Turn this vile claim on its head

[shira]

As one who advocates formally and informally for Israel, I have heard the full gamut of misconceptions and slanders that are aired by those opposed to the Jewish state. Over time, my skin has thickened; people can throw whatever baloney they want my way.

Except… there is still one anti-Israel argument that makes my jaw drop. And it is one that is made with unfortunate frequency. It is the "they-of-all-people" argument: the suggestion that the Jews, having faced extraordinary persecution, should know better than anyone not to be oppressors.

Put aside for a moment that the "oppression" which proponents of this argument are accusing Israel of committing is usually imaginary. When directed by gentiles towards Jews, the "they-of-all-people" argument is in its very essence so fundamentally ill-judged and unjust, and voiced with such a breathtaking lack of self-awareness, that my spirit flags when I hear it.

Where to begin in response? The heroic Howard Jacobson made a fine start when he proposed that "they of all people" is the natural successor of Holocaust denial. He wrote that the argument leaves the Jewish people doubly damned: to the Holocaust itself and to elevated moral scrutiny as a result of it.

more...
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/70466/turn-vile-claim-its-head

[pennylane100]

1. So when criticizing countries of abusing those whose land they are occupying,

there are rules that ensure that the feelings of the occupiers are considered while they commit crimes?
Then to further suggest that there have been no acts of oppression by Israeli just destroys your credibility.

Israel and the Palestinians have been fighting with each other since the foundation of Israel. Both sides have committed atrocities and broken all the Geneva conventions that were laid down by the UN.

At this time in history, Israel definitely has the upper hand. They have managed to occupy and rule with force in Gaza and are well on their way to taking over large chunks of the west bank. That will have to change over time as it is impossible to expect the Palestinians to simply accept this and violence will always continue with BOTH sides committing acts of violence.

Yes, it is hard to understand Israel's approach as occupiers and land grabbers. They would have achieved a lot more had they been prepared to accept the boundaries that were negotiated when there nation was established when they finally had the upper hand in any peace talks. But they did not and have no intention of ever doing so and the violence and killings will continue until grown ups emerge as leaders on both sides. Not any time soon unfortunately.

[shira]

4. So "critics" should stop blaming the Jews for turning the holocaust around on the Palestinians.

It's a very vile, holocaust denying/minimizing accusation.

[pennylane100]

8. I cannot begin to understand, if it exists, your logic.

What does the holocaust have to do with Israel expansion on the West Bank. When discussion of any Israeli action that may be illegal under international law is raised, if the best you can do is make "holocaust denier" statements, you should just save your breath. Unless you are saying that two wrongs do make a right, which is a really idiotic defense.

When Israel, and of course, the Palestinians start honest negotiations, they may have a chance of a peaceful future. That would have to include the Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli's right to exist and the return of all lands that were not given to Israel at its founding.

While there are people such as yourself and the hardliners on the other side refuse to even acknowledge there has to be some compromise, innocent people on both sides will continue to suffer and die needlessly.

[shira]

9. You should read the OP. "They of all people" is linked to holocaust denial...

...in the 4th paragraph and beyond.

It's a vile accusation.

[pennylane100]

18. My comments were in reply to your post to me

"So "critics" should stop blaming the Jews for turning the holocaust around on the Palestinians."

What does that mean? I believe that Israel must bear some responsibility for the situation in Palestine and I do think that they are the oppressors, at this point in time. If you are referring to the holocaust deniers mentioned in the article, their words while vile and reprehensible, do not exonerate Israel's behavior toward the Palestinians.

and I disagree with the author who states there we must adhere to certain standards when criticizing their abuse of the Palestinian people.

Except… there is still one anti-Israel argument that makes my jaw drop. And it is one that is made with unfortunate frequency. It is the "they-of-all-people" argument: the suggestion that the Jews, having faced extraordinary persecution, should know better than anyone not to be oppressors.

Put aside for a moment that the "oppression" which proponents of this argument are accusing Israel of committing is usually imaginary. When directed by gentiles towards Jews, the "they-of-all-people" argument is in its very essence so fundamentally ill-judged and unjust, and voiced with such a breathtaking lack of self-awareness, that my spirit flags when I hear it.

He tries to clarify his views by stating that these argument are used by Holocaust deniers, and of course in that context, they are the height of hypocrisy, but it is a reality that the oppressed have become the oppressors and that is always noteworthy to examine and comment on it when it happens.

[shira]

22. There's a difference b/w criticism and demonization. Part of that demonization...

....is holocaust inversion or the Israel/Nazi comparison.

Are you familiar with PeaceNow or OneVoice? They criticize Israel and its policies WRT the Palestinians, but I don't have a problem with them.

Again, it's not about simple criticism. The haters go much further than that and cannot help but show their true colors...

[LeftishBrit]

15. It doesn't but that is the whole point

It is perfectly proper and reasonable to oppose Israeli expansion on the West Bank. But it is not appropriate to say 'Israelis should not mistreat Palestinians in this way because many of their ancestors were murdered in the Holocaust'.

The Holocaust is not an excuse for the actions of the modern Israeli government, but still less is it an aggravating circumstance. It is as though someone said 'Mugabe's dictatorship is particularly evil because many black Africans were transported to and enslaved in America and the Caribbaean'. Mugabe's dictatorship is indeed evil, but past slavery neither excuses nor worsens it, and there is indeed something racist in using the historic misfortunes and persecutions of an ethnic group as a reproach to them.


'When Israel, and of course, the Palestinians start honest negotiations, they may have a chance of a peaceful future. That would have to include the Palestinian acknowledgement of Israeli's right to exist and the return of all lands that were not given to Israel at its founding.'

I agree but that is not what the OP was about.

[pennylane100]

19. I must disagree with you.

I was replying to Shira's post to me which I did not understand. I do realize that the author rightly criticizes Holocaust deniers for using the "they should know better" argument.

I have no doubt that Holocaust deniers are using imaginary incidents of oppression to make their case, although it is hard to understand how such evil people can find a voice in any society. But, the fact remains that Israel took land it did not own to form it's own country. Many nations were formed in such a manner, including the one I know call home.

Unfortunately, they are no longer content with just securing their borders, they are slowly trying to squeeze the Palestinian people into oblivion and are using oppressive means to do so. I think when a country acts so harshly against its neighbors, it is perfect legitimate to point out that this is one more of the many cases throughout history where the oppressed have become the oppressors.

Which is why I mentioned that the only way to stop the circle of violence is to enter meaningful negotiations.

[Bradlad]

20. You should spend more time here.

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 06:34 PM - Edit history (1)

It's refreshing to see a whole new batch of worthless illogical accusations against those Israelis.

"Unfortunately, they are no longer content with just securing their borders,"

Is that right? They seem to me as about as content as they usually are. Just sittin' around waiting for the next rocket barrage, suicide bomb or sniper.

" they are slowly trying to squeeze the Palestinian people into oblivion "

Now there's one accusation I haven't heard before. I guess I missed the article in the Geneva Convention about "squeezing people into oblivion". But it sure sounds cruel and depraved enough. You might as well throw it in.

" . . and are using oppressive means to do so."

But if you're going to "squeeze someone into oblivion" shouldn't you be allowed to get at least a little "oppressive" ? It seems like they would need to go together.

Why not just post a comment that you think the Israelis are really cruel and mean to the Palestinians and they should leave the WB and go back to the 'original Mandate borders so the ME would be peaceful again like it was before the Jews screwed everything up by shooting back.

[kayecy]

2. Lazy meaning what?.......

For instance, something that we gentiles should know better than to do is lazily accuse Jewish people, or the Jewish state itself, of any misdemeanour.

"Lazily" as in "settlements", "Lebanese wars", and "military occupation"?

[shira]

5. Lazy condemnations, meaning read the next paragraph about al-Dura, the Marmara, Goldstone, etc. n/t

[azurnoir]

3. Chas Newkey-Burden is an interesting character

however his partner Chris Morris as a practitioner of NLP (Neuro-Lingustic-Programing) is too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas_Newkey-Burden


Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is an approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy created in the 1970s. The title refers to a stated connection between the neurological processes ("neuro&quot , language ("linguistic&quot , and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience ("programming&quot and can be organized to achieve specific goals in life.[1][2] According to certain neuroscientists,[3] psychologists,[4][5] and linguists,[6][7] NLP is unsupported by current scientific evidence, and uses incorrect and misleading terms and concepts.

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

According to one study by Steinbach (1984), a classic interaction in NLP can be understood in terms of several major stages including establishing rapport, gathering information about a problem state and desired goals, using specific tools and techniques to make interventions, and integrating proposed changes into the client's life. The entire process is guided by the non-verbal responses of the client.[27] The first is the act of establishing and maintaining rapport between the practitioner and the client which is achieved through pacing and leading the verbal (e.g. sensory predicates and keywords) and non-verbal behaviour (e.g. matching and mirroring non-verbal behavior, or responding to eye movements – see chart) of the client.[28]

Once rapport is established, the practitioner may gather information (e.g. using the meta-model questions) about the client's present state as well as help the client define a desired state or goal for the interaction. The practitioner pays particular attention to the verbal and non-verbal responses as the client defines the present state and desired state and any resources that may be required to bridge the gap.[27] The client is typically encouraged to consider the consequences of the desired outcome may have on his or her personal or professional life and relationships, taking into account any positive intentions of any problems that may arise (i.e. ecological check).[27] Fourth, assisting the client in achieving the desired outcomes by using certain tools and techniques to change internal representations and responses to stimuli in the world.[29][30] Finally, the changes are "future paced" by helping the client to mentally rehearse and integrate the changes into his or her life.[27] For example, the client may be asked to "step into the future" and represent (mentally see, hear and feel) what it is like having already achieved the outcome.

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

Anchoring is an NLP technique that claims to make available mind states when they are desired. One method of doing this is to use a trigger device which may then be stimulated at any time whenever the patient is in need of additional reinforcement.[31] In treatment of phobias, anchoring is a form of counterconditioning wherein a set of phobic sensate responses, evoked by a set of stimuli, is substituted by a set of counterphobic sensate responses. Current research is limited and mixed regarding the efficacy and efficiency of anchoring.[32]

This page was last modified on 25 July 2012 at 22:43.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming

we see this practiced here on DU quite frequently or at least attempted some of us are quite resistance though

[LeftishBrit]

13. In my opinion, NLP is a form of quack-psychotherapy that only works by a placebo effect

I haven't noticed it being practiced on DU, nor do the sort of arguments used on DU much resemble the techniques of NLP.

[oberliner]

6. I very much agree with his observations

The "they-of-all-people" argument makes me sick as well.

[shira]

7. I hate the "Jews should know better" argument - David Hirsh

The Jews "appear not to care that they have themselves become oppressors". He does mean "the Jews", doesn't he? He is talking about "those whose history is of such terrible oppression", who came to his mind when he visited Auschwitz. Yes. He means Jews. Jews used to be oppressed; now they are oppressors, and they don't even care (apparently).

This is just careless racist generalisation from a Liberal Democrat Euro MP who ought to know better. He holds all Jews collectively responsible for what he understands as the "oppressive" acts of the Israeli government. He shifts focus from acts that he understands as "oppressive" to "the Jews" that he understands as responsible for them and he calls them "oppressors". And then he adds that "the Jews" (apparently) don't care. As though "the Jews" spoke with one voice (or cared with a single conscience).

The overwhelming majority of the Jews who were at Auschwitz (where Davies visited as a tourist, or perhaps as a VIP) left that place through the chimney. Many of them, I suspect, did not have time to sit down and ponder the lessons that they were supposed, by this smug Liberal Democrat MEP, to have been learning.

What were the lessons being taught to "the Jews" at Auschwitz? What should "the Jews" have learnt from the Shoah experience? In an earlier post, I argued that many Jews actually did learn the central lesson that the 20th Century seemed to be teaching everybody: "If you don't have a nation state of your own, then you have no rights".

http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=383

[azurnoir]

11. so should expect you will not be replacing Israeli with Jews anymore?

because that plays in the hands of those described in your article or does it in your opinion somehow justify your usage?

[shira]

23. It doesn't appear you understand what the article is about.

Those who say "they should know better" or "they of all people should know" are w/o any question referring to Jews as a collective.

[azurnoir]

24. yes I know that but I was asking specifically about using Jews instead of Israeli or Israel

the comment was not about the OP but about that usage, is okay when one group does it but not the other, IMO they feed each other

[LeftishBrit]

12. Conflating Jews and Israelis.

It is not antisemitic to criticize Israel, but it is antisemitic to lump all Jews together and blame them for the behaviour of Israel, and in particular to equate the Jews who were oppressed and often killed in Auschwitz with the modern Israeli government.

In any case, when speaking of oppression, Davies should perhaps worry more about how his once-liberal party has allied itself with Tory monsters who oppress the poor, sick and disabled, than about the behaviour of other ethnic groups or countries.

[azurnoir]

14. your right IMO but what about the Pro-Israel posters here

that replace Israeli with Jews as a matter of course, isn't that somewhat the same?

[LeftishBrit]

16. I think it is more like people who equate all Muslims, and e.g. blame British Muslims for the acts

of Arab states.

And yes, some pro-Israeli people and sites do that (as well as some that are simply xenophobic about everyone), and I think that's racist too.

[azurnoir]

17. That's an interesting take thank you n/t

[Bradlad]

21. Also,

The armed violent phase of the conflict started well before there was an Israel or anyone who could be called Israeli. At that time they were just called Jews by their enemies as well as by those who supported them.

One more confounding factor is that Israel has many Arab and Bedouin citizens - who of course are not Jews. Many here use Israeli when they mean IDF or the GOI. So, the use of "Jews" is actually more specific and accurate. It can even be de-conflating.

There are no Jews in Palestine of course and almost all Palestinian Arabs are Muslims except for a very few remaining Christians.

Actually, what a person means from all these terms is usually apparent from the context. IMO it is not something to get worried about unless someone is obviously trying to say something bigoted and get away with it. From what I've seen so far I don't think that happens so much.

[LeftishBrit]

10. I agree on this point

It is the perpetrators of an atrocity, not the victims of it, who may be validly seen as obliged to learn from the experience to become better people.

In any case, most Israelis were not born at the time of the Holocaust, and many do not originate from countries involved in it. There is a tendency, perhaps related to the point above, to assume that Israel ONLY exists because of the Holocaust. In fact, though this may have increased the sense of urgency, the groundwork for the state of Israel was laid before the Holocaust, and many new independent states were established, in some cases wtih disputed boundaries, at about the same time as Israel.