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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » activism   » Swastikas and the Star of David

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Swastikas and the Star of David
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 August 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There has been some discussion here, about signs at demos which cover the Star of David with the Nazi Swastika. Here is a thread about that.

I think we should be clear about this issue. The problem is that their are two interpretations of this image:

One, Israel is behaving like the Nazis.

Two, a defamation of the symbol of the Jewish people.

It is of course unfortuante that Israel chose to use the Star of David for the center piece of its flag, and that to many people it has become and image that represents tyrany, abuse, occupation and wide spread death and destruction, and in that light the equation of Israel with the Nazis is a common, if hyperbolic emotional expression of outrage. There is nothing particularly antisimitic about this interpretation.

However, the problem is that placing the Nazi flag over the Star of David, is that it is a direct echo the kind of vandalism practiced by the Nazi's who painted their symbol over top of anything Jewish, as part of their intimidation campaign that led to the pogrom they unleashed against the Jews in the 1940's.

Demonstrators should be aware of this duel connonotation.

The preactice of directly defacing the Star of David with the Nazi flag should stop, not just because it is convenient politically, but because it is wrong.

Incidents where people have made this type of sign are rare, (I saw only one in a parade in Vancouver) but still we must make efforts to let people know what that this specific type of sign has a very strong relation to the type of vandalism practiced by the Nazis.

Whatever ones intention with making this sign, it should be seen that it also has this other historical symbolic significance which is deeply racist.

People should make an effort to make people aware of this.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder how that could be done? It might be interesting to make up some sort of leaflet about it, and hand it out to anyone who does that. One that doesn't condemn them as anti-semites (because they probably are doing it out of ignorance) but just discussing the problematic symbolism behind it and saying that for this reason it is wrong.

I didn't know about that historical context. Thanks for sharing it with us.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 06 August 2006 03:07 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

It is of course unfortuante that Israel chose to use the Star of David for the center piece of its flag, and that to many people it has become and image that represents tyrany, abuse, occupation and wide spread death and destruction, and in that light the equation of Israel with the Nazis is a common, if hyperbolic emotional expression of outrage. There is nothing particularly antisimitic about this interpretation.

.


I could not more fervently disagree. Equating Nazism with Israel is IMHO anti-Semitic.

It has always struck me as strange that only Israel (and sometimes the USA when it is linked to Israel) gets tarred with a swastika. Does that not pull at peoples thoughts even a bit? Why wouldnt the Janjiweed committing genocide in Darfur be tagged with a swastika or Pol Pot who murdered millions or Hutu generals who slaughtered a million Tutsis or or or???

No only the Jews of Israel have been almost singularly targeted to be compared with Nazis. Strange thing that.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I don't understand. I thought that there have been quite a few comparisons of what is going on in Darfur to the Holocaust.

In any case, Cueball is saying overall that he thinks that putting the swastika on Israeli flags is wrong and "deeply racist". Can't you at least agree with that?


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 August 2006 04:56 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll join with Cueball in denouncing the practice of drawing swastikas over the Magen David. One could, in fact, invoke Shakespeare's observation that the fault lies not in our stars but ourselves.

The original vision of Zionism, born in the persecution of one people, is not to blame for what Israel in practice has become. Nor are the historic values of the Jewish tradition.

Where Zionism has gone astray is in its decision, in effect, to abandon the values of Judaism(including democracy and solidarity with ALL oppressed peoples)and to embrace instead the values of everything from the imperial Romans to reactionary 19th century nationalism.

The state remains. The state is certain always to remain. What is in question is whether that state is, in any real or moral sense, Jewish.

And the question remains, as it does with all states drawn from a historical movement(the U.S., the USSR, etc)Is that state worthy of what has gone into creating it, and is it better or worse for the people who inhabit it than any alternative.

I hope Israel regains its humanity and the Palestinians are given the space to regain theirs.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 06 August 2006 04:59 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
But I don't understand. I thought that there have been quite a few comparisons of what is going on in Darfur to the Holocaust.

In any case, Cueball is saying overall that he thinks that putting the swastika on Israeli flags is wrong and "deeply racist". Can't you at least agree with that?



Yes very true on that we can agree...maybe there is hope after all

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 August 2006 04:59 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, the idea that Israel is the only state that has been equated with Naziism is not accurate at all. Such comparisons were being made with the U.S. at the height of the Vietnam war(and some are made now, with great debate continuing among U.S. progressives as to whether it is a good idea to compare Bush to Hitler.)

It's not a particularly sensitive thing to apply it to Israel.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 August 2006 05:26 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

I could not more fervently disagree. Equating Nazism with Israel is IMHO anti-Semitic.


No, equating Israel with the semites is anti-semitic. Why are you so interested in promoting anti-semitism by associating the jewish diaspora with the clear evils of the state of Israel?

I urge you to do your part to stamp out anti-semitism world wide by stating unequivocally that the state of Israel and the jewish diaspora--judaism in general, in fact--are clear and distinctly different things.

Encouraging people to see these as the same by perpetuating the "anti-zionism=anti-semitism" lie makes Jews everywhere less safe and fosters racism.

Responsible anti-racists just say no!

STOP the state of Israel from using the jewish diaspora as human shields!


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 August 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, okay, that's getting off-topic and has been done to death in every other Israel-Palestine and Israel-Lebanon thread. Let's stick to the main point of the opening post, that superimposing swastikas over the Star of David in the Israeli flag is offensive, shall we?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 August 2006 06:15 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Cueball deserves some credit for opening this question in the first place. Does anyone know yet if these individuals were members of a particular Islamic organization (not thinking 'terror group' here) or most likely just some angry Lebanese? That bit of info might help in how to deal with this potential problem in future protests.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 06 August 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
Then again, offence is in the eye of the beholder [to coin a phrase]. There exists 3000 years of history behind the swastika symbol that should carry a lot more weight than a few years of misrepresntation by the Nazi party.
quote:
The word swastika is derived from the Sanskrit svastika (in Devanagari, स्वस्तिक , meaning any lucky or auspicious object, and in particular a mark made on persons and things to denote good luck.

To answer Michelle's question of changing public perception

quote:
I wonder how that could be done? It might be interesting to make up some sort of leaflet about it,
disempowering - or re-empowering- the imagery seems far more effective and mature than buying into the oppressors agenda.

A iittle smug humour at the spray painters adding a good luck symbol to the Star of David is also appropriate.


From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 August 2006 07:01 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, could they have been some sort of police or CSIS infiltrators who were assigned to use these symbols to discredit the march?
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 06 August 2006 07:31 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Ken that's a bit of a stretch
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600

posted 06 August 2006 07:35 PM      Profile for Stephen Gordon        Edit/Delete Post
Indeed. Everyone knows that CSIS operatives are all logged onto babble 24/7.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 06 August 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't mean to be badgering you Otter, as it looks like you're being abit tongue in cheek here, but a Swastika transposed on a Jewish star really aint likely to be Hindu or Hopi religious symbol. (though it could have just been meant as a cruelly ironic statement) Context is everything (almost) but some once good symbols are unfortunately forever ruined by later historical association. Only some can be reclaimed, usually by the originally intended targets.

And Ken, could possibly be provocateurs too but not likely there by the pix I've seen, too many women and kids. All I was thinking is if it's an identifiable national/religious group(s) involved, then maybe future protest organizers could just tell them it's not conductive to the Intent of Their rally, and if some militants don't like it they can then refuse to invite them again or even to inform them of the next event. They'd still be free to organize their own venues and times, as is their civil right. Not as simple as that, I know, but maybe going back to organizing through known Peace groups instead of informal e-mail-outs could help -least make it clear they're not welcoming it. Anyhow, enough from me, I've killed enough threads lately.

[ 07 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 06 August 2006 11:54 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Ken that's a bit of a stretch

Perhaps. But it's a natural suspicion for a Yank, given that that's the kind of thing our security services(FBI AND CIA both)did during antiwar protests in the 60's. In fact, it has been estimated that, of the crowds protesting outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, one out of every six people was either a FBI informant or a police provocateur.

The current Canadian government has taken a hard-line pro-Israeli position in the New Lebanon War, or whatever the hell this nightmare eventually gets called, and it would be in their interest for protests against that war to be discredited by associations with pro-Hezbollah or directly pro-Iranian propaganda.

I'm just saying it does need to be considered a possibility.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 12:07 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
I just don't by the argument that any group owns exclusive right to the symbols of nazism.

WHen the national post and the Simon Weisenthal centre proved themselves capable of pimping out photos of yellow-star wearing german jews in order to smear Iran with a made up story, I decided that I wasn't ever going to accept moral bullying from the jewish community about non-jews using nazi symbols ever again.

Because while there may be some jews whom this distresses, I didn't see any of them scolding the SWC for its exploitive behaviour, so obviously this moral bullying IS merely moral bullying done for political effect.

And the most appropriate response to any kind of guilt trip is always a hearty "fuck off!"


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 07 August 2006 01:30 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On this I think youre taking it one step too far. We're not talking about censoring free speech, or what's said on some chat site, we're talking about a public protest that the media will be looking for ANy sign of Nazi symbols. The Swastika has a clear meaning to most Canadians, and I think the sensibilities of those who may still having living memories of it should still be respected, even if certain pro-Israeli groups have misused it themselves. They don't own it's meaning either. If you want any public action to have Any positive affect at all for Palestinian or Lebanese Arabs then this should be remembered. In fact I wouldn't join any protest myself for the sake of the Hizbollah or their bloody leaders, it's the civilians dying that I'm concerned for, and some of them are on the other side of the border too. That's not just good PR either.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 August 2006 04:11 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Me too. This isn't an issue of censorship (we know that anyone has the RIGHT to make signs with Israeli flags and swastikas). It's an issue of progressive (ew, there's that word again) people confronting those who do it and telling them why it's problematic, and why they really should stop doing it. These types of discussions have long been part of any left-wing movement, whether it's sexist, racist, homophobic or anti-semitic stuff being confronted. If you notice that something problematic is becoming a trend, even among the vast minority in a movement, there's nothing wrong with telling the people doing it why it's a problem.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 07 August 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's be clear here,

1) Those who equate the swastika with the star of david are blatantly racist and ignorant. Analogies with South Africa are intellectually defensible, those with the third reich are not.

2) Contrary to Cueball's points, the analogy is extremely common. It crops out frequently at anti-israel rallies, though I won't burden rabble with the images, and elsewhere, for example, go into any poorly maintained bathroom stall anywhere for example and you'll see the equations several times along with anti-semitic comments.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 07 August 2006 11:16 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by otter:
...disempowering - or re-empowering- the imagery seems far more effective and mature than buying into the oppressors agenda.

A iittle smug humour at the spray painters adding a good luck symbol to the Star of David is also appropriate.


Are you really suggesting that the solution is to rehabilitate the swastika as a "good luck" symbol?

"Good luck" with that.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 August 2006 12:26 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you wouldn't even be in the clear with that, given the alliance between right-wing Hindu nationalists(the kind who still launch violent attacks against innocent Indian Muslims today)and
Nazis back in the Thirties.

Best not to use the swastika at all in connection
with Israeli/Palestinian issues.

It's inappropriate, its wrong AND using it gives aid and comfort to the Israeli right wing, whose views are still the ones driving the current war policy.

The only possible exception I can think of is that
limited use might be acceptable by the Israeli Left(not the Labor party, but those to Labor's left within Israeli politics)as a shock tactic to
question whether their government is still remaining faithful in any sense to the humane, democratic values at the heart of the Jewish tradition.

But even that would be pushing it, IMHO.
[ 07 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]

[ 07 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 01:43 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
On this I think youre taking it one step too far. We're not talking about censoring free speech, or what's said on some chat site, we're talking about a public protest that the media will be looking for ANy sign of Nazi symbols. The Swastika has a clear meaning to most Canadians, and I think the sensibilities of those who may still having living memories of it should still be respected, even if certain pro-Israeli groups have misused it themselves.

I don't agree. I think that the ownership idea needs to be challenged, firmly, because it is a vehicle and a direct reflection of the double standard which Israel has exploited for decades--in which Israel gets to be the victimizer while claiming constantly to be the victim.

This is a lie, and giving it creedence--or even lip service--merely perpetuates it. It needs to be tackled head on, and firmly denied.

Which I intend to do. Allowing 'the jews' to own nazism allows Israel the freedom to act like them without consequence. That's not good for Israel or Judaism, or for the world.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 August 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Allowing 'the jews' to own nazism allows Israel the freedom to act like them without consequence. That's not good for Israel or Judaism, or for the world.



This is getting pretty dark. Frankly I have been quite perterbed with the number of offensive "Jewish" allusions I have seen here as of late. Thankfully Michelle has been doing her stellar job at nipping it in the bud. Nonetheless its still scary to see it here.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:

This is getting pretty dark. Frankly I have been quite perterbed with the number of offensive "Jewish" allusions I have seen here as of late. Thankfully Michelle has been doing her stellar job at nipping it in the bud. Nonetheless its still scary to see it here.

Good. That's precisely the effect intended. The reality is very dark indeed, I'm glad you're finally waking up to it.

~~

Wanna lay a little money on whether any of my posts will draw any moderatorial attention, as you are attemting to insinuate?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 August 2006 03:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay Simon, I get what you're trying to say, but you're being unnecessarily provocative, and that's just baiting and trolling for an entirely predictable reaction, which does not help to keep this debate civil. Please cut it out.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 03:52 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay Simon, I get what you're trying to say, but you're being unnecessarily provocative, and that's just baiting and trolling for an entirely predictable reaction, which does not help to keep this debate civil. Please cut it out.

Guilt tripping is likewise trolling for a predictable reaction, and this thread and the posts which inspired it were a guilt trip couched as an argument. In such circumstances, accepting the terms leaves one side at a permanent disadvantage, one intended by the framer of the debate.

In contrast, rejecting the terms is most emphatically NOT trolling for a reaction--it's a deliberate attempt to reframe the debate into genuinely debateable terrain.

~~

I admit, my last post was reasonably provacative, but I note that ohara had just called me--or rather hinted darklythat I was a nazi. In such a circumstance, a return snarl seemed called for.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 August 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I meant your second last post, actually. The one ohara quoted. Not your last post. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 04:04 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I meant your second last post, actually. The one ohara quoted. Not your last post. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

That's the post which directly attacks the guilt trip and the double standard--there's nothing unnecessary about it. That IS what I'm trying to say, and saying.

If you "get what I'm trying to say", that's it.

~~

Ohara's response moved the thread into emotive terrain, because that's how such a guilt trip always works, and how one side in this debate attempts to police what can allowably be discussed in ways that benefit their position.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 07 August 2006 04:14 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that a lot of the Arab mass media considers Hitler to be a hero, I would have thought that superimposing a swastika on a star of david might have been a screwed up Arab attamept to be FLATTERING towards Israel!
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 07 August 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Given that a lot of the Arab mass media considers Hitler to be a hero, ...

I can't wait for the examples of this outrageous statement. Sounds like pure race baiting to me.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 07 August 2006 07:19 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I admit, my last post was reasonably provacative, but I note that ohara had just called me--or rather hinted darklythat I was a nazi. In such a circumstance, a return snarl seemed called for.


Really? Actually that was not at all my intent. I find it curious that you would even consider this.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
cdnviking
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9661

posted 07 August 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for cdnviking        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ken Burch: The original vision of Zionism, born in the persecution of one people, is not to blame for what Israel in practice has become. Nor are the historic values of the Jewish tradition

And taking the crescent symbol of Islam and adorning it with equal obsceneties is fair and just?

I am not sure how to answer the original question myself, being an atheist.

Everyone freaks out when the Cross is using in a disparaging way, or the Star of David is "maligned", but other "sacred symbols" being defamed get NOTHING.

The "curved cross", better known as the swastika, is "sacred" to other religions around the world, and has been HIJACKED by a particular group of people (and their detractors) to mean one thing and one thing only, IT IS A SYMBOL OF EVIL.

quote:
The swastika is an ancient symbol that has been used for over 3,000 years. (That even predates the ancient Egyptian symbol, the Ankh!) Artifacts such as pottery and coins from ancient Troy show that the swastika was a commonly used symbol as far back as 1000 BCE.

During the following thousand years, the image of the swastika was used by many cultures around the world, including in China, Japan, India, and southern Europe.


quote:
The word "swastika" comes from the Sanskrit svastika - "su" meaning "good," "asti" meaning "to be," and "ka" as a suffix.

Until the Nazis used this symbol, the swastika was used by many cultures throughout the past 3,000 years to represent life, sun, power, strength, and good luck.


article link for quote

If used in it's original intent (pick a culture), the super-imposition over the Star of David is anything BUT offensive, in my book. It adds to the symbolism the Star of David is supposed to represent.

If one views the Swastika as SOLELY a NAZI symbol, then the argument that it disrepects the religious symbol by super-imposing the symbol of a regime that tried to exterminate everyone who believed in what the Star stood for is valid.

How to interpret what the mix of the two symbols means is the question and one must determine whether the holder of the changed Star of David means it to be a good symbol or a bad symbol or that the combination of the two is meant to draw the viewer to compare the state of Israel to that of the Nazi's.

It is, in my view, a bad choice of symbol (the swastika) to super-impose over the Star of David. There are other, just as subtle, but not nearly as distasteful symbols that could be superimposed over the Israeli flag that would do just as well in identifying Israel as an Apartheid state bent on destroying its neighbor.

The problem becomes choosing something that won't be compared to the infamous holocaust. One couldn't use barbed wire superimposed on the Israeli flag, as one would argue that the barbed wire represented concentration camps. But then one could argue that the barbed wire was clearly meant to represent the Apartheid Wall Israel is currently constructing.

See the problem? Anything one did to the heraldry of the State of Israel would inevitably be compared with the Holocaust.

As some people have said, Islam and the Prophet are fair game for cartoons and "freedom of the press must rule", NO MATTER WHO IT OFFENDS. NO ONE can criticise the use of the Heraldry of a Sovereign State (even when that state chooses a RELIGIOUS SYMBOL to place on its flag) in legitimate political protest.

Free speech is free speech. For those who supported the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, this is where that support comes back to BITE ONE IN THE BUTT! Fair is fair, right?


From: The Centre of the Universe, Ontario... Just kidding | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 07 August 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Really? Actually that was not at all my intent. I find it curious that you would even consider this.

Because it Was your intent O'Hara. I strongly disagree with Simon here, but you sir are a liar.

Simon: I don't agree. I think that the ownership idea needs to be challenged, firmly, because it is a vehicle and a direct reflection of the double standard which Israel has exploited for decades--in which Israel gets to be the victimizer while claiming constantly to be the victim.

The issue shouldn't be who 'owns' this symbol of evil and hatred, or more accurately whether a few radicals and Hizbollah supporters should be able to call Jews 'Nazis' for what's happening in the MiddleEast. That is not a valid comparison -at least not yet- it's threatening and hurtful to still living victims of one of history's Worst genocides, and does any movement towards reigning in Israeli aggression a grave disservice, which IS the issue which should counts now. There are better ways to campaign against this out of proportion turf war. Thank yous to Ken Burch, Michelle and Apples for seeing the very real potential for abuse here. Some forms of protest and criticism are legitimate, some are not. If I ever see one of these at any rally I attend I'll be sure to let those carrying them know. I hope I don't see anymore in the first place.


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 07 August 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Burch: The original vision of Zionism, born in the persecution of one people, is not to blame for what Israel in practice has become. Nor are the historic values of the Jewish tradition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:

And taking the crescent symbol of Islam and adorning it with equal obsceneties is fair and just?

That is a non-sequitor response.

The Christian West has visited injustices upon Islamic peoples.

But there has NEVER been a systematic effort at any time to wipe all Muslims off the face of the Earth.

It would help if Palestinians and other Arab/Muslim peoples would admit the Holocaust happened, and that this helped shaped the attitudes of the Zionist movement. This would not require them to make any meaningful compromise in their fight for a Palestinian state, and it would make it possible for them to make that fight much more effectively.

Using the Swastika will always fatally compromise any movement protesting the actions of the Israeli government. This is not a debateable point. It's time to show true revolutionary discipline and acknowledge this.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 07 August 2006 10:33 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
KB: "Using the Swastika will always fatally compromise any movement protesting the actions of the Israeli government. This is not a debateable point. It's time to show true revolutionary discipline and acknowledge this."

Well put and worth repeating again. Effective campaigns require discipline and sharp focus, not zealous overstatements or gestures. There are many Israeli and diaspora Jews who could still prove to be important allies in this struggle, please do not make it impossible for Them either.

[ 07 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 07 August 2006 11:34 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
Is it not unreasonable to take the Simon Weisenthal Centre as the institution most closely connected with guarding jewish memory of the holocaust?

They, after all, maintain the archives and pursue the guilty. I realize that Judaism isn't a unified body, but if there's any other institution which could be said to embody jewish memories of Nazi atrocities, I can't think of it.

~~

This matters because this year saw the Weisenthal Centre participating in the National Post's Yellow Stars Hoax, a deliberate slur upon the government of Iran promulgated for the political benefit of the state of Israel.

~~

If the argument is that seeing references to the nazis mustered in contemporary political argument somehow "cheapens" the memory of dead jews and distresses living ones, then we should have expected to see a chorus of jewish objection to the SWC's participation in this hoax.

However, we did not--there was almost complete silence. The SWC was mildly embarrassed at being caught up in a swiftly-unmasked lie, but certainly not horrified at the way that the memories of the holocaust had been "cheapened" by their own actions. If I'm not mistaken, they even supplied the photo that the national post ran on its cover, a grim photo of german jews wearing their yellow stars.

~~

So we can assume that the whole "cheapening" argument is a canard. That it's just for rubes. That the state of Israel "owns" the memory of the nazis and can use it in any way it pleases, respectful, accurate or not so, while no one else can do the same, unless of course using it for the benefit of Israel.

That, then, is the clear import of the following "not debateable" assertion from earlier in this thread:

quote:
"Using the Swastika will always fatally compromise any movement protesting the actions of the Israeli government. This is not a debateable point. It's time to show true revolutionary discipline and acknowledge this."

Which I firmly reject. It's hypocritical, based upon a fiction, and reliant upon a double standard. Raus mit this shit.

~~

This matters, because the state of Israel relies upon this and other dishonest arguments to enable it to, as I said above, become the victimizer while claiming to be the victim.

That's a source of a considerable amount of evil--call it what you will; gross human rights violations, war crimes, illegal wars, crimes against humanity, [fascism. Israel uses arguments like the above to deflect criticism of these acts, and this is a status quo which needs to be challenged by progressives everywhere they see it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 08 August 2006 12:30 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Call it what you Will then Simon, near fascism, aparthied, a racist militaristic state -what-ever- but please do Not call it Nazism. It isn't. You make it sound like the swastika is a valuable brand that the left somehow NEEDS to Fight this evil. It doesn't. And *I* need the types who are Bound to be attracted by this symbol being publically displayed like a hole in the head.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 12:30 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nothing gives Israel more opportunity to deflect criticism than putting the Swastika on the Magen David. It serves no purpose. And we Gentiles will NEVER be morally entitled to compared Jews to Nazis.

There are many other ways to make the point. There are many methods to criticize Israeli policy which DON'T give aid and comfort to the Likudnik right.

Why stick to the one piece of imagery that no Jewish person can ever tolerate being used against Israel?

Why do the one thing that will always alienate progressive Jewish people, a group whose support is vitally needed?

Have you simply decided that all Jews are irredeemable reactionaries?

Where the hell do you get that bullshit idea?

Can you not understand that you are fighting to defend a completely ineffective and self-defeating tactic?

What part of "it's wrong and it doesn't work" do you not understand?

It's time to choose a better approach.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 08 August 2006 12:34 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ha, not only do 'great minds think alike' but apparently they sometimes think in sync.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 01:01 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Erik.

Keep up the good fight.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 01:11 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
And we Gentiles will NEVER be morally entitled to compared Jews to Nazis.

This assertion is clearly well meant and heartfelt, but it's the most risible statement in this entire thread, IMO.

Morality is never a question of ethnicity; any argument which makes the contrary assertion is deeply regrettable; even (yes) racist.

Any moral code which finds particular acts moral or otherwise based on the ethnicity of the person committing them is so flawed as to require immediate discarding.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 08 August 2006 01:17 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank You, you too.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 01:30 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

Morality is never a question of ethnicity; any argument which makes the contrary assertion is deeply regrettable; even (yes) racist.

Any moral code which finds particular acts moral or otherwise based on the ethnicity of the person committing them is so flawed as to require immediate discarding.


Can you not even begin to comprehend that the Shoah is in a historical category by itself?

You are investing your passion in a pointless crusade here.

The Swastika is not acceptable in this debate with people of this religious/cultural tradition.

Why can't you see that?

And, in response to a post upthread, do you really hold all Jews responsible for the actions of the Wiesenthal Center?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 08 August 2006 09:03 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Can you not even begin to comprehend that the Shoah is in a historical category by itself?

That's the problem. The Shoah wasn't in a historical category by itself. Conferring the Holocaust with special status over and above other atrocities sets a terrible precedent amounting to the denial of suffering of other victims of political violence.

It was one example of a horrific tendency of governments committing atrocities against people it considers a threat. What exactly is particularly unique about the Holocaust that would somehow elevate it above other atrocities committed against ethinic or religious groups? There is a long, sordid list of purges, pogroms, cleansings, erradications, transfers, and "civilizing" around the world and thoughout history up to and including today. Their perpetrators of these many holocausts share the same lack of humanity, hatred, and goals as the architects of the Shoah. To elevate the Shoah above other atrocities is to also elevate its architects as possessing a capacity for evil acts that is somehow absent every one else. I don't beleive for one second that the Nazis' brand of race hatred, greed, and violent sadism is unique to them. Unfortunately, it is an all to common human trait that finds its expression in the worst ways among the powerful, whomever that may be at the time.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 August 2006 10:20 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Shoah was very much in a historical category all by itself. It was the culmination of two thousand years of pogroms occuring in what many considered in that period to be the world's most progressive and enlightened country. It was that country using its full modern industrial and technological might to systematically destroy all blood and historical evidence of a people who had been there for a thousand years, with no consideration of issues such as contributions to german society, intermarriage or even world war 1 experience. It was also an action permeated by the entire society, with the hate flowing from top to bottom in a power-entrenching feedback loop.

Jingles, open some history books please. The only way you can dismiss the holocaust as just another tragedy is if you are ignorant of context and know only the statistics.

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 08 August 2006 10:49 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't like to see the swastika used as a depiction of the Nazis because it only perpetuates the misappropriation of this symbol from its historic meaning in many cultures.

I think that if people want to use a synbol they should use the eagle. There is a symbol that has always stood for imperial power and was adopted by the Nazis for that reason. And it is currently the symbol of the US's corporate fascism in the world. [note to all I mean fascism not Nazism]

Israel has aligned itself with the US and is in many ways the US's military proxy in the region so that imperial fascist symbol should be used instead of the swastika.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Great suggestion, Kropotkin. Perhaps a combination of the U.S. Eagle, the White Eagle and the Imperial Eagles of the pre-1918 era would be best.

Show them in a flock scavenging at the dump and dropping huge loads in those they fly above. Show them swooping down and grabbing tiny nations in their beaks. The possibilities are endless.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 11:34 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Can you not even begin to comprehend that the Shoah is in a historical category by itself?

No, it's not. You've been manipulated.

quote:
You are investing your passion in a pointless crusade here.

I'm clearly not convincing YOU, at any rate, but that's nutual--what you're convinving me of is that race-based moral systems are profoundly flawed even when Liberlas use them.

quote:
The Swastika is not acceptable in this debate with people of this religious/cultural tradition.

Then they should quit acting like they mean it, shouldn't they? Asking them nicely hasn't worked--they can take all your niceness and twist you up into knots, like your race-based moral code.

quote:
Why can't you see that?

Because it's false.

quote:
And, in response to a post upthread, do you really hold all Jews responsible for the actions of the Wiesenthal Center?

No, I don't. However, that's not the question. Do you take your reaction as representative of all jews?

Because the reaction of NO JEWS to the SWC's use of the shoah for cheap political gain proves that the centre of your argument--that it's a category in itself (whatever that means)--is a lie. A lie propegated by means of relentless emotional blackmail solely to prevent well-meaning gentiles like yourself from confronting Israel on it's behaviour.

~~

Let's look at the last international example of racist behaviour on the scale of Israel: this being, of course, apartheid South Africa. It too, propegated a race-based moral code, and it too held a national mythology of racial survival under relentless pressure.

Yet the system came down, and peacefully.

In the end, what worked in South Africa wasn't the 40 year, occassional terrorist insurrection, weren't the sanctions, wasn't all the well-meaning liberals who supported the pathological national mythology, or the various attempts to 'engage' South Africa.

It was the world turning it's back and telling white South Africans that their behaviour was toxic and beyond the tolerance of polite society.

It was being shunned. That's what finally shamed them into giving up their apocalyptic apprehension of being overwhelmed by blackness, and into finding that there were many more ways to live in peace than they'd been pretending all along.

Well, Israel is the same. As long as the state of Israel gets away with it's hoax, it'll persist in its noxious behaviour, well meaning liberals be damned.

~~~

Progress is being made. 20 odd years ago, you couldn't even mention the palestinians in a sympathetic light in north america without being subjected to cascades of accusations of anti-semitism. That too was 'not debatable". I can recall the 5 person editorial board of the McGill being impeached over one sympathetic article and the supposed anti-semitism it signified, despite the fact that the board was actually 60% jewish, by coincidence. (When this was determined, the Hillel lynching squad instantly amended their accusations from "anti-semitic" to "self-hating and assimilated" and pressed on.)

However, that's all changed now. The defenders of Israel have lost that batttle--even the left is allowed to sympathize with Palestinians these days--and they're losing the battle you're attempting to fight for them too.

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 11:39 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What exactly is particularly unique about the Holocaust that would somehow elevate it above other atrocities committed against ethinic or religious groups?

1)The fact that it occurred in the Twentieth Century.

2)The fact that it was designed to wipe entire groups off of the face of the earth(GLBT's, Marxists, Roma and Jehovah's Witnesses in addition to the Jews).

3)The fact that potential sanctuaries for the victims existed(Canada and the U.S. at the top of this list, with the UK and Australia/New Zealand next)that those countries could have taken in ALL the potential casualties and prevented the Shoah, AND ALL REFUSED TO DO SO.

4)The fact that recognizable figures in modern "civilized" history(the IBM company, Prescott Bush, many others)not only did not work to prevent the event but actually collaborated with its perpetrators for personal financial gain.

there are other distinctions as well.

Acknowledging these distinctive characteristics does not invalidate the suffering of any others.

And the suffering of other groups may have partially prefigured it(the Armenians, indigenous peoples in North America and Australia)but were never as thoroughgoing or as effecient.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 08 August 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It was that country using its full modern industrial and technological might to systematically destroy all blood and historical evidence of a people who had been there for a thousand years, with no consideration of issues such as contributions to german society, intermarriage or even world war 1 experience. It was also an action permeated by the entire society, with the hate flowing from top to bottom in a power-entrenching feedback loop.

As I said, there is nothing unique in all that (with the obvious exception of the WWI reference). Substitute "German" for "Spanish", "English", and "American" and you have the conquest of NA. Or would you argue that the Spanish use of the horse and cannon, or the English use of massed infantry, or the Americans (and Canadian) use of germ warfare, railways, gatling guns, and the bureaucratic underpinnings supporting it all wasn't using modern industrial and technological might to destroy an people who'd lived here for thousands of years. Can you read a single tract or essay from Teddy Roosevelt, Cotton Mather, or Cortez without noticing the sheer magnitude of the white christian supremecy inherent to their prosecution of their campaigns of extermination?

I'll say it again: to argue that the Holocaust was am event unique in history is to argue that the Germans were likewise unique in their savagery. We know from many unfortunate examples that this simply isn't the case. For example, the state of Israels clear campaign of brutality against the Palestinian people, and now their assault on the people of Lebanon, show that racist evil scum will rise to the top of any power structure that seeks to maintain its bloody dominance through force. People are people, after all.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 August 2006 11:46 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jingles, in your lame attempt at moral equivalence, you have quoted the bottom two thirds of my argument which agrees with the supposition of equivalence while the top third in which the distinction with your example lies was not quoted. "It was the culmination of two thousand years of pogroms occuring in what many considered in that period to be the world's most progressive and enlightened country. " - that's a relevent distinction. Intellectually dishonest effort at argumentation on your part if there ever was.

See also Ken Burch's post.

Add the fact the Swiss Banks made a ton of cash and based their national pride on their supposed neutrality when in fact they profited from the death camps and had the audacity to deny people their bank accounts following the war, and to do so FIFTY years - into the 1990s, and relented only by threat of a 30 billion dollar lawsuit.

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 11:57 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
Jingles keeps asking (I've given up, never having gotten a real answer) "Why is it unique", and you keep answering "Because it was bad".

Well, we know that--the holocaust was one of the lowest points of the 20th century. However, on the scale of magnitude, it barely cracks the top three such genocides.

Your assertion that THIS Was somehow extra-specially unique certainly "cheapens" the memories of the one and two place-holders, doesn't it?

~~

The only thing "unique" about the holocuast is the unimpeachable moral high ground Israel thinks it provides them. With your support.

Unfortunately this free ride has itself been used as the engine of great evil. The Nazis had the aryan myth & perverted Nietzsche to teach them that they were the proud posesses of a special moral dispensation to commit evil; Israel has the myth of the holocaust.

Both, I rush to point out, were ethnic-based moral codes such as is being propagated in this thread.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 08 August 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You do know, Ken Burch, that your points apply to the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Also, the attempts of extermination of Native peoples' around the world also continues to this day. As for the world's indifference, look at what the world has done to stop Israel's murderous attack on Lebanon. Nothing. Oh, but Lockheed is making a bundle.

quote:
n your lame attempt at moral equivalence,

Oh my god! Moral Equivalence! You mean, actually holding standards of behaviour that apply universally? That would be awful. Perhaps we should just stay with the good old "whatever our side does is good and just, and whatever they do is baaad." So much easier that way. No unpleasant things like killing children to worry about. Unless they are on "our" side, of couse. Race-based morality is the way to go!

quote:
It was the culmination of two thousand years of pogroms occuring in what many considered in that period to be the world's most progressive and enlightened country.

As England considered herself, and as Americans today consider themselves. So bloody what? How much depleted uranium have those two progressive, civilized and enlightened countries dropped on Iraq?

A better question to ask is "what possible reason can there be to try and make the Shoah a unique event in world history"?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 August 2006 12:15 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To have it stand out in the public conciousness and cause a knee jerk reaction in people against atrocity, so as to help make sure such an event never, ever, happens again.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 08 August 2006 12:42 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To have it stand out in the public conciousness and cause a knee jerk reaction in people against atrocity, so as to help make sure such an event never, ever, happens again.

To whom? You've already come out clearly against the evils of moral equivelency, so you must mean this from your moral relativist point of view. Since you have no objection to Israel's genocidal campaign against the Palestinians, and now Lebanese, we know then that "never, ever again" must not apply in this case.

Similarly, I'm sure you'd agree that "never, ever again" is null and void should the US and Israel decide to finally go after thier big fish, Iran, with nuclear weapons. Morally speaking, of course.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 12:43 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
To have it stand out in the public conciousness and cause a knee jerk reaction in people against atrocity, so as to help make sure such an event never, ever, happens again.

That's the blackest of ironies, isn't it? Considering the use Israel puts it to, I mean.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 08 August 2006 12:45 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jingles, please explain the cause of your halucinations and fantasies as to me having no objections to Israel's actions.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 08 August 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for otter        Edit/Delete Post
To quote a well-worn phrase " we see what we want to see, and we hear what we want to hear", and with that the rockman fall soundly asleep.
From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 12:49 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
To have it stand out in the public conciousness and cause a knee jerk reaction in people against atrocity, so as to help make sure such an event never, ever, happens again.

No singular event can ever happen again. That's the nature of time.

~~

If the nazi holocaust can never be used as a point of comparison, how would you know if it ever did happen again, or was on the horizon? Or if a nation--Israel, for example--was heading down the path of race-based privilege and morality that led, in the case of Nazi germany, to the holocaust?

How would you ever catch anything in time?

And what's the point of catching evil too late?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why are you so obsessed with using the one image that will always be ineffective against Israel and will always alienate every Jewish progressive?

We've provided good alternatives to the Swastika/Star combo. We showed you why using that combo is wrong, stupid and self-defeating.

Please tell me why you can't let this thing go?

Do you WANT a Judenrein left?

Do you WANT to give aid and comfort to the Zionist hard right?

What is it with you about this?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
I'm open to an "it's not a good communications strategy" argument, but all the "it's immoral and this is undebateable" arguments tried so far are nonsense; in fact, dangerously so.

~~

However, I believe that I addressed this above, in my discussion of South Africa.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've made BOTH arguements. You obviously ignored half of what I've written.

Admit it, we've proven that there's no good reason to put the Swastika on the Magen David. Admit it and use good tactics instead.

That is, if you actually ARE a progressive, rather than some right-wing antisemite who's trolling in drag.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Admit it, we've proven that there's no good reason to put the Swastika on the Magen David. Admit it and use good tactics instead.

No. Here's why:

The "we're special! - we have special moral license because of the Holocaust" ideology IS the cause of Israel's evil behaviour. That's the engine, and it's what needs to be rooted out before peace can take place.

Strategies which pander to this pathology only reinforce it. We've had forty years to see how badly these work.

Once you accept this belief, then all of Israel's behaviour suddenly becomes rational. Attempting to address the behaviour while accepting its ideological roots merely makes you look crazily irrational. Your approach will be accepted--because it reinforces the pathology--but you will be condescended to and ignored, because the solutions you propose are, within the ideological framework, impossible.

To get to a solution, you need to get out of that ideological straitjacket, and that can only happen by denying the "we're special!" big lie in the first place.

Yes, this is protected by a huge amount of bluster, emotional blackmail, and denial. Such positions always are, but that was as true of white South Africa as it is of jewish Israel. The bluster will only get louder until the instant that it cracks. Because it is, after all, only sustained by loudness.

~~

I hestitate to do this, but your proposed approach is like telling a nazi "yes of course you're the master race, but you need to be nicer to the untermenschen!"

That's not the problem--the real problem is that he has the false belief that he's a member of a master race; once you accept that premise, then he--as the master--can do what he pleases, and your suggestion is absurd.

quote:
That is, if you actually ARE a progressive, rather than some right-wing antisemite who's trolling in drag.

Fuck you.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your response showed your true colors.

You are NOT on the left. You can't be and defend putting the Swastika on the Magen David.

I was never arguing that the Holocaust justified everything the Israeli government ever did. In fact, I have specifically rejected that arguement in many threads on I/P issues.

But you have to acknowledge the effects it had on the shaping of the Israeli worldview and the mindset of the Israeli government.
If you refuse to do that, you will always forfeit the support of every Jewish person on the planet.

We need to be pushing the Palestinians to say"even if we got a binational state, we wouldn't make the Jews leave. This could still be a place where they can live in safety, and it will still be a haven for them if the European and American governments betray them again in a time of madness".

We need to be saying to Israelis AND Diaspora Jews "We understand why you've defended this state. And we want you to know that we've learned the lesson and will never betray you again. And we won't let you punish the Palestinians for our sins."

But the combination of symbols you so irrationally defend will always prevent the left from doing that.

The Swastika on the Magen David will always be a reactionary symbol, and will always hurt any progressive cause that uses it. We can stand against the oppression of the Palestinians WITHOUT denying history.

But I don't know if you'll ever get that. You are too obsessed with defending the use of an imagistic sledgehammer even though we've proven that that sledgehammer shatters far more of the good than the bad.

Perhaps someday you'll be worthy of being a progressive activist. But you have a LOT to learn. In the meantime, you'd be doing the left a great favor if you'd stop for awhile.

Your insane hatred of not only Israel but also apparently of anyone who doesn't see it as the greatest evil on the planet is dragging you down and dooming you to defeat after defeat after defeat.

Study the history and reject false consciousness.

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: Ken Burch ]


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
Your response showed your true colors.

You are NOT on the left. You can't be and defend putting the Swastika on the Magen David.


So you're back to the same circular argument--leftists can't say it because you can't say that and be a leftist. Well, I'm doing both.

If it's not debatable, then quit debating it.

quote:
But you have to acknowledge the effects it had on the shaping of the Israeli worldview and the mindset of the Israeli government.
If you refuse to do that, you will always forfeit the support of every Jewish person on the planet.

Sure I do. And as well, I also acknowlege how Israel has used that event to perpetuate its own atrocities.

~~

You know, that's the thing about cycles of violence--someone's got to break them, and tell the new abusers that what their dad did wasn't OK, but they still can't do it to their own wife and kids--no matter how their abusive childhood has "shaped their worldview". That worldview is pathological, and this needs to be acknowleged.

Yup, they'll probably be in denial and get all angry and stuff:

quote:
Your insane hatred of not only Israel but also apparently of anyone who doesn't see it as the greatest evil on the planet...

Denial and anger sort of like that, in fact.

[ 08 August 2006: Message edited by: S1m0n ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 03:58 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine, we ALL want to break the cycle of violence. But it goes without saying that equating the Israeli government with the Third Reich can NEVER be an effective way to do that.

There are other ways. Better ways. Why defend what can never work?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 04:38 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
But it goes without saying...

Ah, the irony.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 06:28 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Of what, pray tell?

I've proven that the Swastika/Magen David combo is reactionary and self-defeating. If you want to doom yourself to irrelevance and the hatred of all Jews and most progressives, that's your call.

You know there's no case for your position here.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 06:34 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
You keep saying that your position is "undebatable" and "goes without saying", yet you keep circling around to the same circular assertions, over and over.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 08 August 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You've made no plausible case that the use of the Swastika/Magen David combo ISN'T reactionary and self-defeating.

I've shown how it is.

I've shown that it will automatically cost you the support of anyone who is Jewish and most who oppose anti-semitism.

Others have shown that it is the repeat of a Nazi act of defacing the star during the Thirties.

Please, please, kindly tell me how anything positive and progressive can possibly come from this use of imagery?

Tell me why it would be so much more effective than any of the alternatives we've presented you with?

It isn't enough just to call my arguement circular.

Why are you so attached to the use of a symbol of irredeemable hatred and savagery?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 08 August 2006 11:36 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simon,
The state of Israel and its hired apologists may Try to claim the Holocaust as an excuse for their actions, that's true enough, but I can still easily counter it by arguing any number of other ways -say that their ill treatment of Arabs does Not increase their collective security, that their Arab neighbours were Not responsible for the evils their parents faced in the first place, that this idea is collective punishment and is one of the prime historical motives for mass killings, that this dangerous notion may even be seen as running counter to their Own traditional value systems, like Noone being above the law, etc. All these obvious little points would no doubt be disputed by knee jerk nationalists but they would be much harder to get across with Anyone around if I was also waving a swastika. Wouldn't matter so much why I said I was doing it, matters more how others would see it. And I *know* how others see it already. That's all I'm really trying to say here.

From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 11:44 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
I guess we'll just have to let the audience decide what they find "plausible".

~~

But you appear to be assuming that the purpose of an anti-war demo in Toronto is to convince Israel of something or other.

How likely is that, frankly? I'd think "not even the least bit likely" is the only plausible response.

So it doesn't really matter whether we use your signs or my signs--if chagning Israel's mind is the only success, then the entire demo was a failure. With or without signs at all; Israel still wasn't listening, was it?

~~

A better case can be made that the toronto demo's real purpose is to demonstrate to Steve Harper what Canadians think of his new alliance.

In this case, no restriction on signs or symbols applies: in fact, we want Harper to ge the message palinly that his new foreign policy stinks.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 08 August 2006 11:55 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:
Simon,
The state of Israel and its hired apologists may Try to claim the Holocaust as an excuse for their actions, that's true enough, but I can still easily counter it by arguing any number of other ways -say that their ill treatment of Arabs does Not increase their collective security, that their Arab neighbours were Not responsible for the evils their parents faced in the first place, that this idea is collective punishment and is one of the prime historical motives for mass killings, that this dangerous notion may even be seen as running counter to their Own traditional value systems, like Noone being above the law, etc. All these obvious little points would no doubt be disputed by knee jerk nationalists but they would be much harder to get across with Anyone around if I was also waving a swastika. Wouldn't matter so much why I said I was doing it, matters more how others would see it. And I *know* how others see it already. That's all I'm really trying to say here.

How's that work for you?

Because I've found that "never again" travels with a couple of other ideas, and once you buy the one, you have to take the package.

The first is that in order to ensure that "never again" comes true, Israel is justified in taking any measure it thinks necessary.

And the second is that if you try to stop Israel from taking such measures, Isreal is allowed to decide that you're trying to make it happen again. In which case rule corollory #1 applies.

ANd once those special adjunct rules are invoked--rules made rational by the initial premise--then all hell breaks loose.

Just like it has been for the past 60 years.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 09 August 2006 01:06 AM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you DON'T have to take that package. Israeli leftists and Diaspora Jews who dissent against Israeli policy don't accept that set of assumptions.

You do, however need to avoid giving the Israeli right and those who back hard-line Israeli policy easy chances to attack and discredit antiwar demonstrations.

This is one of the most important arguements of all against the Swastika/Magen David combo.

You might as well spend an entire election campaign canvassing for the Tories or the GOP every time you use that symbol. It is THAT much of a gift to them.

Or you might as well right a huge check to the CCD or AIPAC. The Swastika/Magen David combo is just as valueable to their agenda.

And it makes it impossible to get through to people who aren't hard-core activist types, people who may just happen by your march and wonder what's going on, people who might well listen to a serious critique of Israeli/Tory/GOP policy but will automatically turn away in disgust when they see the Swastika smeared on the star.

Does that make it clearer to you?

Denying the validity of a people's experience will NEVER get that people to break a cycle of violence. It will, however, make them think you're a bigoted idiot and that they are justified to ignore you and turn to your right-wing enemies instead.


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 09 August 2006 01:08 AM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because I've found that "never again" travels with a couple of other ideas, and once you buy the one, you have to take the package.

That's only because "never again" is a package deal which you nolonger think can be separated Yourself. The issue again is whether Others can see that one does Not "justify" the other Now, that the Facts show it's Not real self defence Anymore (lot of people outside the left are already picking up on this despite the onesided PR) and therefore what knee-jerk apologists say remains nationalistic bunk. If you insist that thats the way these silly "corrollaries" MUst be taken, though, then I guess you really Are left with the option of -what again-trying to deny the particular significance of the Holocaust by waving swastikas? How's That going? From what I've seen so far in the media not so hot either.

Ken, I'm going to PM you tommorrow when my mind is functioning clearly again, heads up.

[ 09 August 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]


From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 09:06 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ken Burch:
But you DON'T have to take that package.

You don't, but once you accept the premise, you are arguing against the current. Those two conclusions are entirely logical and rational within their paradigm. Indeed, they're the MOST logical conclusion you can draw from the the "never again!" refrain and the special status it confers on the Holocaust.

Accept the first, and your position because nearly irrational--an "it would be nice" perfect-world scenario that will never be adopted, because erring on the side of caution will always be the prudent response.

The unlimited nature of "Never.," demands heroic measures. Sadly, from the outside these look like state-sponsored terrorism and proto-fascism.

~~

However all causes need good cops and bad cops: the former to seek alliance and the latter to speak truth. There's room for both messages, perhaps.

Apart from the race-based morality; that's idea's a stinker, through and through.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 09:35 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you insist that thats the way these silly "corrollaries" MUst be taken, though..

That 'silly' is a bit uncalled for, since we've already seen corrollary #2 come into play about three times in this thread, already.

Every time Ken Burch called me a nazi or an anti-semite or whatever, that's the logical underpinning he's using.

If HE can't resist the impulse, it destroys the argument that these conclusions are as seperable from the premise as you and he assert, and that all we need to do is engage Israelis of good will.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 09 August 2006 10:40 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by EriKtheHalfaRed:

Because it Was your intent O'Hara. I strongly disagree with Simon here, but you sir are a liar.

[.


I always understood that it was against Babble policy to call someone a "liar". How do any of us know someone's intent?

From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
How do any of us know someone's intent?

Must have been a lucky guess, because ohara didn't stick around to object.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 09 August 2006 11:31 AM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
As noted I believe it is against Babble policy to refer to someone as a liar.
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 09 August 2006 11:34 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I believe it is against Babble policy to refer to someone as a liar.

Well, you may be confusing us with the House of Commons, where it definitely is against the rules of the House.

In general terms, I don't think it makes sense to have such a policy. After all, there really is such a thing as a liar. We have had them on babble, too.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 09 August 2006 12:10 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
However Jeff, as a fellow lawyer I think you will agree that there is little evidence to suggest such in this case. Hence Babble without such rules could descend into schoolyard babbling each calling each other liars. gets pretty silly
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
However Jeff, as a fellow lawyer I think you will agree that there is little evidence to suggest such in this case.

I see you're calling Erik a liar using the same strategy that ohara used to call me a Nazi.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 09 August 2006 12:52 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
I do not believe that even deserves an answer SimOn
From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
I do not believe that even deserves an answer SimOn

It appears you've managed to find the generosity to bestow one upon it, nevertheless.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petsy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12553

posted 09 August 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for Petsy        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by S1m0n:

It appears you've managed to find the generosity to bestow one upon it, nevertheless.



From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 09 August 2006 06:20 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Petsy:
I always understood that it was against Babble policy to call someone a "liar". How do any of us know someone's intent?
Just so you should know, I did not lie. I resent being called a liar however I have found that people who level such wantonly ridiculous allegations based on assumptions has left the realm of reality for fantasy.

From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 09 August 2006 06:24 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
Just so you should know, I did not lie. I resent being called a liar however I have found that people who level such wantonly ridiculous allegations based on assumptions has left the realm of reality for fantasy.

It WAS the guy arguing your position, ohara. Are you sure you want call him insane?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 09 August 2006 07:47 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
SimOn your last post is indecipherable
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erik Redburn
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5052

posted 09 August 2006 07:58 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I Wasn't arguing "his" position either, Simon, but thanks for defending me anyway. And no O'Hara, we weren't arguing over the more common use of a Swastikas either, as you Did imply, we were only arguing on whether it was polically wise to use it as a statement about Israels perpetually hostile attitude against its Semitic neighbours. Petsy, would you like me to repost O'Hara's message in bold face just so we can all admire the 'sublety' of his slur again? I thought once was enough.
From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 10 August 2006 05:10 AM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
I have never been accused of being subtle. I always say/write what I mean. If you have to search for offense you have to know with me you will not find it. I will tell you directly or not at all.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 10 August 2006 06:55 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is never getting back on topic.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca