"It Wasn't Muslims"

[OP ED]

there is a big difference in lowering the standard of living so that people suffer and die and actual liquidation.

Not so big a difference to those doing the suffering and dying.

i was going to say that the only difference is that one of those is something you can get away with easier.

[lightningBugout]

there is a big difference in lowering the standard of living so that people suffer and die and actual liquidation.

Not so big a difference to those doing the suffering and dying.

Yes there is a clear difference, the former includes an element of long, drawn-out torture.

[compared2what?]

Oh.[....]

When it comes to issues as consequential as the large-scale oppression and slaughter of one class of people by another, I can't think of a (good) reason to cite the rule of any kind of law, whether international or any other flavor, that doesn't go hand in hand with an absolute commitment to the categorical imperative (in the Immanuel-Kant, moral-imperative sense of that phrase).

By which I mean: I can't think of a (good) reason ever absolutely to condemn one instance of the large-scale oppression and slaughter of one class of people by another and equivocate about another. Either (a) absolute opposition is always an absolute imperative; or (b) some animals are more equal than others.

Anything else is a logical fallacy.

Although if your case had a realpolitik dimension that amounted to more than a toe-touch, I might have somewhat more to say.

You display the fuzzy, self-serving and cynically selective apologia that is typical of zionists, picking and choosing what you like from history, mythology, legal jurisprudence and facts, and blithely discarding what does not serve your ugly purposes.

I have never seen Alice write a serious word that suggests that from her point of view the above-quoted sentence would be substantively (rather than rhetorically) one whit less representative of her fundamental worldview had she chosen to use the word "idealogues" in place of "zionists."

Which is not to say that Alice is infallible, or even that I personally agree with every part of her principle argument. FWIW, like most people who sit where I sit rather than where she does, zionism looks like a much less prominent geopolitical force to me than it does to her. I believe I've remarked on that before when addressing her directly once or twice. But the point's really not important enough to merit a whole lot more than that, as far as I'm concerned. Because absent any evidence that her opposition to zionism arises from anything other than a categorical opposition to organized crimes against humanity, or that her overall perception is any more distorted by the hypothesis that zionists are the capo di tutti capi of that world than mine is by the hypothesis that they're just one of the major crime families, in practice, that's actually a very minor distinction. The crimes are still categorically crimes, and the imperative to advocate for justice is still an imperative.

When I consider that most of the people who get all hot and bothered by Alice's uncompromising opposition to crimes presently being committed against humanity in the name of zionism (as well as in the name of other idealogies, from my POV) are seemingly too busy compromising themselves on the homefront to even be very fully acquainted with what their rights and responsibilities as citizens -- which they got at birth for free -- even are, let alone clear-eyed or disciplined enough consistently to exercise them in accordance with the categorical imperatives they were designed to protect, it really kind of bums me out to see how vociferously they feel entitled to their hot, bothered protestations, to be honest with you.

[compared2what?]

there is a big difference in lowering the standard of living so that people suffer and die and actual liquidation.

Not so big a difference to those doing the suffering and dying.

No difference at all that's worth distinguishing as such.

As I might have just saved myself the trouble of writing and others the tedium of reading most of my previous post by having said. Which I would have, had I noticed your post, orz.

Could you use a larger font or something in the future? Thanks.

[jlaw172364]

Under the oppression scenario, one has the option and the hope of leaving or otherwise getting the oppressors to let up, either by concession or by force.

Under the extermination scenario, one only has the choice of kill or be killed.

If the Palestinians somehow relocated to some remote corner of the globe, the Israelis wouldn't bother to go after them.

The Nazis wanted to exterminate every last Jew from the face of the Earth because they believed Jews were a literal plague on humanity. The Nazis believed they were doing a noble, virtuous thing by exterminating Jews. Every move they made was calculated to maximize the likelihood of exterminating all Jews.

I think the Palestinians can either leave, or try to consolidate what they have and concentrate on holding on to it; the later possibility seems less and less likely as time goes by. The Israelis have successfully co-opted any attempt to use force against them as "terrorism;" and if it's not provided, they either instigate it, subsidize it, or false flag it.

What do they realistically do in such a situation?

Anyway, this scenario is not shaping up to be a Hollywood ending, no irony intended.

[jlaw172364]

You cannot seriously equivocate complete extermination on a global scale with localized oppression possibly leading to extermination. As I stated before, localized oppression allows for the possibility of escape, or at least of a cessation. Stop being disingenuous making BS equivocations and pretending like every single Palestinian is being tied to a torture rack and stretched by every single blood-thirsty Israeli.

As long as a Palestinian people exists, there will be some hope and some possibility of creating a livable Palestinian homeland.

BTW, to address hostile points about me disclosing that I was Jewish, I specifically disclosed that up front precisely so that the forum would know where my bias was leaning, because even as a nominal Jew, I am biased towards the Israeli side. I don't see how one could conclude that I would draw some "authority" from being Jewish. If I were a nominal Palestinian, I would probably biased toward the Palestinian side. It would be easier for me to support the Palestinian side if the Jews that colonized Israel not just come out of Holocaust camps and pogroms.

You know, some Jews tried to return from the camps to their home towns in Eastern Europe, and they were murdered or driven away. There is a general sense that if one doesn't harden one's heart, one will get killed or enslaved. It seems clear to me that Israel, while not being the exact equivalent of an imperial regime, was an attempt to pragmatically use imperial tactics and strategies to prevent the possibility of another extermination attempt. It's basically a statement, "Okay, we acknowledge that this is how the world works, we won't allow ourselves to be exterminated by taking some alleged moral high ground."

As far as I'm concerned, the primary dialectic needs to be between Israelis and Palestinians. I don't think that the bloodstained hands of the U.S. and Europe have any credibility in the minds of the Israelis or the Palestinians to the extent that they don't support what each side wants for itself. Sure, each side will cynically accept aid, but they won't assign any credibility to opinions that diverge from their own. I keep trying to drive home the point that citizens of countries with blood-stained imperialist pasts, no wait, let add presents as well, keep saying that Israel should be held to higher standard than their own criminal regimes. What did that Nazi say; the strength of totalitarianism is that it forces opponents to adopt totalitarian methods? If some nations use imperial or totalitarian methods and gain a survival advantage, it is only reasonable to expect other nations to perceive this and adopt it themselves to avoid being exterminated.


I've attended several "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestinian" forums and these moderate speakers were all so respectively biased and one-sided that it's very easy to see why no solution as arisen. There was no debate or discussion, there was just one-sided polemics. I can't even imagine what would happen if you put the wing-nuts together; probably a frenzied bloodbath.

As long as there is no rational debate between the parties because each side is so certain that it is absolutely right, then there will never be peace.

[orz]

You cannot seriously equivocate complete extermination on a global scale with localized oppression possibly leading to extermination.

You cannot seriously post this dirty nonsense with a straight face.

[genericsyncretic]

It would be easier for me to support the Palestinian side if the Jews that colonized Israel not just come out of Holocaust camps and pogroms.

You know, some Jews tried to return from the camps to their home towns in Eastern Europe, and they were murdered or driven away.

It seems clear to me that Israel, while not being the exact equivalent of an imperial regime, was an attempt to pragmatically use imperial tactics and strategies to prevent the possibility of another extermination attempt.

I know it's a bit of a cliche, but as long as your arguments are taken seriously by you or anyone I guess the point needs to be driven home. It wasn't Palestinians manning Auschwitz and Treblinka. Does having an atrocity committed against your people somehow bestow a get out of the Hague free card? Germany got swept up in a fascist clusterfuck so certain survivors get to pass it on down the totem pole to an even less defended and more reviled ethnicity? And for a bonus, "hey, at least they were smart about it?" Maybe you are espousing the realpolitik view here without coming right out and saying it. It's Kissingerian (did i make that up? i hope so) reasoning that belligerent racist nationalism is justifiable simply because it makes sense strategically.

[jlaw172364]

So then they are exactly the same thing? Really? Then I guess by your chain of equivocation, we're all Nazis with equal culpability.

Is slavery the same as extermination? Millions died but the intent was not the same as extermination, the intent was to preserve for the purposes of enslavement. Pessimistic slaves kill themselves to avoid their slavery. Optimistic slaves try to stay alive in the hopes that they or their children can be free.

You can say that extermination, slavery, and oppression are all evil; that would be accurate; but you can not say they are all equally evil, or that they are the same. Certainly, reasonable minds, if given the choice, and assuming they wouldn't choose suicide, would choose oppression over slavery and extermination, and slavery over extermination.

Likewise, you could make the same fallacy by saying that chattel slavery is as evil or the same as wage slavery. Really? Chattel slaves were bought, sold, separated, and limited choices. Wage slaves can at least expand their range of choices and can do things like, say, keep their families together. Sure, modern wage slavery is a reformulation of more traditional forms of slavery and its aims are similar, to exploit and control, but it still beats being whipped to death in the fields.

And I'm sure you wouldn't argue that the modern war on drugs, which is a reformulation of Jim Crow, itself a reformulation of slavery, is as evil as the latter two institutions, although it is assuredly as racist and as classist.

If you are a citizen of a wealthy modern nation state, then you probably take it for granted that any benefits you enjoy were obtained by oppressing people, dispossessing them, harassing them, taxing them, hobbling them, and killing them.

If you are a citizen of a wealthy modern nation state, everything you are and possess carries the stain of other people's blood; regardless of whether or not you yourself actually shed it, somebody else did and you benefit from it. You are essentially coerced into accepting the benefit as the alternative would be to be a vagrant subject to institutionalization.

It doesn't matter that some of these people may have died fifty or one hundred years ago; many of them died only a few days ago, for example, some migrant worker who died of heat exhaustion as a result of bosses unwillingness to spend the extra money to properly hydrate his slaves, I mean migrant laborers, so you could buy relatively cheap fruits and vegetables.

You do this because you feel an overwhelming urge to survive. Sure, some may try to spend money conscientiously, but nobody can escape being tainted because they are born and raised into it most of the time, and if even an independent, off-the-grid property owner who pays de minimis taxes, they still enclose land others might use to survive.

So, like most life-forms, your survival hinges on other life-form's deaths. And of course, if I were a vegetarian, I would tack on all the dead animals consumed and experimented on. Even if you don't eat them, you probably still benefit from cruel experiments on them. Most of the time, you don't have choice because you're not even aware that you have benefited.

You know what's dirty nonsense? Mindlessly applying labels because you don't like what someone has to say. The main refutation of what I've posted seems to be:

"That's Nazi talk! Israel = Nazi Germany because Nazi Germany killed people and did bad things and so does Israel!"

My point is, by that standard, most nations are Nazi Germany therefore the term becomes meaningless, or else you must criticize the modern industrial nation state system in aggregate, not pick out one nation state just because it's easy because there is a steady steam of criticism in alternative channels directed at it.

All of these nations share a similar disease, you can't get rid of it by pretending it only exists in one place or that one nation has it worse than another. Otherwise, you're back in neocon land, overthrowing repressive regimes, slaughtering civilians, and then replacing them with friendly repressive regimes.

[orz]

There is a general sense that if one doesn't harden one's heart, one will get killed or enslaved.

Quote:
The authentic human being is one of us who instinctively knows what he should not do, and, in addition, he will balk at doing it. He will refuse to do it, even if this brings down dread consequences to him and to those whom he loves. This, to me, is the ultimately heroic trait of ordinary people; they say no to the tyrant and they calmly take the consequences of this resistance. Their deeds may be small, and almost always unnoticed, unmarked by history. Their names are not remembered, nor did these authentic humans expect their names to be remembered. I see their authenticity in an odd way: not in their willingness to perform great heroic deeds but in their quiet refusals. In essence, they cannot be compelled to be what they are not.

[orz]

So then they are exactly the same thing? Really? Then

All of these nations share a similar disease, you can't get rid of it by .

"MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THE TRUTH IS .... SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE!"

Get back on down to south park you dope.

[jlaw172364]

The Holocaust doesn't justify Israeli oppression of Palestinians. NOTHING could justify that, period. But it does explain the Israeli mindset more than say, just arbitrarily concluding that the Israelis are blood-crazed savages, which a lot of people do.

The Israelis see themselves as the kid who was bullied, who then went to karate class, and is now beating up bullies who threaten him. The Israelis see the Palestinians as proxies for the aggressive intentions of other Muslim and perhaps Christian states, pawns that serve as cannon fodder in a larger battle for survival. Christian states may not feel comfortable challenging Israel directly because of residual Holocaust guilt; Muslim states lost several direct confrontations. But you have to understand, the Jews amount to a little over 10 million people; the Muslims have 900 million as do the Christians. Both Christianity and Islam have a history of despising Jews. The Israelis see themselves as historic underdogs, surrounded by enemies with a historic hatred for them on all sides, completely alone except for people they can manipulate into assisting them.

Before Nazi Germany became Nazi Germany, it was a great place to be a Jew. The Jews loved Germany, were very patriotic, because Germany allowed them to prosper and gave them equal rights. It's very similar to the present relationship with the U.S. In the back of their minds, the Jews are aware of the possibility that the U.S. could turn into Nazi Germany, hence the necessity of having Israel.

So, Israel is essentially a product of Jews scared shitless of their historic oppressors as empowered by the tools of the modern state, as played out in Russian pogroms and the Nazi Holocaust. Israel is the mindset of "You want to exterminate us? We'll take you with us!"

Israelis see the Palestinians as a victim class of Arabs used as a PR club to batter away at their image until the world is ready to re-accept the possibility of exterminating the Israelis en masse as a vile "rogue" people.

Is this paranoid? Absolutely. Is it true? They believe it to be true. I certainly don't see the Arab states evacuating the Palestinians en masse. It's like the Palestinians are in a cage match and they have to kill each other, but then the winner gets the reward of being exterminated for being a murderer.

Anyway, right or wrong, this more or less the Israeli mindset, and this is NOT the same mindset as the Nazi mindset. Not even close.

[jlaw172364]

If this were true, then I guess Dick must not have been authentic, because as soon as he learned that his comforts were derived from atrocities, he neglected to blow his brains out, and thus refuse to be an indirect atrocity enabler. Only authentic humans sacrifice themselves for principles that were robotically programmed into them from birth as a means of controlling them.

Right.

So I guess all of the people who fought and killed the Nazis were inhuman then, because after all, killing is an atrocity. They should have just run right onto the bayonets to preserve their sainted authenticity.

[orz]

If this were true, then I guess Dick must not have been authentic, because as soon as he learned that his comforts were derived from atrocities, he neglected to blow his brains out, and thus refuse to be an indirect atrocity enabler. Only authentic humans sacrifice themselves for principles that were robotically programmed into them from birth as a means of controlling them.

I can't think of a more horrible misreading of what that quote means, you should be pretty ashamed and you should stop posting in this thread. What are you even SAYING? Go away and improve your pitiful reading comprehension skills and your limited and worthless understanding of world politics.

[orz]

So I guess all of the people who fought and killed the Nazis were inhuman then, because after all, killing is an atrocity. They should have just run right onto the bayonets to preserve their sainted authenticity.

AUUURGH well I guess if you have not read a single word of PKD before I might let you off but SHUT UP YOU DUMMY THAT'S TOTALLY MISSING THE WHOLE POINT OF THAT QUOTE AND MOST OF HIS WRITING.