Thursday, October 19, 2006

Jews against Jews

I just came upon one of the most shocking, disgusting articles I have read in a very long time. It details how mainstream American and British Jewry allowed a Holocaust to happen. Please read this article - we cannot repeat history! Articles 2 and 3 deal with how modern Diaspora and Israeli leaders are repeating the mistakes of their forefathers. To all this I have to say the following: While others may be perfectly okay with calmly walking to the gallows, I will NEVER be okay with it. My grandmother is a Holocaust survivor, and she has other family members who survived. I come from strong stock. I have two words for those who wish to exterminate Jews, and for the Jews who are letting it happen, and even encouraging it (such as ISM founder Adam Shapiro): Never again.

30 comments:

Jason said...

This may seem almost out of nowhere, but your posts reminds me of why I don't like Ghandi, as he was reported to have said peaceful means would have defeat Hitler, and the Jews would have been better off if they had simply went to their deaths as martyrs.

Red Tulips said...

Jason,

I didn't know Gandhi said such things. Do you have a link?

shlemazl said...

I don't think we have the same problem today. Mostly it's left wing or ultraorthodox Jews that for political or religious reasons are selling their souls. Ah well, every nation has a right to have it's own morons.

Red Tulips said...

Shlemazl:

Read parts 2 and 3 of that link...

The problem is more widespread than even I realized.

Revolutionary Blogger said...

Ghandi never ever said that the Jews could have defeated Hitler by peaceful means, I am looking forward to any eveidence to the contrary.

Anonymous said...

This is a link of the full text of what Gandhi said about Hitler and the Jews. http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/mideast.htm

Red Tulips said...

WOW.

Gandhi was a blind bastard. I had no idea he said what he said about Israel and the Jews.

His status has been lowered in my mind.

Nonviolence does not always work, and that is the bottom line. Anyone who says otherwise is either blind or cavalier about the fate of a genocided group. (such as the Jews were)

shlemazl said...

Thanks for the link, Lexen. It's interesting.

Tulips, don't judge him too harshly. It was 1938 and he did not know what we know now. A lot of Jews at that time could have said the same thing.

He claimed that Palestine was Arab as England was English or France French. By the same token in the world of today Israel is Jewish as England is English or France French.

Revolutionary Blogger said...

The German Jews will score a lasting victory over the German gentiles in the sense that they will have converted that latter to an appreciation of human dignity.

Although the text speaks about resisting Hitlers persecution, it doesn't mention at all that these strategies would lead to a defeat of Hitler. Plus, this was written a few years before the holocaust. Gandhi was no oracle and could not have foreseen what was going to occur.

I am curios red tulips, if you believe that "Nonviolence does not always work, and that is the bottom line" what would you suggest for persecuted people to do...take up arms perhaps? Resist by any means necessary? Just wondering :-)

shlemazl said...

RB,

Well said, you are growing into a wonderful demagogue in the best sense of this word.

Don't know about Tulips, but I believe that when someone is intent on committing genocide, the people that this is aimed at should organize and fight back with all the vigour they could master. Noone else will defend them because noone else REALLY cares.

This is exactly the situation we have in Israel. Whether it was 1920s porgroms in Palestine or 1947/48 attack on young Israel or todays Hamas and Hezbollah, their aim has been to kill Jews. That is why they attack buses and pizzerias and towns. That is what they clearly state in their charters.

Red Tulips said...

RB,

I already explained in an earlier post why I believe the Islamofascist methods are so repugnant to humanity.

http://cultureforall.blogspot.com/2006/10/redefining-terrorism.html

The Palestinians are not being genocided. The Palestinians are in a dire situation because of Arafat and their leaders. Their terror has made their lives miserable. They are victims of their own making.

Red Tulips said...

I also agree with Shlemazl, obviously!

Kevin said...

The Palistinians are not in the middle of a genocide. That would involve the systematic killing of palistinians on a large scale. The IDF targets milliants rather than going on mass killing sprees of palistanians. The troubles the Palistians have with Israel could be stopped over night if they grew up and dropped their own genocidal desires towards Israel.
If you are being faced with genocide yourself, then you have two options.
The first is to sit back and let it happen. And the second option is to fight back against those carrying out a genocide in a number of ways from speaking out against it, if your in another country away from the genocide or by carrying out attacks on those carrying out the genocide.
Ghandi like most people of the time were not fully aware of Hitler's desire to wipe out the entire Jewish race. So you have to take any historical comments into context with the time and what was known by the people in question.

Revolutionary Blogger said...

Red tulips,

Thanks for the response. Violence is okay as long as the right people do it (or should I say "chosen people") :-)

...should organize and fight back with all the vigour they could master. No one else will defend them because no one else REALLY cares.

I agree Shlemazl. They should even resort to throwing rocks if they have to. Resist by all means. Damn! There is another group of people who are doing the same...I can't remember their name.

Is it the Tamil Tigers? no...wait Is it the Polisario Front? nah...Just can't remember. Oh well, cheers!

Anonymous said...

What are your thoughts on Noam Chomsky? I personally, cannot stand the man. He seems twisted in his defense of Palestine. I believe he's Jewish himself.

Steven said...

"Revolutionary Blogger", what you are having trouble with is figuring out who the aggressor is in the Middle East. The Arabs should certainly fight, and their efforts should be against their own corrupt repressive leaders - especially the PLO that has direct links to Nazi Germany. Israel is not the enemy.

The "resistance" you speak of is no more than a thinly veiled case of Nazi indoctrination and hopes for genocide. But perhaps you would like to call it a Jihad... a "struggle". Perhaps it is your Jihad, Mein Kampf against the "Evil Jews trying to take over the world"(TM).

Sounds familiar.

==========

Ps. Annon: Noam Chomsky. I think that sum's it up. ;o)

Steven said...

Heya. :P

This is my 2p.

In May of 1940 Gandhi said:

"I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed"

That was before the Holocaust... but what happened later on?

...

"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions."

- Comment to biographer Louis Fischer (June, 1946).

Note the date.

==========

I think Gandhi was an extremely peaceful man and being a pacifist worked for him. I do not think this is malicious, but that is just my gut feeling.

Non-violence is the best method to deal with most things but not when it comes to genocide and certainly not when it comes to Jewish genocide (read on).

Judaism is not a passive religion - in fact Judaism preaches that we are responsible for our every choice and every effect that choice has from generation to generation.

Allowing someone to put a knife to our necks hoping that the image will motivate the world to stop the carnage does not work in reality for the Jewish people. What if nobody cares enough to do anything? Is being passive taking personal responsibility?

Certainly not, sitting there and putting on a death-show is not responsible and certainly would not have been successful in stopping the Nazi genocide. Why?

The Allies did not care about the Holocaust.

For starters, during the War The Allies attempted to keep the Jewish people in Nazi controlled areas with ever-strict immigration policies. Even though The Allies were well aware of the Holocaust, they decided to keep the death camps and train lines leading to them off the target lists. They were protected... as if they were hospitals. Only one bomb went off near a death camp train line during the entire war, and that was by accident.

Many people seem to think that The Allies were fighting for the Jewish people, but this is not true. Just because The Allies were fighting Nazi Germany it does not mean that they were doing so to protect the Jewish people from genocide.

In the war it fell to the Jewish people to take personal responsibility for the genocide and fight it - to resist extermination. That is the true meaning of "resistance".

==========

"He that can't endure the bad, will not live to see the good."

When it comes to genocide the most important thing to fight for is survival; and the best way to survive is to fight and escape.

Gandhi's logic might work for some people, but not the Jews. Hatred for the Jewish people is unique.

Ibrahamav said...

RB appears to be very bad at attemptinbg to turn things around so that it appears that the Palestinians are victims rather than aggressors.

When over 60% support suicide bombers and then place a group in to power whose campaign includes the erradication of the Jews, those people have lost all moral justification for nationhood.

Jason said...

""""I think Gandhi was an extremely peaceful man and being a pacifist worked for him. I do not think this is malicious, but that is just my gut feeling.""""

I don't think his stance was malicious. It was just stupid.

Red Tulips said...

Jason and Steven,

I agree. I don't think Gandhi was malicious. I just think he was extremely misguided.

Ibrahamav:

I am against Palestinian nationhood until they apologize for their attempted genocide (and admit it happened), and make a real showing of changing their education system and media, as well as a real showing that they will not attempt genocide again.

Basically, I am against a Palestinian state until I see the Palestinians transform en masse into Walid Shoebats.

I do not see this happening in my lifetime, if ever.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

If the palestinains weren't such a combination of pain in the ass and useful pawn to the rest of the arabs, Gaza would be part of Egypt, and the West Bank would be part of Jordan, and there would probably be peace.

That would be the best solution, because the Palestinians first act when they are given unoccupied land to control on their own is to commit acts of war against the state of Israel.

If you commit acts of war, expect war against you. If the shoe was on the other foot, Israel would have killed every man and raped every woman, stolen everthing not nailed down and destroyed what WAS nailed down.

If Israel were to napalm the entire Gaza strip, they would be justified, as the enemy is hiding among the general population, and the general population voted for Hamas, a terrorist group.

Red Tulips said...

Mr. Smarterthanyou:

The situation you just proposed existed from 1948-1967. There was not peace at the time, and in fact Egypt and Jordan were active enemies of Israel and there were constant border skirmishes.

Hence, I can assure you it is not a solution to this problem.

I also am against napalming entire populations unless there literally is no other option and the alternative is annhiliation. Israel has not reached that place in time, and napalming all Gazans would be a war crime.

Steven said...

But back on the article at hand, yes there are many anti-Semetic Jewish people.

Recently I had an exchange with a women named Lily who claimed to be a Jew against Zionism (I reserve judgement). She claimed that Israel has no right to exist so I asked her what a right to exist is and who had this right?!

Failing an answer she decided to fall back on saying that Israel was not restored by God's will and therefore it is an affront to Judaism and must be destroyed.

This is anti-Semetic.

Based on her interpretations of the Torah (or more specifically, how she think God works) she applies a different set of rules to the Jews - including the secular Jews - than she does to any other people. In fact she is condemning millions of people to genocide simply because she does not see Gods work in the restoration of Israel.

Personally I think the rebirth of Israel so soon after the Holocaust and being made legitimate by the UN in a day is nothing less than a miracle. I think the fact that in 1948 Israel survived a massive attack by combined Arab armies which had far superior numbers and firepower is a miracle. I also think people like Lily have a very narrow opinion of how God works.

In mysterious ways.

Jews against Zionism are a danger because they support the cause of genocidal terrorists.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

What do you do when there is an enemy who:
a)Consistantly commits acts of war against you,
b) dresses like, and hides among their own civilians (war crime),
c) the majority of the civilians activly aid and hide these enemies,
d) the majority of civilians voted for war by any means against their neighbor (that is what a vote for Hamas is),
e)regularly attacks civilians, including the intentional targeting of kids (war crime),
f)regularly uses ambulances, hospitals and schools to conceal hostile activities and to use in launching acts of war (war crime)
???????
g) regularly uses coerced (practically enslaved) women, children and men to commit suicide bombings (war crime).

In such circumstances, Israel cannot continue to attempt to distinguish between civilian and terrorist, as there is no practical way to do this. The choice is to try to distinguish, and be destroyed or bled for decades to come, or to simply pound them, block by block until the few survivors are begging for peace and mean it.

Harsh? Yes. Reality? Yes. All the negotiating that can possibly happen has already happened and failed.

Steven said...

I don't know Mr. SmarterThanYou... but what you are suggesting is genocide. We must find some other way. Only the Samson Option would permit such an extreme response.

What about a more simple method? For example: every one rocket that is fired at us should be met with two bigger rockets.


War
If/when this leads to an all-out-war it should be treated as such and we should go all out until they are asking us for peace. That is a reasonable response.

We should not have stopped fighting in 1967 until the countries that attacked us begged for peace and offered reperations. Instead, being Israel, after winning we made military history by offering an agressor nation land for a peace treaty... and they said no!

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Steven, don't use big words to substitute for logic. Who are the innocents that would be killed? Children that are being brainwashed into growing up to kill you? Women who do not inform, and who vote for hamas? Men who do not inform, who vote for Hamas, who help set up rockets, or shoot your children, or dig tunnels under your fences?

Why would it be wrong to seek to completely destroy a population that seeks to completely destroy you, and has demonstrated it's willingness to use any means neccesary? How is my option any worse than to fire back 2 rockets at their civilians for every one rocket they fire at you? All that does is continue the trickle of blood. They will outbreed you, and they don't give a damn about their own people. You cannot win such a war. Block by block, Gaza needs to be destroyed until the survivors are begging for peace on YOUR terms.

The problem with modern Israel, is it keeps pushing back the line of what constitutes grounds for total war. Every new insult results not in war, but more skirmishes.

I agree with your last paragraph though.

Steven said...

"Steven, don't use big words to substitute for logic."

Excuse me!

Big words? Substitutes for logic? What the hell are you talking about man?!

The most complicated word I used in my last post was "genocide". Do you know what genocide is? I didn't know it was a "Big Word", but it really has no good substitute with less letters.

To clarify, genocide is "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

There you go.

Now in what context did I use this big-boy word?

You said:
"If Israel were to napalm the entire Gaza strip, they would be justified, as the enemy is hiding among the general population, and the general population voted for Hamas, a terrorist group."

You also said:
"In such circumstances, Israel cannot continue to attempt to distinguish between civilian and terrorist, as there is no practical way to do this. The choice is to try to distinguish, and be destroyed or bled for decades to come, or to simply pound them, block by block until the few survivors are begging for peace and mean it."

I said:
"I don't know Mr. SmarterThanYou... but what you are suggesting is genocide. We must find some other way. Only the Samson Option would permit such an extreme response."

Let's continue your post:
"Who are the innocents that would be killed? Children that are being brainwashed into growing up to kill you? Women who do not inform, and who vote for hamas? Men who do not inform, who vote for Hamas, who help set up rockets, or shoot your children, or dig tunnels under your fences?"

Like I said, we are in a difficult position. Genocide, however, is not an option.

"Why would it be wrong to seek to completely destroy a population that seeks to completely destroy you, and has demonstrated it's willingness to use any means necessary?"

Yuck. Because it is immoral and disgusting. By resorting to genocide you will turn into your enemy. It is unthinkable.

"How is my option any worse than to fire back 2 rockets at their civilians for every one rocket they fire at you?"

Firstly I did not say fire two rockets at their civilians. I did not specify a target. Naturally your sick genocidal mind assumes that I would target nurseries.

The idea of responding to every act of aggression against us has grounding. We are better armed than the terrorists, if we keep responding in a consistent way we will teach the terrorists and the Arabs that firing rockets into Israel is not good tatic. They will suffer more than us if they attack our civilian centers. We have to be consistent with our responses.

"All that does is continue the trickle of blood. They will out breed you, and they don't give a damn about their own people."

I do not care if they have more people and don't care about them. I care about them. I will never resort to genocide. They are human beings.

The method I suggested may not result in a trickle of blood, more than likely it will lead to either an escalation or the end of rocket attacks.

I explained what I thought we should do if it reaches total war:
"If/when this leads to an all-out-war it should be treated as such and we should go all out until they are asking us for peace. That is a reasonable response.

We should not have stopped fighting in 1967 until the countries that attacked us begged for peace and offered reparations. Instead, being Israel, after winning we made military history by offering an aggressor nation land for a peace treaty... and they said no!
"

"The problem with modern Israel, is it keeps pushing back the line of what constitutes grounds for total war. Every new insult results not in war, but more skirmishes."

The problem with modern Israel, according to you, is that it is not brutal enough.

I agree we should be tougher.

However I stop short of supporting genocide. You will never catch me suggesting that Israel should napalm the whole of Gaza, extreme measures should only be used when there is no other option.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Genocide is attempting to wipe out a particular Genome. Your definition is idiotic. Causing mental harm to some members of a group is genocide? Destroying PART of a group of people is genocide? Good lord, that is just stupid, you have opened up the term genocide to describe practically everything. Slapping a black man is genocide by your definition!!!

Genocide would be hunting down all arabs, or like Hitler did, trying to hunt down all jews. But calling something genocide doesn't make it wrong. What I proposed is not genocide. I propose wiping out an entire barbaric CULTURE, people who share the same ATTITUDE.

By doing what you must to survive, you do not turn into your enemy. This type of thinking, which is promoted by Hollywood, is also promoted by Jews who make excuses for their own eradication. The arabs make no distinction between their own civilians and their own soldiers, therefore Israel cannot make such distinctions, they don't exist. Don't just call it genocide and say genocide is bad. Sounds like a slogan, not a logical rationale.

So where would you fire those 2 rockets? The terrorists have no "bases" to attack, they hide among civilians. My comments was not the result of a sick genocidal mind, but of an intelligent one that pays freaken attention to the world, and can figure out that in practical terms, firing back 2 for one means civilian deaths on both sides anyway, only your way is random.

You are foolish in thinking that tit for tat will work. But you are not alone, your leadership has been doing tit for tat for decades, has it worked? No. Isn't repeating the same actions over and over but expecting different results kind of silly?

Tit for tat results in a slow but constant flow of blood on both sides. Don't worry, the UN will decide what level of Jewish and Muslim deaths per year is acceptable. Muslim nations will keep funnelling in enough money and arms to keep the violence going, they will make sure the Palistinians are miserable, and that they blame you for it, and this goes on and on until one side wins, absolutely. Israel could win, but you refuse to. The moment the Muslims can win, they will. Why not just rip the band-aid off now, and get it over with?

See if you can say why I am wrong without using the word "genocide". You will find that it is difficult.

Steve-o said...

I am too busy to answer yet, but did I guess the correct "big word"?! :)

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

Steven, I know what the big word means. I just hate it when people use "big words" with their own interpretation, and say "Big word=bad".

Just like how gays are quick to call people opposed to teachers dressed in drag "homophobes" and then say "homophobes are bad". Sometimes the definition of the big word is pretty important, and one word rarely covers enough territory, and it is often mis-applied.