Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence

[Shaktimaan]

Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

>snip<

Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2008/01/jewish_identity_in_the_past.html

Does anyone else think it's ironic that someone from India is lecturing the Jews on how to be more non-violent? Can someone remind me of the last time India reached out and loved its radical terrorist enemies within Pakistan? (I seem to remember India being created by his grandfather's guiding hand, which despite his commitment to non-violence was marked by rivers of blood and millions of bodies choking the Ganges, making Israel's independence look like a picnic. And he thinks MY people are the innately violent ones?) I am not sure how he arrived at the idea that Israel and the Jews are the biggest players in the culture of violence, (destined to destroy the world of course,) but I think I have a pretty good idea.

[Violet_Crumble]

1. To be fair...

Does anyone else think it's ironic that someone from India is lecturing the Jews on how to be more non-violent?

No more ironic than someone from Israel or the US lecturing the Palestinians on how to be more non-violent....

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Shaktimaan]

3. How come?

That would only be true if the US or Israel themselves had a more violent history than the Palestinians, which isn't so.

Both the US and Israel have always sought to use diplomacy as their primary tool, turning to violence only after initial, non-violent attempts to achieve a goal have failed. But the Palestinians have time and again relied on violence as their first, and sometimes only, means of influencing their political environment. The times we have seen them use diplomacy first tended to be at points that violent resistance was not a practical option, such as when Arafat negotiated with Israel in the early to mid 90's. And in this case, once violent resistance became a viable option it was quickly implemented, as seen in the second intifada.

Likewise, you would be hard pressed to find examples of Israelis dealing with their internal problems or rival politicians with the severity that regularly occurs in the PA controlled OPT.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Because both the US and Israel do have more violent histories...

Do you really think that US administrations like the Bush one or Sharon's govt used diplomacy as their primary tool? That's so totally incorrect. You claim to have read and liked Ben-Ami's 'Scars of War, Wounds of Peace' so how can you after reading about Golda Meir claim that she used diplomacy as her primary tool?

[LeftishBrit]

8. While I agree that the article is absolute rubbish, and IMO crosses the line into antisemitism...

I can't agree that 'the US and Israel have always sought to use diplomacy as their primary tool' Especially not the US in recent times, from 'covert action' against unwanted leaders in Latin America in the 70s, to the pre-emptive war with Iraq.

I don't think there are many countries that have acted as a pattern of non-violent virtue. Certainly not Britain in imperial times (sigh!)

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I had some issues with the first paragraph in particular...

..especially about the concept of forgiving and moving on. I think it's possible to move on without forgiving, but if he's talking about forgiving those who carried out the Holocaust, then I think it's very unreasonable to expect forgiveness. I don't expect other groups that have been victims of genocide to forgive the perpetrators, so I find that all a bit silly...

But having said that, I'm not sure I'm seeing where the article crosses into antisemitism. Is it that he talks about Jewish identity? I'm not fond of anything that says any group has the same identity, and while there are Jewish people who do what he talks about, there are so many that don't....

[LeftishBrit]

11. Where it (IMO) crosses into antisemitism ...

is:

(1) 'it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.'

This implies not only that the Jews *should* move on and forgive, but that the world is justified in feeling angry with the Jews (as a collective group) if they don't. If similar things were said about the Native Americans or the Australian Aboriginal peoples, then I would regard it as racist. In fact, sometimes things not too dissimilar are said about African Americans (re slavery) and I do find that racist.

and:

(2) We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players)

It would be nutty to say, with all the available competition, that *Israel* was the biggest player; but it might still not be antisemitic. But to imply that 'the Jews' in the world as a whole are the biggest players in a culture of violence - that crosses the line!

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I agree with you on the first point...

It's the whole speaking of a collective group that does it, and that last bit where he says regret turns into anger. If he'd said the first bit about some Jews and not plonked it on every Jew in the world, he'd have been fine, imo, as I've seen some Jewish folk on the internet who do wrap themselves in the mantle of the Holocaust and use it as a tool in political 'battles'. But that's by no means everyone, or I suspect even a significant number, and I've seen non-Jewish people do the same thing. When it comes to regret turning to anger, my suspicion is that 'refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger' loosely translates as 'stop talking about the Holocaust and if you don't then you deserve to have people get really pissy at all of you!'

The second point definately wouldn't be antisemitic if it was said about Israel and not about *the Jews* as well. It'd be wrong, coz obviously there's a fair few more serious and heavy-weight contenders for the Biggest Players In A Culture Of Violence title, but I've seen claims made that the Palestinians are the biggest perpetrators of suicide bombings despite the fact that the Tamil Tigers for one make Palestinian groups who carried out suicide attacks look like amateur minnows when it comes to the number of attacks. Neither of those claims would be bigoted, but both are ignoring the larger picture of the outside world even though they're trying to compare Israel or Palestine to the outside world...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. I think that recent histories of Israel have shown convincingly

that in 1947 leaders knew territorial gains could only be made through a land grab, not dipomacy.

In the US, our history of expansion wasn't accomplished through diplomacy.

As I see it, the diplomacy came after land seizure.

[eyl]

22. Pity, then, that the Arabs

(including the Palestinians) never gave diplomacy a chance, isn't it

[henank]

4. Not surprising at all. His sainted grandfather

also thought the Jews should roll over and die rather than fight back or try and survive in the Holocaust.

Gandhism

GANDHI ON THE HOLOCAUST
• “Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews
should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown
themselves into the sea from cliffs.”
»Reference: George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi”, Partisan Review, January 1949
• As to whether the Jews should have committed “collective sucide” by offering
themselves to Hitler: “Yes, that would have been heroism.”
»Reference: George Orwell’s “Reflections on Gandhi”, Partisan Review, January 1949

The grandson seems to have taken his grandfather's extreme pacifism to the absurd degree and in seeking extreme pacifism, rejected self-defense. In fact he cannot even recognize self-defence and therefore jsutifies aggression by sympathising with the terrorists.

[msmcghee]

5. Self delete.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I suspect yr using fake quotes....

Because here's a link to Orwell's 'Reflections on Gandhi' and neither 'quote' appears in it.

[LeftishBrit]

7. This seems to be a prime example...

of what 19th century leftists would have called 'Birth, not Worth', This idiot's views are only being given the time of day because he has a famous ancestor and a famous name. Someone not called 'Gandhi' would never have got such rubbish printed, certainly not in a respectable newspaper.


'Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?'

Well, possibly. It could apply equally to that other I/P conflict - India/Pakistan - or to very many conflicts in the world.

'Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.'

Well, this may be a good general description of the world - but how on earth are 'Israel and the Jews' the biggest players???? And when anyone refers to "the Jews" - or indeed any ethnic group - in this monolithic way, they show themselves to be idiots, influenced by a nasty agenda.

'Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.'

Now THAT is a really nasty paragraph. Firstly, Jewish identity is not locked into the Holocaust experience, and it is worth remembering at this point that over half of Israeli Jews are of non-Europaean, mostly Middle Eastern, descent. Secondly, it is inappropriate for one individual or group to *demand* that another individual or group should 'forgive and move on', and worse to essentially *threaten* them for not doing so. I am sure he'd be the first to agree that it would be absolutely disgusting for an Israeli or other non-Indian to write "It seems to me that the Indians today not only want the British to feel guilty, but the whole world must regret the colonial oppression of the Indians. The world did feel sorry for the episode when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns to anger." Yet he seems to think it OK to say it of the Jews. (Note: I am not saying that the Israelis and Jews should NOT 'forgive and move on' - and many have done so; merely that it is wrong to threaten them for not doing so.)

[msmcghee]

20. Yes, and would this Ghandi call himself antisemitic?

He would laugh at the idea. Antisemitism is a hatred that colors all intellectual activity regarding a subject. It is not intellectual activity itself nor does it come from "thinking". If hatred is suggested in someone - that intellect will be put to use justifying their views as not possibly the result of such base emotions.

That's because hatred, as an emotion, lives in a part of the mind not accessible to intellect. Yet it has great effect on the output. Intellect is only a more sophisticated channel for the expression of emotion than most animals possess.

See BtA'a comment below this.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. A perfect example of anti-Semitism disguised as simple criticism of Israel.

The article is disgusting. Of course, what is worse is that people can't (won't?) see the anti-Semitic element to this bullshit.

"We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity."

How is a statement like that difficult to interpret as anti-Semitic? Jews (and the Jewish nation) are the "biggest players" in a culture of violence that will destroy humanity! Yes, others are also responsible, but two groups are identified as the "biggest players." If the above statement had been written (or uttered) as:

"We have created a culture of violence (Iran and the Muslims are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity." it would be easily identified as a bigoted statement. It would be decried as anti-Iranian propaganda and lambasted as Islamaphobic, and both charges would be accurate. However, when it is "Israel and the Jews," suddenly people don't understand how it is anti-Israeli propaganda and anti-Semitic.

Is it any wonder why anti-Semitism is so misunderstood and abused by both sides (Jews and Jew-hating bastards)?

[rockymountaindem]

18. Well said n/t

[Phx_Dem]

14. His "apology"

My Apology for My Poorly Worded Post

I am writing to correct some regrettable mis-impressions I have given in my comments on my blog this week. While I stand behind my criticisms of the use of violence by recent Israeli governments -- and I have criticized the governments of the U.S., India and China in much the same way -- I want to correct statements that I made with insufficient care, and that have inflicted unnecessary hurt and caused anger.

I do not believe and should not have implied that the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people. Indeed, many are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes, by Israel and many other governments.

I do believe that when a people hold on to historic grievances too firmly it can lead to bitterness and the loss of support from those who would be friends. But as I have noted in previous writings, the suffering of the Jewish people, particularly in the Holocaust, was historic in its
proportions. While we must strive for a future of peace that rejects violence, it is also important not to forget the past, lest we fail to learn from it. Having learned from it, we can then find the path to peace and rejection of violence through forgiveness. | Readers Respond to Gandhi.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/arun_gandhi/2008/01/my_apology_for_my_poorly_worde.html

Pretty half-assed apology imo.

[Vegasaurus]

15. Definitely half-assed

What people write the "first time" is reflective of their pure beliefs...not what they say after they have been criticized and "modify" the original statements.

The Holocaust is part of the collective Jewish identity for many people. It must never be forgotten, and efforts to encourage Jews not to hold onto these "grievances" is ridiculous.

It is equally ridiculous to lump ALL Jews as part of a "culture of violence". There are many, many, many more violent cultures in the world, and there is plenty more insane violence elsewhere than Israel. Why doesn't Mr. Ghandi get on his high horse about the situation in Darfur, as one small example, or should we not care about the genocide and displacement of THOSE people, because they are not part of the world-wide geopolitical agenda?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. And why is it half-arsed?

Apart from you and a few others saying they think it is. Would there be any apology that would satisfy you?


Why doesn't Mr. Ghandi get on his high horse about the situation in Darfur, as one small example, or should we not care about the genocide and displacement of THOSE people, because they are not part of the world-wide geopolitical agenda?

Why do you feel that people must feel obligated to write about Sudan? And I doubt yr familiar with his writing to know what he had and hasn't written about...


What people write the "first time" is reflective of their pure beliefs...not what they say after they have been criticized and "modify" the original statements.

Does this only apply to statements about Jews, or does it extend to Arabs? And does it only apply to those who apologise? See, the thing is I've seen comments just as bad, if not worse, made about Arabs in this forum, and rarely is there an apology extended...

Do you think that when someone lumps all Arabs together and talks about *the Arab mind* that it's reflective of their pure beliefs? I'd have been prepared to give the person saying that the benefit of the doubt and hope they'd apoligise for it, but you seem to disagree with that sort of approach, so I'm now in total agreement with you that when someone lumnps all Arabs together, there's no benefit of the doubt or a hope that it was poorly worded - it's a reflection of their pure beliefs and anything they say afterwards to "modify" it is just bullshit...

[LeftishBrit]

23. It's not that everyone is obligated to write about Sudan...

It's that Gandhi wrote that Israel and the Jews are the BIGGEST PLAYERS in the world's culture of violence - which seems like an extremely biased remark in a world that does include the horrors of Sudan, not to mention Somalia, Burma, and many other countries - including the USA and UK in their pre-emptive invasion of Iraq and the horrors that this has caused.

If someone said Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians were the BIGGEST PLAYERS in the world's culture of violence, this would also be bigoted. Indeed, many Republicans do imply it, re Muslims at any rate, and it is certainly bigoted.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. I'm not the person suggesting that they must...

And I know what he wrote, disagree with it, and I also note that he apologised. But I want to know why the apology was labelled half-arsed by a few posters here....

on edit: it's not just Republicans who make those sort of comments about Arabs, coz I've seen them happen here in this forum, which is why I mentioned the *Arab mind* thing...

[Shaktimaan]

26. It was half-assed for a few reasons.

First of all, he made no note or apology for the fact that his original piece seethed with anti-semitism. Now I know that for some reason you were unable to key in to *exactly* what was anti-semitic about it, which I find amazing considering the frequency with which you find examples anti-arab sentiment, even when none are intended. His original piece served to reduce the scope and cause of the holocaust to seem more diminutive, (referring to it merely as "dreadful") only to use it as a counterpoint for what "the Jews" were now doing wrong, "overplaying" the "historic experience" to the point we now "repulse friends." The entire tone of the article was of the sort usually seen posted on hate sites.

But, it seems to me the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews.

Those uppity Jews expect an apology from EVERYONE! The nerve of those people.

The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.

Anti-semitism is caused by the Jews' refusal to shut up about the Holocaust. We were sorry, but if you're going to be dicks about it then we'll take it back. This is why you never get invited to parties, Jews.

The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs.

Israel's militaristic society is not because of recent or ongoing events but is due to the Jewish tendency to cling to the holocaust as the defining aspect of their identity. This is why Israel has not been able to "move on" and lags behind its Arab neighbors in terms of education, technology, human rights, democracy, diversity and tolerance.

Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them.

Apparently, to the Jews, peace and love are alien concepts. They are unable to befriend anyone, they only understand force. Also, they are incapable of understanding a peace treaty as they are trying to dominate their neighbors. (Just like the Nazis!)


Sorry violet, I've never seen anything like this language mentioned here in regards to Arab people. I've never heard anyone say they should "stop whining about sabra and shatila already before they turn their friends into disgusted enemies" or anything similar. And I find it disturbing that you seem to think that if Gandhi had only taken pains to restrict his final comments to "Israel" instead of the Jews that it would have been any less anti-semitic. Believe it or not there really is a lot of anti-semitism behind all this "anti-zionism" floating around, and it usually isn't too hard ferreting it out.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I agree that the article was stupid, but you didn't explain why his apology was...

Well, apart from you seeming to think this man must type out in huge font that he thinks he's a terrible anti-semite. And in case you missed reading the thread, I did say I thought some of what he said was antisemitic, so it does help to actually read what's said....

But I'm glad you've popped up to start talking about bigotry, and if I didn't think the article was so stupid I'd use the standards you insist on using to identify bigotry against Arabs and Muslims (so far I've yet to see you admit anything posted in this forum about them is bigoted), which are after all a whole lot different than the standards you use to identify bigotry against Jews. I'd sit here and follow yr lead from other threads and insist that the bigoted comment is merely a metaphor for something else, that we have to examine the context, that it's not bigotry unless the word ALL is there, etc. And then I'd trot off and find a repulsively bigoted article like this recent one http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x196167 instead of being about Arabs, it'd be about Jews, and I'd sit there and no matter anyone pointed out, I'd insist it wasn't bigoted coz they didn't say ALL Jews, and like, I'd tell everyone to focus on the rest of the article, blah blah blah ;)

'considering the frequency with which you find examples anti-arab sentiment, even when none are intended.'

I'll make this very clear. I do find the painting of Arabs as a single-minded mass of murderous villains to be bigoted. I do find the painting of the Palestinian population as terrorists to be bigoted. And I do find someone stating that Indian Muslims don't have time to hate Jews coz they're too busy hating Hindus to be bigoted. I'm so glad yr ability to read minds is so powerful that you can tell what people intend when they say those things, but it is telling that this power works out so the intent is always to be bigoted when it comes to comments about Jews, and it's never intended to be bigoted when it's said about Arabs or Muslims...

His original piece served to reduce the scope and cause of the holocaust to seem more diminutive, (referring to it merely as "dreadful")

But the Holocaust was dreadful. Sorry, but can you supply me with a Shakti-approved list of adjectives that aren't going to have you implying that there's an element of Holocaust denial in using them? There's nothing of a minimising nature in saying that. Making the Holocaust diminutive involves things like seriously downplaying the numbers of victims (outside the range that is accepted by reputable Holocaust scholars) and some of the other tools that deniers use...

Sorry violet, I've never seen anything like this language mentioned here in regards to Arab people.

Are you using a newfangled browser that renders language that portrays Arabs and Muslims in a negative way invisible? Because they appear in this forum and I find it strange that you've never even spotted this happening even once.

And I find it disturbing that you seem to think that if Gandhi had only taken pains to restrict his final comments to "Israel" instead of the Jews that it would have been any less anti-semitic.

Let me get this straight. You think if someone said Israel was the biggest player in a culture of violence that'd be bigoted. But when similar sweeping statements are made about Arab states, that's not bigoted. How does that work?

I'd possibly find it disturbing that you find it disturbing if I hadn't come off rereading yr posts in a recent thread insisting that an article by an extremely RW type wasn't bigoted at all. But instead I just find yr being disturbed to be kind of amusing :)

[Shaktimaan]

29. The apology was insufficient

because his original article tapped into some serious aspects of anti-semitism that have been used to denigrate and negatively differentiate Jewish people for ages, and when he was called on it he issued an "apology" that centered around confirming his beliefs while merely admitting that they didn't apply to ALL Jews. He made no mention of the fact that he drew upon anti-semitic memes to critique Israel while interchangeably using Israel's history to criticize Jewish culture in general. Specifically, he made no apology at all for what were the most offensive parts of his post, namely the idea that anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiments are the result of Jews inability to cease pestering the world about the Holocaust; and singling out Israel and the Jews as the BIGGEST players in a culture of violence that will destroy us all.

He backpedaled without acknowledging his error by minimizing his criticism of Israel and the Jews by saying, "Indeed, many are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes, by Israel and many other governments." His article was not about "the use of violence for state purposes" at all! It was about, it centered on, a flaw in Jewish culture that has antagonized Israel's friends and encouraged Israel to become the world leader in a culture of violence. By pretending Israeli policy was the centerpiece of this essay, and not Jewish culture, he dodged responsibility for the truly hateful things he said, (which he clearly believes as evidenced by his insignificant "not all Jews support Israel's policies" statement. I noticed he mentioned nothing renouncing his views of Jewish culture at large, the Holocaust or our role as the biggest players in a culture of violence.

You think if someone said Israel was the biggest player in a culture of violence that'd be bigoted. But when similar sweeping statements are made about Arab states, that's not bigoted. How does that work?

It would be. I've yet to see anything similar leveled at any Arab state on this forum.

Sorry, but can you supply me with a Shakti-approved list of adjectives that aren't going to have you implying that there's an element of Holocaust denial in using them?

Excuse me? I did not imply that at all. I said that he minimized the scope and cause of the holocaust... as in, "The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful." Okay Violet, the Holocaust was not the result of a single individual and his warped mind who managed to convince "his followers" into doing something that was "really, just DREADFUL!" It was the culmination of centuries of anti-semitism whereby the Jews were systematically exterminated in a continent-wide purge involving millions of like-minded individuals working in concert. It was not the result of a single warped mind but of millions of people who were like-minded enough to participate enthusiastically. It wasn't an accident of some one person's "warped mind," and "his followers" and to say so is to minimize the causes and long held xenophobia that made something as hideous as the Holocaust possible.

By stating exactly what the Holocaust was in such a way he implies that its scope was somewhat less than the reality of this situation. It is not just a burden for "the Germans" for instance. It is a burden that all of Europe carries, in Poland, in France, in Austria, all over the entire continent, and (to a lesser extent) the world who refused to allow refugees into their nations, countries like Britain who turned refugees away from Palestine, and so on. Yes the Jews expect the entire fucking world to "regret" what happened because the entire world was complicit... not just a single dude with his warped brain and some unnamed followers.

That Gandhi doesn't see this is unsurprising, but I am shocked at your inability to grasp this without having it explained, Violet.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. Yeah, but I suspect nothing would make you happy...

because his original article tapped into some serious aspects of anti-semitism that have been used to denigrate and negatively differentiate Jewish people for ages, and when he was called on it he issued an "apology" that centered around confirming his beliefs while merely admitting that they didn't apply to ALL Jews.

Hold on a minute. You've been insisting that something isn't bigotry unless whoever says it applies it to ALL in a group, but now yr insisting there's a different set of rules when it comes to bigotry against different groups? It's hard to keep up! ;)

You think if someone said Israel was the biggest player in a culture of violence that'd be bigoted. But when similar sweeping statements are made about Arab states, that's not bigoted. How does that work?

Shakti: It would be. I've yet to see anything similar leveled at any Arab state on this forum.

Yep, that really doesn't surprise me that you'd say that. After all, weren't you saying you haven't seen anything of a bigoted nature in the I/P forum aimed at Arabs or Muslims?


Okay Violet, the Holocaust was not the result of a single individual and his warped mind who managed to convince "his followers" into doing something that was "really, just DREADFUL!" It was the culmination of centuries of anti-semitism whereby the Jews were systematically exterminated in a continent-wide purge involving millions of like-minded individuals working in concert. It was not the result of a single warped mind but of millions of people who were like-minded enough to participate enthusiastically. It wasn't an accident of some one person's "warped mind," and "his followers" and to say so is to minimize the causes and long held xenophobia that made something as hideous as the Holocaust possible.

Sorry, but just because you disagree with Hitler's pivotal role in the Holocaust doesn't mean you can sit there and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of diminishing the Holocaust. His description of Hitler and his warped mind is much more realistic than the thing about millions of like-minded individuals working in concert and making out the Holocaust was really nothing more than another pogrom but on a much larger scale. Why do you think the Nazi leadership kept the Final Solution a secret (not a very well kept one towards the end) from the German population? And I think it's ignorant for anyone to take offense at a statement that Hitler and his warped mind convinced his followers into doing something dreadful, because without Hitler and that warped mind of his, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.

Yes the Jews expect the entire fucking world to "regret" what happened because the entire world was complicit... not just a single dude with his warped brain and some unnamed followers.

That Gandhi doesn't see this is unsurprising, but I am shocked at your inability to grasp this without having it explained, Violet.

It's because what yr saying is irrational (WTF about the ENTIRE world being complicit in the Holocaust?? Nothing like a bit of sweeping over-exaggeration, hey?). I'll be a bit blunt here. I don't need any explanations from anyone who is just a little bit inconsistant when it comes to seeing bigotry depending on what group it's aimed at.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=196167&mesg_id=196502

[msmcghee]

21. I reject the notion that a state protecting its citizens . .

. . from violent attack could be described as a "violent" culture unless that defense repeatedly crosses over into an amount of violence considerably more than enough to provide that defense. Israel's defense against terrorist attacks is probably the least violent defense ever mounted against such attacks in modern history - by any measure.

The term "violence" is accurately applied IMO only to those states that initiate violence against others. Applying it to defending parties is not only grossly unfair in terms of liberal values but it justifies the initiating violence when that distinction is ignored and therefore contributes to a world where it is condoned more generally - as it is every day in this forum.

[Lurking Dem]

16. Oh. Look.

He capitalized "Holocaust".

Well then.

[Shaktimaan]

27. read some of the comments...

in his "apology" post. If anyone is doubtful that his original article was anti-semitic, a look at the caliber of person who supports it may sway your opinion. Probably not though.

Ghandi HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGIZE FOR!

He told the truth. The fact that jews cannot see themselves as the rest of the world does, with almost no exceptions, and that they scream with characteristic viciousness when a mirror is held up, is not the problem of truth tellers.

Time and time again we get idiotic posts about how wonderful Israel is, how the occuptation and genocide and land grabbing in Palestine is "defense". The whole world is sick of it.

Bowing to the usual screams...the same kind WHEN PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER told the truth recently...serves no one, least of all the screamers.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Comments reflect on the calibre of articles? There goes Ha'aretz as a good source...

Have you seen the talkbacks for some of the Ha'aretz articles that are posted in this forum? If you can't spot the bigotry against Arabs and Muslims there, I'm more than happy to point out the comments that call for the extermination of the Palestinians...

[Vegasaurus]

32. Screw the comments

and look only at what Ghandi said.

I read the talkbacks and comments all the time. They are blatantly anti-semitic and anti-Muslim.

But we aren't talking about the comments, but the actual writing by Mr. Ghandi.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Psst. You should be telling Shakti that...

But we aren't talking about the comments, but the actual writing by Mr. Ghandi.

Actually Shakti was talking about the comments, and if he wants to talk about the comments, he can go for it and you can't stop him.

[Vegasaurus]

34. Who's trying to stop him? Are you itching for a fight or what?

Fine. I will speak for myself when I say screw the comments and look at Ghandi's column in and of itself.

[aranthus]

25. Has this guy ever even met a Jew?

He doesnt' seem to know anything about Jews: their history, identity, the Holocaust, or the post-Holocaust world. I agree with some of the other posters: the only reason he was given space is because of his last name.