Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Should the Holocaust justify Israels actions?

david dissadent said:
No. Israel only has the same rights to self defense as any other nation. When it acts illegally and imorally it should gain no special international favour for that action.

However the Holocaust was brutal proof for the need for a state such as Israel. No one gave sanctuary to the Jews inspite of prewar Nazi victimisation of them. During the war only a handful of states (including Moroco) did anything remotely praiseworthy to protect them. It drove home the point they could only rely on themselves to protect themselves.

Spot on. My sentiments excatly. I support the existence of the state of Israel as a state for the Jewish people of all kinds both secular and religious. However, what I do disagree with is the disproportionate use of force and the general level of oppression aimed at the Arabs in Israel itself and the occupied territories. I'm not sure that the idea of a strictly monoreligious and monoethnic state as envisaged by some zionists is practical or desirable.

The Shoah did teach the Israelli's that if they had to depend on themselves as they couldn't depend on others.
 
nino_savatte said:
Aye, Nixon and Kissinger gave Suharto a nod and a wink...like Kennedy and Johnson before them.

And a helluva lot of armaments - knowing that they would be used for mass slaughter. That is rather more than a 'nod and a wink'.
 
Tell me, is it only US and Brit politicians that nod and wink to iffy characters and dish out leg ups; or do others do it, but the baying mob gets too confused and/or embarrassed to admit it???? :rolleyes:
 
GMarthews: Yes, the "1 State Solution" is only a reality for people like Khadaffi, et al. Noone in their right mind would want it except misguided foriegners who have no real stake in the matter. Look how well all the unified states of Europe have done after being forced together by outsiders. While ethnically close, we are two VERY distinct groups who do not see the world the same way ....not even close.

Spion: Jews are the only people to have ever had an organic state on that land, like it or not. Jews did not "live there as one of many people" until 200 years after the Romans conquered us. Even then we still constitued the majority in many places. Tiberias, Safed, Meron, even Jerusalem from ther 7th Cen CE/AD onward held Jewish majorities.

Arabs were not in majotity until the 17th Century CE/AD. Even then they accomplished this with the same patterns of illegal immigration that they continued with up until the present [300,000 have entered both the "W B" and Israel Proper since 92]. Something to think about.

As for your views about how long Israel will last, thank you for the good tidings. However, in reality while a thousand is anyone's guess a hundered is almost assured [think Dimona].

ZAMB: Israel does not use the Holocaust as justification for anything. It never has, it never will.

"What right does the UN have to create states?" The UN did not create Israel, it only legitamised its creation through ratiufication. Israel's rough draft was created when Britain began visualising the demarcation of all its Mandated lands. The Jews themselves created the progenitive government, the Yishuv. The UN did nothing but ratify our existence. In all the Mid-East, there is not one nation that is not a modern creation of outside powers. Do you have a problem with the entire region?


As for Native Americans, they already have soveriegnity over their tradiional lands. Others that are so damaged culturally are too scattered have other largesse to enjoy like Natiuve Gaming or tobacco sales.

Still, I would go even further and offer that a large portion of the United States SHOULD be earmarked for a true and sovereign STATE.

I do not see how you come to the conclusion that the Native Americans' claim to their land is more "provable" than the Jews over Israel. Care to comment?

Nino: So what that Jabotinsky "made contact with Nazis?" Really....The Zionists used intemediaries with the Nazis in a number of situations, most notably Hungary in an attempt to save that nations entire Jewish population. There is nothing nefarious about it. I think you should study Revision Zionism a bity before delving into things of this sort. Jabotinsky was man who loved his people to no end and lost his life fighting for them. To try and paint him as a Nazi is not only incorrect but a slanderous hatefilled comment.


As for "Israel violating UN Resolutions," not a single one was binding. ?In other words, they were meaningless screeds with no value to anyone other than the war mongering authors , who by the way never even recognised the fundamental Resolution that recognises Israel's Right to Exist.
 
Um - is WW2 & its atrocities used as a weapon a guilt by the people involved in it ? of course it is - by every participant in varying degrees & a myriad of ways - theres no escaping this, despite the semantics & agruments on this thread

Using past excesses as partial or possible justification for present deeds isnt exclusive to the Jews/ Israel - we see it with Armenia/Turkey, Ireland/England, UKrainians/Russians - Albanian blood feuds go on for centuries in a tit for tat slaughter of rival tribal members, where the initial trivial deed becomes lost in the mists of time.

Its human to bear a grudge and some socities hold grudges longer than others.

IM Scots & we all know that the Irish invaded my land centuries ago and killed off most of the the native Scots in a genocidal onslaught and replaced the remaining scraps of Scots culture with their own.And i have no grudge with the Irish . The fockin Bastards.
 
ZAMB: What about Timor is a crime? Plkease elaborate.

Tangent: A bit of misinfo in your post. Eichmann never permitted any Jews to purchase their way to "Palestine." They did tangle with the idea of Madagascar very early on but it ultimately became Camps, Work and/or Death.

As for pundits justifying Israel via Shoah, I have not seen any do that. Not in America or otherwise.

I have seen Christain Zionists do some interesting things but I have not seen them do that either. I have seen a couple of prominent ones use it as a way to demonstrate that the Ingathering is happening.

ZAMB: I do not recall that remark by Mussolini. However, you are correct that many Nazis did make their way to the US but the majority did so with the assistance of America's Intel community in an effort to get a head's up in the Cold War.


On Timor....So your thing about "crime" was the CIA's involvement there? Of course. It is no secret that Shuarto was propped by America. You really should make your points clearly though as the first comments about "Crimes against humanity in E. Timor" were ambiguous.


Keyboard Jockey: As for "Arabs inside Israel [i.e. Israeli-Arabs], what disporportionate force are you talking about? Here is a little tidbit that should explain just how bad they have it here. This past week saw two current Israeli-Arabs who serve in the K'nesset [Parliament], along with two former MKs, make a trip to Damscus. Syria is a nation officially at war with us. In Damascus they offered such public statements as "Israel is getting ready to attack you on two fronts." Hahahahahaahah. Their punishment? Maybe a censure in K'nesset. What would happen to a Syrian politico who went to Tel Avivi on his own, made those same comments about Syria attacking Israel and returned to Damascus? Think he would get censured?

Israeli-Arabs CHOOSE to live here, and they make that choice for a reason. They have one of the highest living standards of Arabs anywhere.


As for other Arabs, we give as we get within reason. this is a different world with different norms and cultural expectations. Nasrallah's own words bear out our methods. He has said no less than 7 times, including in Time Magazine, that he would have never let the kidnapping/murders take place had he known the level of Israeli response.


We knew long before Shoah that we only had each other. Shoah is only the biggest of our many massacarres. the list takes several pages actually.
 
rachamim18 said:
GMarthews: Yes, the "1 State Solution" is only a reality for people like Khadaffi, et al. Noone in their right mind would want it except misguided foriegners who have no real stake in the matter. Look how well all the unified states of Europe have done after being forced together by outsiders. While ethnically close, we are two VERY distinct groups who do not see the world the same way ....not even close.

Actually i consider the EU to be one of the great achievements of the last century, it shows that we don't need to let petty differences get in the way of peace.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The UN can give the whole state of Texas to the Arapaho for all I care.

Dandy, Johnny, but who will you support when the "Texans" fight back.

The implication of your post is that you would either be impartial, or support the Arapaho.
 
newharper said:
Dandy, Johnny, but who will you support when the "Texans" fight back.

The implication of your post is that you would either be impartial, or support the Arapaho.

The implication of my post is that since I'm not an american, it isn't much my concern.
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
The implication of my post is that since I'm not an american, it isn't much my concern.

Then why do you bother spending so much time on an International politics message board?
 
Johnny Canuck2 said:
Aren't Canadians allowed to participate on an International politics message board?

er, but you had just said:

The implication of my post is that since I'm not an american, it isn't much my concern.

You got shown up, big deal admit it and stop being disingenious.
 
Loki said:
er, but you had just said:

The implication of my post is that since I'm not an american, it isn't much my concern.

You got shown up, big deal admit it and stop being disingenious.

I was responding to this post from ZAMB:

"Originally Posted by ZAMB
What right has the UN to "create states" and give away land belonging to another country without the consent of its owners? Absolutely none!!
Would you accept it if the UN looked at the US and gave away a large chunk of it to native Americans - who have a much more proveable right to it than Israel have to Palestine?"

.............

Before putting your foot in it, why not read the thread first.
 
GMarthews: As long as the EU does not too much more damage to individual states, it should be o.k. Remember Jose Bove? Corsica? Breton? Provence? Basque? This is in France alone and I have left a couple out. Nationalism exists, like it or not and it is always under the surface.
 
I do not recall that remark by Mussolini. However, you are correct that many Nazis did make their way to the US but the majority did so with the assistance of America's Intel community in an effort to get a head's up in the Cold War.

Not just Nazis either, the Ustashe and others as well.
 
nino_savatte said:
Not just Nazis either, the Ustashe and others as well.

I am amazed that Rach seems to think that the US 'getting a heads up in the cold war' was a reasonable price to pay for Nazi war criminals to go free. Shows something of his 'real' respect for the holocaust victims perhaps?

I apologise for not replying to him directly, but I only see the parts of his posts quoted by others - he is blocked on my computer.
 
david dissadent said:
No. Israel only has the same rights to self defense as any other nation. When it acts illegally and imorally it should gain no special international favour for that action.

However the Holocaust was brutal proof for the need for a state such as Israel. No one gave sanctuary to the Jews inspite of prewar Nazi victimisation of them. During the war only a handful of states (including Moroco) did anything remotely praiseworthy to protect them. It drove home the point they could only rely on themselves to protect themselves.

[Stir] There is an argument that the pre war (palestine based) Zionist movement did little to lobby other states (esp. US) to take in jewish refugees.

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second- because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people
(Ben-Gurion, cited in Segev 1993, from Philo and Berry 2004)

[/stir]
 
Nino: Very, very true.

ZAMB: NEVER question me of my respect for Holocaust victims you shmuck. I lost 41 relatives on my mothers side, somthing people of your caliber will never understabd. I made a factual statement, it had nothing at all to do with my likes or dislikes. PLease DO grow up. You have blocked me? Then do us both a favor genius, stop calling me out and you will not have to worry about whether or not I think a certain way. Geez...


Jigothai: First, your Ben Gurion "quote" is made up [on the part of those authors]. It was never uttered. Secondly, Zionists very much triued to find a safe harbor for Euopean Jews, to the point of negotiating with Nazis for sage passage.
 
ZAMB said:
I am amazed that Rach seems to think that the US 'getting a heads up in the cold war' was a reasonable price to pay for Nazi war criminals to go free. Shows something of his 'real' respect for the holocaust victims perhaps?

I apologise for not replying to him directly, but I only see the parts of his posts quoted by others - he is blocked on my computer.

Aye, you could say it was because the Nazis and others who were welcomed by the US (particularly by the Repubs) had impeccable anti-communist credentials and they had excellent use value as far as the cult of anti-communism was concerned. The space program was merely a useful byproduct (though an effective propaganda tool nonetheless). Rach would probably reduce this to the crusty auld adage of "The friend of my enemy...".
 
Re: ZAMB'S last comment
Let's not forget Japanese War Criminals, such as the staff of Unit 731, who carried out, in some cases, very gruesome experiments involving Bio Warfare agents, such as Anthrax & Bubonic Plague, on U.S Prisoners Of War, as well as the native Chinese population, during World War II (in the Chinese case, well before).
They managed to escape any war crimes trial, by trading their knowledge of said weapons, including production techniques, to the U.S Army, for immunity from prosecution....
The Unit 731 personnel caught by the Russians, by contrast, were tried in 1948, for war crimes, & executed....
 
G. Fieendish said:
Re: ZAMB'S last comment
Let's not forget Japanese War Criminals, such as the staff of Unit 731, who carried out, in some cases, very gruesome experiments involving Bio Warfare agents, such as Anthrax & Bubonic Plague, on U.S Prisoners Of War, as well as the native Chinese population, during World War II (in the Chinese case, well before).
They managed to escape any war crimes trial by trading their knowledge of said weapons, to the U.S Army, for immunity from prosecution....
The Unit 731 personnel caught by the Russians, by contrast, were tried in 1948, for war crimes, & executed....

Aye, the trial of Tojo was nothing less than a show trial with him as scapegoat-in-chief.
 
Nino:" Rach would probably reduce this to..." Except that Rach had already said your statement verbtaim in his reply to you. Wow, you are getting worse.
 
rachamim18 said:
Nino:" Rach would probably reduce this to..." Except that Rach had already said your statement verbtaim in his reply to you. Wow, you are getting worse.

But you appear to be contradicting yourself and it would appear that you are prepared to accomodate certain alliances and not others.
 
rachamim18 said:
Nino: Be specific.

"Be specific"? You have a short memory. You obviously don't remember the excuses you came up with for the Israel's cosy involvement with Lebanese Phalangists, who are fascists in all but name.
 
rachamim18 said:
"242 anyone?" When Arabs accept the fundamental Resolution recognising Israel's Right to Exist, then we can debate that

Funny how UN resolutions count when they are castigating Arab's but not when they are castigating Israel!

Rach - you seem to never answer questions so how about this - dont you find it slightly unfair that an american jew who has never been to Isreal has a greater right to live on that land than a palestinian who has lived there for generations?
 
Back
Top Bottom