Friday, March 5, 2010

The Things Jew Haters May Dream Of

Shaul Rosenfeld has an article about the Left which betrays its principles to hate Israel. Not much there you don't already know. Still, his first paragraph did give me a moment's pause:
The events of “Israel Apartheid Week” in the world opened this year with “freedom fighter” Leila Khaled’s emotional plea to “continue the armed struggle against Israel.” Khaled, a certified airplane hijacker and a well-known favorite of the radical Left in Western European delivered her words of “reconciliation, peace, and brotherly love” in a videotape shown to participants of a Mideast studies convention held at University of London last weekend.
Times were, the most a Jew hater could openly hope for was that the Jews would stop being Jews, or that they'd stop looking like Jews, or that they'd move far away. The Nazis of course wished for far worse and did their best to achieve it, but they were a bit extreme. Nowadays, however, you can sit in the comfort of your leafy town and openly yearn for the destruction of the main Jewish project, a destruction which will of course include mass suffering. Not that the Jew hater would do the action themselves, but they support the folks who will. Loudly, openly, brazenly.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

The second link is not working.

Yaacov said...

It was part of the text, so I've simply "unmarked" it.

Sergio said...

Yes, for jew-haters the best solution is for jews to "vanish". Reminds me of Otto Weininger, the epitome of a self-hating jew, which supposedly was the only jew Hitler admired: he commited suicide after a pathetic and short career.

By the way, Ghandi said that suicide would have been the best stragety for the Jews against the nazis. Great soul, that guy...not!

Regards,

Sergio said...

A correction: it was Hitler who reported that Dietrich Eckart told him of his (i.e., Eckart's) admiration of Weiniger; Hitler didn't see any redeeming qualities in a jew (even suicidal ones).

Sergio

Anonymous said...

I've read an article that the doctor treating Hitler's mother through her final cancer? was a Jew and he liked and admired him and protected him but I don't remember for how long and if he allowed or even helped him to escape.
Quite often I am tempted to find Hitler best explained in "Alice's Restaurant" when Arlo Guthrie sings/says:

"I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I
wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL,"
http://www.arlo.net/resources/lyrics/alices.shtml

Ghandi must have been quite a crank in the body maintenance area during his time in South Africa but that is probably what you need to be if you aim for a career of saviour. Still it is always amazing how far from real life the "holy ones" tend to be
Silke

This Is Hell said...

Extermination is not enough for them. They also demand every trace of us through the entirety of history to be erased.

Sergio said...

Silke,

Now that you mentioned, I do remember the story about the jewish doctor...maybe it was in Shirer's book.

And Ghandi was brain-damaged.

Best.

Sergio

Anonymous said...

Sergio
the one I remember from Shirer is that there was a half-brother who ran a Kneipe (pub) in Berlin. All the journalists hung out there in the hope that this guy would say something - he never did, neither pro nor against - too afraid ... but why in Berlin? so close to his killer-brother?
wherever one starts reading one stumbles on bizarre stuff
- and than there is this series of Hoffman-fotos of young Hitler looking beautiful and enticing with his riding crop - they were on the net some years ago and I finally understood why Munich's society ladies got the hots about the kinky stuff this guy seemed to promise - and now they are gone - I've spent hours trying to find them again - makes me wonder which side has them ...
Silke

Lee Ratner said...

The thing you need to remember about Ghandi was that he was a skilled politician among other things. He wanted India to be independent and remain a unified whole. This meant he had to placate the Muslim Indians. Advocating Zionism or the right of Jews to move to Israel/Palestine would not help. So he had to argue the stupid suicide thing for political reasons.

Anonymous said...

Lee
labelling the "suicide thing" stupid seems a wee bit lipsticking a pig to me
- if a holy man does it, other categories apply as when a villain does it? General sanctity is a pass for recklessness - like our German churches who knew how to stop euthanasia of German's kids but couldn't give a hoot about Jewish kids?

Surely a politician as skilled as Ghandi could have come up with something a bit less vile and equally clever

Silke

Yaacov said...

Actually, Lee, I know next to nothing about India under the English, but offhand I'd say your line of reasoning makes more sense today than it may have then. Back in the 1930s, how many of India's people - Muslim Hindi or anything else - gave a hoot about what was happening in faraway Mandatory Palestine? How many even knew the place existed?

debka said...

The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid
By Robbie Sabel

Israel is a multi-racial society, and the Arab minority actively participates in the political process. There are Arab parliamentarians, Arab judges including the Supreme Court, Arab Cabinet ministers, Arab heads of hospital departments, Arab university professors, Arab diplomats in the Foreign Service, and very senior Arab police and army officers. Incitement to racism in Israel is a criminal offence, as is discrimination on the basis of race or religion. The comparison of Israel to South Africa under white supremist rule has been utterly rejected by those with intimate understanding of the old Apartheid system.

For the entire article please see: http://www.jcpa.org/text/apartheid.pdf

Gavin said...

debka. The claims of aparthied stem not from Sth Africa directly but from the international laws on apartheid. They have a much broader meaning than the original and include both racial and ethnic groups in the definition of apartheid. 'ethnic' has a slightly different meaning than race and depending on how liberally you interpret the word it can be used by some in the current context.

The basic claim is that the Palestinians are an ethnic group discriminated against by another ethnic group (ie, Jews) It's still just as false, and absurd, as the comparisons with Sth Adrica but the arguments they use are very tortured and using the Sth Africa example to argue against it is not the right approach.

It's interesting to examine the foundation of their arguments. For Palestinians to be an ethnic group discriminated against by the ethnic group Jews (even if there was such a Jewish ethnic group) the Palestinians can't have any Jews in their midst... it has to be the ethnic group as a whole which is discriminated against for it to fit the legal definition of apartheid.

Gavin

Anonymous said...

Gavin
"it has to be the ethnic group as a whole which is discriminated against"

... but for the discriminator it is allowed to be of mixed ethnicity? or at least to be OK with living together with one or several minorities? she doesn't have to segregate them in town-ships? on a very daily life level my lawyer bosses used to complain endlessly in the 70s that they didn't write well thought out laws anymore. The old way of doing it presumably got out of fashion because it was slow, tedious and nerve-wrecking

how will we ever get out of all these holier than thou schemes/laws/definitions (drug induced dreams?)

Silke

Gavin said...

The groups would have to be distinct Silke, a group that comprises half Arabs & half Jews for example couldn't be practising apartheid against another lot of Arabs. It's very tortured reasoning so I won't explore it but the basic premise is that certain parties have arbitrarily claimed Palestinians as a distinct ethnic group. They deny that Jews are a race or ethnic group however they declare that Jews see themselves as such and therefore the Jews are practising what amounts to apartheid by discriminating against the Palestinians.

Ask the question of who exactly qualifies as a Palestinian and all the accusers go deaf & dumb. The criteria would naturally be those who had some sort of historical claim to the land or area, and that of course would include Palestinian Jews, Christians & those of other faiths & races who trace their ancestry to the region. Explore that further and no-one can say that Palestinian Jews face discrimination so there can't possibly be apartheid when not all Palestinians are discriminated against. To get around that they invent a new Palestinian ethnic group that is Juden-frei without admitting that their Palestine has no Jews in it.

I bet that gave you a headache!

Cheers, Gavin

Anonymous said...

Gavin
thanks a lot - it gave me no headache it added further to my understanding why my forebears had to invent/dream up/create out of nothing an Aryan i.e. you have to create a "one" before you can go against the "other".
a mind-blower in a country in the middle of Europe that by pure reasons of geography must be as wild a mix as possible - do you know the Harris-Monologue in Zuckmayer's the Devil's General - a great piece of writing which makes you feel good with having very diverse ancestry (can't find it on the net and my book's in German) - I for one still cherish hopes that if ever I go into my family tree I'll find that one of my grandmothers is of gipsy-stock - also my last name sounds a bit suspicious;)

I think it was by Jeanne Kirkpatrick from Commentary's archive that I learned the history of the creation/evolvement of what is currently considered a Palestinian - from what I remember I'd say Arafat sure knew how to get romantic westerners dreaming the dreams that made Marie Antoinette play at being a shepherdess - back to the roots, being natural, the free and wild life etc. etc.

Silke

Gavin said...

If you want a headache then try following their reasoning Silke;

- Palestinians are an ethnic group.
- Jews are neither race nor ethnic group.
- Jews think they're a distinct ethnic group.
- Because Jews think they're an ethnic group they practise apartheid by discriminating against Palestinians.

The legal definition of apartheid is when a racial or ethnic group as a whole is discriminated against by another. For that to occur with the Palestinians then all Palestinians would have to face equal discrimination be they Jew, Christian, atheist, Muslim etc.

We know that Jews don't discriminate against Jews so there can only be one option for the legal test to met; there are no Jewish Palestinians.

Now the Palestinians deny that Jews are a race or ethnic group so their own argument says that there must be Jewish Palestinians. When such is the case there can be no apartheid. They exclude Jews from their ethnic group while also denying that Jews are an ethnic group. Headache yet?

(they deny Jewish race or ethnicity because to admit that would also admit the right of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland)

Anonymous said...

Gavin
thanks - such a great job you did, Kafka would be proud of you
- but sadly due to my having pushed paper for decades for a living through labour, patent and tax law regulations I tend to take the absurd for the normal i.e. most common and that tackling it head-on isn't very often likely to bring results.

That's why I have become an obsessed searcher for loop-holes and/or looker at the other side of the mirror (Kafka's hair-raising story about the penalty camp is my recommended reminder for that)

- this exchange with you made me think maybe we should start concentrating on finding out the mechanism how do you create a successful phantasy for being the "one" i.e. going one step back before they had the unified force to PR and/or physical attack the "other". Why did their creation of the "one" i.e. the "Palestinians" meet a demand/desire in folks? and no I do not buy the poverty explanation - the promise of getting riches creates, I believe, looting mobs but not devoted believers/followers. And how on earth were they allowed to usurp the term Palestine in its it seems latest (British) incarnation - even if Israelis didn't want it, they shouldn't have left it unattended (in patent and trade mark law as a corporation you vigorously defend not only your own but also the surrounding "territory")
Silke