Many objected to my characterization of Israel as a Nazi state
. I stated it bluntly, thinking people would accept it as an obvious fact. Many people, though, seem to be unaware of the evidences showing the similarity between Hitler's ideals, and the ideals that presided over the creation of the state of Israel, and determine its current policies towards Palestinians, and more generally the Arab world at large. I will therefore demonstrate my claims in a more organized manner.
First, a summary of the arguments: Israel represents a Nazi-ideal: an ethnic-based state, pursuing the persecution of an oppressed minority, dislocating it and stealing its land and possessions, leading a policy of territorial conquest, and which leaders survive by inspiring terror in their own population against an imaginary threat.
The first point is easy to prove: Israel was founded by Jews for Jews, as expressed in the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948: They declared the establishment of a JEWISH state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the state of Israel. Now, are Jews part of the same ethnic group, and can a Jewish state be thus qualified as an ethnic-based state? An ethnic group is composed of people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture. I personally don't like the concept of race, people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock, and I don't think a good case could be made to qualify Jews as an ethnic group. However, those who created Israel believed all Jews belonged to the same root and had the same ancestor, Abraham. Like the Germans who stupidly believed they belonged to a "race", the Aryan race, with common roots, the creators of Israel believed Jews belonged to a common group linked by their ancestors. Hence the reference to the ancestral rights of Jews to return to Israel. Let me make that point clear once again: the concept of race is a ridiculous one, but it is at the foundation of the State of Israel, in the same way it was at the foundation of the creation of the German Third Reich.
The second point now: Israel was founded by Zionist, first by buying land from the people who lived in Palestine at the time and establishing colonies, then gradually coming to use more forceful manners, leading, at the time of the declaration of Independence, to the grab of Palestinian's possession and expulsion from their properties. This was achieved through threats, assassination of those who resisted, and other terrorist methods. In the period 1948 - 1967, Israel left these lands with minimum interference pending a peace settlement with the Arabs. Following the 1967 War, Israel felt emboldened and introduced a set of laws (e.g. expropriating 'mewat' land as State land), which made the recovery of these lands more difficult according to Israeli law. Israel is now embarking on a plan to sell the land of the 1948 Palestinian refugees (92% of Israel) to Jewish individuals, thus making all hope for Palestinians to get back the land they had to leave under duress. As everybody knows, most Palestinians now live in camps, separated from their motherland by a wall, the same kind of wall the Nazis established around the Jewish Warsaw ghetto during the Second World War. Like the Nazis in Warsaw, Israel leads frequent raids in the Palestinian camps, and progressively starves those people, preventing them from leading any kind of economic activity, and leading them into desperate and criminal tactics, such as killing Israeli civilians in retaliation for the attacks made on them by the Israeli army. I personally do not condemn people who are led by despair into extremist tactics. I condemn their leaders. Like Hitler and his concept of a "vital space" for the Aryan race to develop, Israel's current leader believe Israel has got "natural" frontiers, and must establish a cushion separating it from neighboring, Arab states. They do not take into account the people who lived there before, and consider as natural that they should live destitute in refugee camps in neighboring countries, just like the Nazis considered as natural to empty Poland from its inhabitants and giving Polish land to German settlers.
The third point, dealing with the role of the Arabs as an imaginary menace with which to threaten the common Israelis so as to make them adhere to the sanguinary objectives of the Israeli leadership. It is well known that the main role the anti-Semite policy of Nazi Germany served was to unite the German people for a common goal. Designating the Jews as the enemy, no matter how stupid that was, was an easy way to divert attention from the suicidal policies of Nazi leaders. In the same way, Israel's leaders manipulate the opinion of Israelis to make them believe Palestinians are monsters, bent on their destruction. Sharon didn't hesitate to go provoke them in Jerusalem's most holy place, so as to get them to start the second Intifada, leading to his election as Israel's president, and allowing him to then repress the same uprising he provoked. The truth is, most Palestinians want to live at peace with Israel, but peace would mean there would be no reason anymore for Sharon to be in power, as he was elected to make war. The same suicidal logic that led Nazi Germany to its own destruction will lead Israel to its final disappearance; Nazi Germany's whole society was based on the predicament that there was a menace to be eliminated (the Jews, communism). Nazi Israel is based on the predicament there is a menace to be fought (the Arabs, Islam). It is therefore in the interest of Israel that the menace come true and acts accordingly to the mad predictions of the people who pointed at it. Thus will disappear Israel, overrun by the Arab world, in the same way Nazi Germany was overrun by the greatest communist leader the world ever saw, our revered Stalin.
Let us finally deal with frequent objections to the qualification of Israel as a Nazi state: Israel doesn't pursue genocide of the Palestinians, Israel is a democracy, and Israel is weak. The first objection is trivial; genocide is not concomitant with Nazism. Indeed, genocide occurred in Rwanda, in Armenia, in the US, and many other countries over the ages. It is a common resurgence that is not unique to Nazi Germany. The second is ridiculous, it states that a democracy can do no harm; need I point out that Hitler was democratically elected, and that the "beacon of freedom" that is the US liquidated Indian aboriginal populations, enslaved Africans and maintained a regime of segregation until the late 60s? The third is laughable; Israel is the only nuclear power in the Arab world, it receives billions of dollars in military help from the US, it has amply proven its ability to smash any invader, it is indeed the most efficient army in the world, and its secret services are feared the world over for their sophistication and intelligence. Israel is not weak. And in conclusion, I will say that the biggest danger with Israel is that if feels weak while it is very strong; it doesn't realize the harm it inflicts on other people, because it lacks the confidence of a mature country that knows how to control itself. My best wishes go to the people of Israel and Palestine, they who are mere pawns in the madness that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
During every election, the fight always seems to be between the Democrats and the Republicans. It's like the super bowl of politics. It doesn't matter who's the best team. It just matters whether one believed the team was the best, from the beginning. Regardless of the outcome, the commitment has burned a brand on the asses of the followers who will refuse to accept a defeat and always find some conspiracy theory to support their claim.
The similarities are amazing. One contest affects the world, while the other doesn't make much difference, beyond the ego stroking. The people who are most active tend to take the events too seriously and ruin the process, for everyone else.
The competition is fierce and nothing is really accomplished. It's just another year of waiting to see who will make it back. What does the super bowl and politics have in common?
They both gravitate towards an authoritarian way of thinking. There's no neutrality, in this type of thinking. Only one side can be the winner. ( En lire plus...Réduire ) What benefit do the authoritarians bring? ( En lire plus...Réduire )
How come that a nation like Israel, that was founded to protect Jews from persecution, evolved into the most racist and bigoted country in the world?
Can we claim this is a typical "victim identification with the torturer" thing? Is there a mechanism that changes even the best intentioned people into oppressors and torturers once they have got power? Why did Israel turn into a Nazi state?
My opinion: Israel was a Nazi state from the beginning on. As related by Hannah Arendt, it received support from the top levels of the German hierarchy, which was quite happy to send some Jews to Palestine in exchange for the collaboration of the Judenrats in sending others to concentration camps. Zionists worked hand in hand with Eichmann to further that objective. Israel is thus a creation of the Nazis, and therefore a Nazi state. That it evolved into using Nazi tactics against Palestinians is one ironic twist of history.
Education is an important topic, for politicians, especially during an election year. Everyone wants to improve the education system. Some want no child left behind and others believe they can spend the problems away.
The fundamental question one must first address is what's wrong with the system as it is? ( En lire plus...Réduire )
I believe we can provide a better education and pay less, at the same time. However, as one has noticed from prior entries, I don't shy away from controversy. What's the cost/ benefit of our education system? ( En lire plus...Réduire ) How do we create benefit and make parents more interested in their child's future? ( En lire plus...Réduire )
My solution seems evil to some, I bet, but there are many advantages one should concede. School violence probably would be reduced in high school. I can't really think of that much violence occurring regularly, in elementary school.
As one can see, with this reform, we could save money and make education more efficient.
I read, in USA Today, Bush was planning on removing subsidies from farmers.
This current event provides me the justification for my next subjective article. I've wondered about the state of world trade, in the past. It led me to believe that it was too complicated a problem to solve, easily. I couldn't have been more wrong. ( En lire plus...Réduire )
I believe this may simplify the complexities of world trade, some.
The election year has arrived. Many of the same issues surface, again and again, and never get resolved. For Social Security, it's usually, if we eliminate this program, how will the poor retire
, or if this program is to live up to its obligations, how can we afford to pay for it?
The objective of this program is to keep those who cannot work, anymore, from suffering a cruel fate.
I fully agree with the intentions of this program. Cruelty should be kept to a minimum. However, I approach this problem differently than most, probably. ( En lire plus...Réduire )
The Babyboom generation is about to retire. Social Security can barely be resuscitated back to life, even now. We are heading towards a social disaster. It seems we have the option of choosing between ending Social Security, more or less, or beginning our march towards socialism. ( En lire plus...Réduire )
There's something that needs to be done about modern day psycotherapy. I believe that there is a much needed deconstruction of the entire insitute to reach optimum status.
If we try to help the "insane" before we can actually know that by all true defentions that they are ineberaited from life, then we just hurt the patients and the right to live.
I believe that this article explains it all.( szaaz our menitorRéduire )
I'd love to hear some opposing points on this subject.
Is political assassination ever justified? What can justify killing a political leader? Would killing Hitler have been good? When? Who would have been entitled to do that? In another example, would eliminating Saddam Hussein have been good for his country? But what about his supporting faction? They probably would have kept the power in their hand. Would it have been better to kill Saddam, and leave his party in power, or to invade Iraq and wreck everything to then reconstruct from scratch?
More generally, are political assassinations the last recourse for the people when democracy fails or doesn't exist? In such case, can we call them an expression of democracy? Or are they simply the act of isolated mad groups or individuals?
For example, what would justify a democratic-minded person in killing a dictator? Is it sufficient to say that the dictator was not elected democratically and is clamping on basic citizens' freedoms, or is there a need for more justification?
46 Iraqis Die in Fierce Fight Between Rebels and G.I.'s
By EDWARD WONG
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Nov. 30 — American soldiers killed 46 guerrilla attackers in a firefight on Sunday afternoon in central Iraq. Military officials said the clash was the largest battle in the country since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein's government last spring. At least 18 of the attackers were wounded, the military said, and eight were captured. No American deaths were reported.http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/01/international/01IRAQ.html?th
Is this murder, or is this war? When you go into a country and kill people to the ratio of 1 for 40, how different is that from cold-blooded cowardly murder? How can you call this "war"?
For debate: The Iraq war is not a war, it is a safari.
With lions and rhinos in Africa becoming extinct, westerners have to find new targets. Hunting humans is so much more exciting than hunting animals anyway.
I may or may not have, already, posted an article in this community. I have searched through a number of communities. It has been a daunting task. Of the some hundred communities, I have limited it down to about twenty.
To locate my community niche, I am asking for the help of the community members. Regardless of what the community stands for, I know, it's the members that give the character to any one community. To accomplish this feat, I will be asking a question I hope people won't take offense to.
What is the one fundamental base central to the idealogies of the members of this community?
I would prefer, if people elaborate beyond generic pretenses such as: Science, Philosophy, or Psychology.
A simple explanation would be fine. A short description, if possible. Maybe, even, an analogy. I appreciate the help.