not read")



      I can't tell whether Mooser's comment refers to me or someone else:

      Mooser April 14, 2016, 3:35 pm
      "Thanks, “gamal”. I knew I heard a “squelch” (the sound of somebody stepping in a big steaming pile) when he said it, and started to smell the usual fecal odor, but I didn’t know why. Now I do."

      If Mooser's comment did indeed refer to me, I can assure you that I am neither an idiot etc, nor male. Just a bitch who obviously stepped into a steaming pile of shit

      The shit pile revolves about the typical sandbox argument about "who started it"?

      I could not care less, whether we talk about the violent clashes of Islamic and Christian world views, or the I/P conflict. I am much more interested in how to stop either one of these conflicts, and sandbox arguments are no help whatsoever.

      I was NOT being sarcastic when I wrote I was "shocked". I simply repeated what you, gamal, stated and quoted in your post. I do not view either Islam or Christianity as an inherently violent or supremacist religion. But nobody can deny that their history IS violent and tribalist, supremacist.

      And I think that is also true for Judaism.

      Monotheism, however fragmented and diverse, just does not lend itself to tolerance and peaceful coexistence with infidels and heretics within or outside either one of the Abrahamic religions.

      So yes, I know the text "continues". I have read it, and in better trls than yours.

      I am intrigued by the numbers you quote:

      "learn to read moron. its surat al imran 109-11"


      Yes, I realize it neither refers to biblical times, nor to the 21st c

      Still, numbers and dates matter, nowhere more so than in religion.

      And yes, 9/11 does not only, in 2001, imply Muslim revenge against the Christian/American enemy.

      It also, quite clearly, relates to another epochal battle, neither biblical, nor post-modern: the late 17th c defeat of the Ottoman/Muslim attempt to erect a mosque in the Vatican. Yes, yes, I know: revenge for the unprovoked attack of the crusades. Sandbox alert.

      If you are too lazy to read up on it, you can watch the movie

      link to

    • "the concept “chosen people” is non-existent in the Islamic versions of the Biblical narrative, so I am impressed that some “scholars” have found it there, its been quite a shock to many of us."

      That's why I was quite shocked when I found it in the Hamas Charter, at the very top: "Ye are the best nation that hath been raised up unto mankind: ye command that which is just, and ye forbid that which is unjust, and ye believe in Allah."

    • "Israel is an oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and religion-supremacist state that has been committing (war) crimes with impunity for almost 70 years. Why would Sanders or anyone else “strongly defend” such an unjust and immoral state?"

      Because he's American? And, as such, not exactly entitled to cast any stones? 70 yrs is peanuts, as is the damage done by Israel to the indigenous population, or the greater Middle East, compared with the damage done by illegal Mayflower immigrants and religious fanatics , and their descendants, to the Native American people, the entire continent, and the entire world. Colonialism? Expansionism? War Crimes? Please, bigots, get a grip

  • In NY, Sanders says settlements are illegal and Israel slaughtered 'innocents' in Gaza
    • "Bernie also considers Hamas and Hezbollah to be terrorist organizations. Must be because they defend their respective homelands from frequent Zionist aggression"

      I am sure that as soon as, by whatever means, thePalestinian population in Greater Israel is down to 1%, like the native American population was around the turn of the 20th century, or even 10%, they will be in much better shape as well. With generous offers of Israeli citizenship and all kinds of conciliatory gestures and land rights. Until then they will be considered terrorists, just like the Native Americans. The connection is made perfectly clear in such code names as "Operation Geronimo"

      link to

    • "but doesn’t support Palestinians going to the ICC. ROFL, the usual Zionist doublethink. "

      Don't see the US lining up for punishment at the ICC for the ultimate crime (wars of aggression) either. Sanders is a US citizen and senator and as such pretty much obliged to doublethink, Zionist or not.

    • "like going ballistic when the Russian government went after Khodorkovsky. I couldn’t see why that case should interest Americans. "

      Psychologists call it denial and projection. Like the West doesn't have political prisoners?

  • ISIS as a fascist movement
    • unlike the US, Israel did not in any way support the fundamentalist Islamic state of Saudi Arabia. In fact, the last great schism between Israel and the US, prior to the more recent fallout over Iran, involved Israeli opposition to US arms sales toSA.

      and prior to the US, GB and France did everthing they could to lay the foundations of the current mess.

      I am not sure at all there was a grand plan behind is. Stupidity and great power arrogance and racism, more likely.

      has anyone actually read the lyrics of the Marsaillaise ? If this militaristic, racist and revolutionary garbage was sung in a language more people outside France understood people woul be shocked.

      we keep hearing that the recent attacks were the worst since WW Ii.

      not so. twice as many french algerians protesting against the hideous colonial regime were tortured and thrown into the Seine in the early 1960s

      but french algerians do not count . impure blood?

      the worst massacres in french history were the slaughter of protestant huguenots in the early modern period by catholic france

      and more frenchmen, rich and poor, were beheaded and massacred during the great struggle for liberty blah blah

      just as more people were killed by the idiots who launched operation iraqi freedom than by isis or any other terrorist group

  • Israel gets to use violence. Palestinians don't. That's the rule
    • "The Palestinians can move to Europe and live in the places the Ashkenazism left in Poland and Russia. Problem solved. "

      Unfortunately, neither Poland nor Russia wants any Palestinians, unless they are Christians.
      Your solution is actually the spitting image of the ugly original problem which did indeed start no later than the late 19th century, with the widespread pogroms against Jews in Russia which resulted in some 200 000 Jewish deaths within a few decades, and which triggered a massive emigration wave to Europe and North America. The receiving countries reacted with both empathy and resentment (exactly as Europe and North America is reacting today to the massive numbers of refugees from the ME, Africa and the Balkans, and, indeed every major refugee crisis before that, regardless of who those refugees are, and where they come from). By the time the US closed its borders in the 1920s, Russian and Polish Jews (much of what became Poland after WW I had been Russian for the previous century) were not welcome anywhere in Europe or North America, and not in Palestine either. And this situation did not change when Hitler proclaimed to solve the Jewish problem once and for all. And you call this a rational solution? So did Hitler, who found many more supporters for killing Jews in central and Eastern Europe than he was able to find countries outside Europe willing to take them alive.

      You are not offering a solution, but a repeat performance of what is generally presented as the prelude to the greatest crime in history. Jews then, Palestinians now. Making the same mistakes over and over again is hardly "rational"

  • Video: Two prominent Israelis envision replacing Dome of the Rock with Jewish temple
    • "And? Does this justify stabbing Jews for being Jews? "

      No, but it would certainly justify cutting funds to the Israeli government for incitement:

      "The House Foreign Affairs Committee in the US Congress unanimously passed a resolution on Thursday condemning the Palestinians for inciting violence against Israel.

      During a committee hearing titled “Words Have Consequences: Palestinian Authority Incitement to Violence,” the lawmakers also called on the State Department to “monitor and publish information on all official incitement by the Palestinian Authority against Jews and the State of Israel.”

      The bipartisan resolution was written by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R).

      “The escalation of violence against Israelis is praised, encouraged, and even fueled by Palestinian Authority officials,” committee chairman Ed Royce (R) said upon passage of the resolution. “This resolution rightly condemns this incitement and the outbreak of violence, and expresses support for those who are working to encourage peace and cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians,” committee chairman Ed Royce (R) says upon passage of the resolution. “It is critical that we stand by our ally Israel at this challenging time.”

      Palestinian attacks on Israelis have become a daily occurrence in recent weeks, amid tensions over the Temple Mount, a Jerusalem site holy to Jews and Muslims. Driving the tensions in part have been Palestinian allegations that Israel is planning to alter the regulations at the site, which houses the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, and allow Jews to pray there. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has himself leveled such charges, which Netanyahu vehemently denies."

      link to

      It is very difficult to believe that the deputy foreign minister of Israel makes this remark NOW, after the shit storm Netanyahu caused with his Mufti remarks etc. She either lives under a rock, is dumb as a doorpost, or deliberately incites outrage and violence. Your choice.

  • How can a 'New York Times' reader possibly know what is truly happening in Israel/Palestine?
    • I don't think the problem is limited to the I/P conflict, much less the NYT. How can a NYT reader possibly know what is truly happening in Syria? Or, for that matter, in Washington?

  • 'NYT' reporters parrot Israeli claims re cherry tomato
    • "Nazi Germany is credited with inventing tons of stuff; so much so US & USSR competed for German scientists even before Germany surrendered. This should be pointed every time Israel brags about being the innovative nation."

      Nobody brags more about being "the innovative nation" than the US.. Should the Nazi analogy be pointed out to the US as well? Besides, competition regarding the status of most "innovative nation" already played a very prominent role in the decades leading up to WW I. One major reason why Imperial Germany had to be destroyed

  • Netanyahu's 44 seconds of silence at UN are being widely mocked -- 'pathetic,' 'creepy'
    • @froggy

      "are you saying that Rabbie Burns, Scotland’s favourite son and national poet, was actually Rabbi Burns? "

      most people would consider this to be a joke

      link to

      But then, you never know. "Burns" could qualify as a Jewish name, I suppose, and Haggis as a "Jewish culinary treat", adapted by Scots.

      link to
      link to

      Add to this that Robert Burns' day job was that of a tax collector, and some people may take the whole thing seriously.

      I certainly don't.

      "I offer you a bit of Scottish history.

      The Declaration of Arbroath (1320) …. which can be thought of as Scotland’s Declaration of Independence, sets out Scotland’s determination to fight for both her king and her independence. … At a time when, throughout the Christian world, it was thought to be right, just, and even holy, to slaughter Jews, only the Scots were brave enough, and sufficiently far-seeing, to draft a declaration of nationhood which included the rights of Jews to dwell in peace in their country, and then deliver this declaration to the pope, of all people.

      Throughout the centuries the Scots never violated the declaration made in 1320. There is no history of anti-Semitism in Scotland."

      Thanks for the "history lesson". A much more plausible explanation for the lack of medieval pogroms in Scotland is the assumption that were no Jews in Scotland prior to the 17th century. On this see this publication (which also trashes the book I cited above)

      link to

      Your complimentary point - Jews were regularly slaughtered in the rest of Europe throughout the Middle Ages -- is also rather controversial. See

      link to

      And you may want to google: Antisemitism in Scotland. Plenty of hits. Appears to be an epidemic recently. Not unrelated to Zionism and Israel. But how come Independence minded Scots are supposedly the most anti-semitic?

    • "Is that true? It sounds like a Zionist canard to me."

      It is not true. The only thing that separates Jews and "gypsies" from most other peoples without a homeland/state used to be that neither group sought a homeland/state - but that has long ceased to be the case wrt Jews. Why do Zionists still compare themselves to "gypsies"? Because both were subject to centuries of persecutions, expulsions, and genocidal attacks, especially, but not exclusively, by Nazi Germany. Yet only Zionist Jews continued to claim, especially after the Holocaust, that only a Jewish homeland/state could save them from another Holocaust. Even though, according to Netanyahu, this is now a very real threat BECAUSE there IS a Jewish state targeted for annihilation by Iran (N's speech before "silence").

      As for other peoples without a homeland/state , some are listed here:

      link to

      The Scottish case may be of particular interest here. Because according to a recent book,

      "many of the national heroes, villains, rulers, nobles, traders, merchants, bishops, guild members, burgesses, and ministers of Scotland were of Jewish descent, their ancestors originating in France and Spain. Much of the traditional historical account of Scotland, it is proposed, rests on fundamental interpretive errors, perpetuated in order to affirm Scotland's identity as a Celtic, Christian society. A more accurate and profound understanding of Scottish history has thus been buried."

      link to

      Maybe the Zionists should all move to Scotland, then? Instant peace in the ME! And the Scots? I'm sure Germany would love to take them (surely the Scots would understand German Sparpolitik,elsewhere inaccurately translated as "austerity"), even more so than taking in the Syrians, not to mention the "gypsies" and other folks from the Balkans

  • 'New Yorker' says anti-Zionism is 'firmly rooted' in British left, and it's anti-Semitic
    • @bandolero:

      "Germany, though, seems to be a very special case in terms of the power of the Zionist lobby. I would take the feeling of guilt for the holocaust in Germany, a large part of the population educated in socialist GDR, the German non-participation in the war on Iraq and traditional good German relations with Russia as points that are also very relevant in Germany."

      Given the indisputable fact that Nazi Germany explicitly endorsed and loudly promoted Zionism ("Jews back to Palestine"), one may caution against over-ascribing any pro-Zionist attitude in Germany to "Holocaust guilt". As one historian put it (book title: Jews in Weimar Germany): no single individual did more for Zionism than Adolf Hitler. It is he who should be displayed in the Knesset, next to fellow Austrian Herzl. Zionism like any other Eastern European (let's remember that 'Austria' connotes East, rather than West) nationalist movement, is a blood and soil - movement. The only difference being that Palestine is outside Europe. Any attempt to establish a Jewish state in Europe - and there were such attempts, supported by Imperial Germany - , preferably where most Jews lived already (Poland in the interwar years) was destroyed by Polish (and Jewish) opposition.

      The GDR was absolutely anti-Zionist. Traditionally good German-Russian relations? When? Hitler-Stalin? Honecker-Gorbachev?

      Frankly, to talk about anything 'German' is bound to fail miserably given the plain fact that 'German' , like 'Jew', 'Arab', or even 'Briton', is a generic term, and 'Germany', as a state, a historically shifting and complicated affair. Give it up already

  • Corey Robin revisits Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem
    • sorry, my reply got posted above your comment

    • IB - I think I answered your question and objection already, at great length, and cited several "serious historians" above. If you think Shirer is beyond question because his journalistic bestseller has been and is still widely read, I obviously can't help you. Stick with whatever you like, as do most people here and everywhere else. . You can inform yourself about criticism of Shirer's work by "serious historians" in many places, including Wikipedia

      link to

    • IB - again, the confusion stems from the fact that Nazi-legislation of 1935 introduced two different categories of citizenship - Reichsbürger (with full political and voting rights) and Staatsangehörige (without those rights). Both were German citizens according to both German and international law. Explicitly excluded from Reichsbürger-status by the 1935 legislation, German Jews were thus denied the right to vote in the 1936 elections but they were nevertheless still German citizens. Germans who were allowed to vote in the 1936 elections were, however, NOT allowed to vote for anything else but what was on offer on the ballot - i.e. National Socialism. Under the circumstances, the full voting and political rights of the Reichsbürger were nothing but a chimera.

      link to

      German Jews could also no longer hold political offices or be civil servants, although an exception was made for teachers. Jewish lawyers and physicians were allowed to practice until further restrictions were introduced at the end of the decade.

      Among historians, it is generally understood that the Reichs-citizenship legislation afforded considerable leeway wrt who did or did not qualify for full citizenship, as I outlined above, and this applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish Germans. Your objection is:

      "Being a Jew (“lack of kindred or German blood” … which of course was total BS) was wholly sufficient to deprive you of citizenship by the plain meaning of this law. Conduct had nothing to do with it. "

      Yes and no. The Nazis had as many problems defining who was or wasn't a Jew as did, and still do, the Zionists. Whether a German Jew, his parents, or grandparents, practiced Judaism (clearly a matter of personal or ancestral conduct rather than "blood") did make a difference even though it contradicted any notion of "scientific racism". See, for instance, Mariken Lenaerts, National Socialist Family Law (2014), p. 81-85:

      "the First Supplementary Decree [of the Reichsbürgergesetz of 1935] provided clarification on who was to be considered Jewish. In order to determine this, the status of the grandparents was decisive. Generally speaking, a person was considered to be Jewish when he or she had three or four full-Jewish grandparents. [….] Persons with only one or two full-Jewish grandparents were considered jüdische Mischlinge (Jewish half-breeds). The National Socialists were at a loss as to what to do with this group. Technically, they were neither Jewish nor Aryan, but a bit of both, and treating them as Jewish would imply a loss of German blood. […]

      Grandparents were considered to be full-Jewish when they (had) adhered to the Jewish religious community, which - all in all - was an unusual factor to take into consideration as it specifically concerned a racial matter and not a religious one. […] Furthermore, this approach led to inconsistencies which could have far-reaching consequences, especially with the so-called Achteljuden, in particular Dreiachteljuden (persons with three Jewish great-grandparents) […] A person with three Jewish great-grandparents could be considered of German or kindred blood, a Vierteljude or second-degree halfbreed (one Jewish grandparent), Halbjude or first-degree half-breed (two Jewish grandparents) or Dreivierteljude (three Jewish grandparents), which counted as Jewish, depending on the division of Jewish great-grandparents and whether they had raised their child as a Jew. […]

      With the Reichsbürgergesetz and its First Supplementary Decree one of the fundamental principles of National Socialism as expressed by point 4 to 6 of the Party Principles of 1920 was established by law, though in somewhat mitigated form. However, it should be noted that fanatical Nazi officials tried several times to extend the definition of Jew, by including half-Jews and sometimes even quarter-Jews. Hitler, who was advised on this matter by Rassereferent Bernhard Lösener, never agreed to this, as this would affront the Aryan side of the family of the half-Jew or quarter-Jew. Apart from that, a considerable number of quarter-Jews fought in the German army. Lösener had drafted a lost with twelve arguments that pleaded against equating half-Jews with full-Jews. Whether Hitler was also relatively generous to this group of people because of uncertainties with regard to his own lineage is impossible to prove."

      Being a soldier or officer in the Wehrmacht did not automatically bestow the status of Reichsbürger with full political and voting rights for Jews, or even non-Jews.

      on the subject of Jews in the Wehrmacht see

      link to

      At any rate, while I agree with you on the BS-factor regarding the "blood" issues, and also on the indisputable fact that the majority of German Jews, by any definition, were only second-class citizens after 1935, they continued to be citizens and shared the loss of political rights with other minorities. As to other restrictions, such as access to higher education, it is clear that women - hardly a minority and mostly of "German and related blood" - were even more adversely affected. Jewish access to higher education was strictly reduced but still higher than their demographic proportion in the German population (less than 1%) , but

      “After 1933 only 10 per cent of the matriculants (Abiturienten) were allowed to be women. […] According to Hitler, marriage should even be a requirement for women to obtain citizenship.” (Lenaerts, p. 46)

      Ironically, this would have denied German citizenship to Leni Riefenstahl whose films were of considerable value to Hitler and the National Socialists. Consistency and logic was not a strong point of National Socialism.

      While it is clear that Jews played a central role in Nazi ideology, the customary focus on Jewish suffering tends to distort reality, and history. Even though German Jews did not lose citizenship by the 1935 legislation, formal citizenship did not necessarily offer protection from severe human and political rights violations in Germany, other European countries, the Soviet Union, or the US. How did race affect political and voting rights of American citizens before, during, and long after the short-lived Third Reich?

      link to

      Or take the so-called "Mexican Repatriation" , a euphemism that refers to

      " a mass migration that started in the late 1920s, but increased substantially during the Great Depression, when as many as two million people of Mexican descent were forced or pressured to leave the US. This event occurred during the latter end of the Herbert Hoover Presidency and into Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second term.[1] The event, carried out by American authorities, took place without due process.[2] The Immigration and Naturalization Service targeted Mexicans because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios."[3]

      Studies have provided conflicting numbers for how many people were “repatriated” during the Great Depression. The State of California passed an "Apology Act" that estimated 2 million people were forced to relocate to Mexico and an estimated 1.2 million were United States citizens. Authors Balderrama and Rodriguez have estimated that the total number of repatriates was about one million, and 60 percent of those were citizens of the United States. These estimates come from newspaper articles and government records and the authors assert all previous estimates severely undercounted the number of repatriates (Balderrama). An older study conducted by Hoffman argues that about 500,000 people were sent to Mexico. His data come from the "Departmento de Migracion de Mexico" or “Mexican Migration Service,” which is said to be a reliable source since the Mexican government had many ports along the border in which Mexicans were required to register and could do so free of charge (Aguila and Hoffman).

      The Repatriation is not widely discussed in American history textbooks;[4] in a 2006 survey of the nine most commonly used American history textbooks in the United States, four did not mention the Repatriation, and only one devoted more than half a page to the topic.[4] Nevertheless, many mainstream textbooks now carry this topic. In total, they devoted four pages to the Repatriation, compared with eighteen pages for the Japanese American internment[4] which, though also a gross violation of the rights of citizens, affected a much smaller number of people, even by the more conservative estimates for the Mexican deportations.[1]

      These actions were authorized by President Herbert Hoover and continued by FDR who was the 32nd President of the United States (1933–1945) and targeted areas with large Hispanic populations, mostly in California, Texas, Colorado, Illinois, and Michigan."

      link to

      This "repatriation" affected about as many Mexican - American citizens as there were Jews in Germany (according to the 1933 census) - about 500 000. The latter of course did not yet have a "country of origin" quite eager to have them" back".

      And what about the legality of expropriating that many people without proper compensation?

      I conclude with some notes on a court case involving art confiscated from a German Jew during the Third Reich that demonstrates the continuing relevance of the citizenship issue:

      "one cannot but question the assumption that the original owner had been deprived of her German citizenship before the painting was confiscated and she left Germany in 1939. As a Jewish German, the owner had definitely been relegated to second class citizenship by the racist Reichsbürgergesetz of 1935 which deprived Jews of their political right but not their German citizenship as such. While there were also outright denationalisations of Jewish [and non-Jewish] Germans on the basis of other statutory provisions, it would have to be proven that the owner was subjected to such an individual act of persecution. It is also problematic to assume that the confiscation violated international law as it existed in 1939, an assumption that was not challenged on appeal either. Before the human rights revolution of 1945 the treatment by a state of its own citizens, including racial discrimination, was considered as an internal affair in almost all cases, and certainly with regard to expropriations without compensation. Even today, customary international law does not prevent a state from confiscating the property of its own citizens, nor is there any universal human rights treaty to this effect, at best, the prohibition of confiscations is among the minimum standards for the treatment of foreigners. If the original owner still had German citizenship when the painting was taken, the confiscation did not violate international law. If she had already been denationalized and thus in all likelihood become stateless, international law did not protect her from expropriations either"

      Immunities in the Age of Global Constitutionalism, ed. Anne Peters et al, 2014, p. 96

      Expropriation was a major and early motive of National Socialist anti-Jewish legislation and practice. To achieve this goal legally and without provoking an international outcry it would have been counterproductive to deny German citizenship to German Jews. Once Germany was at war and opposed by the same powerful alliance that defeated her in 1918, such considerations no longer mattered

    • I should add that "conduct" could overrule the blood restrictions wrt the elevated category of Reichsbürger. In such cases, the category of "honorary Aryan" was invoked and even applied to entire peoples, such as the Japanese. Hence, Germans of Jewish ancestry affected by the Nuremberg race laws such as Luftwaffe General Erhard Milch could later end up as a defendants at the Nuremberg Trials

      link to

    • Thanks for your comment, IB

      I think Friedländer is correct, though. I'm reposting the rest of my comment from the MW to which I linked above. The main point is that Reichscitizenship was not solely linked to blood:

      "Article 2 of the Reich citizenship law:

      1. A citizen of the Reich is that subject only who is of German or kindred blood AND [my emphasis] who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve the German people and Reich faithfully.
      2. The right to citizenship is acquired by the granting of Reich citizenship papers.
      3. Only the citizen of the Reich enjoys full political rights in accordance with the provision of the laws.

      So yes, Jews (as well as Roma, Sinti and African Germans, but not Danes, Poles, Greeks etc) were excluded from full citizenship and political rights (including voting rights). But so were all German citizens/subjects who did not exhibit the right “conduct”. This is why article 116 of the Basic Law of the FRG reads, as you [commenter "hostage"] quote:

      “The above mentioned group of people mainly includes German Jews and members of the Communist or Social Democratic Parties.”

      Obviously, most members of the German Communist or Social Democratic Parties weren’t Jews.

      As far as I can tell, Israel does not link full citizenship to “conduct”, or no more so than do other democracies, including the US."

      So Reichscitizenship was based on TWO criteria: blood AND ideology {conduct]. Linking full citizenship to "conduct" is, of course, not unique to the National Socialists. The analogy to the Soviet Union, also a one party system in which the party decided what was good for the state and the people, is obvious. And even in the Soviet Union passports identified the ethnicity of the citizen, and recognized Jews as an ethnicity (Soviet passports identified the holder as "Jewish" , "Russian, "Ukrainian" etc but not as "Greek Orthodox", "Protestant" etc) - with obvious similarities to Israeli practice in this respect.

Showing comments 2252 - 2201