 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The "boycott, divestment, sanction" movement against Israel - is it wrong?
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Another Major Terror Plot Exposed INN News Oct 20th
It has been cleared for publication that a terror ring that had been planning a mass terror attack at an event hall in southern Israel has been arrested.
The West Bank "security barrier" is built primarily on Palestinian land. Even if there is some kind of justification in terms of security, there is no need to build it on their land. This is everything about a land grab, almost nothing about security.
The security fence or wall runs through school football pitches, separates farmers from their land, encloses villages. This is about control, not security.
Having young men at checkpoints stand in the middle of the day with their hands in the air for hours is not about security, it is everything about humiliation.
Refusing to allow ambulances with old sick or pregnant people inside to cross checkpoints to get to hospitals inside the West Bank is nothing about security and everything about control.
Rounding up children who throw stones, and imprisoning them without charge is nothing about security and everything about control.
Determining that a Palestinian village is a military zone whilst people still live there and then practising with live ammunition causing deaths and injuries (surprise! with no charges ever brought against anyone) is nothing about security and everything about control.
Building chemical factories on the Palestinian side of the fence because they're too polluting to have near Israeli villages is nothing about security and everything about control.
The fact that Palestinians can get close enough to IDF soldiers to stab them means that they could get close enough to blow them up with bombs. The bombings stopped, not because of faux security measures, but because the intifada ran out of steam. The Israeli Military-Political top brass like to tell the world that their behaviour is about security but the reality on the ground shows that it isn't anything of the sort.
Palestinians are simply being used as whipping boys with the convenient blanket excuse of "security" being used for all and any abuses.
Meanwhile many Israelis lounge in their fancy villas and swimming pools whilst profiteering from having a captive population living in poverty.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one in this thread has trivialised the holocaust. Throwing up the holocaust whenever Israel's actions are criticised is difficult to classify as anything but a smokescreen.
I think "smokescreen" is probably a poor choice of terminology in this context.
No it's not. That is pareidolia.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
mr cheesy: there are two sides to all this ranting. The info onegets is definitely influenced by where one gets it. To post a litany of abuses like that is a tad one sided.below are a couple more news items of recent origin from a different viewpoint.
1. The Palestinian Authority's (PA) security forces arrested three Palestinian Arabs from the Gush Etzion area who dared to visit the succah of the mayor of the town of Efrat. The Arabs who were arrested were questioned over allegations they met with "baby-killers", an appaurent reference to General Nitzan Alon, the head of the IDF's Operations Directorate, and the Shai District Police Commander, who were also guests in the same sukkah. Revivi said on Thursday evening, Yesterday we sat in the sukkah - Jews and Muslims. We ate, drank and talked about common themes and our hope for a better neighborhood and for peace. Today the PA summoned some of the Muslim guests for questioning. All those who pressure the Israeli government to enter a peace process with the Palestinian Authority should be reminded that they behave in a way that does the opposite of encouraging peace with their Jewish neighbors, continued Revivi. An authority which names squares after suicide bombers and summons for questioning citizens who drink coffee and talk about peace with their Jewish neighbors is not one that promotes peace.
2. PA Arabs Prefer to Align With Jordan Israel Today News Oct 22nd
Is an independent Palestinian state really all that important to the local Arab population? Well, not exactly, at least not according to a recent Palestinian opinion poll. The much touted two-state solution seems to be more in line with the interests of Western powers than it is for Israelis and Palestinian Arabs themselves. Conducted by A-Najar University in Nablus, the poll found that just 18 percent of Palestinians believe the two-state solution will actually resolve the conflict, and most respondents opposed the scheme altogether. Interestingly, a 46 percent plurality said that in place of an independent Palestinian state, they would prefer confederation with neighboring Jordan, where a majority of the population is Palestinian Arab. A solution along those lines would actually be reverting to how things were before 1967 - with Jordan administering the so-called West Bank and Egypt taking responsibility for Gaza. The only problem is that neither Jordan nor Egypt want such an outcome. While most Palestinians aren't looking for an independent state, an overwhelming 83 percent still support some form of uprising against Israel. A 45.7 percent plurality say that uprising should be non-violent in nature, while 38 percent back full-scale terrorism against the Jews of Israel. Another interesting fact is that while the Palestinians urge the world to boycott Israel, 64 percent of poll respondents admitted they themselves regularly purchase Israeli products as they are more reliable than Arab alternatives.
[ 28. October 2016, 23:52: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one in this thread has trivialised the holocaust. Throwing up the holocaust whenever Israel's actions are criticised is difficult to classify as anything but a smokescreen.
I think "smokescreen" is probably a poor choice of terminology in this context.
No it's not. That is pareidolia.
Maybe best applied to post modern delusions.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the nation the Palestinians are faced with that has sympathies with attempted genocide
Dogwhistles which attempt to equate Jews with Nazis are obscene and anti-Semitic.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Jamat, quick responses to your two points.
1. Just because some members of the PA act like jerks doesn't mean that the Israeli government have any justification for acting like even bigger jerks.
2. If the western proposal does not have support on the ground, then I have no problem with ditching that in favour of a proposal with support on the ground. The important thing is that both sides work towards a solution that works for them. Which seems to be a very difficult proposition when one side continues to build settlements in occupied territory and arbitrarily arrest people, and when the other side continues to shelter a small minority of people who commit acts of violence.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the nation the Palestinians are faced with that has sympathies with attempted genocide
Dogwhistles which attempt to equate Jews with Nazis are obscene and anti-Semitic.
Though, when the Israeli government pursues policies with clear similarities to those of the German government between 1933-45 then the irony of that should be mentioned.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
the nation the Palestinians are faced with that has sympathies with attempted genocide
Dogwhistles which attempt to equate Jews with Nazis are obscene and anti-Semitic.
The Nazis aren't the only ones in history to commit genocide, you know. The comparisons I've drawn in this thread have been with the behaviour of other colonial regimes towards the native populations. The closest comparison, while not perfect, is apartheid South Africa.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Jamat, quick responses to your two points.
1. Just because some members of the PA act like jerks doesn't mean that the Israeli government have any justification for acting like even bigger jerks.
2. If the western proposal does not have support on the ground, then I have no problem with ditching that in favour of a proposal with support on the ground. The important thing is that both sides work towards a solution that works for them. Which seems to be a very difficult proposition when one side continues to build settlements in occupied territory and arbitrarily arrest people, and when the other side continues to shelter a small minority of people who commit acts of violence.
This. It's hard to know without asking them, but I suspect the wariness among Palestinians of independence is partly due to the fear that they'll still be vulnerable to Israeli attacks and controls if they're not protected by another power in the region. The final status of Palestine is, in any case, a matter for the Palestinian people as a matter of national self-determination. It is not something to be imposed either by Israel or any other nation.
[ 29. October 2016, 09:19: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, when the Israeli government pursues policies with clear similarities to those of the German government between 1933-45 then the irony of that should be mentioned.
I'm for the Jewish people having a safe homeland. I also think that *everyone* there should be safe.
And, much as I hate to say it, I do sometimes worry that they're considering The Palestinian Question.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No one in this thread has trivialised the holocaust. Throwing up the holocaust whenever Israel's actions are criticised is difficult to classify as anything but a smokescreen.
I think "smokescreen" is probably a poor choice of terminology in this context.
No it's not. That is pareidolia.
Maybe best applied to post modern delusions.
As you know, pareidolia means seeing patterns which aren't there. Postmodernism identifies them, strips them away as far as it can, although, of course, that is logically impossible as the observer's share is enculturated in every word and thought. You are objecting to there being observers' shares - narratives, stories, stuff we make up - as they are what we bring to all that we observe. You are objecting to perceptual reality.
Using postmodern deconstruction is the most powerful tool for identifying inescapable pareidolia in textual analysis.
Seeing the modern world in two and a half thousand year old texts is extreme pareidolia.
Trying to be offended by the use of the entirely appropriate word smokescreen in the context of the Holocaust being used to justify Israeli abuse of power is utterly spurious and paranoid. The word smokescreen is two steps removed from closer association with the word holocaust by one of the former's conjoined elements.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, when the Israeli government pursues policies with clear similarities to those of the German government between 1933-45 then the irony of that should be mentioned.
I don't think it should, because the two situations aren't equivalent and any comparison will just make people angry to no beneficial effect and probably smother any genuine point that you want to make.
On the whole I think Israel's treatment of the Palestinians should be justified or condemned on its own terms. Bringing the Shoah into it - either to suggest Israel is entitled to take measures that wouldn't seem proportionate for any other country or to suggest that Israelis should know better - really is trivialising the Shoah, IMO.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
mr cheesy: there are two sides to all this ranting. The info onegets is definitely influenced by where one gets it. To post a litany of abuses like that is a tad one sided.
The problem with 'two sides to every story' arguments is that Israel and Palestine are not currently in the same place, as it were. Hamas is a designated terrorist organisation, Gaza is effectively under siege, Palestine is criss-crossed with a wall and military checkpoints, and the Palestinian Authority is prevented from carrying out most of the functions of an effective government. Israel on the other hand is able to function as a sovereign independent nation.
Therefore, in principle, sanctioning Israel isn't about punishing one side and letting the other side get off scot-free, it's about establishing some kind of parity between the two sides. In practice I'm happy to defer to mr cheesy's excellent post on the first page.
[ 29. October 2016, 10:31: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Trying to be offended by the use of the entirely appropriate word smokescreen in the context of the Holocaust being used to justify Israeli abuse of power is utterly spurious and paranoid. The word smokescreen is two steps removed from closer association with the word holocaust by one of the former's conjoined elements.
Given that a fair chunk of Jewish people are offended by the use of the term "Holocaust", I was simply suggesting that it was best to steer clear of things that could be read uncharitably as a reference to mass crematoria.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How is the term Holocaust offensive to Jews? Unless it's in the context of denial? I can't think of any other ways in which it can be used unless one is making sick jokes which were in vogue 40 years ago.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Given that a fair chunk of Jewish people are offended by the use of the term "Holocaust" [snip]
Do you really mean "the use", or just "some uses"? (I doubt many Jews are offended by all those holocaust museums, including one in Israel.)
The use of the term to refer to other atrocities also doesn't seem beyond the pale - there's an article in today's Haaretz with the headline "Israeli Chief Rabbi Calls Syrian War 'A Small Holocaust'".
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The issue AIUI is that a holocaust is a burnt offering (and is used in that sense in some translations of the Bible).
Wikipedia article here on the name of the Holocaust.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Israel denies the Armenian Holocaust which has the win-win of owning the Holocaust brand and keeping Turkey onside (until Israel started murdering Turkish aid workers).
Churchill's Bengal Famine (3 million) would be perhaps better known as the Bengal Holocaust. As would Stalin's famines (16 million), Mao's (43 million) and the Irish potato famine (1 million). Famine has the shrugged act of God association. Whereas all of these and many more were caused by catastrophic power abuse.
As the masses of corpses in these cases wouldn't have been incinerated, then holocaust is less 'factual'. But is perfectly apt for Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the second world war involved multiple holocausts, two campaigns being most literal. The Jewish (and Soviet POW and Gypsy and Homosexual and Mentally Infirm and Jehovah's Witness) Holocaust was part of the larger more metaphoric holocaust perpetrated by Hitler that consumed him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Given that a fair chunk of Jewish people are offended by the use of the term "Holocaust",
I really do not think it is a "fair chunk" given that it is part of the official name of museums and memorials around the world. See my reply to Ricardus as to why the link to what is perceived as offencive about the word is tenuous.
I am sensitive to words that are meant to be offencive to black people, and there are a lot of them. However, some black people will be offended by words that have no actual connection other than the word black.
That said, I am not going to tell people that they cannot be offended and shall try to remember and use Shoah instead.
quote:
I was simply suggesting that it was best to steer clear of things that could be read uncharitably as a reference to mass crematoria.
There was not even the slightest connection when I wrote that. I think it more offencive to use the Shoah as a cover for the maltreatment of other people.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The issue AIUI is that a holocaust is a burnt offering (and is used in that sense in some translations of the Bible).
Wikipedia article here on the name of the Holocaust.
Within your link it states that the word was used to describe non-ritual mass killings of people before the Shoah.
ETA:Martin's post demonstrates that the word holocaust is commonly and overwhelmingly used to denote the mass killings of people with no connection to ritual sacrifice.
[ 29. October 2016, 15:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I've no opinion on whether the term Holocaust actually *is* offensive. I was just pointing out that Arethosemyfeet is correct to say that some Jews find it so.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The apartheid comparison is off. There was no slavery. The Dutch had no history in the land. The Israelis have never been interested in a servile population. The Dutch settlers had a home base country. This is also why the colonial comparison is off generally. Colonists have the possibility of returning to where they came from.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Martin, you need to stop typing and start listening: calling something a smokescreen is fairly obviously offensive - even unintentionally - in the context of the holocaust in 1930s Germany when so many people ended up as ash and smoke.
To say that in the context of Israel is to suggest (to some ears) that the issues are directly linked to the holocaust.
Stop muddying the issue - either you meant it in your usual impenetrable cryptic style as some kind of subtle knowing kick out at the Jews, or you didn't mean it and it was unintentional.
Either way, stop digging and start apologising. Using that phrase is fairly obviously the wrong thing to say in this context.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The term "Holodomor is used for the Ukrainian extermination by the Russians in the 1930s. It is commemorated in western Canada. There are more Ukrainians in Canada than in any other English speaking country (USA, UK, Australia etc). I haven't heard any other genocide use a parallel term, with a capital H.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The apartheid comparison is off. There was no slavery. The Dutch had no history in the land. The Israelis have never been interested in a servile population. The Dutch settlers had a home base country. This is also why the colonial comparison is off generally. Colonists have the possibility of returning to where they came from.
You might want to research Israeli exploitation of cheap Palestinian labour a bit more. Plus, a significant proportion of Jewish Israeli immigrants (not that the racist state allows much of any other kind) have come from countries that are perfectly safe for Jews, including the UK and US. They move for a mix of religious, ideological and economic reasons and many maintain dual citizenship.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Jamat, as I said earlier, there is no love for the PA for many Palestinians, acting as it does as an extension of the Israel Defence Force.
As to one of the issues you're pointing to, I thought that whole episode was pretty nauseating, as local Palestinians were expected to kow-tow to their Israeli masters, likely on land that had been stolen from them. It smacks of American slaves forced to attend Christmas parties with their white masters cap-in-hand.
You might be interested to know that Israelis are not allowed legally to enter the PA controlled land. The PA police regularly escort Israelis who "accidentally" enter to the nearest IDF or Israeli police station.
As to the other - there is some belief amongst some Palestinians that if Israel was to take full control of the West Bank then Palestinians would actually be able to argue for their rights in court. As it is, for much of the time Palestinians are not able to get anywhere in the Israeli courts because they (the courts) claim that they have no jurisdiction over what happens on the other side of the wall. So Israeli settlements can do things like dump untreated sewage with no consequences at all.
I think those who think that they'd be better if Israel was fully in charge are wrong. The evidence suggests that they'd be no better off at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The apartheid comparison is off. There was no slavery. The Dutch had no history in the land. The Israelis have never been interested in a servile population. The Dutch settlers had a home base country. This is also why the colonial comparison is off generally. Colonists have the possibility of returning to where they came from.
Nope, that's totally wrong as many visitors from South Africa have attested.
There are zones where Palestinians can't travel, there are two legal systems, one of which only applies to Palestinians, there are roads on which Palestinians can't travel, there are security checks which only apply to Palestinians, there are a variety of special rules (relating to building permits and all kinds of other stuff) which only apply to Palestinians.
The term "apartheid" is entirely appropriate as "separateness" is exactly what is happening in the West Bank - with a smaller minority of the population of the geographic area living lives comparable to suburban North America whilst the other side of a metal fence or wall, less than a few tens of metres away, people are living in absolute poverty. As a direct result of the settlement being there.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The apartheid comparison is off. There was no slavery. The Dutch had no history in the land. The Israelis have never been interested in a servile population. The Dutch settlers had a home base country. This is also why the colonial comparison is off generally. Colonists have the possibility of returning to where they came from.
My understanding is that the Boers are descended mostly from immigrants to Cape Town in the 17th and 18th centuries so by the 20th century when apartheid was established they really didn't have a home country to return to and had been established in at least part of the land for 200 years. Afrikaans is distinct from standard Dutch (apparently much more distinct than standard American English from standard British English). They also of course had their own stories about why they were entitled to the land.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Not to any ears here mr cheesy. Nobody here is affected by lilBuddha's entirely innocent remarks. It's a spurious connection. The Holocaust IS used as a smokescreen, here and by Israel, to obscure the issues. A perfectly valid military metaphor. Who can blame her? I certainly don't.
I AM NO ANTISEMITE.
I was traumatized by reading about the Holocaust over 50 years ago and have never recovered, I have drained that vilest horror dry from all accounts I could find and am left with the existential ache of it to this moment, I was 10. It is a major definer of who I am for me. My stepson is a Holocaust denier which utterly horrifies me and I love him unconditionally so it can NEVER be addressed.
I was of the semi-educated generation that said Israel can do no wrong BECAUSE of the Holocaust, I cheered her even up to and including her proxy holocaust on the Sabra and Shatila camps and way beyond.
There are those here who still do.
And I polarize away from that in revulsion at my not too younger myself.
To whom should I apologize? For what?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Martin, you need to stop typing and start listening: calling something a smokescreen is fairly obviously offensive - even unintentionally - in the context of the holocaust in 1930s Germany when so many people ended up as ash and smoke.
To say that in the context of Israel is to suggest (to some ears) that the issues are directly linked to the holocaust.
Stop muddying the issue - either you meant it in your usual impenetrable cryptic style as some kind of subtle knowing kick out at the Jews, or you didn't mean it and it was unintentional.
Either way, stop digging and start apologising. Using that phrase is fairly obviously the wrong thing to say in this context.
Martin did not say it, I did.
I don't think that the term should be obviously offencive as it is a common term used to denote obfuscation.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I've no opinion on whether the term Holocaust actually *is* offensive. I was just pointing out that Arethosemyfeet is correct to say that some Jews find it so.
He didn't say "some", he said "a fair chunk".
There's no interpretation so obscure that one can't find "some" people offended by it, but that doesn't mean they must be indulged. If the Chief Rabbi of Israel is OK with the term, I hardly think that offense is so common among Jews that we should feel obliged to police our usage.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And there was no Holocaust until 1941.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Martin did not say it, I did.
I don't think that the term should be obviously offencive as it is a common term used to denote obfuscation.
I don't know what the problem is here: smokescreen has unfortunate connotations in the context of the Jewish Holocaust. If you don't mean to be offensive, how about stop trying to defend the use of this phrase.
I don't give a shit whether you think it is offensive or not - the fact is that reasonable people find it to be a needlessly painful term to use in this context.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
FFS, I should have listened to myself and not got involved in this discussion. If you can't all calm down and think about what you're typing before typing it and can't avoid putting out phrases that are fairly clearly offensive - even if it isn't to you - then there isn't anything else to say.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Bringing the Shoah into it - either to suggest Israel is entitled to take measures that wouldn't seem proportionate for any other country or to suggest that Israelis should know better - really is trivialising the Shoah, IMO.
Suggesting that the Shoah - the serious attempt to physically exterminate you as a people - is not an adequate reason to set up your own nation, in a land to which you have an ancient historical claim, and, moreover, not a reason to defend it against surrounding enemies who actually sympathise with the aims of the Shoah, is manifestly NOT to trivialise it.
Suggesting that mistakes which Israel might have made in dealing with its non-Jewish population while desperately trying to maintain human rights principles which are by far the best in the region, are morally equivalent to the Shoah, not only trivialises the Shoah, but is inexcusably stupid and wicked.
At the very least it is a nauseatingly preaching and patronising attitude for inhabitants of safe countries in the West to adopt.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
When I read, upthread, that some Jews avoid the term "Holocaust", and I remembered that it was an OT sacrifice*, I wondered if they hate the term *because* of the sacrificial connection...like it is saying that Jews had been sacrificed to God.
Makes sense, IMHO.
(IIRC, a very interesting one where the priest *hurls* the sacrifice at God.)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suggesting that the Shoah - the serious attempt to physically exterminate you as a people - is not an adequate reason to set up your own nation,
Don't think anybody here said this.
quote:
in a land to which you have an ancient historical claim,
THis is in contention because they are not the only ones with claim to the land. It isn't right to dispossess people simply because they did not have as bad an experience.
[/QB][/QUOTE]
and, moreover, not a reason to defend it against surrounding enemies who actually sympathise with the aims of the Shoah, is manifestly NOT to trivialise it.[/QB][/QUOTE]
Most of us are talking about people within Israel, most of whom are not fighting Israelis.
quote:
Suggesting that mistakes which Israel might have made in dealing with its non-Jewish population while desperately trying to maintain human rights principles which are by far the best in the region, are morally equivalent to the Shoah, not only trivialises the Shoah, but is inexcusably stupid and wicked.
This is ridiculous. A country is judged by what they do, regardless of whether or not other countries do worse. Would you excuse someone who punched you simply because someone else kicked another person?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suggesting that the Shoah - the serious attempt to physically exterminate you as a people - is not an adequate reason to set up your own nation, in a land to which you have an ancient historical claim, and, moreover, not a reason to defend it against surrounding enemies who actually sympathise with the aims of the Shoah, is manifestly NOT to trivialise it.
Supposing for the sake of argument that the Shoah made the creation of the state of Israel necessary. Are there any measures taken by the Israelis against the Palestinians that are in your view justified, but which wouldn't be justified if the Shoah hadn't happened?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suggesting that the Shoah - the serious attempt to physically exterminate you as a people - is not an adequate reason to set up your own nation,
Don't think anybody here said this.
To be fair I've come close to saying this. But my argument isn't about whether setting up a Jewish state in response to the Shoah is morally justified or not, it's that I don't see how setting up such a state in a way that creates a bunch more enemies is, on a purely pragmatic level, likely to achieve its stated aim.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
There is absolutely no need to compare Israel to Nazis or to ever use sloppy language which could be seen to be a knowing reference to the Holocaust.
A fair comparison is with South Africa and/or a range of other countries where there are extra-judicial killings, land grabs and other human rights abuses. But it isn't 1930s Germany.
Saying that tactics in Israel are similar to Nazi tactics is quite a slippery phrase. Personally, I'd prefer it if the things were kept quite separate - however following the Kafr Qasim massacre of 1956 when the Israeli military murdered 48 civilians..
quote:
“In 1986, 30 years after the massacre, Shalom Ofer, one of the convicted soldiers, said in an interview to Ha’ir: ‘We were like the Germans. They stopped trucks, took the Jews off and shot them. What we did is the same. We were obeying orders like a German soldier during the war, when he was ordered to slaughter Jews.'
from Haaretz
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
When I read, upthread, that some Jews avoid the term "Holocaust", and I remembered that it was an OT sacrifice*, I wondered if they hate the term *because* of the sacrificial connection...like it is saying that Jews had been sacrificed to God.
Makes sense, IMHO.
(IIRC, a very interesting one where the priest *hurls* the sacrifice at God.)
I have never come across any reference to any Jews being offended by the term Holocaust except when it's used for other events. And I've been round the block. Googling reveals nothing.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I have never come across any reference to any Jews being offended by the term Holocaust except when it's used for other events. And I've been round the block. Googling reveals nothing.
It doesn't feel like you are trying very hard because I found several googling for a minute.
The fact that you've been around the block is clearly not a particularly useful measure in this regard.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I have never come across any reference to any Jews being offended by the term Holocaust except when it's used for other events. And I've been round the block. Googling reveals nothing.
It doesn't feel like you are trying very hard because I found several googling for a minute.
Where in your "I found several" link do you see evidence that Jews find the term "holocaust" offensive? (I agree with you, though, that you don't have to try hard to find evidence of fringe opinions on the internet!)
Here's something else for those who dislike the term to take umbrage at: the Israeli government's own English translation of the Declaration of the Establishment of Israel speaks of "Survivors of the Nazi holocaust in Europe..."
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Check these links to some very offencive places using the word holocaust.
UK, Australia, Germany, no Jewish people in New York to object to the term and this place obviously has no regard for the Jewish people.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I have never come across any reference to any Jews being offended by the term Holocaust except when it's used for other events. And I've been round the block. Googling reveals nothing.
It doesn't feel like you are trying very hard because I found several googling for a minute.
The fact that you've been around the block is clearly not a particularly useful measure in this regard.
It is mate. Show me any historical, mainstream, broadsheet, Guardian level, BBC, even John Pilger level claim.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Well let's see:
Yad Vashem says:
quote:
The biblical word Shoah (which has been used to mean “destruction” since the Middle Ages) became the standard Hebrew term for the murder of European Jewry as early as the early 1940s. The word Holocaust, which came into use in the 1950s as the corresponding term, originally meant a sacrifice burnt entirely on the altar. The selection of these two words with religious origins reflects recognition of the unprecedented nature and magnitude of the events. Many understand Holocaust as a general term for the crimes and horrors perpetrated by the Nazis; others go even farther and use it to encompass other acts of mass murder as well. Consequently, we consider it important to use the Hebrew word Shoah with regard to the murder of and persecution of European Jewry in other languages as well. Various interpretations of these historical events have given rise to several other terms with different shades of meaning: destruction (used in Raul Hilberg’s book), catastrophe (in use mainly in the research literature in Soviet Russia), and khurbn (destruction) and gezerot tash–tashah (the decrees of 1939–1945( (Used in ultra-orthodox communities).
A commentator in the Jerusalem Post writes:
quote:
Amir and I wish to make one point very clear lest some of the readers here may take offence with our stance. We are not proud that our Jewish people were the target of such heinous crimes as committed by the Nazis and their collaborators. We do, however, believe that the growing number of groups religious, ethnic and other, who adopt the term “Holocaust” in order to describe crimes carried out against them, is unmerited and somewhat disrespectful towards the facts.
<snip>
Personally, I am not in favor of the choice of term. The reason is twofold. The first is that I do not see the Jewish victims of the Nazi killing machine as a “sacrifice”, or a “burnt offering.” Sacrifice for what? Burnt offering for what? I am still searching for the answer.
Secondly, as before, I keep wondering why we, Jews, need to choose Hellenistic/heathen terms to describe what is unique to us only. For me, therefore, there is only one word to describe that ghastly episode in my people’s history. It is the Hebrew word “Shoah.
from a film review in the NY Times:
quote:
Mr. Lanzmann also argues that “Shoah” is not really a documentary, and that “Holocaust” is “a completely improper name” to describe the Nazis’ extermination of six million Jews during World War II.
<snip>
“This was by no means a holocaust,” he said during a recent visit to New York, noting that the literal meaning of the word refers to a burnt offering to a god. “To reach God 1.5 million Jewish children have been offered? The name is important, and one doesn’t say ‘Holocaust’ in Europe. This was a catastrophe, a disaster, and in Hebrew that is shoah.”
Etc and so on.
One doesn't have to agree with all of these people expressing the same idea to understand that it is a fairly pervasive one.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yad Vashem . The World Holocaust Remembrance Centre
That JP article, from May if they use US date format, is interesting isn't it? Covers ALL the bases.
The 6 year old NYT Shoah review is a good one, especially Lanzmann's articulation of your point.
One with which I was not familiar. Not in the UK media. How parochial of me.
None of it breaks the shallow mainstream surface of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
One doesn't have to agree with all of these people expressing the same idea to understand that it is a fairly pervasive one.
Two of your three new examples provide no support for the notion that the term should be considered offensive. I see no reason to believe that view is a "fairly pervasive" one. To my mind, use of the term by the Chief Rabbi of Israel, in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, in the names of a plethora of Holocaust museums, and in the self-appellation of Yad Vashem all suggest that such a view is really quite rare.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't know why, I just found myself acutely moved by the etymology of Yad Vashem, Wiki: The name "Yad Vashem" is taken from a verse in the Book of Isaiah: "Even unto them will I give in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:5).
If violence were redemptive, Israel's would be most righteous.
I prophesy this, Israel will not be saved by violence.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Are there any measures taken by the Israelis against the Palestinians that are in your view justified, but which wouldn't be justified if the Shoah hadn't happened?
I am interested neither in lecturing Israel's Jews, nor indulging in tutorial- room hypotheticals with what, for them, are very real and urgent ongoing issues.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That's a no.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
