Is Israel finished? Five questions

[bemildred]

---

1. In your conversation with the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, he said that the success of the American Jewish community now is no proof that it will not face extinction in the future. His words: "Jews in Germany - and I don't draw any comparison at all - Jews in other parts of the world were very successful all their lives, and that didn't provide them with safety." You write that this was "a careless and cynical statement" but do not really explain why - is it because you do not believe such think is imaginable, is it because a Prime Minister should not be saying such things, is it other reason?

I find it impossible to believe that a serious man like Ehud Olmert could possibly believe that the situation of American Jewry is analogous in any way to that of pre-Holocaust German Jewry. There's nothing at all in history, or current reality, to suggest anything except that America is a second Promised Land for the Jewish people. This, of course, is a challenge to Israel-centrism. If America is a Promised Land, then why do we need the actual Promised Land?

I actually believe we need both, but I think the success of American Jewry tests the Zionist idea. If you go back to the speeches of the early Zionist Congresses, you'll see that even Herzl and his deputy, Max Nordau, saw America as a challenge to their idea. Nordau's role at these congresses was to report on the state of worldwide anti-Semitism, and so the delegates heard about France's endemic Jew-hatred, and Russia's pogroms, and so on. But when Nordau got to America, he described a country in which Jews were excluded from certain hotels. It wasn't his most convincing moment.

All that said, I think there's an important, and subtle, point to make, about the danger faced by Jews in America. It is not a physical danger, but a spiritual danger. America is safe for Jews, but not for Judaism. I'll take a spiritual threat over a physical threat any day, but this is still a serious challenge, and one I hope the prime minister of Israel would address. Olmert loses credibility when he suggests that America is susceptible to European-style anti-Semitism. It's simply not believable to most Jews who actually live here.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/979077.html

[bemildred]

1. 'Atlantic' magazine: Is Israel finished?

JPost spins it ...

As Israel prepares to celebrate its 60th birthday, the respected Atlantic Monthly magazine is keeping the champagne firmly corked.

---

In his 12-page article, Jeffrey Goldberg, an award-winning journalist and American Jew who made aliya and served in the IDF, asks a series of follow-up questions: "How can Israel survive the next 60 years in a part of the world that gives rise to groups like Hamas? How can Israel flourish if its army cannot defeat small bands of rocketeers? Does the concentration of so many Jews in a claustrophobically small space in the world's most volatile region actually undermine the Jewish people's ability to survive?"

"American Jews in particular need to realize that things are tenuous," Goldberg, who didn't choose the article's title, told The Jerusalem Post Friday. "It's good to ask the biggest questions. There's nothing wrong with that."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207238165670&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Vegasaurus]

5. And this, by Goldberg as well

The inability of Arab Islam and today, Persian Islam --to tolerate ethnic and religious diversity in the Middle East. We've seen this over and over again: Iraqi Kurds; Copts in Egypt; black Africans in Sudan, and so on. This is something people don't talk about, but the impulse toward religious and ethnic purity is quite strong in the Arab world. I worry that the Arab world is mostly allergic to the idea of Jewish national equality, and that this is more-or-less immutable. Specifically, I believe that another war is coming, a two or three-front war: Hamas versus Israel in Gaza and parts of the West Bank, and Hezbollah, once again, on the northern border. And just as the second Intifada was worse than the first, the third will be worse than the second.

[bemildred]

7. I always find a rich irony in people that assert that "Islam" cannot tolerate diversity.

Like the Muslims invented that or something, or they are worse about it than we are.

[Vegasaurus]

19. It was part of the very same article you quoted nt

[bemildred]

20. Yes, I know, I read it.

And BTW, I didn't quote it, I posted it. You quoted it.

[Vegasaurus]

22. Goldberg was pretty grim in his predictions

and not only because he opposes settlements, but because he thinks that the Arab nations, militant groups, etc., are unable to live peacefully with Jews in their midst.

It was a balanced article, in that respect.

[bemildred]

24. I thought he was an interesting mix.

I don't take what any particular person thinks too seriously. There has been a strain in Israeli politics that has opposed the occupation from the beginning. Things would be much different today had they been listened to.

[msmcghee]

27. It must be your turn to be amusing. n/t

[Larkspur]

2. Olmert is anti-American!!!

Just using their tactics against them.

[bemildred]

3. Unforgiven by Jeffrey Goldberg

In early August of 2006, four weeks after the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, which has as its goal the physical elimination of Israel (and the ancillary ambition of murdering, whenever practicable, Jews elsewhere in the world), killed three Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two more in a cross-border raid, Israel found itself in an exceedingly disagreeable position. The Hezbollah attack had prompted an immediate, and intermittently unrestrained, Israeli military response, which included thousands of bombing runs over Lebanon. The prime minister, the untried Ehud Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem who had taken office eight months earlier, promised to obliterate Hezbollah. In the past, Israel had destroyed far greater enemies—the Syrian air force, the Egyptian army, the Arab Legion—so it was assumed that Israel would make short work of Hezbollah, a force consisting of, at most, a few thousand fighters in possession of 12,000 short-range rockets. But within days of Israel’s initial attack, it seemed obvious that the Olmert mission was in peril. The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon, which had resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Hezbollah members and innocent civilians, could not stop Hezbollah’s rockets from falling on northern Israel. These rocket attacks had killed dozens of Israelis—Arab Israelis included—and had made the Galilee largely uninhabitable. Thousands of Israelis became refugees in their own country, fleeing south in search of shelter.

---

At the outset of the conflict, in July, Israelis had stood united with Olmert against Hezbollah. Israel’s endless confrontation with the Palestinians is shaded with ambiguities; many Israelis wish to see a Palestinian state come into being in the West Bank and in Gaza, even as they doubt that such a state would bring an end to terrorism. With Hezbollah, there are fewer grays. Its sponsor, Iran, poses the most immediate threat to Israel’s physical existence; many of its leaders are plainly anti-Semitic. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a Holocaust denier who has called Israel a “filthy bacteria.” Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has said in a speech, “If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.”

Because the Hezbollah attack was unprovoked, much of the world had initially expressed sympathy for Israel. This took Israelis by surprise; it had been more than 40 years since they generally received such consideration from the international community. Even Sunni Arab leaders, who fear Shiite radicalism more than they dislike the Jewish state, expressed irritation with Hezbollah.

By early August, though, opinion was shifting, and the decision to launch a ground invasion just when credible cease-fire proposals were proliferating was controversial around the world, and even at home. This was at least partly because Olmert, a lawyer and party functionary, and his defense minister, a former union leader named Amir Peretz, seemed to be in over their heads. Their actions convinced some Israelis—particularly those on the left—that the decision to order a ground invasion revealed a kind of unthinking aggressiveness.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200805/israel

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. My surviving relatives saw pre-war Germany. Yup, it could happen here n/t

[shaayecanaan]

13. I very much doubt it

Causes of the holocaust:-

1) Nazi-inspired resentment and envy of Jewish economic success

Reality today: US Jews have come down a fair way in the money stakes. Indians outearn American Jews handily (median incomes are $60k vs $50k) and the Chinese-Americans are also knocking on their door. In fact, given the $500 billion dollar public debt that the US owes to China as well as the even larger current account deficit in China's favour, I think if bread riots ever break out on the streets of New York the Chinese would be a far more likely target than Jews.

2) Economic hardship (Treaty of Versailles, spanish flu, hyperinflation, etc)

Reality today: The life of your average Westerner is far more comfortable than its ever been. The chances of a preciptious decline in Western standards of living that would be sufficient to prompt people to turn to a fascist dictatorship is fairly remote.

3) Need for a scapegoat for people to project their woes upon, the political expediency of blaming "foreigners"

Reality today: If you had to nominate the most likely minority to be scapegoated in America or viewed as quintessentially "foreign", you'd be hard-pressed to go past Muslims. Jews (who for the most part, speak the same, dress the same, and eat the same as their WASP counterparts) don't even come close to cutting it.

I could go on, but I frankly doubt that even you seriously consider the prospect that "it could happen here" otherwise you wouldnt be there.

[Shaktimaan]

14. Because it could happen here doesn't mean that it is likely.

Your holocaust causes aren't entirely accurate or comprehensive. European anti-semitism has deep roots and doesn't necessarily stem from logical reasons the way you have it described here. For example, your #3 relies on the idea that German Jews were somehow less than fully integrated; that they could be seen as foreign somehow. German Jews were the most integrated of all, they considered themselves German the same way US Jews consider themselves American. They fought in Germany's wars, they identified with the culture and language, etc. They were no less German than American Jews are American.

As for #1, Indians may earn more than Jews on average but you never see the kind of hatred and suspicion leveled against them that Jews see on a routine basis. There is no Protocols for the Indians. There are no charges that they are secretly running the government and seek to take over the world. A 2004 poll in Poland showed that 40 percent of Poles believed that their country of 39 million populations is still "being governed by Jews." There are 20,000 Jews in Poland.

The kind of anti-semitism that sparked the holocaust does not rely on an understanding of reality. In fact it is the opposite of rational thought, it is strictly emotional. Sure, the China may be more of an economic threat to the US but the odds that we would see pogroms against them is very low. For the simple reason that people haven't learned to hate and mistrust them as they have the Jews.

If your reasoning was accurate then at some point throughout history we would have seen a change in attitudes towards Jewish people. But if a modern country that's all but devoid of Jews can still think that we're running their country in secret, well then... people anywhere can clearly believe anything. Look around this board and see if you can find the kind of venom reserved for AIPAC used against the Big Oil lobby. Big Oil is both more influential and more destructive by far. Why are so many people focused on AIPAC instead? Desmond Tutu once compared the "Jewish Lobby" to Nazism, Idi Amin, Apartheid, Fascism and Communism. Rational? People on DU routinely compare Israel with Nazi Germany. Logical? Israel has had more UN resolutions passed against it than the rest of the world's nations put together. Objective?

Germany was the pinnacle of western culture at the time just preceding the Holocaust. If it could happen there, it can happen anywhere.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Absolute bollocks

If anti-semitism doesnt arise from "logical reasons", from whence does it arise?

Unfortunately, this kind of wooly-headed thinking dominates much of holocaust studies, for several reasons:-

1) Some Jews would prefer to think of anti-Semitism as some kind of cosmological constant, rather than a political phenomenon, because this means that anti-Semitism is categorically different and therefore more "special" than other types of racism;

2) Further, it is much more comforting and self-indulgent to think of Arab anti-Semitism as some kind of viral or genetic disease (ie, "having deep roots" as you suggest) rather than a political response to the dispossession of the Palestinians;

3) Thirdly, thus defined, anti-Semitism becomes an omnipresent menace which can be invoked at any time as a moral alibi for Israeli policy, or as a pretext for policy decisions that might otherwise seem unsavoury (eg, the ADL's decision to lobby against recognition of the Armenian genocide, for fear that those krazy Turks would go bonkers and start killing Jews. Yes, a bit of a logical stretch, but hey, the holocaust happened, right?)

The fact is, the Nazis targeted the Jews for the same reason that Idi Amin targeted the Indians in Uganda - as the most prominent minority, they were the most convenient target at the time. Of course, Germany also had gypsies, but then again, they got the knife during the holocaust as well.

To put it in context, lets look again at the example of Turkey:-

World War 1
Turkey kills one million of its Armenian citizens
250,000 of its Assyrian citizens, and 300,000 Pontic Greeks

1937:-
Kurdish rebellion. 37,000 Kurds killed.

1955:-
Pogrom against foreigners. Jews are targeted to some extent, but the event is mainly aimed at Greeks and Armenians. 99% of the Greek and Armenian populations flee, as opposed to 30% of the Jewish population.

1970s onward:-
Continuing actions against the Kurds. 40,000 Kurds killed.

What conclusion can you draw from the above, other than the fact that Turks are much more prone to killing off Christians (and even their co-religionist Kurds) than Jews?

For that matter, ask your average German fascist what they think of Turks living in their country. What do you think their fate would have been if they had been around in Hitler's time?

If you get the chance, have a look for surveys that the American Jewish Committee undertook in eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia etc) over the last couple of decades. According to the AJC, the people Czechs and Poles despise most of all are..........................

.....gypsies. Who woulda thought it?

[msmcghee]

17. I'm trying to follow your reasoning here but not . .

. . having much success.

The question is whether or not "it" could happen here in the US. Your answer seems to be that Jews are nothing special when it comes to holocausts. Unfortunately, Jewish exceptionalism, in terms of their suitability for mass killing relative to Armenians and gypsies, has nothing to do with the question. Your whole post was a careful listing of various historic victims of holocausts but little mention of their executioners as even being part of the equation.

As always, the likelihood of yet another ethnic killing orgy in the world in the future - is about the same as that the earth will continue to rotate on its axis. The fate of such victims is in the hands of their potential killers - not the victims'. Your view seems to be that it's something about particular victims that makes them particularly "holocaust-worthy". Where I have heard those sick ideas expressed before?

The ideas in your post above - that holocausts happen for logical reasons - not because the killers are sick fucks who have created destructive, sick cultures that celebrate the glory of war, death and killing - sound like something I'd find at a supremacist website.

Added: Your post reminds me of the guy who was hauled in to the police station for beating his wife almost to death. He explained to the cops that he really understood that it wasn't right to beat women - but, he said, they just don't listen.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Do you think that any sort of racism stems from logical reasons?

There CAN be a twisted or selfish logic to some forms of racism ("they are in my way, and it's easier to push them away or worse without guilt if I think they're racially inferior"; "bad things are happening to me and it's easier to blame an out-group than myself, my group, or my leaders"; "as a leader, I would like to rally my people round me and reduce the risk of revolt, and one good way is to unite them in hating an out-group"). But the choice of target is rarely logical: the usual reasons are (1) they're around or nearby; (2) they are identifiably different in some way.

You are quite right that Gypsies are subject to racism (one of the big targets of the British tabloids), and were Holocaust victims. But was that logical? What made/makes Gypsies a common target is that they *are* obviously separate from established groups, 'foreigners' who can be treated as not 'belonging'. The same for Jews, though some of the specific stereotypes are different.

'(1) Some Jews would prefer to think of anti-Semitism as some kind of cosmological constant, rather than a political phenomenon, because this means that anti-Semitism is categorically different and therefore more "special" than other types of racism;'

Not more than other groups regard racism against themselves as "special". And do you not think racism *is* an ever-present phenomenon, that we need to guard against, though its form and severity and targets depends on political and social circumstance?

2) 'Further, it is much more comforting and self-indulgent to think of Arab anti-Semitism as some kind of viral or genetic disease (ie, "having deep roots" as you suggest) rather than a political response to the dispossession of the Palestinians';

Do you not think that there was Arab anti-semitism before Israel ever existed, let alone the Occupation? It's not a 'genetic disease' that affects exclusively Arabs - indeed many Arab anti-semitic views were originally borrowed from the Europaeans. But it also isn't the exclusive fault of the Israelis. That on its own would make people anti-Israel, not anti-semitic.

'3) Thirdly, thus defined, anti-Semitism becomes an omnipresent menace which can be invoked at any time as a moral alibi for Israeli policy, or as a pretext for policy decisions that might otherwise seem unsavoury (eg, the ADL's decision to lobby against recognition of the Armenian genocide, for fear that those krazy Turks would go bonkers and start killing Jews. Yes, a bit of a logical stretch, but hey, the holocaust happened, right?)'

The idea that anti-semitism is 'constantly evoked' as an alibi for Israeli policy is false. As an argument for the need for a Jewish homeland, perhaps; but not for everything Israel does. As regards Turkish pressures for Armenian genocide denial - it's not only Israel or pro-Israel groups that pander to this; it is common in the EU and elsewhere. Perhaps the fact that Turkey is one of the few Muslim-majority countries that is not actively anti-Israel may make Israel more unwilling to offend it - but the EU countries don't want to offend it either (I'm not quite sure what the general American view is). Nothing specific to Israel or Jews, in other words. FWIW, I don't approve of pandering to pressures for any form of genocide denial.

[shaayecanaan]

35. Yes, of course

'(1) Some Jews would prefer to think of anti-Semitism as some kind of cosmological constant, rather than a political phenomenon, because this means that anti-Semitism is categorically different and therefore more "special" than other types of racism;'

Not more than other groups regard racism against themselves as "special". And do you not think racism *is* an ever-present phenomenon, that we need to guard against, though its form and severity and targets depends on political and social circumstance?

Of course racism has a logical cause. It is simily a manifestation of the tendency of groups to compete with each other for power and resources, especially when those resources become scarce. The only way to eliminate racism would be a) to get rid of the groups, or b) to make sure that the resources are sufficiently plentiful to satisfy everyone.
Thankfully, in Britain and America where everyone is happy to shag everyone else, we're doing a reasonable job of the first part. And for the time being, people are sufficiently plied with bread and circuses to keep them happy.

What would your reaction be if an Armenian or gypsy was to suggest to you that "it could happen here" (ie, in America or Britain)? My reaction would be to dismiss it out of hand, and categorise the person as having more sanctimoniousness than sense.

Of course, there are those gypsies in eastern Europe (the former Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary etc) that are in very clear danger of getting killed or expelled if there should ever be another war, just as they have been in all the previous wars. Funnily enough, their attitude is rather different - they don't go around saying "it could happen here" because there is a fair chance that if they say it loud enough, it will bloody happen there.

I read a remark by a gypsy in a National Geographic magazine when the journalist asked him why gypsies aren't more interested in commemorating the holocaust. The gypsy replied "because we don't want to be giving the magyars (the ethnic Hungarians) any ideas".

Compare that to the atmosphere at any Irish club on a Friday night, when all the old bastards are bevvied up and crying into their beers about the black and tans, the potato blight, and all the other miseries of Irish life 200 years ago. It amuses them, no doubt, but for anyone else, who really gives a shit? If I feel sorry for someone, it is for some poor Congolese sod who is getting hacked to bits by a Hutu machete in some godforsaken shantytown shithole in the DRC. Not some Armenian luxury car dealer who is earning $200k a year.

Besides, do you really think putting up another bronze statue or another eternal flame is going to prevent a reoccurence of any event? Hardly.

[LeftishBrit]

40. A bit oversimplified IMO

'Of course racism has a logical cause. It is simily a manifestation of the tendency of groups to compete with each other for power and resources, especially when those resources become scarce.'

That is ONE common reason for racism, but not the only one. In this connection: asking 'can it happen here' in America might be seen as a bit redundant, because it already did: to the Native Americans. In that case, competition for land and resources was a major reason, and the more powerful group killed off or threw out the less powerful to get their resources. Same with the Maoris in New Zealand, Australian Aboriginal people, etc. What differentiates the Holocaust in Nazi Germany from many other genocides is that it was less based on competition for resources, and more on the need for scapegoats, and fanatical racial purity ideologies. More than in many other situations, the Nazis were racist for the sake of racism. Certainly, there were political and economic reasons why the Germans at that time might have been in greater 'need' of scapegoats and more receptive to an ideology of racial superiority - but nevertheless the racism itself was not logical. There is the old apocryphal story of the Nazi demagogue - in some versions, Hitler himself - who asks his audience, "And who are to blame for all our troubles?" A member of the audience cries out: "The Jews and the bicycle riders!" Hitler, startled, asks "Why the bicycle riders?" The audience member shrugs and replies, "Why the Jews?" There was no real logic as to "why the Jews" - or the Gypsies for that matter- except that they were convenient, recognizably 'different', scapegoats for the society's ills.

'What would your reaction be if an Armenian or gypsy was to suggest to you that "it could happen here" (ie, in America or Britain)?'

If an Armenian said it, I would think that it was unlikely, as there are very few Armenians in Britain. I don't know whether there are more in America. It's unusual for a very small minority group to play the 'scapegoat' role. However, if a Gypsy (or a Jew or a Muslim or a British Asian or member of any other reasonably-sized minority group) said it, I would think it had some foundation. Not that it's likely to happen *now*, but if there were a war involving Britain directly, or serious economic collapse, then the risk of a scapegoat being sought and targeted would increase. In fact, Gypsies are already the subject of a very worrying degree of scapegoating and racism by certain tabloids.

And I don't see how 'sanctimonousness' has anything to do with it - even if I think people's fears are unreasonable in a given context, I would regard them as paranoid, not sanctimonious.

'Besides, do you really think putting up another bronze statue or another eternal flame is going to prevent a reoccurence of any event? Hardly.'

Of course not, on its own - but people can to some degree learn from history. The Holocaust is a horrific cautionary tale of what can happen if demagogues get too much power, and are enabled to use a particular ethnic group as a scapegoat - and one can learn from such cautionary tales. The Germans themselves have learned fairly effectively for the moment, IMO. Recognizing this dark side of human nature, and its more dangerous forms of political expression, *can* help to prevent its re-occurrence.

[shaayecanaan]

43. I agree, mostly...

What differentiates the Holocaust in Nazi Germany from many other genocides is that it was less based on competition for resources, and more on the need for scapegoats, and fanatical racial purity ideologies.

I agree to an extent. It is important to distinguish organic racism, such as the white riots against Asians in Britain, etc, from Nazism which was more of a top-down ideology. There was not much grassroots enthusiasm for either the war or for anti-semitism in Germany initially.

A comparative example of this was the Maoist government's attitude to sparrows (yes, the bird) during the Cultural Revolution. They viewed sparrows as unsocialistic because they did not work for their food but scavenged it from humans. Children would be encouraged to sit in their backyards and bang on pots and pans to keep the sparrows from resting, who would eventually die from fatigue. I doubt that the average Chinese person resented sparrows to any great degree, but no doubt it served to distract the populace from other complaints that they might have otherwise had.

Not that it's likely to happen *now*, but if there were a war involving Britain directly, or serious economic collapse

Well, my initial post said much the same thing. It would take an economic collapse, or a precipitous decline in living standards, for British people to start throwing gypsies on the bonfire, or anyone else for that matter.

I don't see how 'sanctimonousness' has anything to do with it

Yes, it does. When you insinuate that the ghost of Talat Pasha or Hitler is stirring whenever someone gets beaten up on a train, you are exaggerating to make a political point. The Palestinians do exactly the same when they compare their trevails to the holocaust. The Israelis do the same when they compare, seemingly without fail, every Arab leader from Nasser, to Sadat, to Arafat, to Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad, to Hitler.

The Germans themselves have learned fairly effectively for the moment, IMO.

We risk going too far with the Germans. Neo-Nazism's stocks there are rising because their youth are thinking, well, if I cant be patriotic without being considered a Nazi, I might as well be a Nazi. There is a point where national shame becomes its own poison.

To put this in context - you have a nation, Belgium, which has refused to formally apologise for the deaths of two-thirds of the Congolese nation, some 10 million people, done to death by its King Leopold II during 1885-1900. A motion in the British parliament to formally recognise the Congolese democide lies untabled because it can't get the numbers.

You have France, itself responsible for arming the Hutu militias in Africa and which has a bloody colonial history all its own, together with Britain being responsible for the slaughter of 10-15 million people. Spain, responsible for the extermination of 90% of meso-America. The irony is, compared with the Spanish, Belgians, French, Spanish, Dutch, British and Portuguese, the Germans actually had a comparatively clean sheet up until the holocaust.

At the same time, you have Turkey, a country which has killed one million Armenians, 250,000 Assyrians, 300,000 Pontic Greeks, and refuses to acknowledge that it even happened. A country which occupies half of Cyprus, illegally, and which seems to be flirting with the idea of a muscular solution to its Kurdish problem. This, apparently, is our greatest cultural ally in the middle east, Israel's dearest Muslim friend, and a seemingly inevitable candidate for inclusion in the EU.

[Vegasaurus]

23. There was Arab anti-semitism

LONG before the creation of Israel or the occupation.

Do a little reading.

[shaayecanaan]

36. In five hundred years in Arab countries

there were a few pogroms involving a relatively small amount of deaths. More Arabs died in Jewish massacres in the first year of Israel's existence than Jewish deaths in five hundred years of Arab civilisation in the middle East.

Do a little reading.

I'll say it again. It is blatantly apparent from the limited syntactical expression that you have that I am vastly more erudite and well-read than you will ever be.

[Vegasaurus]

51. It's small "number", not small "amount" of deaths

the error of which, shows you are not really erudite at all.

Your point it disputable, but that's beside the point.

[shaayecanaan]

62. You misplaced a comma

Your point it disputable, but that's beside the point.

Actually its not disputable, because:-

1) Its true, and;
2) You are both unable and unwilling to dispute it.

QED.

[pelsar]

37. anti semitism is because of logical reasons?...

so according to you for some "logical reason" jews have been kicked out so many countries over the centuries..have anti jew laws...restricted immigration all for "logical reasons.".


i'm sure you can find a 'logical reason" for every specific pogrom, anti jew law, kicking the jews out, anti jew books, cartoons, speeches....for the last 2,000 years in almost every language. Jews that have been successfully integrated all of a sudden become the scrape goats etc...anti semitism transcends national and ethnic boundaries unlike any other as its found throughout the world...even today.


btw you really shouldn't put out the "jews had it good under the arabs"....that is of course if you consider living as 2nd class citizens acceptable (which you may)

and its classic arab anti-semitism, that trys to explain anti semitisim as some kind of logical response to the jews, hence the protocols of zion is a major seller in arab lands.

[shaayecanaan]

39. There is a difference...

between explaining, for example, that the 9/11 attacks happened because of A, B and C, and saying that America deserved it.

Likewise, there is a difference between saying that anti-semitism, or any form of racism, is a response to A, B or C, and saying that its victims deserved it.

i'm sure you can find a 'logical reason" for every specific pogrom, anti jew law, kicking the jews out, anti jew books, cartoons, speeches....for the last 2,000 years in almost every language. Jews that have been successfully integrated all of a sudden become the scrape goats etc...anti semitism transcends national and ethnic boundaries unlike any other as its found throughout the world...even today.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I would say that anti-semitism is more prevalent in Palestine than say, Tuvalu. Just a hunch.

And sorry to disappoint you on the second part, but my lady friend is Chinese. Of her circle of friends, the only one who had a vague idea of what Islam is said that "its kind of like Christianity, but its backwards because they live on the other side of the earth, and they're not allowed to eat chicken". I doubt that your average Chinese knows or cares much more than that about Judaism. Same for most of east Asia, or indeed most of the world other than the Western and Arab countries.

[pelsar]

47. the logic...

i'm sure there is great explanation why jews werent allowed in harvard, kicked out of spain, attacked by the cossacks, caused the blood libles against them syria, had quotas against them in various countries at various times.....for over 2000 years.

got any examples that comes even close to that kind of "anti"

as far as the "world" goes...i was being very general (didnt even include the islands of the S.Pacific)...and was definitely thinking about the western and arab worlds..
___

but to clarify..your basically claiming the the anti semitism that the jews have faced is no different in character nor violence (i'll exclude the holocaust as the "aberration')..that anything the kurds have faced for example.

[shaayecanaan]

49. Follow the thread

above. Im having quite a substantive, productive conversation with Leftishbrit. At least, I think so. Seems to be quite a rarity on this board.

as far as the "world" goes...i was being very general (didnt even include the islands of the S.Pacific)

Thou art indeed a true American.

got any examples that comes even close to that kind of "anti"

yeah

I would think that anti-black sentiment is fairly universal as well (I suspect you can even find that in Tuvalu). Why don't you ask a falasha whether he thought anti-Jewish sentiment in Ethiopia was worse than anti-black racism in Israel?

but to clarify..your basically claiming the the anti semitism that the jews have faced is no different in character nor violence (i'll exclude the holocaust as the "aberration')..that anything the kurds have faced for example

I am not denying that the holocaust was unique, or that anti-semitism does not have unique qualities.

For the most part, I do not think that "league table of suffering" arguments are particularly constructive. However, to the extent that you might, for example, assume that the Nazi holocaust is categorically worse than the Congolese democide, in which two-thirds of the entire population of the Belgian Congo, some 10 million people, were wiped out in 15 years, then I reject that. That is an attempt to minimise and dismiss the suffering of people, and it is racism.

On edit: I referred to a study earlier by the American Jewish Committee which found that Gypsies were the least-liked minority in eastern Europe. A reference to that study can be found here.

Also, the post above probably contains as much heat as light, admittedly. Its a serious question and should probably get a developed response. I will try and respond later as circumstances permit.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Qr3pF8qyS_AC&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=gypsy+%22american+jewish+committee%22&source=web&ots=oe6l3WaGAe&sig=Ua7MIsBC0K4GE2N1GCRRC_YU9IU&hl=en">link

Also from the AJC:-

"17 percent of Germans "prefer not" to have Jews as neighbors, though more Germans would prefer to not have as neighbors Gypsies, Arabs, Turks, Africans and Poles"

[azurnoir]

31. I have to question your last statement

"Germany was the pinnacle of western culture at the time just preceding the Holocaust. If it could happen there, it can happen anywhere."

When do you consider the Holocaust to have began? Are you suggesting that Germany from 1933 to 1939 was the pinnacle of anything except facism?

Prior to 1933 Germany had not been a "pinnacle" of anything since prior to WW1.

[Boojatta]

45. Are you claiming that from 1914 to 1932 Germany was not a pinnacle of anything?

Begin by explaining this:

1932 - Chemistry, Irving Langmuir
Literature, John Galsworthy
Medicine, Edgar Adrian
Medicine, Sir Charles Sherrington
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Werner Heisenberg

1931 - Chemistry, Friedrich Bergius
Chemistry, Carl Bosch
Literature, Erik Axel Karlfeldt
Medicine, Otto Warburg
Peace, Jane Addams
Peace, Nicholas Murray Butler
Physics, No Prize was Awarded

1930 - Chemistry, Hans Fischer
Literature, Sinclair Lewis
Medicine, Karl Landsteiner
Peace, Nathan Söderblom
Physics, Sir Venkata Raman

1929 - Chemistry, Arthur Harden
Chemistry, Hans von Euler-Chelpin
Literature, Thomas Mann
Medicine, Christiaan Eijkman
Medicine, Sir Frederick Hopkins
Peace, Frank B. Kellogg
Physics, Louis de Broglie

1928 - Chemistry, Adolf Windaus
Literature, Sigrid Undset
Medicine, Charles Nicolle
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Owen Willans Richardson

1927 - Chemistry, Heinrich Wieland
Literature, Henri Bergson
Medicine, Julius Wagner-Jauregg
Peace, Ferdinand Buisson
Peace, Ludwig Quidde
Physics, Arthur H. Compton
Physics, C.T.R. Wilson

1926 - Chemistry, The Svedberg
Literature, Grazia Deledda
Medicine, Johannes Fibiger
Peace, Aristide Briand
Peace, Gustav Stresemann
Physics, Jean Baptiste Perrin

1925 - Chemistry, Richard Zsigmondy
Literature, George Bernard Shaw
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, Sir Austen Chamberlain
Peace, Charles G. Dawes
Physics, James Franck
Physics, Gustav Hertz

1924 - Chemistry, No Prize was Awarded
Literature, Wladyslaw Reymont
Medicine, Willem Einthoven
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Manne Siegbahn

1923 - Chemistry, Fritz Pregl
Literature, William Butler Yeats
Medicine, Frederick G. Banting
Medicine, John Macleod
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Robert A. Millikan

1922 - Chemistry, Francis W. Aston
Literature, Jacinto Benavente
Medicine, Archibald V. Hill
Medicine, Otto Meyerhof
Peace, Fridtjof Nansen
Physics, Niels Bohr

1921 - Chemistry, Frederick Soddy
Literature, Anatole France
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, Hjalmar Branting
Peace, Christian Lange
Physics, Albert Einstein

1920 - Chemistry, Walther Nernst
Literature, Knut Hamsun
Medicine, August Krogh
Peace, Léon Bourgeois
Physics, Charles Edouard Guillaume

1919 - Chemistry, No Prize was Awarded
Literature, Carl Spitteler
Medicine, Jules Bordet
Peace, Woodrow Wilson
Physics, Johannes Stark

1918 - Chemistry, Fritz Haber
Literature, No Prize was Awarded
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Max Planck

1917 - Chemistry, No Prize was Awarded
Literature, Karl Gjellerup
Literature, Henrik Pontoppidan
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, International Committee of the Red Cross
Physics, Charles Glover Barkla

1916 - Chemistry, No Prize was Awarded
Literature, Verner von Heidenstam
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, No Prize was Awarded

1915 - Chemistry, Richard Willstätter
Literature, Romain Rolland
Medicine, No Prize was Awarded
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, William Bragg
Physics, Lawrence Bragg

1914 - Chemistry, Theodore W. Richards
Literature, No Prize was Awarded
Medicine, Robert Bárány
Peace, No Prize was Awarded
Physics, Max von Laue

Source:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/all/

[azurnoir]

46. So you are denying that ww1

left Germany impoverished for all the the elite? if so and Germany was such a pinnicle as you claim, then explain the rise of the Nazi's, were they voted in these Noble Prize winners? Any society that allows the majority of its people live in near starvation conditions and dire poverty while a relative few live in luxury and enjoy the "modern life" does not deserve to called a "pinnacle"

[azurnoir]

48. End by explaining your list

are we to believe that all of these winners were German, did you bother to check? apparently not the list is reduced to 15 names if one bothers to check,

Werner Heisenberg
Friedrich Bergius
Carl Bosch
Otto Warburg
Hans Fischer
Adolf Windaus
Heinrich Wieland
Gustav Stresemann
James Franck
Gustav Hertz
Albert Einstein
Walther Nernst
Johannes Stark
Max Planck
Max von Laue

nice try, ther were as many Swedish, Danish, Americam and British laureates as German.

[Boojatta]

50. "are we to believe that all of these winners were German"

Why do you ask that question? I made it clear that I was responding to your claim:

"Prior to 1933 Germany had not been a 'pinnacle' of anything since prior to WW1."

It seems possible that some people who possessed neither German citizenship nor any claim to German ethnicity might have spent some time in Germany to study or do original research of an experimental, theoretical, literary, or other nature. I hope that, without researching the question, you don't claim to know that there were no such people.

What would have motivated such hypothetical people? Perhaps they were very secretive like an imaginary Andrew Wiles who not only kept quiet about his research but, after getting no more than an undergraduate degree in math, studied math directly from books in a country that has no graduate schools with a reputation for having good math departments. The imaginary and highly secretive Andrew Wiles might have also done all of his original thinking and writing in a country that has no reputation for mathematical research.

"nice try, there were as many Swedish, Danish, Americam and British laureates as German."
Why does it matter whether or not an individual had a claim to being German? I thought you were talking about Germany the country and whether or not Germany had been a pinnacle of anything at any time within the referenced years.

Note:
I presume that education of future chemists falls within the category "anything." I also presume that education of future physicists falls within the category "anything." However, perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by the word "anything."

[azurnoir]

52. Sir while yes the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was a leading

school of physics, there were also prestigious schools of that same science in Prague, Zürich, and the US. I mention physics because that is the area of study that produced most of the German Noble winners. Just who studied there and who did not is a question I will leave to you.

[Boojatta]

53. So you are saying that Germany had a "leading" school of physics,

but that Germany had no "pinnacle" status for anything?

What's the precise distinction that you are relying upon here between "leading" and "pinnacle"?

[azurnoir]

54. from merriam webster

Main Entry:
1pin·na·cle Listen to the pronunciation of 1pinnacle
Pronunciation:
\ˈpi-ni-kəl\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English pinacle, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin pinnaculum small wing, gable, from Latin pinna wing, battlement
Date:
14th century

1: an upright architectural member generally ending in a small spire and used especially in Gothic construction to give weight especially to a buttress2: a structure or formation suggesting a pinnacle; specifically : a lofty peak3: the highest point of development or achievement : acme
synonyms see summit

was Germanys school the highest point?

[Boojatta]

56. Your comment that started this was:

"Prior to 1933 Germany had not been a "pinnacle" of anything since prior to WW1."

Now you seem to be saying that there can be only one pinnacle. However, you still haven't demonstrated that, for every subfield or branch of physics or chemistry, the "highest point" school for study of that subfield was somewhere other than Germany.

[azurnoir]

57. Nor have you

what is your point? the comment that started this also included a question of when the Holocaust started, in 1933 when the Nazi's were voted into power or when WW2 started, actually that was my main question, do you care to address that or are too interested in defending Germany or what ever it is your doing here?

[Boojatta]

58. Just checking to see whether you would support your claim.

It seems that you think the onus is on me to disprove it. I didn't know that trying to find out the truth was tantamount to "defending Germany."

[azurnoir]

60. Didn't think I'd check that list of Noble winners huh ? n/t

[Boojatta]

64. What did you check?

Did you check the surnames to see whether or not, upon superficial examination, they seemed to have German citizenship or some claim to German ethnicity? I still can't find where you have explained how that would be relevant to the question of Germany itself and its status as the pinnacle of something.

Perhaps you are confident that grad students of physics between 1914 and 1932 who studied under Max Planck, Albert Einstein, or Werner Heisenberg were not benefiting from an opportunity to learn from pinnacle-level thinkers in physics. However, not everyone shares your view.

[azurnoir]

65. I checked the bio's

and actually was surprised surprised, the names with von- were Swedish, a good deal of the other German sounding names either Danish or Austrian.

edited to add I did not just check German sounding or looking names, the first clue I had that something was not right were the literary winners and let me add obe more to the Germans Thomas Mann

[Boojatta]

66. "the names with von- were Swedish"

Are you suggesting that a country cannot possibly have been a pinnacle with respect to what it had that attracted visiting students, researchers, immigrants, or others?

I'm getting the impression that you are focused exclusively on the national origins of the names.

[azurnoir]

67. No I went on

coytry of origin per individual, and the country where they lived. To give an example, Einstein born and lived in Germany although did stints as a student and Professor in Zürich and Prague, I did not count him as Swiss or Czech.

[Boojatta]

68. Why, when trying to decide whether or not a country was a pinnacle

of anything, would you put your focus on the country of origin of Nobel Prize winners and the country where a Nobel Prize winner spent most of his or her life? If David Hilbert had been born in India and had lived in India for more than the first half of his life, then wouldn't you want to know where he moved and why? Wouldn't you suspect that his destination country might have some quality worth noting?

Note: David Hilbert didn't win a Nobel Prize. There was and is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in mathematics. That is because Nobel Prizes place a premium on practical humanitarian benefits rather than abstract scholarship. For example, unless I'm mistaken, there's a Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology, but there isn't a Nobel Prize in linguistics or deciphering of ancient scripts.

[azurnoir]

69. Where is your focus sir?

I already answered you. You claim ther "onus" is on me, for what to prove a "claim" that you feel the need to challenge? I have asked you several questions, which you have dodged.
I have answered yours, and at this point, the only credence you have sir, is that which I give you by answering posts, which I will no longer do.

[Boojatta]

70. You replied, but I don't think that you actually answered the questions.

Here is where my focus is:

31. I have to question your last statement
"Germany was the pinnacle of western culture at the time just preceding the Holocaust. If it could happen there, it can happen anywhere."

When do you consider the Holocaust to have began? Are you suggesting that Germany from 1933 to 1939 was the pinnacle of anything except facism?

Prior to 1933 Germany had not been a "pinnacle" of anything since prior to WW1.

Unless I am misunderstanding the above words, they assert that Germany wasn't a pinnacle of anything between 1914 and 1933.

Now, consider the following interesting bit of dialogue:

67. We were
discussing more along the lines of scientific, medical advancements and breakthroughs, which the Israelis accomplished in a few short years. Astonishing compared to the rest of the world when taken in a timeframe context.



azurnoir (1000+ posts) Mon May-19-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #67

80. No not really
although at present all you hear about are the poor uneducated Arab Jews that were accepted into the new state of Israel what you do not hear much about anymore is that by and large the European Holocaust survivors were amongst some of the most well educated people on earth and the connections between them and scientists in America. Not to mention that the Weizmann Institute existed well before partition.

The "most well educated people on earth"!? I hear that Germany is part of Europe. Did you do some research to confirm that they weren't educated in Germany and didn't teach in Germany? After all, I recall hearing about some hidden evidence supporting the unquestionable fact (also known as dogma) that Germany wasn't a pinnacle of anything.

[Vegasaurus]

21. You need look no further than the anti-Israel

anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic comments on this forum to understand why the Jews need one safe place in the world.

[azurnoir]

25. I see many more antiMuslim and antiChristian

comments on DU as a whole, perhaps you do not look beyond the I/P forum. So going by your logic maybe we need a Christian homeland and a Muslim homeland too. Heck why stop there, maybe every group that has ever been discriminated against should have its own homeland too. This concept however gets ridiculous pretty fast, do we just keep subdividing in to separate groups and to what end?

[Vegasaurus]

26. There are at least 25 countries that are over 95% Muslim

(and most of them won't allow Jews or Christians to live there) , some being 99% Muslim.

I'd say we have Muslim homelands by the boatload.

There are Christian homelands too, all over the world, where Christianity is the national religion.

Don't be so disingenuous.

What is your problem with one tiny (the size of New Jersey) Jewish homeland? Why do you begrudge Jews self determination, when Muslims have so many countries already?

[azurnoir]

28. So American Jews do not have

self determination, is that what your saying? Or perhaps American Muslims should leave and live in Muslim countries?

The one being disingenuous here is you.

[Vegasaurus]

29. We aren't talking about American Jews or American Muslims

but countries dominated by one national religion.

I already pointed out that at least 25 countries are between 95%-99% Muslim.

Those are the "Muslim countries" that you seemed not to think existed (there are many more predominantly Muslim countries, with over 50% Muslims).

The question is why one small "JEWISH" country bothers you so much,

You don't seem at all upset by the rampant discrimination in the Muslim countries, that won't even allow Israelis to visit or Jews to live there (They've all been kicked out).

Why the outrage at a Jewish nation when there are clearly so many religiously based nations in the world?

[azurnoir]

30. One small Jewish country does not bother me

but of course it has to be framed that way, what does bother is any country including my own that claims to have "equal rights" when clearly it does not, perhaps on paper it does but not in action.

I asked about American Jews because your statement inferred that only in Israel do Jews have self determination, but of course you quickly changed the subject to focus on Arab countries, who while their discriminatory policies may be despicable are at the very least honest.

[Vegasaurus]

32. You keep changing the goalposts

We aren't talking about American Jews or Muslims, and we aren't talking about equal rights either.

My comment was in reference to this one of yours:

So going by your logic maybe we need a Christian homeland and a Muslim homeland too.

I pointed out that there are PLENTY of "Muslim homelands" and so didn't understand your issue with a Jewish one.

Self-determination in your own national homeland is what we were talking about too, not about whether Jews or Muslims have self-determination in the US.

[Boojatta]

44. "for the most part, speak the same, dress the same, and eat the same"

Who had your wisdom in 1933? Many citizens of Germany were at risk of being classified as Jews and were unable to obtain a special "pure German blood" certificate. If a person with your wisdom had achieved a voice through the media, then perhaps that person could have coached them on how to speak, dress, and eat. Surely then the future victims would not have been victimized, right?

[shaayecanaan]

59. Classy...

Im trying to comprehend whats being insinuated here - is it merely that I am insensitive, or do you imply that I think the victims deserved what they got? Either way, it really adds a touch of refinement to the discussions here.

To recap, the above discussion started when a poster stated that "it could happen here". I rejected that on the basis that 1) the social and environmental conditions are not conducive to that happening and 2) even if it did, the newer minorities in America, being more visible and more quintessentially "foreign" than Jews, would be more natural targets.

The tendency for anti-immigrant/foreigner sentiment to shift from "older" minorities to "newer" minorities is well established. There was once, for example, significant and serious prejudice against Irish and Italians in New York. However, once Blacks started migrating to the city in large numbers, they became the subjects of most of this hostility, and the divisions between white Protestants and Catholics greatly diminished.

Likewise in Australia, the first wave of post war immigrants from Southern Europe (Italians, Greeks, etc) took place in the 1960s, Asians in the mid-1970s, and Muslims (Somalis, Sudanese, Lebanese, Iraqis) in the 1990s. In each case, the new migrants have inherited the victimisation that was aimed at the previous generation of migrants. There is relatively little concerted racism against Italians any more.

[eyl]

61. An outright Jewish Holocaust in America may be unlikely

but OTOH, Jews there are affected by anti-Semetism to a far greater degree. I've seen American Jews discuss how such anti-Semetism affects them; while I, as an Israeli, can't say I've ever encountered any anti-Semetism directly.

As an example, remember when The Passion of the Christ came out? There were a lot of concerns and nervousness in the American Jewish community just prior to that that the film's release would fan the flames of anti-Semetism. True, in the ned not much happened, AFAIK - but the fact that those concerns were so widespread is telling. OTOH, here in Israel we were concerned about whether Jews abroad would be affected, but we had no concern as to effects on ourselves.

[shaayecanaan]

63. Define unlikely...

vis-a-vis, say, the prospect that Americans might start lynching blacks and Mexicans again, or reembarking on the slave trade? Or the prospect that the Clan Campbell might renew their ancient blood-feud with the Clan MacDonald in Scotland? (I suppose that last one is probably a bit unlikely, but just think of the tourist potential...)

I've seen American Jews discuss how such anti-Semetism affects them; while I, as an Israeli, can't say I've ever encountered any anti-Semetism directly.

Probably because a "semet" is a kind of ferret, I think (cheap spelling shot, I know).

I have no direct experience with America. I once read an annual report by the B'nai Brith in Canada saying that the most serious development in that particular year was proselytisation by Christian groups masquerading as Jews (code for Messianic Jews I suppose). I guess when thats the biggest threat to Canadian Jewry, its a pretty good year.

As an example, remember when The Passion of the Christ came out? There were a lot of concerns and nervousness in the American Jewish community just prior to that that the film's release would fan the flames of anti-Semetism.

I recall that the ADL was the main force behind that. Incidentally, they also objected to Jesus Christ Superstar when it first ran on Broadway (no doubt fearing the terible prospect of Broadway audiences streaming from the theatre and engaging in wanton acts of Judenhass). Funnily enough, it didnt happen even though the damn thing ran for something like 14 years.

[oberliner]

55. Most German Jews spoke the same, dressed the same, and ate the same

as their WASP counterparts in Germany.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hydra]

6. *Sigh*

Why do we even bother having borders in the world? We should simply announce that if you can hold it, feel free to try and take it.

[bemildred]

8. The old ways are best, eh? nt

[notfullofit]

9. All that is old

is new again.

[azurnoir]

10. Something I found interesting

at the end of the article and a places though out it was mentioned that "we fight as Jews" not we fight as Israeli's but we fight as Jews, this single statement sums up the IMHO true problem for Israel, the national identity is seen by the majority not as Israeli but as Jewish where does that leave Israel's non-Jewish minority?
Do the Syrians or Iraqis or Iranians, see themselves as Muslim first and nation second? History would suggest no they do not. The same can be said for Christian countries. One of the threats to Israel may be its own single mindedness on this subject, to be truly Israeli one must also be a Jew, viewing it self through this monocle Israel leaves 20% of its population in the cold and the 80% is now growing not just fearful but in cases outright resentful of their need of some "warmth".

[henank]

11. Israel was founded as a Jewish homeland

so yes, people in Israel fight as Jews. The Arab states in the region want to destroy Israel because it is a Jewish country. I am quite sure that if Israel had been founded as another Muslim country the other Arab states would have had no problem with its existence. The world examines Israel and its actions with a microscope because it is Jewish. Muslim countries do not get the same level of attention or excoriation for similar and worse actions.

However, Israel being a Jewish country does not mean that other religions cannot exist, live and flourish there. Indeed as you say, 20% of the country's population is not Jewish. That has not prevented loyal Bedouin and Druze Israelis from serving faithfully and extremely successfully in the IDF, nor has it prevented loyal Muslim Israelis from achieving all levels of success including becoming a High Court judge, members of the Knesset and even cabinet ministers. Yes, I know that there is still discrimination and matters are not perfect, but then again, which country is?

The point you raise that Muslim countries do not see themselves as Muslim first is first of all not necessarily true in every circumstance, - consider Iran and Saudi Arabia, both of which have "Muslim" in their official names (and possibly Libya too though I'm not sure about this) - and secondly, does not derogate in any way from Israel the right to see itself as Jewish first. After all, and I repeat, Israel was founded to be a Jewish homeland. Not a Christian homeland. Not a Muslim homeland. Not even a Zionist homeland. Zionism is simply the Jewish aspiration to a Jewish homeland.

So if Israel's considering itself Jewish is a threat to its own existence, why, you might as well say that antisemitism is caused by the Jews' existence. I know that's not what you're not saying, but that's how it sounds to this Jew. If the 20% non-Jewish population in Israel feel left out in the cold, they can fight for equal rights (and they should), they can use all the democratic tools in their hands as Israelis to attain what is rightfully theirs. And if they don't like it they have the option of leaving. Unlike Jews in other countries in other times. And unlike Jews in Arab countries today.

[azurnoir]

12. I am aware both of the purpose of Zionism and Israel as a

Jewish homeland, however the statement was "we fight as Jews" not Israeli's or even Israeli Jews. Israels considering it self Jewish is not the threat it is that consideration to the exclusion of others that is, as you point out Druze serve and are at their own request drafted in to service but where does a statement like that leave them, what do they fight as? What is so wrong with an Israeli national identity as simply Israeli's?

[pelsar]

16. your going to argue with "identity'?

the jews of israel...with their history identify as jews...and see themselves as fighting for that identity. Druze fight for living free in a democractic country...not to be under arab/muslim rule. Muslim israelis fight for democracy...to live free. Each gets their own identity and to fight for that one...if they choose to.

[azurnoir]

33. Not arguing the "identity " of Jews in Israel

nor am I arguing against a Jewish majority country, of which in that respect Israel is singular. My problem here is the almost xenophobic nature of that identity as illustrated in this quote-

On another level, let's take the example of an 18-year-old American Jew who volunteers for the army, and gets killed in Iraq. He will have fought and died as an American, fighting for America. He did not die as a Jew, fighting for a specifically Jewish cause.

Note here I would have as much, actually more problem with the an American 18 year old who died in any war being said to have died for a Christian cause, despite America being a Christian majority country, the same goes for an Iraqi who died in the did they die for Iraq or for Islam, the former I have no argument with the latter I do.

So again I ask what is so wrong with fighting and dieing simply as an Israeli?

[pelsar]

34. nothing..

and what is wrong with the grandson or son of a holocaust survivor fighting as a jew for a jewish country to live free as a jew?

[azurnoir]

42. Nothing is wrong with that

and what is wrong with the grandson or son of a holocaust survivor fighting as a jew for a jewish country to live free as a jew?

There is not a problem with that concept, in fact the American Jew in Iraq used in the quote fought and died as a Jew, it is the national cause that is the problem here, if indeed fighting for Israel is a "specifically Jewish cause" then again where does that leave the non-Jewish soldiers?I have no problem with your example on an individual basis, it does become a problem when it is applied on a national level however, this goes doubly for a society that claims to multi-cultural or multi-religious, the concept automatically delegates "second class status" to those not of the designated group. This is not just Israel, but any country that makes such conflicting claims, including and especially for me the US.

[bemildred]

41. A bit more on Mr Goldberg:

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/05/hbc-90002898

And the original object of dispute:

http://www.observer.com/term/54533

More can be found with Google.

[Boojatta]

71. I hear that the term "economic depression" was coined as a euphemism for "economic crisis."

Of course, since 1929 and the 1930s, it has been necessary to invent a new euphemism: "recession" because the word "depression" no longer sounds mild when used in an economic context.

Question for everybody:
Is it simply not believable that America might in the future experience an economic depression comparable to the one that began in 1929?