babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Coren's view of the Middle East

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Coren's view of the Middle East
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 23 August 2003 07:12 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Michael Coren

Hard hitting view.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 August 2003 07:26 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, Michael Coren is an expert on hatred. Just ask pagans.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 August 2003 07:27 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh christ, this is the same guy we've had to look at the last few weeks, isn't it?

quote:
And in comparison to any Arab state, Israel allows foreign reporters absolute freedom. Why so little complaint about this?

Ah yes. Once again Coren hauls out the hoary old tactic of comparing Israel to countries that come in dead last in almost any list you can make up except for per capita income due to the oil.

Great show, old chap! *clapclapclapclap* Nothing like comparing yourself to the stragglers even though you're nowhere near the top yourself!

Did you forget, Mishei, that Israel came in 77th or somewhere in there on a press freedom index? By comparison Canada's like, number 9 or something.

quote:
If only these shock hacks knew their history. The Jewish people never left Israel, even though the majority were driven out by the Romans, a genuinely cruel colonial power. Many managed to stay, and simply because Arab and Islamic imperialists eventually conquered the near east and Israel does not make this an Arab land.

Gee, wait a second. I thought Israeli mythology said nobody lived in the wasteland of Israel after the Romans kicked everybody out in the Diaspora.

So who's right? Coren or the right-wing Zionists that haul out that BS about Jews coming back to an empty land with no people in it and making "the desert bloom"?

quote:
But when one asks them why they are not more angry at any of the numerous Latin American, African or Asian states that murder, torture and rape they remain silent.

Bullllllllllllllll. SHIT.

Coren should be called on the carpet and spanked for that false dichotomy.

Mishei, I invite you to run through babble right now and pull up my posts where I bash everybody from the opponents of Hugo Chavez who want to turn Venezuela back into a banana republic, to the idiots on all sides in Colombia who've managed to make a mess of that country, to the continuing egregious actions of Indonesian troops in East Timor, and of course, my rather acidic comments on the lack of political freedoms in China.

Then I want you to tell me you think Coren is telling the truth.

quote:
This may not be Jew-hatred, but it is at the very least lazy and selective criticism.

Drive-by smear job. First he nears up to that accusation of "Jew-Hatred", and then just after he splats people with that accusation, he zooms away and goes "Oh, but I was really just saying this." Balls. Baloney. Nuh-uh, Coren. You tried a drive-by smear job and you should be spanked with a two-by-four.

quote:
There are valid objections to be made of some Israeli actions and of some Israeli leaders. But if the Arab world would affirm the absolute right to existence of the Jewish state in a sea of increasingly violent and paranoid Islam, most of these problems could be dealt with.

Didn't they already do this when Saudi Arabia, or was it Syria, I forget which, proposed an all-inclusive peace treaty?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 August 2003 07:46 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unlike, say, Judith Butler's LRB piece, Coren's polemic has no intellectual content worth discussing. It's ill-informed, full of sloppy overgeneralizations ("at the hands of the Arabs," etc.), and amounts to little more than rhetorical bullying.

That being so, I wonder, Mishei, why you posted this link. It's hard not to conclude it was as a provocation.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 23 August 2003 09:42 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems as if y'all expect more from this boy Coren. I don't know why.
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 23 August 2003 10:05 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the contrary, I don't expect anything from Coren. I don't see why anyone would.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 August 2003 08:52 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mishei, I invite you to run through babble right now and pull up my posts where I bash everybody from the opponents of Hugo Chavez who want to turn Venezuela back into a banana republic, to the idiots on all sides in Colombia who've managed to make a mess of that country, to the continuing egregious actions of Indonesian troops in East Timor, and of course, my rather acidic comments on the lack of political freedoms in China.


Hey Doc what makes you think this is all about you?

And Lance, why did I post this...welll this is a discussion board. I have seen Michael Coren's shows on TV when he discusses the Amiddle east. he has always ensured a balanced panel. He has had Ati Khboursi, Jamal Al Wiwi, Mohammad el Fawzi and many more eloquent Palesyinian spokespersons all of whom claim that Coren is very fair on this issue. So here he writs a hard hitting piece and I thought it would be interesting to discuss it on a discussion board.

I know it doesnt fit into your blinkered way of thinking but does that mean it shouldnt be discussed?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 August 2003 09:46 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I know it's not all about me. However I can't claim to speak for anyone else but me, so I'm saying that I know I am one person for sure who does not deserve Coren's drive-by smear job with respect to his whiny "but what about all the other countries in the world?" crap.

I also know you like to do the same thing as he does - compare Israel to countries that come in dead last in almost any stat you can name except for GDP per capita and maybe functional literacy, as well as constantly attempt to redirect attention away from Israel and onto other countries.

[ 24 August 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 24 August 2003 11:10 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Then there is the anti-Semitism issue. Not every anti-Zionist is a Jew-hater. But every Jew-hater is an anti-Zionist."

This is not true. The repulsive fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who hates a variety of peoples but especially Arabs and Jews, has often referred to his admiration of Ariel Sharon - and Saddam Hussein. They may be semites, but they are his kind of semites. The same holds for a lot of Jew-hating Christian fundamentalists in the US.

Sorry, Mishei. I share your concerns about the persistence of anti-semitism. But this article is a crock of shite.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 August 2003 11:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agreed, lagatta.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 August 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
repeat post deleted

[ 24 August 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 August 2003 11:28 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
"Then there is the anti-Semitism issue. Not every anti-Zionist is a Jew-hater. But every Jew-hater is an anti-Zionist."

This is not true. The repulsive fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who hates a variety of peoples but especially Arabs and Jews, has often referred to his admiration of Ariel Sharon - and Saddam Hussein. They may be semites, but they are his kind of semites. The same holds for a lot of Jew-hating Christian fundamentalists in the US.

Sorry, Mishei. I share your concerns about the persistence of anti-semitism. But this article is a crock of shite.



Le Pen may be the exception to prove the rule. That said, I have never seen any statement from Le Pen praising Sharon. Doesn't mean he didnt say it hoewever I will believe it when I see it. As for Sadam well that is much more believeable.
Coren is right about the above statement even if many may disagree with his position.

And sadly most Christian fundementalists love Jews...that's just the problem, they love us so much they want to save our souls and will stop at nothing to do so. But to say they are Jew-haters in the classic antisemitic understanding is wrong.

And Doc, I have no idea what you are talking about. Israel may be many things but for its age and size it has a remarkable GNP with a literacy rate the envy of countries double its size. I can only guess you have never spent any time there to make such errorneous statements.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 August 2003 01:26 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
And Doc, I have no idea what you are talking about. Israel may be many things but for its age and size it has a remarkable GNP with a literacy rate the envy of countries double its size. I can only guess you have never spent any time there to make such errorneous statements.

*WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!*

Whoa! Was that a football that sailed over your head?!

(hint: You missed the point utterly when I made my statements)

I'll break it down for you a bit more:

Israel pulls out far ahead of the Arabic countries except maybe in terms of GDP per capita and literacy because:

1. In terms of GDP per capita, Israel has a manufacturing and high-tech base because it has no oil, thus making it comparable to the Arabic countries which, by pure accident, happened to be sitting on oil and for this reason the Arabic nations' GDP per capita probably come close to Israel's, although their GDP is very unequally distributed.

2. In terms of adult functional literacy, I can think of Iraq and Israel as examples where, again, the two are comparable, since Iraq was a secular, nominally socialist, nation from 1975 to 1990 (some would argue right up to 2000, but anyway...) and for this reason a deliberate policy was taken to elevate the status of women and establish a broad education system capable of educating any Iraqi that wanted one.

Now, I grant that 1 and 2 are gross oversimplifications.

However, my fundamental point was this:

It is likely only in the two above restricted areas of all the ways nations can be ranked that the Arab nations likely come close to Israel in terms of quality of life.

In all other aspects such as distribution of income, severity of legal punishments, et cetera, the surrounding Arab nations come in near dead last in worldwide rankings.

I repeat:

In. most. worldwide. rankings. Israel. is. far. ahead. of. the. surrounding. nations. because. they. come. in. dead. last. in. worldwide. general. quality. of. life. statistics.

So.

What you missed is that the tactic of comparing Israel to those countries would be akin to me taking a C grade in a, let us say, transition metal chemistry class, and saying "Well gee, I'm the best because look at all these guys that got F grades! Mwahahahahahahah!" when in reality I look like a complete idiot for using such a selective comparison because a whole bunch of people got B and A grades and made me look like a chump.

Capeesh?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 August 2003 08:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
And sadly most Christian fundementalists love Jews...that's just the problem, they love us so much they want to save our souls and will stop at nothing to do so. But to say they are Jew-haters in the classic antisemitic understanding is wrong.

I suppose that's true. Their intentions are good. But don't be fooled. The ones I've met who are hell-bent on saving souls "love" Jews the way they "love" homosexuals. "Love the sinner, hate the sin," that kind of thing. They love you as long as there's a chance to convince you to stop being what you are and be what they are. In other words, they don't love you as YOU, they love you as the potential to be THEM. And in my mind, that's not love at all.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 25 August 2003 02:53 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
"Then there is the anti-Semitism issue. Not every anti-Zionist is a Jew-hater. But every Jew-hater is an anti-Zionist."

This is not true. The repulsive fascist Jean-Marie Le Pen, who hates a variety of peoples but especially Arabs and Jews, has often referred to his admiration of Ariel Sharon - and Saddam Hussein. They may be semites, but they are his kind of semites. The same holds for a lot of Jew-hating Christian fundamentalists in the US.

Sorry, Mishei. I share your concerns about the persistence of anti-semitism. But this article is a crock of shite.


Exactly. Need Coren be reminded that a great many high-ranking Nazis, for instance, were very much pro-Zionist in the 1930's. As long as Jews weren't in Germany, they were happy to send them along to Palestine.


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 August 2003 09:47 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Courage:

Exactly. Need Coren be reminded that a great many high-ranking Nazis, for instance, were very much pro-Zionist in the 1930's. As long as Jews weren't in Germany, they were happy to send them along to Palestine.



Please Courage dont debase yourself this way. What a ludicrous thing to post.

The nazis desire to get rid of Jews prior to the Final Solution had not a whit to do with being "pro-Zionist" and you damn well know it. It had everything to do with getting rid of Jews. If Zionism was a way to get Jews out of Germany fine. But to claim that Nazism supported Zionism as a politcal and National Jewish movement is ridiculous. How many Zionists do you think ended up in the gas chambers? Nazis were expediant not pro anything Jewish.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 26 August 2003 10:02 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have to say my readings and research bear out mishei's point of view.

It is in keeping with hitler's strategic thinking that he would get as far as he could thru subtle means before taking open action. If he focused on zionists, it would be to remove the most rebellious and compative jews before taking action that would cause them to rise up within germany. Get the militant ones out - then deal with the more passive remainder.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 August 2003 02:09 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:

Please Courage dont debase yourself this way. What a ludicrous thing to post.

The nazis desire to get rid of Jews prior to the Final Solution had not a whit to do with being "pro-Zionist" and you damn well know it.


First off, only you could consider a factual historical argument to 'debase' the user. This statement is, sadly, indicative of your attitude toward facts and history, and you appear to avoid them in direct proportion to your sense that they will defile you some way... Anyway, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?

Your initial point is a distinction without a difference. Nazi reasons for being pro-Zionist were certainly nefarious (I didn't suggest otherwise, in fact I didn't suggest at all) and out of their own self-concern, but that doesn't negate the fact that there were significant factions of the Nazi movement who felt that encouraging Zionism was the best solution.

quote:
It had everything to do with getting rid of Jews. If Zionism was a way to get Jews out of Germany fine.

That's all I said, actually. I never suggested that they did it out of the warmth of their antisemitic Nazi hearts, Mishei. Let's quote me and see how similar what I said was to what you are saying. I said, "...a great many high-ranking Nazis, for instance, were very much pro-Zionist in the 1930's. As long as Jews weren't in Germany, they were happy to send them along to Palestine..." Here we see precisely the formulation of your 'correction'

quote:
But to claim that Nazism supported Zionism as a politcal and National Jewish movement is ridiculous.

Actually, yes they did. This is a different question entirely than the one broached above, in fact. Above we are talking about Nazi 'reasons' for supporting Zionism, which assumes that they were in fact supporting Zionism. Again, the subtlty problem with you. Straight for the inquisitorial rhetoric all the time, huh?

quote:
How many Zionists do you think ended up
in the gas chambers?

Quite irrelevent. My statements referred to the period of debate over the Jewish question in the 1930's, not to the period when the gas chambers had already been established. Please read more carefully.

That said, the picture is more nuanced than you or Foxer are suggesting. In fact, the Nazi Party were not all of one mind on 'the Jewish Question' or - accordingly - the question of Zionism. During the 1930's when 'the Jewish Question' was under intense debate within the Nazi party, some of them were firmly of the opinion that each nation should have its own state, and that this logic could conceivably extend to Jews and Palestine. At that time (again we are talking the 1930's here) many both within and without the Nazi Party did not fully grasp where Hitler and his chief advisors were headed with the Jewish Question. In fact, there is considerable debate among scholars of the period as to when exactly extermination was conceived and thought to be the proper solution by Hitler and his high-ranking officials. Some trace elements of Hitler's thinking back to Mein Kampf and draw a 'logical conclusion' that this was the only place his ideas could end, but this is bad history. The record of his actual statements on this issue is much less clear, and it seems that he was far less consistent in his ideology and policy than many popular conceptions suggest.


But back to the pro-Zionist position of some Nazis. Oddly enough, at that point in time (need I remind you we are talking the 1930's here) some in the SS, and specifically Reinhardt Heydrich (the chief of SS Security), were well-disposed to Zionism as against assimilationists because it mirrored the Nazi fetish for one state - one people. For instance, Heydrich said in 1935:

quote:
After the Nazi seizure of power our racial laws did in fact curtail considerably the immediate influence of Jews. But ... the question as he sees it is still: How can we win back our old position ... We must separate Jewry into two categories... the Zionists and those who favor being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.

He also said,

quote:
“The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them.”

A certain support for Zionism was also evident in the common ranks of the party. For instance, in 1932 a large Nazi rally was held in Breslaw. The main banner at the event read, "get ready for Palestine." During the boycotts of 1933, Nazi propagandists gave out fake travel tickets emblazoned with the words "One-way ticket to Palestine". Official Nazi proclaimations in favour of Zionism were common in this period as well. Gustav Genther, a high-ranking educator said the following, by way of example, "Just as we now have friendly relations with Soviet Russia, though Russia, as a Communist country, represents a danger to our National Socialist State, we shall take the same attitude toward the Jews, if they establish themselves as an independent nation, although we know they will always remain our enemies."

Basically, my point is simple, and you have not contradicted it: in the early 1930's there were some within the Nazi movement who were supportive of evacuation of Jews to Palestine as a solution to their perceived 'Jewish Problem'. Of course we all know that later on the policy changed and concentration and extermination were instituted as the so-called 'Final Solution'. However, in the period we are discussing, this was not yet reality, in fact it wasn't even articulated. In short, your argument falls flat because you are ahistorically extending the 'Final Solution' backward in time to characterise a period in which it was not operative policy. Moreover, whether or not Nazi reasons for supporting Zionism were moral or justifiable from an ethical point of view was not part of my original statement. You simply inserted that in there so you could grandstand a little.

Moreover, we cannot - if we want to be good historians - just gloss over the vast differences of opinion which existed within German politics and society at that time. We are prone to think that German society was monolithic in its views toward Jews, or at least in regard to what policies should be undertaken to 'deal with them'. This is just not the case. If we are really to understand the progression of the thing we call 'Nazism' as a historical singularity, then we need to be judicious in our history of it. You cannot truly counter something that you don't fully understand.


And on a personal note, Mishei, how many times do I have to bury you on the historical front before you will learn that I don't say things like what I said above unadvisedly?

[ 27 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 August 2003 02:16 AM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:
I have to say my readings and research bear out mishei's point of view.

It is in keeping with hitler's strategic thinking that he would get as far as he could thru subtle means before taking open action. If he focused on zionists, it would be to remove the most rebellious and compative jews before taking action that would cause them to rise up within germany. Get the militant ones out - then deal with the more passive remainder.


This last is pure, complete conjecture on your part, Foxer. Unless you can provide specific documentation to substantiate this position about Hitler's intentions... Can you? Moreover, I wasn't speaking of Hitler specifically, but spoke in the plural about Nazi officials. It seems you have read my post about as carefully as Mishei. There was not, as many would allege, a sort of 1-1 causality chain from Hitler's mind to Nazi Party policy or actions. His thinking does not sum up the multiple strains of thought and action which took place under the Nazi banner. In other words, it is not justifiable for you to take my statements about a plurality of officials and insert 'Hitler' as representative of them.

However this may be, the record of Hitler's statements on Zionism shows a real inconsistency. In Mein Kampf he said that Zionism was a kind of sham for Jews to set up an international organistion with which to operate their cabal and eventually create a state from which to run their "swindles".

Paradoxically, in some talks that he gave in the early days of his Nazi membership (notably on July 6/1920) he said that Palestine was the proper place for Jews. These speeches were made when he was under the ideological influence of Alfred Rosenberg.

I have never seen, in considerable research, any statement by Hitler to the effect that he would support Zionism in order to be rid of the most 'militant' Jews in Germany. Do you have documentation to the contrary?

[ 27 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 27 August 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The most "militant" Jews (or antifascists of Jewish origin, whatever) in the early days of Nazism were overwhelmingly Socialists and Communists of various stripes.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 27 August 2003 11:31 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Courage despite your usual attempt to bury posters in bafflegab, absolutely nothing you wrote changes a thing.

Nazis were not Pro Zionist. This argument is used to debase Zionism. Nazis were Jew killers it didnt matter if they were anti-fascists or secular or ultra orthodox or Zionists or Bundists. The nazi attempt to USE Zionism in the early days of Nazi rule does not mean they were sympathetic. It only meant they wanted to get rid of Jews.

You have proven here time and again that you will do anything to cast Zionisn in a negative light. And since the vast majority of Jews are Zionists this casts a cloud over the Jewish people. It is a clever tactic used by many anti-Zionist propagandists.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 27 August 2003 12:40 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Clearly Courage never even implied anything you said. Please confront him with evidence and not misreadings.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 27 August 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was under the impression that, though admittedly not part of the Zionist mainstream, during the mid-late 1930's, the Stern Gang recieved support for terrorist attacks against the British in Palestine from the Italians and Germans. Apparently Stern had promised to establish the new Jewish State as a client state of Germany, once the British were driven out in return for arms and intelligence from the Germans.
From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 27 August 2003 12:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As usual, words cannot penetrate the bunker.

quote:
Nazis were not Pro Zionist... The nazi attempt to USE Zionism in the early days of Nazi rule does not mean they were sympathetic. It only meant they wanted to get rid of Jews.

Explain how Courage said otherwise.

From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 27 August 2003 01:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just thinking, have any babblers read Viennese Hugo Bettauer's dystopian satire, "City without Jews" (Stadt ohne Juden). http://www.violetbooks.com/REVIEWS/jas-bettauer.html This book that intends to make antisemitism and ethnic cleansing absurd, definitely depends on a scenario of "peaceful" expulsion of the unwanted racial element. By the way, Bettauer was killed by an Austrian proto-Nazi, well before the Anschluss.

Lots of racists over the years favoured expelling the unwanted element, though of course they were never adverse to the odd pogrom or lynching to speed matters up. Lots of racists in the US south wanted to send Blacks "back to Africa". There is no contradiction between other, more "benign" forms of ethnic cleansing and eventual genocide.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 27 August 2003 02:27 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh how did I miss this thread. And why didn't I just keep walking.

The anti-semitism red herring again. As has been pointed out on countless occasions, not every anti-zionist is an anti-semite. This is one of the lies perpetuated by Zionists to tarnish their opponents. The Hebron massacre was despicable. The Palestinian have similar tales to tell. The interesting point is that the two people lived fairly harmoniously before the Palestinians felt threatened by Zionism. With time as the great healer, there is no reason not to believe that they can live in relatively harmony again in a single state.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sisyphus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1425

posted 27 August 2003 02:43 PM      Profile for Sisyphus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Clearly Courage never even implied anything you said. Please confront him with evidence and not misreadings.

Unfortunately, I don't believe we'll ever see this. Courage has demonstrated more clearly in this thread than anywhere else I have seen on babble that Mishei is not interested in historical truth, since it always conflicts with polemics. I do not believe that Mishei sees Nazism as a human historical phenomenon, but rather as a supernatural manifestation of Evil that is somehow unique, not in scale, but in quality and is therefore not subject to historical, political or social analysis.

To admit that the horrors with which the Third Reich finished their bid for European supremacy were the result of gradual political, social and military forces, allows us to consider the Nazis in the context of the other imperialist and genocidal regimes that stain our history.

This, in turn, deprives ideologues of the Alan Dershowitz ilk of their myth of the Uniqueness of Jewish Suffering and places them on the same level as the other cultures that have been subject to horrific oppression at various times in history. This, in turn, then makes it as reasonable to be horrified at the actions of Israel against her Palestininian population as we are at Turkey's treatment of the Kurds or of the atrocities committed against the indigenous people of Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, for example.


From: Never Never Land | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Foxer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4251

posted 27 August 2003 03:01 PM      Profile for Foxer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This last is pure, complete conjecture on your part, Foxer. Unless you can provide specific documentation to substantiate this position about Hitler's intentions... Can you? Moreover, I wasn't speaking of Hitler specifically, but spoke in the plural about Nazi officials.


hey hey hey - ease up there bud, i'm not beating up on you. And as you pointed out mishei's post doesn't really wipe out your argument or anything.

I have read quite a bit about his actions and motivations, in dealing with the jews as well as other aspects of his thinking. There is literature that would support my position, i'll have to see if i can dig any of it up (not ALL my reading is on the web )

quote:
I have never seen, in considerable research, any statement by Hitler to the effect that he would support Zionism in order to be rid of the most 'militant' Jews in Germany. Do you have documentation to the contrary?

I remember in one book i read disussing the german 'black book' of jews (the names of all jews who were considered threats and such - they had one for britian in case they managed to take it over) and how it identified the most militant and the most politically active as being the most important targets - once they were eliminated they could round up the others at leasure (i'm paraphrasing) with less concern for an armed resistance. The book discussed ways of dealing with such people in germany, and certanly getting them out of the country was an option. Hitler would have abandoned that when he went to open war in favour of arrests. I'll see if i can dig it up for you - it's an interesting read. But i've read a few and this was a few years back.


quote:
There was not, as many would allege, a sort of 1-1 causality chain from Hitler's mind to Nazi Party policy or actions. His thinking does not sum up the multiple strains of thought and action which took place under the Nazi banner.

Dude - we both know this guy was the ultimate 'control freak'. His people would NOT have been allowed to express an opinion that he didn't condone. They would not even disagree with each other EXCEPT in those cases where hitler allowed it to ensure that his subordinates were battling with each other (instead of forming plans against him). He was huge on that - set one minion against the other.

As i said, there is evidence to SUPPORT the position. We know hitler kept an up-to-date list of jews he felt needed targeting for various reasons, we know he had planners looking at how to do that, at home and abroad. He appears to have been encouraging jews to leave germany before he was able to move openly - and we know that such thinkng would have been consistent with his methods elsewhere. It's possible there were other reasons, it's possible some of the leaders had different opinions than hitler did and he didn't care. But there are strong indications.

But hey - i don't really care that much about it or feel passionately - If you want to say he didn't then fine by me. I have no actual signed documents or anything that specifically and catagorically prove you're wrong, that's for sure.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 27 August 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sisyphus:

Mishei is not interested in historical truth, .

Took you long enough.

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 August 2003 07:04 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Foxer:

Dude - we both know this guy was the ultimate 'control freak'. His people would NOT have been allowed to express an opinion that he didn't condone. They would not even disagree with each other EXCEPT in those cases where hitler allowed it to ensure that his subordinates were battling with each other (instead of forming plans against him). He was huge on that - set one minion against the other.

As i said, there is evidence to SUPPORT the position. We know hitler kept an up-to-date list of jews he felt needed targeting for various reasons, we know he had planners looking at how to do that, at home and abroad. He appears to have been encouraging jews to leave germany before he was able to move openly - and we know that such thinkng would have been consistent with his methods elsewhere. It's possible there were other reasons, it's possible some of the leaders had different opinions than hitler did and he didn't care. But there are strong indications.

But hey - i don't really care that much about it or feel passionately - If you want to say he didn't then fine by me. I have no actual signed documents or anything that specifically and catagorically prove you're wrong, that's for sure.


Just a quick note, Foxer, I don't have too much time today. First, I apologise for seeming to come both barrels there... I got a little miffed at the flying pile of dung thrown my way in the form of the usual 'antisemitism' innuendo and I splashed a little on you in my response...

Anyway I'd like to respond to the above because I think you raise some interesting points, and I hope I get a chance....


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Courage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3980

posted 27 August 2003 07:20 PM      Profile for Courage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mishei:
[QB]Courage despite your usual attempt to bury posters in bafflegab, absolutely nothing you wrote changes a thing.

Well, if nothing else, it points out your attitude toward historical accuracy. Moreover, it provides yet another example of you dropping a big VERBOTEN sign down in front of any discussion of Nazism, Zionism, Jews, or otherwise that doesn't immediately conform to your shallow polemics, or allow you to remain the sole arbiter of what constitutes 'antisemitism' and 'Zionism' around these parts.

quote:
Nazis were not Pro Zionist. This argument is used to debase Zionism.

That's not how I used it. Again, read the historical record. I can provide more documentation if you need. All I did was make a factual assertion based on the historical record. I note, as have others, that you have not challenged the truth or falsehood in any meaningful way.

quote:
You have proven here time and again that you will do anything to cast Zionisn in a negative light.

Actually, this is a falsehood, and most here know it. I have referred to myself as a Zionist on several occaisions. I have no problem with the idea that Jews should be able to set up camp in Palestine and live there. What I do have a problem with is how this was carried out, and the injury done to both the Palestinians and Jews as a result of bad ideas and bad policies. I've said this time and again, but you just skip over the parts you don't like. Witness your reading of my above posts, your hatchet job on Dr. Neumann's 'email correspondence with JTR, etc.


quote:
And since the vast majority of Jews are Zionists this casts a cloud over the Jewish people.

This isn't implied in my argument, AT ALL. Some of my favorite thinkers on Zionist questions are Jews who were themselves Zionists. I know lots and lots of Israeli Jews (Zionists by default) who I have stood arm and arm with to counter the racist colonial policies of the state of Israel. My complaint has always been with a certain kind of Zionism, and I have gone to great lengths to explain what that kind of Zionism is, how it has operated and continues to operate and what alternatives I would support; alternatives that, mind you, largely originated within the corpus of nominally Zionist thought. The only 'clever tactic' being used here is your usual resort to mind-numbed rhetoric attempting to equate opposition to the racist colonial practices of Israel with 'antisemitism'. It's an oldie and a baddie....

Your mask has been off for some time.

[ 27 August 2003: Message edited by: Courage ]


From: Earth | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca