MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
They burned him ALIVE??!!!
By jollyroger on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 6:25pm |Those who BURNED A RANDOM 16 YEAR OLD PALESTINIAN ALIVE enjoy our protection and live under our military umbrella. The very least we can do is boycott, divest, and sanction. May we not, now, in the fullness of this horror which is enabled and abetted by an illegal occupation, say without quallification, Israel is a Nazi State? (Apartheid is too polite a word.)
URL:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/03/israelis-kidnap-palestinian-boy-and-burn-him-alive-enough/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com
- Add new comment
- 6418 reads
Comments
Divestiture is a pitifully inadequate response, but at least no one dies....
by jollyroger on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 6:31pm
As of this writing:
1 - The autopsy reports have not yet been released. The boy's body was burned, but there is (as yet) no reason to think he was alive at the time.
2 - It is not yet known who the kidnappers/killers were, nor even if they were Jews or Arabs. There are reports of several failed kidnap attempts on members of his family in the past.
It's interesting that you think the boy's murder justifies calling Israel a Nazi state. If one ugly murder brings on that reaction, what was your reaction to the kidnapping and murder of the three Jewish children of the same age?
Sometimes you're not very jolly, Roger.
by Lurker on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 7:05pm
1. Permit me to pray that I am misinformed--the caption under which the news was posted manifests my surprise and horror (and, indeed, this was the first account I have seen that so specifies, which in part informs my shock--I would think that such news would be more widely bruited about. We shall see.)
2. It is always convenient when an atrocity occurs to allege a false flag origin. The same might be said of the kidnap and murder of the three Israeli teenagers. That said (and with reference to the body of the cited article which you do not seem to have read, or at least to which your comment is not apposite), I am prepared to believe the allegations of culpable side as they stand.
3. Take the allegations in the article as a whole, and your knowledge of the history of racism as it manifests in Israeli Jews (I know them well, many are my relatives...), and I don't think the "Nazi" appelation warrants a Godwin red card. YMMV
4. Have you seen the flag?
by jollyroger on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 8:11pm
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/29821?in=50:14&out=62:03
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 8:28pm
But why doesn't Roger regard the Palestinians as Nazis for the murder of the three kids, the 2008 murder of the yeshiva students, and I don't know, a gazillion suicide bombings? Can you say double standard?
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 8:51am
To be accused of instituting a governmental regime of oppression deriving from racial/tribal identitym, you need to be in charge. Israel is in charge (thanks, largely, to us.)
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 5:46pm
You seemed to be saying that it was because of "this horror"(the burning) that we could "now" call Israel a Nazi state, and the horror wasn't governmental. The Israelis are the occupiers and the upper dogs, which is relevant, but the Arab on Jew killings also have a racial/tribal and religious element, and it isn't clear to me that they are less horrific. There is a Palestinian government of sorts in Gaza and the unoccupied parts of the West Bank, and it is at least as oppressive and bigoted as the Israeli regime.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 8:47pm
I'll amend that. Palestinians and Israelis are in a different category, because of the upper dog/ underdog thing. Israeli violence is part of a system of control, and Palestinian violence against Jews isn't. But because Hamas(and some in Fatah) want to destroy Israel, the terror can't be fully explained as "a reaction to oppression". Hamas has a theocratic, chauvinistic agenda which isn't more enlightened than the Israeli order in the territories, and probably worse than the order within the green line.
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 9:49pm
But because Hamas(and some in Fatah) want to destroy Israel,
Bear in mind that the objective of eradicating Israeli sovereignty is different from eradicating Jews.
by jollyroger on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 12:55am
Great. You want to destroy Israel, but you don't want to exterminate the Israelis, so its okay. And what happens to Jews when Israel has been eradicated? The Arabs live with them in peace and love? If they aren't exterminated, which is hardly a remote possibility, they get expelled(the returning Palestinian diaspora will need a place to live), or they are persecuted and reduced to third class citizens. The Hamas charter says Jews will be well treated after Israel is destroyed, but anyone who looks at Hamas' record and ideals can see that is bullshit.
Anyway, even if it weren't for all that, expecting people to agree to the destruction of their country is too much.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 8:44am
Also, I can't agree that the right of the Jews to a state was dependent on Arab consent. It was a case of right against right, which made partition the best option--or the least bad one.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 11:05am
I can't agree that the right of the Jews to a state was dependent on Arab consent.
I take it that you implicitly agree that a plebiscite, if held, would have rejected partition?
by jollyroger on Tue, 07/08/2014 - 10:30pm
Yes.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 07/09/2014 - 8:46am
Were you to apply your standard to a pair of earlier partition efforts, one successful and one not, might you find yourself applying a different standard vis-a-vis who, when in the minority, gets to decide to partition a previously territorially unified entity?
1. In 1836, faced with an impending decision by their government to outlaw slavery, the Tejano minority successfully undertook a partition of Mexico so as to create a new independent republic.
2. In 1861, fearing a similar eventuality, a southern minority undertook an unsuccessful partition of the USA..
Compare and contrast with the 1948 partition. Hint: None of these paitition efforts were preceded by popular plebiscites (which you have declared nugatory in the 1948 iteration.)
For extra credit, explain why the "stars and bars" adorn so many pickup trucks, just over the mudflaps with the cartoon poiinted tittie girlie pictures.
by jollyroger on Fri, 07/11/2014 - 3:27am
The problem with your analogies is that none of those cases involved partition for the purpose of granting a state to an ethnic minority which badly needed a state to protect it. The centuries of persecution, and especially the genocide, demonstrated that Jews were going to be in a bad way without a government and an army. In an unitary Arab-dominated Palestine, Jews would have faced persecution and possibly massacre.
And without a state, the Jewish DPs in Europe, or a lot of them, would have remained in refugee camps.
Addendum: The Texans(or Texians, as they were called then) had grievances other than the abolition of slavery. As for 1861, if it weren't for slavery, history would sympathize with the wish of the Southerners to go their own way. The folks in Quebec were allowed to vote on succession without the majority of Canadians getting a vote.
by Aaron Carine on Fri, 07/11/2014 - 8:32am
Your Quebec analogy is inapposite--the right to a plebisicitary secession was built into the original Canadian confederation,
As for the ameliorative goals of a Jewish state, Bavaria should have been the locale.
Your cloaking the unlawful partition with urgent goals is merely an echo of the attitudes of the original seceders.
I will point out that you are silent on the fundamental legal questions raised,.
Edit to add: Try the pointy titty question, you might have better luck...
by jollyroger on Fri, 07/11/2014 - 7:37pm
My argument may be an "echo", but that hardly refutes it. The fact that the League of Nations incorporated the Balfour Declaration into the mandate has been offered as a legal basis for Zionism, but I think the case for partition was more moral than legalistic(you probably wouldn't feel that Arabs were obliged to accept the British mandate because it was legal).
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 6:08am
Also, General Assembly Resolution 181 would seem to provide a legal basis for partition, if you must have one. People have said that General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations, although that means that Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of Palestinians to return, was also a recommendation.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 9:08am
Neither the League nor the UN ever achieved an assent to sovereignty from the population of the former Ottoman territory, (nor did the Ottomans, nor any other conqueror going back to the Romans--as the Jews themselves in glorifying Masada celebrate).
The League nor the UN had the legal right to dispose of the people living in this place.
That said, if you wish to base the Jewish claim to sovereignty on the UN, how then will you justify the persistent violation by Israel of Security Resolution 242?
If they are a creature of the UN, they cannot maintain their legal claim when they violate a UN resolution.
The text of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 reads as:
“The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
Affirms further the necessity
For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.”
Edit to add: continued at bottom for reformatting.
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:52am
Are you talking about legal rights or moral rights? Because if it's a matter of legality,
what law would trump the resolutions of the League of Nations and the United
Nations?
I myself don't base the legitimacy of partition on the will of the United Nations. I think partition was the best and most moral solution.
The Palestinians who demand Israel's destruction are flouting 242 as much as Israelis. It is interesting to note that one of the authors of 242 said that it didn't require a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines, although he also didn't condone unilateral territorial expansion.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267
by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 1:56pm
JR, for what it's worth, I can assure you that you need not make Nazi analogies to bring this tragedy to my attention. Nothing captures how I feel more than this short piece by Rabbi David Wolpe. He writes:
The rabbi is absolutely correct. I am very much ashamed by this, period.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/08/2014 - 9:48pm
Having already substantially retreated from the "Nazi" analogy (via well reasoned pushback from Genghis and DoubleA), I will venture perhaps a bit of recapitulation thusly:
(Acknowledging the shame you evince, and that I, of course, share) I would pose the following question:
Can a policy founded upon religious difference (Israel must be a Jewish state...) avoid the "original sin" of imputing to the defense of such a policy a divine mandate, with consequent open ended acceptance of the most vile crimes as falling under the umbrella "God is on my side"?
It is with this in mind that I adopt a "no Yahwists" rule for my proposed United Semitic Peoples' Kemalist Republic--a one-state denoument, by the way, that appears increasingly to be the only item on the menu.
by jollyroger on Tue, 07/08/2014 - 9:54pm
Well the shame you and I share would be the focus of my initial attempt to answer your questions, but that is for another time perhaps. Ciao.
Edited to add that I did not mean to be snarky; that was a total love tap.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 07/08/2014 - 10:07pm
At Elder of Ziyon they have been doing what the rabbi objects to i.e. using this occasion to emphasize the moral superiority of Jews. NormanF commented on "the animal nature" of Arabs.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 07/09/2014 - 8:53am
If only Muslim clerics and Muslim leaders would object to the internecine strife, crimes and violence in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Kenya, Nigeria etc. Instead of funding it.
An Iraqi was quoted in the NYT saying he would prefer a Jew or Christian to run the country over any Muslim. Who would blame him?
Israel has had a hundred rockets hit in or near it's cities. They have killed 23 Gazans. George W. Bush freedom spreading caused at least 10,000 times more, and Iraq was no threat to any nation least of all the US. Who's the bad?
We are seeing why Israel is of necessity, a 'Jewish' State.
In that region it's either that, or a Imam/dictator run Muslim state, a budding caliphate or chaos. Given the clear and obvious failure of the Muslim populations to get along even with each other, and their overpopulation of young men with a penchant for senseless violence and mayhem, and the widespread ruthless destruction by Muslims (barrel bombs by Assad, Sunnis blowing up Shite shrines in Mosul and Kirkuk, murder and kidnapping of young girls in Africa), Israeli policy is looking more and more reasonable, restrained and necessary.
by NCD on Wed, 07/09/2014 - 1:00pm
Thanks Aaron. I have quite a bit to say about what Elder did to manipulate this tragedy, but I am not ready. Suffice it to say that what he and his regulars did over this is reflective of something other than real Jewish values -- and I don't care how many times the dude and/or his regulars might pray each day in the direction of Jerusalem. Shameful.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 07/09/2014 - 4:51pm
On the PBS Newshour this allegation that the boy was burned alive drew, oddly, no rebuttal or amplification--however, the details of the now completed autopsy continue to be obscured, raising, for me, the likelihood of the allegation's accuracy.
by jollyroger on Fri, 07/04/2014 - 11:36pm
400 "price tag' terror attacks by settler mobs in 2013--are we at Brownshirt level yet?
The U.S. State Department included price-tag attacks for the first time in its annual report on "terrorism" published this spring. At least 400 attacks were carried out in 2013, most of which went unprosecuted, according to the United Nations. Israel set up a special unit in the West Bank to attempt to control hard-line settlers, and this spring top justice officials even considered classifying groups that carry out price-tag attacks as "terrorist" organizations, according to The New York Times.
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 12:02am
Recall Baruch Goldstein? Jewish settler who shot 154 Palestinians killing 29?
At Goldstein's funeral, Rabbi Yaacov Perrin claimed that even one million Arabs are "not worth a Jewish fingernail"...
In 2010, Jewish settlers were criticized that during celebrations of Purim they sang songs praising Baruch Goldstein's massacre demonstratively in front of their Arab neighbours. A phrase from the song reads "Dr. Goldstein, there is none other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all love you… he aimed at terrorists' heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and shot."
Not nice people....
We now have reason to believe the Palestinian boy was burned alive, as the autopsy report is out.
Israel is not 'Nazi'. The West Bank grave side shrine to Goldstein was destroyed by Israel in 1999, as Israel considered him a terrorist.
However, many of these settlers seem to have delusions of racial/religious superiority that are not dissimilar from those of other failed ideologies in recent history.
by NCD on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 10:18am
The "terror attacks" you refer to consist of graffiti sprayed on walls, and car tyres slashed. There has not been a single injury from 'price-tag' attacks, so far as I know, let alone a death. They would be considered minor teenage vandalism in the US. (I have my own paranoid conspiracy explanation about them, but don't get me started....) They are a far cry from machine-gunning school buses and bombing crowded restaurants, which the Palestinians consider God's work.
by Lurker on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 10:50am
I'm pretty much with Wolraich on this.
What you've got here is a hate crime. And this particular quote could be describing the Ku Klux Klan of the early 20th century.
Where I would add nuance to Wolraich's argument as far as blaming a nation or a government. You've got to figure how much complicity you give for things like not prosecuting toughly enough or not denouncing loudly enough. Compare something like the Ku Klux Klan and weak U.S. federal intervention in the early 20th century, where the reasons were other than because they were in support of lynchings, with something like Kristallnacht, where you had government instigation. And all manner of variants inbetween.
Do many Israelis not denounce loudly enough because they are angry and have hate? Probably so. Flip side: I've heard more than a few American Jews express pretty profound emotional hatred towards Israeli settler types. Were there plenty of racially prejudiced Americans who found lynchings abhorrent? Surely. Etc.
Hate an emotion vs. putting hate into action with crimes. Two different things.
Also I see a whole lotta "mad as hell and not going to take it any more" in the kidnapping/reprisal story coming from both sides. Which adds a whole 'nother level. I think immediately of the Sandy Hook massacre, and anti-gun and pro-gun people both making irrational arguments directly after, where you have powerful symbolism and emotional reaction being further pumped up by 24/7 media coverage. Heck, same thing that Osama bin Laden was going for with his little hijack plot....
Back to hate vs. hate crimes. I'm not a big fan of anything that might lean towards making for thought crimes. People should be allowed to express hate (i.e., freedom of hate speech) so they don't boil over (or go "underground" where their hate isn't clear. )
Crimes, on the other hand, should be prosecuted, whether hate is the motive or not. When you get into conspiracy to commit is where things get shady. I digress, or maybe not.
by artappraiser on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 12:23am
complicity you give for things like not prosecuting toughly enough or not denouncing loudly enough
Yes, this is precisely the meme I was adducing with the "brownshirt" allusion. And, to be frank, taken as a whole (reaching back to he assassination of Rabin and down to the present toleration of haredin atrocities towards (jewish) women) on the whole I find Israeli authorities insufficiently zealous in suppressing hateful behaviour (leaving out hateful speech, which is another problem)
by jollyroger on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 12:33am
Nuance accepted and appreciated
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 11:45am
Jolly, this is absurd. Do we boycott the Palestinian Authority because of terrorism by the Islamic Jihad? Greece because of violence by Golden Dawn? Norway because of the youth camp massacre? It is one thing when a government condones violence, as when Hamas described those who kidnapped the three Israeli youths as "heroes," but Netanyahu unequivocally denounced Muhammad's murder (just as Abbas, to his credit, denounced the kidnapping and murder of the Israeli boys), and the theory that Israel isn't pursuing the killers is paranoid speculation.
The article you link makes much of the relative importance that Israel attached to the three Israeli boys vs the Palestine boy. Well, no shit. Likewise, the murder of a Palestinian attracts far more concern from Arabs than the murder of an Israeli. For that matter, the murder of a white middle-class kid in the US attracts far more concern from (white) Americans than the murder of a poor black or latino kid. It's racist and deplorable, but to compare such tribalism to Nazism shows a willful ignorance of what genocide is. For fuck's sake, dude, the Nazis systematically murdered 6 million Jews, about 40 percent of the entire world population. When you write crap like that, you make someone like me, who wants to pressure Israel to liberate Palestine, nauseous.
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 2:51pm
Perfectly said.
by Verified Atheist on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 4:27pm
by barefooted on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 4:54pm
Well, of course, I have been for divestiture since long before this relatively minor contretemps (compared with the overall burden that occupation imposes upon the Palestinians)
And, yeah, the holocaust as a systematic governmental horror stands alone for evil, so, point taken.
That said, the quotidien banality of the Israeli oppression (pace, Hannah) does partake in some recognizable measure of the Nuremberg regime, penetrating as it does to the simple acts of everyday survival (raising an olive tree, commuting to work, etc.) and Gaza is a lot like Warsaw in its function.
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 5:43pm
The "function" of the Warsaw ghetto was to serve a holding pen for Jews bound for genocidal slaughter. 100,000 of them--25 percent of the ghetto population--died of starvation, disease, and Nazi sadism before they even reached the death camps. That's a mortality rate of 25 percent, going to nearly 100 if you include the camps.
By contrast, Gaza's mortality rate is 0.32 percent, better than Israel's as it happens. So no, Gaza is not "a lot" like the Warsaw ghetto. In fact, it is nothing like the Warsaw ghetto.
That is not to say that the Gazans are not suffering. They are, and their suffering should be recognized and rectified. But you can recognize their suffering without equating it to one of the most horrific evils in history.
by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 7:29pm
Gaza's mortality rate is 0.32 percent, better than Israel's as it happens...
In fact, it is nothing like the Warsaw ghetto.
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 9:32pm
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 5:38pm
The smart Israelis will start pricing townhouses in NYC and flats in London. Those who can't or won't leave will face a harsh judgment when the Army Of The Caliph marches into Jerusalem.
by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 07/05/2014 - 9:13pm
Quick intrusion - thanks Jolly.
Though "Nazi" and "brownshirt" are inappropriate both in historical analogy & unneeded holocaust link. Worse, it gets everyone talking about terminology, and not this boy's burning and the escalation of children of both sides as pawns in a sick war.
This is much closer to South African "Apartheid". The murder of 3 Israeli boys complicates things - we don't know why, and fighting apartheid doesn't justify this horrid act.
But the premiditated burning to death of a child as revenge is just sick and inhuman. Netanyahu's call for "revenge" is even sicker - he's irresponsibly inciting atrocity as head of government, rather than justice. Apparently there are a few other revenge efforts underway. And Netanyahu will just plead he was misunderstood, and life/death goes on.
Your link to the Addicting Info shows & discribes an anti-Arab environment I haven't seen much. I wonder how a people who've fled similar oppression in other countries can take it up when they have power. But then, revenge and self-justification are common ugly human responses - no use expecting people will have learned anything, the irony of "Never Again" lost.
Waiting for OK & TMac to show up and lecture you on anti-semitism. Meanwhile, keep up the *good* fight. Peace.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 6:26am
I will strenuously resist a charge of anti semitism by pointing out my status as one of the *founding triumvirate of the United Semitic Peoples' Kemalist Front--"One Semite, one vote, one state, no Yahwists!"
*Me, Noam, and Benny Morris--but Benny resigned.
by jollyroger on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 8:07am
I agree that Netanyahu's "revenge" language is dangerous and disgusting. His rhetoric and policies have contributed to a rise of violent extremism in Israel. It is similar to the way right-wing political groups in Europe have indirectly fomented violence against Muslims (and Jews). Such behavior is dangerous and reprehensible, even if it is less abominable than the deliberate persecution engineered by the Nazis and other brutally racist regimes. Artappraiser offers a more thorough analysis of this point above.
As for the analogies, I note that categorically horrific regimes and events do not require analogies. No one compares Nazism or apartheid or American slavery to some greater evil. They stand on their own. People often compare lesser evils to these iconic horrors as a rhetorical device to exaggerate the cruelty of some law or regime. Yet by overstating the case, this device invariably draws a skeptical reaction and turns the discussion from the lesser evil to the archetypal evil, undermining the original point. In short, it's not helpful to compare Palestinian suffering to other historical examples of oppression. Just talk about Palestinian oppression.
by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 11:43am
I confess that whenever I hurl the epithet "Nazi" at Israel, it is with specifically malicious intent to bring her defenders to confront the peculiar resonance (on a macro scale) of the old adage that the abused child so often grows into an abusing parent.
Also, the grievous harm done by racists to the Jewish people ought, by some accountings, to sensitize them to the plight of the victims of racism rather than privilege them to duplicate the oppression once visited upon them.
That said, I will *limit myself to "apartheid" as a characterization in the future, (bearing in mind the validity of what you say.)
(*Ain't I a restrained and saintly motherfucker...?)
by jollyroger on Sun, 07/06/2014 - 9:05pm
Jollyroger, you seem to know as little about apartheid as you do about Nazis. Why don't you give it a rest, and concentrate your energies on what you do know.
For years, unscrupulous and uncaring capitalist sports owners have been soiling and humiliating the name of your colleagues in your chosen profession, and no-one has raised the slightest protest. Isn't it time you put an end to those slurs, and began a campaign to force these owners to change the name of the Pittsburgh Pirates?
by Lurker on Mon, 07/07/2014 - 3:35am
Inasmuch as they are six games over 500 and only 4-1/2 out halfway through the season, I will reserve dudgeon.
by jollyroger on Mon, 07/07/2014 - 4:18am
Continued reply to AC
As to your cliam that "morality" justifies a "Jewish State" in Palestine, I presume you have reference to the events in Europe between 1932 and 1945, to which I repeat, Bavaria would have made a nice homeland.
Parenthetically, were the UN to have decided that the Romany deserved a homeland because of their persecution by Hitler, what would you have thought if they were given Manhattan?
by jollyroger on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 10:56am
The damn thing blocked my reply to one of Roger's comments, so I have to transcribe it again.
Roger says that the League and the United Nations had no legal right to mess around with Palestine. Might he mean that they didn't have a moral right? Because when it comes to legality, I don't think anything outranks the United Nations.
It would have been more just to give the Jews a state in Germany, but in the real world that wasn't an option. Either they got a state in Palestine or they got nothing.
Perhaps the Gypsies also had a right to a state to protect them. For it to have been equivalent to what was envisioned by General Assembly Resolution 181, it would have had to be a chunk of territory in which Gypsies were the majority(Jews were a majority in the area that the partition plan would have awarded to Jews). Manhattan would have been as good a place as any, if Gypsies had been a majority there.
Palestinian demands for Israel's destruction flout Resolution 242 as much as what Israelis have done. It is notable that one of the authors of 242 said that it didn't require a full withdrawal to the 1967 lines.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267
by Aaron Carine on Sat, 07/12/2014 - 7:50pm
If the further immolation of children is the price of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, does the price ever get too high?
Note tht the present four dead were not the victims of degenerate vigilantes, but of the IDF.
by jollyroger on Wed, 07/16/2014 - 12:33pm
If the killing of Jewish children, rocket attacks on civilians, and a theocratic regime in Gaza are the price of Palestinian nationalism, we could just as well say that this is too high a price.
Other states have killed children, do you want to destroy them too? That would mean destroying a majority of the world's states, including Arab states.
I don't support the Israeli offensive, but perhaps Hamas shouldn't have been shooting rockets.
by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 07/16/2014 - 5:58pm
The upgrade seems to have turned me into anonymous.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 07/16/2014 - 6:12pm