Hitler's European Holocaust Helpers

[IndianaGreen]

05/20/2009

THE DARK CONTINENT

Hitler's European Holocaust Helpers

By SPIEGEL Staff

The Germans are responsible for the industrial-scale mass murder of 6 million Jews. But the collusion of other European countries in the Holocaust has received surprisingly little attention until recently. The trial of John Demjanjuk is set to throw a spotlight on Hitler's foreign helpers.

He's been here before, in this country of perpetrators. He saw this country collapse. He was 25 at the time and his Christian name was Ivan, not John; not yet.

Ivan Demjanjuk served as a guard in Flossenbürg concentration camp until shortly before the end of World War II. He had been transferred there from the SS death camp in Sobibor in present-day Poland. He was Ukrainian, and he was a Travniki, one of the 5,000 men who helped Germany's Nazi regime commit the crime of the millennium -- the murder of all the Jews in Europe, the "Final Solution."

<snip>

It's completely undisputed that the Holocaust would never have happened without Hitler, SS Chief Heinrich Himmler and the many, many other Germans. But it's also certain "that the Germans on their own wouldn't have been able to carry out the murder of millions of European Jews," says Hamburg-based historian Michael Wild.

It's a perception that many survivors never doubted. When the Association of Surviving Lithuanian Jews convened in Munich in 1947, they passed a resolution that bore an unmistakable title: "On the guilt of a large part of the Lithuanian population for the murder of Lithuania's Jews."

In the Third Reich with its well-functioning bureaucracy, there were comprehensive registers of the Jewish population. But in the territories conquered by the German army, Hitler's henchmen needed information of the type supplied in the Netherlands by registry offices whose staff went to a lot of trouble to compile a precise "Register of Jews."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,625824,00.html

[rockymountaindem]

1. I did a big paper on this very topic at the end of high school

It was at the time the longest paper I'd ever written. Since then, I've had absolutely no doubt that every country had a large group of people in on the crime. Too bad so many of them have been skating for decades pretending that they were only victims of the Nazis/Stalin when in fact plenty of their citizens were more than happy to turn over or actually kill their own Jewish neighbors.

[IndianaGreen]

3. And yet today, Holocaust denying has become respectable and encouraged in many parts of world

MSNBC's Deafening Silence on Patrick Buchanan's Association with Holocaust Deniers

Menachem Rosensaft
Posted: May 19, 2009 09:11 AM

One week ago, I outed Patrick Buchanan, the former senior White House official in the Nixon and Reagan administrations, erstwhile reactionary candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and now a highly paid political commentator on MSNBC, for sponsoring a Holocaust denial forum on his website. Within hours, the forum in question, entitled "Disinformation, Deception and Other Tricks: Discussion about 'The Holocaust'" (with The Holocaust in quotes, of course), mysteriously vanished from Buchanan.org, and the link to it was disabled.

The Buchanan website's forum followed the standard Holocaust deniers' playbook, complete with such gems as "Most historians believe it was LOGISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO GAS 6 MILLION JEWS AND REDUCE THEIR BODIES TO ASHES;" "We have known for some time that the Auschwitz myth is of an exclusively Jewish origin;" "The same blinded people that believe that the Germans intentionally killed Jews -- also believe the myth of the Anne Frank Diary;" and "Rightly or wrongly -- the Jew was blamed for a lot of the problems that Germany suffered. The Jews were given years of warnings that they were unwelcome in Germany. A lot of Jews fled Germany in the late 1930s. The United States was not very anxious to accept very many. This was when White Christians still had a little control of our Nation."

One might have expected the disclosure of this forum to at least raise some eyebrows at MSNBC. After all, two years ago, the news channel summarily fired talk show host Don Imus for making a racially insensitive remark about the Rutgers University women's basketball team. Sponsoring a Holocaust denial forum on one's website strikes me as no less offensive. But not a single member of MSNBC's management has deigned to publicly address Buchanan's association with anti-Semites, White supremacists and other assorted bigots.

One would also have expected Buchanan's MSNBC colleagues to take him to task for aiding and abetting Holocaust deniers. They have not done so. Not once.

If Fox News' Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly had sponsored a similar forum, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews would have been all over them. If Buchanan had been a CNN or Fox News fixture rather than an MSNBC pundit, Olbermann would most certainly have excoriated Buchanan as the "worst person in the world." So the question to Messrs Matthews and Olbermann has to be, how can you justify giving Buchanan a pass?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/msnbcs-deafening-silence_b_205071.html

[shira]

11. since this is allowed in US media, what makes you think International Media isn't infected the same

way against Israel? You trust the European press and the UN just 70 years after their country's roles in the holocaust?

[LeftishBrit]

12. Frankly, I find this a bit of a non sequitur; and in some ways just as much of a conspiracy theory

as 'the Zionists are controlling the media', etc.

To clarify: I don't trust any media totally, and especially when they are discussing a country other than their own (and even when it's their own, they are often run in dubious ways by either the government or some corporation). I think that much of the British press is very bad; and that anti-immigrant bigotry has influenced it for a long time - in that sense, there are some commonalities with the people who whipped up opposition Jewish immigration in the 30s and those who whip up opposition to asylum seekers now.

And there is antisemitism to some degree in most countries of the world.

But you cannot say that Europe or its media as a whole now is just the same as in the 1930s. For one thing, there was strong influence on much of the Europaean press from Nazi governments; for another, direct antisemitism was far more respectable in many circles then than now.

You would not, I presume, say that Japan should still be treated as an enemy, because they were in WW2; or that the EU are liable to go down to fascist dictatorship, because many now-EU countries were run by such dictatorships; or that Britain is still ruled by its aristocracy, because the aristocrats had a high degree of control 70 years ago?

[shira]

13. I didn't claim "...that Europe or its media as a whole now is just the same as.."

...it was in the 30s."

But let's admit that the disgusting anti-semitism that dominated Europe 70 years ago didn't just disappear overnight.

I'm sorry, LB, but there's no way a media with any integrity allows, for example, the UNHRC to get away with its agenda against Israel, just as there is no way the media keeps running bogus Jenin, al-Dura, Gaza beach, Qana, UN hospital hit in Gaza, PHCR reports, Israeli uranium weapons, etc, etc.. without retractions, using the same discredited sources, non-stop, over and over - and we chalk all that up to "oops", they're just mistaken - "gee, every country thinks the media is biased against them". Come on.

Sorry, but the media just isn't any way near this hostile and dishonest against any other country. And what's worse is the fall-out from all this negative media coverage - witness the spike in antisemitism worldwide - the media is absolutely responsible in large part to this and it's disgusting to claim that it's largely the fault of Jews themselves in Israel or those Jews who support Israel.

[shira]

14. LB, forgot to add this one from Marvin Kalb....

The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP07-012

[shaayecanaan]

18. Again, that says more about you than it says about international media

To take one example, the initial Israeli report of the hit on the UNRWA facility in Gaza said that only a handful of people were killed.

Despite the fact that the Israeli account was false, and probably fabricated, you spent the next several weeks banging on about the fact that the 40-odd people killed were not actually killed inside the school, but just outside the school, and that therefore the media was implicit in some huge anti-semitic conspiracy, even though it had reported the Israeli account of the event. I repeatedly brought to your attention the fact that the initial Israeli account of the incident was arguably much more misleading than the Palestinian one, and you repeatedly ignored that fact. No doubt you chalked that up to "oops, they're just mistaken", right?

[shira]

19. EDITED: actually, around 12 were killed - not 40

and of those 12, 9 were combatants.

Even the false PCHR report from April 2009 about total Gazan casualties (which you can download online and see for yourself) confirms the IDF position.

http://pchrgaza.ps/files/PressR/English/2008/list.pdf

PCHR lists exactly 12 who died near or opposite the al-Fakhoura school.

=================

"Artillery firing by the IDF into the UNRWA field office compound in Gaza city on 15 January that in turn caused high explosive shells to explode within the compound causing injuries and considerable damage to the buildings. The summary notes that it disrupted the UN's humanitarian operations in Gaza;"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/05/un-report-israel-gaza-negligence

=================

Gee, what are these secondary explosions if not Hamas using UNRWA facilities as storage for their weapons, or worse, as boobytraps? Hmmm.

:eyes:

What possible rationale is there for the IDF to shoot at UNRWA installations unless they’re being used as military outposts? Even if we assume the IDF’s moral bankrupcy for the sake of argument, one would think that it’s rather counterproductive to target UN infrastructure and risk the inevitable condemnation and reports. Israel stands to gain absolutely nothing, and much to lose, from targeting these places.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Actually, no it doesnt...

PCHR lists exactly 12 who died near or opposite the al-Fakhoura school.

Actually, its 21 by my count. For some reason, the authors of the blog that you uncritically accept (www.theaugeanstables.com) seem to have omitted from their count the members of a family that died "opposite" the al Fakhouri school, but which appear in the list.

Nevertheless, I'm quite happy to take up the challenge. I will look into it as best I can. If it turns out that only 12 people died in the attack, I will happily confess to being part of the global Palestinian media conspiracy, the second reincarnation of Hitler's reanimated corpse, and whatever other lurid fantasies you seek to project onto me. If it turns out that 42 people died, I respectfully suggest that you consider that perhaps the issue might be your problem with Arabs, rather than the world's problem with Jews.

Deal?

[shaayecanaan]

21. Update...

The people who died opposite the school were members of the Deeb family. 11 of them died during a volley of two tank shells on their home. They are dealt with in the PCHR report here:-

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/Reports/English/pdf_spec/War%20Crimes%20Against%20Children%20Book.pdf

Their house is across the road from the school, on al-Fakhoura road, about 200 metres from the school itself. The attack took place at the same time, on the same day, involving the same type of weapon (tank shells) indicating it was probably the same tank that fired the shells that hit the Deeb house and the shells which landed near the school.

The 11 dead members of the Deeb family are noted and there is a picture of a funeral plaque with photos on it.

[shaayecanaan]

22. Doesnt even make any sense....

I can't reconcile Augean stables' numbers. I count 21 people specifically listed as dying in or near al-Fakhoura, including the Deebs, all of whom (11) seem to be accounted for in the general list. Some of these seem incontrovertibly civilian to me, even leaving aside the Deebs:-

Hassan, aged 10
Shaqqoura, aged 9
Abdullah, aged 11

al-Debis (female, 24)
Awad (aged 47, female)
Awad #2 (aged 40, female)

Firstly, do you maintain that only 3 civilians died at al-Fakhoura?

Secondly, there seem to be quite a lot of other fatalities listed as occurring at Jabaliya on 6 June 2009. Many of these are quite young. Is it the case that Shira/Augean/whoever maintains that none of these people died near the al-Fakhoura school? I am not sure that the fact that al-Fakhoura is not specifically mentioned next to these names means that they did not die near al-Fakhoura school.

[shira]

24. the Deeb family, some 200 meters away, seem to have been killed by an errant shell

recall that most of the IDF casualties were a result of friendly fire....war sucks and it isn't a perfect science...just as IDF troops are capable of killing each other inadvertantly, the same could have easily happened here. I wrote before how it doesn't help Israel in any way to toss a random shell at a family's home in order to give Hamas a PR coup and Israel very bad press and world condemnation.

You're still left with 12, and those names don't match the IDF's names there. I don't know why the discrepancy exists, but I do know that PCHR's original list of over 1400 casualties had at least 286 'civilians' who were really combatants, and when added to those they already conceded were combatants, the total of Hamas militants is right around the IDF claim of 700. It therefore makes a bit more sense, at least to me, to go with the IDF's accounting than try to piece together PCHR's propaganda effort.

still thinking 40 people were indiscriminately killed there? recall in my last post the secondary explosions at the UNWRA facility.

wondering why you didn't read about a retraction (even if it was 21 instead of 40) or anything about UNWRA buildings being used for military ops?

[shaayecanaan]

25. still left with 12?

Left with 10, more like. 21 - 11 = 10. Its nitpicking, and I suppose you're only parroting crap from someone else's blog, but still, if you're writing a hit piece, not fucking up basic arithmetic would be a good start.

You suggested that the names don't match the IDF's list - did they publish a list? I havent seen one anywhere. The IDF has published very specific figures, so it should have a list. At least give PCHR the credit for actually ponying up some evidence to back up their claims; clearly the IDF is too gutless to even try.

wondering why you didn't read about a retraction (even if it was 21 instead of 40)

As I suggested in my post, there seem to have been quite a lot of people (including children) who died in Jabaliya on 6 January 2009. I'm not sure why they couldnt be among the dead at al-Fakhoura.

[shira]

27. yeah, 12

and here's some info. you may find helpful....

Four weeks after the cessation of Operation Cast Lead, the IDF finally opened its dossier on Palestinian fatalities on Sunday for the first time, and presented to The Jerusalem Post an overview utterly at odds with the Palestinian figures that have hitherto formed the basis for assessing the conflict....

In fact, he said, 12 Palestinians were killed in the incident - nine Hamas operatives and three noncombatants. Furthermore, as had since been acknowledged by the UN, the IDF was returning fire after coming under attack, and its shells did not hit the school compound.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


CLA head Col. Moshe Levi acknowledged on Sunday that all this information - on both such specific incidents as the UN school and the overall classifications of the dead - would probably be largely ignored today, since it was being made available so long after the fighting ended. But Levi explained that the IDF was not prepared to issue information unless and until it was confident of its accuracy, no matter how grievous the damage to Israel's image, and the consequent political pressures caused by the delays in contesting inaccurate facts and figures.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788705&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[shaayecanaan]

29. It sounds like you're prepared to uncritically accept the IDF account, no matter what...

even though that story was published three months ago, and I still havent seen that fucking list. Your friends at the Augean Stables have castigated PHCR - a small, independent, human rights organisation - for not providing a list in English until recently. Surely the IDF, by not publishing its list at all, is even more worth of scorn.

[shira]

30. that's hilarious - PCHR's civilian casualty count is off by at least 286 and you're accusing me...

...of not being critical? The IDF has claimed around 700 Hamas combatants, and it looks for a fact that they were right and PCHR was completely full of shit.

You were the one who confidently brought up the "40 dead" at the al-Fakhoura school. What do you think about that report now? Should it be retracted?

As for the IDF not releasing its list, you were given the reason why in my last post to you (it should be obvious based on the quick, distorted, error-prone list PCHR released). See, this is how it works - the IDF wants to make sure its list cannot be so easily dismissed as propaganda like the phony PCHR list (we know damn well anti-zionists will go over it with a fine tooth comb in order to discredit the IDF).

The difference is, PCHR has carte blanche...they can publish whatever propaganda they want at no risk whatsoever to their reputation. And you are proof of that, as you still believe for some reason that PCHR is still credible. The IDF is not afforded the same halo-treatment PCHR has. The media still has yet to question PCHR's results.

Let's face it, if the IDF released some ridiculous POS report like the PCHR, you'd laugh your ass off at it and I'd admittedly be too embarassed to ever cite the IDF again in the future. Why aren't you laughing at the PCHR report? Why aren't you embarassed by their laughable attempt?

[shaayecanaan]

31. You're avoiding my questions

Firstly, you said that the names were not on the "IDF list". You've posted articles that refer to an IDF list, but not the list itself. You implied that you had seen the list, now you are saying that the list hasnt yet been released, because the IDF still isnt sure whether its correct or not. Now, which is it?

"You were the one who confidently brought up the "40 dead" at the al-Fakhoura school. What do you think about that report now? Should it be retracted?"

As I have made quite clear above, no. If you count all the people who died in Jabaliya on 6 January, there are 49, including both the Deebs and the people specifically listed as being at al-Fakhoura. People dying in Jabaliya, along with people who died in an assault on al-Zaytoun, seem to be the bulk of the dead that day. Unless there was another large scale assault on Jabaliya that day that could account for the rest of the dead (I can't find any) it seems reasonable to presume that the bulk of those 49 people died in the same tank shell attack.

"See, this is how it works - the IDF wants to make sure its list cannot be so easily dismissed as propaganda like the phony PCHR list (we know damn well anti-zionists will go over it with a fine tooth comb in order to discredit the IDF)."

Sort of like how right-wing ultranationalists like your fascist, Meir-Kahane loving friends will go over the PCHR's list with a fine tooth comb. Well, if its good for the goose, its good for the fucking gander, what?

No, here's how it works. The IDF will never release its list. It probably never intended to release its list. Its a propaganda measure intended only for the true believers, the gullible and suggestible. Ask yourself: How the fuck would the IDF even prepare a list, without the ability to access the ground in Gaza, or are they so familiar with each of the million individuals living there that they can identify a corpse from a fighter plane or a helicopter gunship?

To answer your other question about the 286 names that are apparently Hamas fighters and not civilians:-

1) I havent been through the names. Based on the lack of credibility of the Augean Stables' accusations so far, including their apparently inept arithmetic, I'm certainly not prepared to accept their claims at face value.

2) Many of the people in the list appear to have the same name or very close. Most of the male names contain Mohammed as a given name, Ahmed, or Yassin. In a place of over a million people, there's a fair chance of people having the same name twice.

3) Its not unknown for Hamas to claim civilian deaths as Hamas martyrs after the event.

"Let's face it, if the IDF released some ridiculous POS report like the PCHR, you'd laugh your ass off at it and I'd admittedly be too embarassed to ever cite the IDF again in the future."

Then lets put our money where our mouth is. I'm prepared to bet $50 USD to a charity of your choice that the IDF will not release its list within a year of today. If I'm right, you donate $50 USD to Medical Aid for Palestine. The loser will be required to link to a clear image of a Western Union receipt or postal money order (not personal cheque).

I've done this three times before, and all three times the right-wing gutless wonder in question has been unwilling to stand behind their words. I don't expect any different this time.

[shira]

32. i have no reason to avoid anything

As for the discrepancy b/w the IDF's account of the 12 killed vs. PCHR:

"Levi said nine Hamas operatives and three noncombatants died in the incident near the school. The seven names newly released by the CLA were: Ranin Abdullah Sameh, 12, Hadifa Jihad Kahloud, 17, Faris Mahmoud Faraj Allah, 21, Nafed Abu Abid, 22, Abed Muhammad Kadas, 25, Ayman Ahmad el-Khourd, 35, and Basem Abdel Gabin, 40."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304833139&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

=================

As for the "40 dead" at al-Fakhoura, PCHR reported immediately that 27 were dead as a result of the attack at the school grounds (not including any of the Deebs) and the media bought into this hook, line, and sinker (and never retracted).

The other three shells hit al-Fakhoura School which was sheltering approximately dozens of families who fled their homes in Beit Lahia, Killing 27 civilians instantly, including 8 children, 2 brothers ans a man and his son, and wounding at least 50 civilians. IOF claimed that the school was used by Hamas to launch attacks on Israel. UNRWA sources and eyewitnesses completely refuted this claim. However, the justification used by IOF implies they deliberately targeted the civilians inside the school, which constitutes a war crime under international law.
http://pchrgaza.ps/files/W_report/English/2008/08-01-2009.htm

Is the above by PCHR lying propaganda or not?

==================

As to the list of 286 civilians turned combatants, here are #60 and #62 from the PCHR list:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=276174&mesg_id=276471

but if that's not convincing enough for you, here's more:

#2 (from PCHR list) Reziq Jamal Reziq al-Haddad
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.almoltaqa.ps/arabic/showthread.php%3Ft%3D115685&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=windows-1256

#568 (from PCHR list) Mohammed Akram Mohammed Abu Harbid
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php%3Fid%3D1301&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=windows-1256

#1402 (from PCHR list) Mohammed Mahmoud Mohammed al-Bori’
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A//www.alqassam.ps/arabic/sohdaa5.php%3Fid%3D1417&hl=en&langpair=auto%7Cen&tbb=1&ie=windows-1256

the source is EoZ, which you can find here:
http://www.jewishblogging.com/blog.php?bid=188770

knock yourself out finding more matches.

=====================

As for your bet, it's a deal and I have absolutely no problem losing the bet and gladly paying that organization. Now my choice of charity for you to pay your $50 USD is this:
https://www.ujadonations.com/login.asp?destinationsite=donations&destinationid=14

=====================

Finally, can we keep the partisan jabs (rightwing, kahane, etc) out of this? I admit it's tempting for me to fight fire with fire. I honestly have a hard time distinguishing between some of the "progressive" viewpoints on this forum from those of Pat Buchanon, but I try to refrain from accusing others of being Buchanites. And you should realize how insulting it is to read how "rightwing" you think I am.....I was flipping stations on my XM radio the other day and lo and behold, the king Republican Sean Hannity had Pat Buchanon live on his program (calling him his good friend, etc..) and it was freaking disgusting. I never cared for Hannity before but I never realized he was this bad (I thought Buchanon was shunned by the high profile Republicans - guess I was wrong). Also, earlier in our past discussions, you mentioned how RW'ers claim the media is too liberal. You realize, however, that I never made that claim and in fact, I don't believe the media is liberal enough. As for the sources I use, I don't really care where the info. comes from to tell the truth, so long as the facts are correct, the arguments are solid, and my principles aren't compromised by what I'm accepting. Anyway, how's about keeping to the facts? I apologize if I insulted you earlier. Let's try to keep this clean, okay?

[shira]

34. more on the '40' killed near the UN school

"Two residents of the area near UN school that was shelled by the IDF on Tuesday said that they had seen a small group of terrorists firing mortar rounds from a street close to the school. The two spoke with The Associated Press by telephone on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal....

Defense officials told The Associated Press that booby-trapped bombs in the school had triggered secondary explosions that killed additional Palestinians there."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167272256&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

--------------------

I'm not aware of any of this initially reported in mainstream media outlets. The initial reports generally condemned the IDF for firing at a UN school and killing around 40, as if the attack was deliberate and indiscriminate (criminal), with only the IDF's response (as though not very credible) that there were combatants in the vicinity. There were no independent reports or confirmation (certainly not from PCHR) that in any way supported IDF claims.

Compare the evidence we now have to the initial PCHR and mainstream media reporting on this incident.

Are you still okay with the initial reporting on this event?

[shaayecanaan]

39. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bet...

The UJA of Greater Toronto? You could have at least given me an actual Israeli charity rather than their loyal counterparts in Canady. Anyway, thats your kettle and I accept. A wager it is.

Finally, can we keep the partisan jabs (rightwing, kahane, etc) out of this? I admit it's tempting for me to fight fire with fire. I honestly have a hard time distinguishing between some of the "progressive" viewpoints on this forum from those of Pat Buchanon, but I try to refrain from accusing others of being Buchanites.

I dare say you probably have reasonable views on a lot of things. Just not Arabs. There are a number of Jewish people who post here who I find eminently reasonable and principled leftists. I agree with virtually 100% of what Donald Rankin says and 98.5% of what LeftishBrit says. But you yourself would have to admit that you are not of their ilk, not by a long way. You're probably a nice person, a caring family man/woman, whatever. But you have a badly skewed view of Arabs.

It brings to mind the Jello Biafra cover of the old Phil Ochs song:-

Yeah, I read the New Republic
Rolling Stone and Mother Jones too
If I vote it's a Democrat
With a sensible economy view
But when it comes to terrorist Arabs
There's no one more red, white and blue

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

http://www.lyricstime.com/jello-biafra-love-me-i-m-a-liberal-lyrics.html

[shira]

40. had a hard time finding something local in Sderot for donations, and since the Pal'n charity....

...you brought up is noble, I don't mind losing this bet and sending some aid there.

I dare say you probably have reasonable views on a lot of things. Just not Arabs.

well, I'd say that's because you really don't know what I truly believe about Arabs...just ask. :) And FWIW, I'm not all that impressed by views some people have here of Jews.

There are a number of Jewish people who post here who I find eminently reasonable and principled leftists. I agree with virtually 100% of what Donald Rankin says and 98.5% of what LeftishBrit says. But you yourself would have to admit that you are not of their ilk, not by a long way.

fair enough. Up until just this decade, however, I'd say I had views very similar to theirs.

You're probably a nice person, a caring family man/woman, whatever. But you have a badly skewed view of Arabs.

tell you what, just ask away WRT what I really think about Arabs, not what you think I believe about Arabs, and we'll see about that - okay?

[shaayecanaan]

47. I'll bite...

what do you think about Arabs?

In the interests of fairness, I suppose you can ask me what I think about Jews, if it means anything to you.

[shira]

49. i was thinking you'd be more specific

for example, regarding Arabs in the middle east, I feel sympathy for them - no civil rights, living in fear, etc. I have a problem with the situation in Israel where Arabs are still in many ways 2nd class citizens. I don't think all Arabs are terrorists. :eyes: If you have specifics, ask away.

About 90% of Israeli Jews were in favor of Operation Cast Lead. What does that mean to you?

[shaayecanaan]

51. I thought I'd give you leeway...

I don't think all Arabs are terrorists.

Very charitable of you. For my part, I do not think that all Jews are usurious moneylenders and hedge-fund fleece merchants.

About 90% of Israeli Jews were in favor of Operation Cast Lead. What does that mean to you?

Not much. I come from Lebanon, where there is 90% support for sectarian bloodshed whatever the season.

A friend of mine was playing tennis one day and hit one of his balls over the fence. He went out to get it and some aboriginal kids took it and wouldnt give it back. He tried to press the point and they knocked the snot out of him, not badly, but he had never been beaten before. He went from being impeccably liberal to being quite the racist. It doesnt take much to strip away one's cosmopolitan spirit.

There were 17 different religious sects at war in Lebanon when I was a child. To my eye all of them had roughly the same capacity for bloodshed. I could not honestly say that any of those religions were successful in improving the conduct of its practitioners, least of all my own Maronite community, who were responsible for committing the Sabra and Shatila massacres, amongst other things.

The Palestinians, for their part, behaved as badly as anyone there. They had spent three generations trying to run away, first from Israel, then from Jordan. The only thing they knew was that the more they ran the worse it got, and they were not running any more. They hunkered down in their camps and I used to wonder whether the children bothered with aspirations of being plumbers or firemen when it was clear that there was no way they were getting out of their situation. Strangely, they were not extremely good fighters, disorganised, haphazard, prone to in-fighting. Kind of like the Okies in the Grapes of Wrath, the objects of pity but despised nevertheless.

[LeftishBrit]

26. They are hostile and dishonest against lots of places

Part of it is a desire to get a good story. And part of it is general xenophobia.

But the worst hostility and dishonesty in the most widely read British press is not against any specific country: it is against immigrants and asylum-seekers and those who are of immigrant origin. And yes, at least one of the newspapers in question, the Daily Mail, *was* a Holocaust-enabler by supporting the Nazis, and opposing Jewish immigration, in the 1930s. Now their preoccupations are much more with opposing Muslim immigrants, though they're not keen on any immigrants.

ETA: Very little in the way of media anywhere has complete integrity. I would always prefer multiple independent sources to a single source.

I am not convinced that there is *more* antisemitism in Western Europe than in America. (Eastern Europe is a different matter.) In fact, I've probably come across more *blatant* antisemitism in American than British or other Western Europaean discourse, though that may be because America is a bigger country, with more internet, etc. sites.

[shira]

28. are they as hostile and dishonest against any other country other than Israel

if you believe so, can you give an example or two?

[LeftishBrit]

44. Notably, the EU in general, and France and Germany in particular

The EU is the Root of All Evil in the opinion of our RW tabloids. And they especially don't like our nearest neighbours. I feel a bit squeamish about linking to them directly; but here's a link to an American article about the issue, which I found online.


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-g20-tabloids3-2009apr03,0,2062777.story

[Ken Burch]

15. Comparing Holocaust denial and contemporary European media coverage of the I/P dispute

is an unspeakable thing to do, shira. Those who've written about the mistreatment of Palestinians have nothing whatsoever in common with those who claimed Hitler didn't wipe out European Jewry.

[shira]

17. ken, it's about antisemitism

look at my posts #13-14 above.

Do you have a better explanation for that than anti-semitism?

[Ken Burch]

35. You ALWAYS want it to be about antisemitism

:eyes:

The tactic that drives the creation of threads like this is called "deflection"...using a false accusation of bigotry, especially a murderous form of bigotry that the world still rightly recoils from, to stop discussions you want stopped.

...it's about attributing ANY negative coverage of Israeli government actions to "hatred of the Jews", rather than the fact that, wait for it, the actions of the Israeli goverment and the IDF actually ARE negative.

And it's demonstrably false.

The press sources you smear as "antisemitic" are the ones, had they existed in the 1930's, who would have been warning Europe and the U.S. about Hitler while Prescott Bush was still buying stock in pro-Nazi corporations and the American press was still calling the Fuhrer "a bulwark against communism".

It's the "pro-Israel" conservative politicians in the U.S. who are the ideological descendants of the reactionary hatemongers that led the fight to keep Jewish refugees out of the U.S. in the Thirties...and it was their kind a generation earlier who imposed the bigoted immigration restrictions of 1923-restrictions that could fairly have been called the Jewish Exclusion Act-restrictions that ended up sending six million European Jews to their deaths in order to keep the U.S. a "Christian nation".

[shira]

36. not just me.....in fact, I brought up Sri Lanka and Gaza...

...to a very liberal Jew just today - we talk politics sometimes - his hatred for republicans knows no bounds - and RIGHT before I asked him what he thought about the UNHRC decision not to investigate Sri Lanka, he said while shrugging, "right....it's the Jews, duh..". There wasn't really anything more to discuss. I'm not certain you realize how typical an instantaneous response this is by the VAST majority of liberal Jews, Ken. In fact, I have yet to hear from any fellow Jews where I live anything different. It's just common knowledge.

Just so you know there are lots of us "paranoid" liberal Jews falling for that conservative line about the 'new antisemitism'.

again, look at my posts #13-14 above. What other explanation besides anti-semitism do you wish to use to explain the content there?

[Ken Burch]

37. The UNHRC decision has nothing to do with the press sources you were attacking.

And I've already told you I disagreed with the UNHRC decision. However, there's a limit to how much you can ascribe the whitewash of what the Sri Lankan government did to "antisemitism", given that that dispute was between Tamils and the Sinhalese and that both sides in the dispute are Buddhist(which would mean that Muslims wouldn't particularly have an interest in that one).

And yes, along equally with other forms of prejudice, antisemitism needs to be fought(the best way to fight it being the building of a global movement against exploitation and poverty, since an world without either will most likely be a world without prejudice). But that's not what the I/P dispute has ever really been about and it's time to admit it.

You can't just put down any press coverage of Israeli government and military actions that you happen not to like to "hatred of the Jews". The Israeli government isn't the Israeli people, the Israeli people are not "The Jews", and criticism of the first is not an attack on the second or the third.

[shira]

38. the UNHRC is obsessed with Israel while not even bothering to investigate and condemn far worse...

...around the globe.

remember....

"Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East or any other country in the world-- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest"

the bolded red is my contribution to this quote

Imagine calling out a black person for ANY and EVERY possible little nitpicky thing he or she does wrong - while rarely EVER bothering to condemn FAR worse constantly committed by whites living among this black person. What if the person picked on is Arab? Now it's a Jew.

Why isn't it antisemitism when applied to Jews, or the only Jewish state - even if for the sake of argument Israel is guilty of everything it's accused of?

Why are sites like JIHADWATCH considered sources of hate? Because they obsess about Muslims, make up hateful crap, and their arguments are totally irrational. The same is clearly happening with respect to Israel.

If we agree on nothing else, let's at least agree that the double-standards employed by the UN and other organizations are antisemitic in EFFECT, if not in INTENT.....maybe call it ant-Judaism instead of anti-semitism (look up the difference).....of course from a Jew's perspective there's no difference with respect to consequences when distinguishing between antisemitism, anti-judaism, etc...whether in effect or intent.

...lastly, I notice you have no explanation for posts #13-14 above. :eyes:

[shira]

50. any thoughts on this, Ken?

[obliviously]

2. thank you for an interesting article

Another chapter in history will soon be closed forever. It is hard for me to believe we still have living links to that terrible time in history.

[dflprincess]

4. And while the collusion of other European countries has not received the attention it should

the coullusion of prominent Americans has received virtually no attention.

One of the men in the asssted living facility my niece works is survived the camps. My niece didn't know this about him until the weather got warmer and he was wearing a Polo shirt, that's when she saw the numbers tatooed on his arm. Sadly, the old man is slipping into dementia so my niece asked his daughter about it the next time she saw her and learned he had been in Aushwitz. But, what really disgusted my niece is that only one other of her twenty something coworkers knew what the tatoo meant.

[proteus_lives]

5. Hitler had a lot of people willing to help him.

Not just the population of Germany.

[azurnoir]

6. While the article has a valid point

I find it somehow "distasteful" that this article pointing the finger so to speak appears in a German publication.
There was no question that there was very voluntary collusion with the Nazi's by other European countries albeit it was the most pronounced in Eastern Europe which was historically antisemitic and is almost certainly why all of the extermination camps where located there.
What gets little to no notice is America's role in not allowing or very severely limiting Jewish immigration prior to and after WW2 and the Allies refusal to bomb rail lines going into the extermination camps, I have read a number of excuses for this mainly being that the resources were simply not available, but I have also read that the reason was that the Nazi's were drawing a large amount resources from their eastern front to maintain the camps, which to me seems a more likely explanation

[rockymountaindem]

7. I've never bought into the idea that bombing the rail lines would have saved many people

First of all, hitting a rail track or rail depot from high altitude would have been very difficult. The Americans' daylight bombing campaign was highly inaccurate despite their touted accuracy. A postwar report found that only one in five US bombs came within 500 feet of the target. Even assuming a high rate of accuracy, rail tracks would have been easy to repair and railway stations would not have been particularly critical for the death camp trains. After all, it's not like anybody was going to be getting off. Switching yards might have been effective targets, but those would also be easy to repair. What's more, even if the rail system could have been effectively crippled, the Germans would have just reverted to perpetrating massacres with bullets on site as they did during 1941-1942. Nothing was going to stop them.

[azurnoir]

8. No it would not have stopped them

however it certainly have slowed them down and kept them busy with repairs

[rockymountaindem]

9. I really don't think so

When you examine how ineffective the Allied bombing campaign was against German war production, I think you have to draw the conclusion that any attack against the machinery of the Holocaust would have been equally ineffective. For instance, after the huge raid against the Ploesti oil fields, the Germans had that place back up and running at full capacity in two months. Despite multiple more raids throughout the war (I believe 17 in total), the Allies never shut it down entirely and the Germans managed to keep it at nearly full production all the time. The same was true of their aircraft factories, which were a major target. Peak German aircraft production occurred in January, 1945, at the time when Allied bombing was also reaching its crescendo.

Also, consider the high priority which the Germans placed on the Holocaust. When the time came to evacuate German troops from Greece to defend other parts of the Reich, the order came for all available rail equipment to be diverted to Greece, except those engaged in the transport of Jews to the death camps. Considering the efficiency of the Einsatzgruppen, I see no reason why the Germans would not have reverted to that tactic even in the unlikely event that the Allies could have created severe disruptions in the Holocaust rail network.

While air attacks on the transport network would have been a nice show of concern, ending the war as soon as possible was the best way to end the Holocaust. I think making attacks on the machinery of the Holocaust would have been a wasted effort as it would not have likely caused any major problems for the Germans, especially considering the availability of alternative methods to the death camps, and would have diverted resources from other, more effective means of attacking the Reich.

[Ken Burch]

10. How hard would it have been to bomb the railroad tracks to the camps?

n/t.

[wurzel]

16. Did the Israelis take Palestine without "foreign helpers"?

It seems to me the same case could be made that there are plenty of "foreign helpers" enabling the Israeli brutality right now! When will that get some "attention"?

[Shaktimaan]

23. First of all, your implication is disgusting.

Drawing any parallels between the Nazis/Holocaust and Israelis/Occupation is against forum rules and has no place in any discussion amongst non retards/bigots.

Besides that, your comment makes no sense anyway. In an attempt at painting Israel out to be as brutal as the Nazis you actually did a magnificent job of illustrating your astounding lack of knowledge about the IP conflict. It turns out, that yes, Israel did take Palestine without any foreign helpers. Both in 1949, 1967 and 1973, although there were plenty of foreign helpers on the side of the Palestinians. As far as the current scenario goes, it is against US law for any aid given to Israel to be used towards the occupation of Palestine. But the OP was about actual foreigners working towards enabling the Holocaust and it is pretty obvious that nothing of the sort happens with Israel at all. Israelis belong to the IDF and Shabak. Not foreigners.

When will that get some "attention"?

When will what get some attention? The IP conflict? Oh I'll bet someone'll run a tiny blurb about it someday. Just hang on, eventually someone will notice that something's going on there.

Or do you mean the US military aid to Israel? Yeah, why is it that we NEVER EVER hear anything about that anywhere? Lord knows, all they ever talk about is the comparable amount of aid we give to states like Egypt. No one knows anything about this crazy aid we give to Israel. When, oh when will someone finally report about it?

Or maybe you mean the kind of nonsensical bigotry where people will take any opportunity to compare the Israelis with the Nazis, no matter how little sense it makes or how retarded it makes them look. In that case, we don't have to worry. Retards like them seem to have a knack for self-promotion, giving the rest of the world ample opportunity to ponder exactly what might have gone wrong with them. Did their mother drink mercury while she was pregnant? Perhaps they were home schooled by said mercury drinking mother? Maybe they were kicked in the head by a mule following their first, clumsy sexual experience, (out back behind the barn where pa couldn't see them making time with his best girl, Clover.)

Why is it always people like that who demand that people give them their "attention" anyway?

[shira]

42. lol

[wurzel]

43. Perhaps you would care to explain to me

The difference in the quality when a German kills a Jew, and an Israeli kills a Palestinian. They are both dead aren't they? Don't hide behind words like "Nazis" "bigot" and "retard". The brutality of an Israeli toward a Palestinian when he shells a Palestinian house and blows up his kids is no different in quality, kind, or intention.

If you believe that the "holocaust" was a unique event in human history, or is somehow peculiar to Germans and Jews you have a far more sanguine view of human nature than I. History is only too full of events like the "holocaust", with almost every people in the world being either the perpetrator or the victim at one time or another. The scale may have been smaller due to technology and opportunity, but the intention was was same.


The larger point I had in mind was that the "Nazis helpers" and the "Israeli Helpers" are by and large the same countries!

Actually I did not know it was against the Rules to make a comparison between the holocaust and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But I have to wonder why there is need for such a rule. And who made it. I am especially intrigued that your first response is to immediately point this rule out in such a vociferous way.

I guess I hit a nerve.

[Shaktimaan]

46. This should be fun.

The brutality of an Israeli toward a Palestinian when he shells a Palestinian house and blows up his kids is no different in quality, kind, or intention.

That is simply untrue. The thing that differentiates the Holocaust from any standard conflict was the intent on the part of the Nazis to eradicate an entire people. Just because people die in both scenarios does not mean that a standard conflict and genocide are the equivalent of each other. The IP conflict is not based on an Israeli desire to commit genocide against the Palestinian people as is obvious from their actions, their society, their policies towards the Palestinians both within and without of their nation and the scale of casualties, especially when compared to historical examples of true genocide. The Nazis rounded up millions of Jews and other people with the express intention of exterminating them. It was part of a much larger policy which specifically sought that end. No such intent has ever been expressed by Israel, which in fact takes extensive measures to minimize the deaths of any innocent civilians. To see no difference between the actions of Nazi Germany and Israel today is to ignore the difference between collateral damage and genocide. By this metric there is also no difference between a policeman who hits a civilian with a stray bullet and a serial killer.

If you believe that the "holocaust" was a unique event in human history, or is somehow peculiar to Germans and Jews you have a far more sanguine view of human nature than I.

More sanguine, I don't know. Perhaps just more informed. The Holocaust is unique in that it is the only time that the full weight of a modern industrial nation's efforts were put behind the global extermination of a people. You seem to disregard scale as a small detail when in fact it is a crucial aspect of what made the Holocaust so horrifying. Intent is directly related to scale. The Nazis could never have achieved the killing they had on such a vast scale without a singular commitment to their goal unseen before or since. Simply put, if Israel shared a similar goal as the Nazis did then we would be seeing death and destruction on a far more extensive scale than we are. In fact, if we look at the scale of destruction caused in the IP conflict by the Israelis and compare it to other conflicts around the world we see a very different intent on their part... one of restraint and a commitment to limiting casualties to the best of their ability.

Actually I did not know it was against the Rules to make a comparison between the holocaust and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. But I have to wonder why there is need for such a rule. And who made it.

You figured it out. The illuminati are behind it. Seriously, are you really so confused as to why some people would take great offense when you imply that the victims of a genocide are themselves no different than the perpetrators in their motives and actions? Particularly when the assertion has no basis in fact?

I can't even tell if you're attempting to inflate the gravity of Israeli crimes by conflating them with the Holocaust or if you're trying to minimize the gravity of the Holocaust by suggesting that it wasn't anything special. I do have one clue however which leads me to ask you a specific question...

Why do you feel the need to use quotations every time you refer to the Holocaust?

[wurzel]

48. "fun"? You really are arrogant. Aren't you.

People die as individuals. Not as "an entire people". You seem to want to go one better than Shylock. He only wanted to demonstrate that Jews suffer the same way as other people. Not that they suffer more. I don't believe Jews suffered more than the the Japanese A bomb victims, or the people who ended up in the Russian Gulags, or the Africans brought by slave ship to to plantations where they were worked, beaten, and starved to death, or the people Pol Pot murdered while the world stood by and did nothing. There are all too many horror stories.

You mean you don't believe the Israelis intend to eradicate the Palestinians as a people? There are Israelis that deny the Palestinian people ever even existed!

The Jewish holocaust is only unique because of modern industrial power. But there have been plenty of attempts in the past. The word "holocaust" was widely used to describe the fate of hundreds of thousands of women tortured and burned as witches a few hundred years ago. It was sometimes used to describe the fate of the Japanese at Nagasaki. As to the scale. It would have been as large as you could wish if there were more trials or the atomic bomb had been bigger. Scale was merely a matter of efficiency. "Larger policy" has nothing to do with it.

More informed? You talk as if the Germans had some kind of gene that drove them to genocide. While on the other hand Jews have a gene that prevents that. That is a dangerous idea. Don't kid yourself for one second. All peoples can be brought to do what the Germans did to any other people. I only wish it were otherwise.

My puzzlement over the the "comparison rule" is this. If no comparison can be made then there is no need for such a rule. If a comparison can be made then there is no need for such a rule. And while the Jews were the victims of genocide, the Palestinians were not the perpetrators.

I think the holocaust was special. When a person dies is such a way it is always special. But it is not unique. There are all too many examples of this kind of behavior and intent by human beings. Why did I put quotations every time I refer to "the Holocaust"? For the same reason you refer to it as "the" "H"olocaust. As if it were the only one. As for "minimizing". When it comes to the lives of Palestinians you seem to take collatoral damage in stride.

[Shaktimaan]

52. Arrogant, maybe. More surprised than anything. I can't believe some of the positions you've taken.

You seem to want to go one better than Shylock. He only wanted to demonstrate that Jews suffer the same way as other people. Not that they suffer more.

I said nothing of the sort. My point is merely that a critical difference exists between war and genocide. They are not the same thing just because people die in both scenarios. But I appreciate the lame accusation of ethnocentrism.

You mean you don't believe the Israelis intend to eradicate the Palestinians as a people?

It's obvious that they don't. Look, you can't just make accusations of genocide where no evidence whatsoever exists. Genocide is marked by the mass extermination of huge groups of people, almost always as part of a well defined policy to eradicate them entirely. Does any such Israeli policy exist? Have you ever heard an Israeli politician talk about a plan to eradicate the Palestinians? Have the Israelis ever set up any kind of system to more quickly kill mass numbers of Palestinians, like a concentration camp or a gas chamber? Have they purposefully targeted civilians or taken actions designed to maximize the amount of casualties? Have they done anything that resembles genocides throughout history? What evidence, if any, do you have to support this crazy assertion of yours?

There are Israelis that deny the Palestinian people ever even existed!

That's your evidence? Some Israelis deny a true Palestinian nationality because it first developed as a response to Zionism instead of organically, on its own like most. So what? You think that this argument is the equivalent of genocide? Or evidence of genocide?

More informed? You talk as if the Germans had some kind of gene that drove them to genocide. While on the other hand Jews have a gene that prevents that. That is a dangerous idea.

I talk as if the Germans committed genocide and the Jews didn't. That's all. But again, I appreciate the lame accusation of ethnocentrism. Do you really think that its going to distract anyone from your ridiculous argument though?

And while the Jews were the victims of genocide, the Palestinians were not the perpetrators.

That's true. So what? Do you believe that the latest operation in Gaza was undertaken because the Israelis felt like punishing someone for the Holocaust? If not, then what is the relevance of this seemingly random statement?

As to the scale. It would have been as large as you could wish if there were more trials or the atomic bomb had been bigger. Scale was merely a matter of efficiency. "Larger policy" has nothing to do with it.

I find it hard to believe that you really think this. Scale was a matter of efficiency? Larger policy had nothing to do with it? So, according to you, the only difference between the Holocaust and the bombing of Nagasaki was essentially an accident of scale... the bomb just wasn't big enough... the overarching policies defining the two events did not significantly differ. I can't even believe that I'm reading that.

After Japan surrendered did the US continue bombing it? Did the US gas Japanese POWs? What was the US's goal in bombing Japan anyway? Was it to try and eradicate the Japanese, wiping the ethnicity from the face of the earth? Or was it to win a war?

You honestly can't tell the difference between genocide against a people for the express purpose of exterminating them and casualties (even truly horrible ones) incurred during a war?

When it comes to the lives of Palestinians you seem to take collatoral damage in stride.

Why? Because I draw a distinction between that and genocide?

Why did I put quotations every time I refer to "the Holocaust"? For the same reason you refer to it as "the" "H"olocaust. As if it were the only one. As for "minimizing".

This makes no sense. I capitalize the word holocaust when referring to The Holocaust because it distinguishes between the word and a specific event. Can you please try explaining again exactly why you see the need to use quotes? Are you trying to make some kind of statement?

[wurzel]

53. Depends on how you define "genocide".

You confine the word to narrowly mean the actual killing of a particular ethnic group. I am using the word as defined in Webster. "The deliberate and systematic destruction of racial, political, or cultural group." You don't have to kill the people to destroy a people. Just make their life intolerable. The evidence of the Israelis doing this to the Palestinians is undeniable. I don't give a damn what Israeli Politicians "talk" about. What they actually do is evidence enough for me.

Whenever two countries go to war the intention is to destroy each other. My simple point is that it was known theoretical possibility that the atom bomb could have destroyed the whole of Japan. Even possibly the entire world. It was dropped anyway. Twice. The only thing that limited the deaths was the efficiency of the bomb. Had it killed all the Japanese would that have satisfied your definition of genocide? I don't know what planet you live on.

Of course the Americans stopped killing the Japanese after their unconditional surrender. Just as I assume the Israelis will stop killing the Palestinians when they unconditionally surrender.

When you refer to the killing of innocent civilians as merely "collateral damage" you are close enough to condoning genocide. After all how much "collateral damage" is acceptable? I have never known anyone to ask.

My quotes have the same meaning as yours. I am distinguishing the word and a specific event. It must be obvious even to you that I fully believe what happened to the Jews in Europe actually happened. My quarrel is the contention that this event can never be compared to another event. Yes it can. And often is by the Jewish people themselves.

[Shaktimaan]

54. OK, I see the problem here.

You misunderstand entirely the meaning of the word "genocide."

Here is the official definition:

any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

Now the phrase "intent to destroy" is what you're taking issue with. Thus far, the majority interpretation of this phrase by international courts has determined that it refers to the intended physical-biological destruction of the protected group. Your interpretation, that making their life intolerable is the equivalent of destruction is not supported. Not only that, but you've provided no evidence that Israel has even been attempting to purposefully make Palestinian life intolerable or that it is for the express purpose of trying to destroy them. OK, you don't care what the Israeli politicians say about the matter. But you should. Genocide has always been supported and identified by speeches and open policies testifying to their intentions. Israel is a democracy. What you're suggesting is that a grand conspiracy exists in Israel, involving secret policies to destroy the Palestinian people. The fact that all of Israel's actions can be more rationally explained by the policies publicly described by its leaders doesn't seem to influence your opinion. (Which doesn't surprise me.) For some reason you are convinced of the validity of taking certain actions out of their historical context and ignoring the policies and events surrounding them so you can affix your own motives to them. To make your case for genocide you've had to redefine the term, ignore the facts and construct an entire conspiracy theory for which no evidence exists.

Whenever two countries go to war the intention is to destroy each other.

No. You really think that? That's completely absurd. The intention is to win the war. Sometimes that means defending your nation's borders. Sometimes it means occupying or annexing another state. It rarely, if ever, means destroying the other state's population. I doubt you can even give me an example of a war where the ultimate goal was the total destruction of the enemy's state. (Except maybe for Arab attacks on Israel.) Not even the Nazis were interested in destroying the countries they fought.

Of course the Americans stopped killing the Japanese after their unconditional surrender. Just as I assume the Israelis will stop killing the Palestinians when they unconditionally surrender.

Well, then that isn't genocide, is it? Were the Jews of Europe even fighting the Germans during the Holocaust? Were the Nazis interested in attaining a surrender from the Jews? Had the Jews as a group surrendered do you think the Nazis would have refrained from killing them? No. The same thing goes for the Armenian genocide or in Rwanda. Are you getting the distinction of "genocide" yet?

When you refer to the killing of innocent civilians as merely "collateral damage" you are close enough to condoning genocide.

Um... no, collateral damage is totally unrelated to genocide. And using the term "collateral damage" to describe them is about as far away from "condoning genocide" as you can get. Look, war is an awful thing. And in war it is inevitable that people will die. Some of those people will be non-combatants, even in cases where every precaution is taken to avoid it. The difference between collateral damage and the war crime of killing civilians has everything to do with intent. In our western system of law we take the intent of the defendant into consideration. An accidental death is not considered as grave a crime as a purposeful, pre-meditated one.

Now as grave a crime as purposefully attacking civilians is, it is still a world away from genocide, which is not merely a war crime but a crime against humanity... among one of the worst crimes one could ever commit. I'll give you an example of the difference. Hamas uses suicide bombers to purposefully target Israeli civilians. This is a war crime. BUT these attacks are not part of a larger plan to eradicate the Jews. It is NOT genocide.

When you accuse me of condoning genocide because I recognize collateral damage as a sad fact of war, (and not necessarily a crime), you are not having the effect I think you want. Instead of demonstrating a greater commitment to humanity by refusing to differentiate between different circumstances of death you are really diminishing the true meaning of genocide. There is a reason that the world draws distinctions between collateral damage, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Thankfully crimes like genocide are relatively few and far between. When you start trying to assign the term to conflicts and circumstances that don't deserve it though you do it a grave disservice. Genocide is a term that we, as a society, reserve for the worst of all offenses. Using it callously diminishes its meaning.

After all how much "collateral damage" is acceptable? I have never known anyone to ask.

Obviously I can't answer that question. Innocent civilians will die in every conflict; this is a fact of life. Sometimes their deaths are necessary to prevent the deaths of far greater amounts of people. Sometimes their deaths are tragically meaningless. But I can say one thing with relative certainty. When an army sets out with the mission to kill as many civilians as possible and is given the means to do so, then far greater numbers of civilians tend to end up dead than when an army sets out with specific instructions to avoid civilian deaths and is likewise given the means to comply.

[wurzel]

55. You don't see the problem at all.

The official definition you give is precisely what I believe genocide to be. It says ANY of the following acts. When one people seeks to destroy the very existence of another people, that is genocide. Whether or not they actually succeed in killing every last one of them.

"Except for Arab attacks on "Israel"". So you see that the Arabs intend genocide on Israelis. Of course they do. And so are the Israelis on the Palestinians. The Arabs are just more honest about it.

You don't think Hamas suicide bombers have a "plan" to eradicate all Jews. (Kind of contradicts your claim about Arab attacks on "Israel"). But maybe you find it convenient to distinguish between Israelis and Jews in this instance. But if Hamas had a bomb big enough to eradicate the Israelis, whether it included Jews or not, do you doubt they would use it?

Israeli leaders can indeed rationally explain their policies. That is so true. In fact they seem able to rationalize anything. Don't they.

No "secret policies"? You want to qualify that with Netanyahu crying about Obama's failure to honor a secret agreement about lying about settlements on the West Bank?

If you don't believe that Israelis are making life intolerable for Palestinians without "proof" from me, you have never looked. Period. And by the way I mean "intolerable" in the fullest intent of the word. I am not talking about "uncomfortable". I mean INTOLERABLE. Where the life of a person has become so meaningless he is willing to die just to kill a Jew.

You don't think two countries at war with each other are trying to destroy each other? I can only assume you have never been on the sharp end of a bombing raid.

Like holocausts, I don't think that genocidal intentions are all that rare. They just don't often succeed.

Supposing neither side will surrender? And one side ends up wiping out the other. Is that genocide enough for you?

I believe most "collateral damage" of Palestinians is intentional. The Israelis are as guilty as the Arab suicide bombers of deliberately killing civilians. I have not forgotten Sabra and Shatila.

[Boojatta]

56. If the intention had been to kill all people having Japanese ancestry...

then wouldn't the US government have killed all such people in America? It would seem easier for the US government to kill unarmed people who were inside America and who had already been confined to internment camps than to create an atomic bomb. How many people of Japanese descent starved to death in the internment camps in America?

Note: this shouldn't be construed as an effort to minimize the violation of the rights of Americans of Japanese descent during WWII. Their rights were violated. However, the issue here is genocide. If you claim that the US government intended to kill all people of Japanese descent, then please provide some evidence to support the claim.

My simple point is that it was known theoretical possibility that the atom bomb could have destroyed the whole of Japan. Even possibly the entire world. It was dropped anyway. Twice. The only thing that limited the deaths was the efficiency of the bomb. Had it killed all the Japanese would that have satisfied your definition of genocide? I don't know what planet you live on.

If the atomic bomb had destroyed the entire world, then you might call use of it an act of genocide, and also a suicide bombing.

It's not clear what you mean by "known theoretical possibility." A fission bomb of the kind used against Japan during WWII cannot destroy all of Japan. Perhaps some person thought that it was possible and was concerned, but any such person was simply mistaken. Concern isn't knowledge. If something is a "theoretical possibility" but isn't possible, then the theory is faulty.

[wurzel]

59. The atom bomb dropped was about 1% efficient.

Had it turned out to be 10% efficient that would have been the end of Japan as a nation. The "Japanese" in America were AMERICAN not Japanese!!! The point I was making was not about performance, but intention. Look up the meaning of "genocide" in your Webster dictionary!

[Boojatta]

57. "Whenever two countries go to war the intention is to destroy each other."

Germany and the UK went to war. Therefore, according to your principle, you know that they intended to destroy each other. Now, we know that Germany captured some British soldiers and held them as prisoners of war. Did the government of Germany try to kill them all?

[wurzel]

58. No. Because Britain held German prisoners.

The point I am Making is you don't have to kill the population to destroy a country. Had the Nazis won would Britain still exist as it does today?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. Isn't there a holocaust forum on the DU? Perhaps there should be.

[cali]

41. not that I know of. And I don't see any need for one. n/t

[azurnoir]

45. Really Cali why not a Holocaust forum

I do not say that to separate it from the I/P issue but because the I/P rules do not allow certain types of threads including those based on personal thoughts, stories, or opinions and that includes the stories of Holocaust survivors some of us have known