A survey shows 25% of adult Australians don't know the Holocaust ever took place. Other than in Victorian schools the history of the Holocaust is not taught to our children.

According to the World Zionist Organization more than 10 anti-Semitic incidents occurred each day in the World last year. A report from the same organization shows Australia seen an increase in incidents of anti-Semitism last year compared to previous years. This has been a worrying trend in Australia and elsewhere over a number of years.

January 27th marked international day of remembrance for the victims of the Holocaust. The UN General Assembly last week adopted an Israeli-German non binding resolution calling for member States to fight against Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.

In my view Australia should take the lead and teach our school children about these events and the futility of war, and at the same time promote understanding and Pacifism in our young.

N,B. The Holocaust saw the genocide of 6 million European Jews and others between 1939 and 1945 by the Nazi's and their supporters.

Next month Australia will be sending a team of athletes to a propaganda event hosted by another nation currently involved in a multi-million person genocide.

A genocide about which the world is turning a blind-eye.

" Australia should take the lead and teach our school children about these events and the futility of war"

Would it be crass to point out that war was the only thing that bought the Holocaust to an end? The Nazis would have completed the eradication of all European Jews were it not for the arrival of the allies in Poland/Germany.

So perhaps war isn't always futile.

______________________________________________________________________

While knowledge of the Holocaust is atrocious, I'd venture that knowledge of an even worse crime against humanity - the Holodomor- is even worse.

http://holodomorct.org/

Australi must place the Koran on a banned books list as it directly incited hatred and violence against Jews - hence ISIS and IRAN.

Dear Josephus,

Christianity has promoted far more hostility against Lews than Islam. The Holocaust was carried out by a Christian country which had a Protestant majority and a Concordant with the Vatican. The Nazis didn't invent Jew hatred. It is been a prominent trend in Christianity. The Nazis exploited a feeling that already existed. They could print Martin Luther's diatribes against Jews in their papers.

One could make a good case for banning the New Testament if your concern is really against promoting hostility against Jews.

The reality is religions contain both hatred and love. One can emphasise what one chooses to emphasise.

It is important to realise many Jews fled to Christian England duringthe Holocaust. WHY? What middle East nations sided with the Nazi's at the time - what was their religion? Who is behind the current hatred and anialation now?

Dear Paul,

World War II produced tens of millions of victims.
Both the Nazis and the Communists committed unheard of
cruelties. Concentration camps - on both sides of the
front operated at a high fever pitch prior to and during
the war years.

As stated in "The New KGB" :

"There is no dispute about the enormity of Hitler's
Holocaust. But it is equally important to be as aware of the
accomplishments of the Soviet secret police, which brought death
to at least four times as many Russians, Poles, Jews, Latvians,
Lithuanians, Estonians, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, Gypsies, and
Romanians as Hitler did in his eleven years as a leader of the
'1,000-year Reich."

While half of the criminals, the Nazis, have been pursued all
over the world for their crimes, the other half, the communist
criminals, were allowed to go free.

They were in effect given tacit permission to continue the
operation of their concentration camps, to expand their
draconian systems to include psychiatric
wards, thereby raising torture, suppression, and murder to
a science. The fact that the process persisted was vividly
disclosed to the free world by Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in
his book, "The Gulag Archipelago."

There have been so many movies, books, and personal accounts on
the Holocaust. TV programs even today - consistently show programs
on the evils of what the Nazis did.
"The Diary of Anne Frank" is read in schools. Jewish Museum
visits are a part of the school curriculum.

Anti-Semitism in Australia? And the claim that people
don't know about the Holocaust? I'm not sure how accurate
those claims are. Our governments have always supported
Israel. The Jewish communities are very strong in this
country and they do have great influence. I'm sure that
we shall continue to be made aware of what they
have gone through.

Hopefully, the Palestinians will one day also find political
support and will be given the resources to educate the public
in order to find a peaceful resolution to the cruelty imposed
against them. And that people in this country will support
their efforts.

Dear Josephus,

In Israel is a hall of remembrance for those who helped the Jews during the Holocaust. There are people of many nations and many religions there including both Christians and Muslims. Every nation contains good and bad people. Every religion contains good and bad people, No nation or religion has a monopoly on virtue or vice.

The three major founders of Protestantism are Martin Luther who was a brilliant man and a Jew hater, John Calvin who was a brilliant man and set up a police state in Geneva which burned people at the stake and Henry VII, a king who couldn't get a divorce from the Catholic Church. In spite of the sleaziness of its founders there are many good and decent Protestants as there are good and decent people in all religions.

Yet you seem to hate many of those who don't belong to your religion. Jesus, a wise Jew, is quoted in the Bible, "How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye." - Matthew 7:4-5

Josephus, take those words to heart and rid yourself of hate for people who don't believe as you do.

Rejecting different ideas people hold is not hate but acting to deliberately injure people demonstrates hate.

Dear Josephus,

It seems that you would do more than just reject the ideas of another religion. You advocated banning their sacred literature. Would you accept it if your sacred literature were banned? Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Banning the Koran which you advocated would interfere with the free exercise of Islam, and that would be a violation of the Australian Constitution.

I doubt very much than only 25% don't know about the Holocaust. I would think that very few people under 40-50 years of age would know about it - or much else about anything at all before they were born.

I am amused that a Green has brought up anti-Semitism, given that it has been established that the Greens party is one of the leading lights in anti-Semitism. Since the demise of 1930s National Socialism, the Left has assumed the mantle of Jew hatred. Jew hatred is very popular among the lefties. All religions are hated by the left - apart from Islam, which suits their intolerant totalitarianism. Which reminds me: how will they handle the news about the Muslim soccer player refusing to wear the Gay Pride guernsey. Bet she gets off much lighter than Christian rugby player.

And parents, not schools, should be teaching their children right and wrong. Schools, public ones in particular, can't even teach the basic three Rs these days, let alone honest history.

If we're going to teach history as part of our school
curriculum it should all be taught - not just certain
selective aspects. But of course is there such a thing
as objective history? I guess it all depends on who's
doing the writing.

david f,

For your info, the Catholic Church only officially ended its doctrine of "Perfidus Judaeis" (anti-Semitism) in the early sixties, much like the ending of official negative views of black people by the Mormon Church some years later.

As well as Jews, victims of the holocaust included Roma(Gypsies), Germans with disabilities and some of the Slavic peoples (especially Poles and Russians). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds - among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals. Those likewise murdered groups are usually overlooked and it wasn't just the Nazis who were responsible for what happened.
Private citizens and neighbours were the ones who happily turned them over to the Nazis and a few countries who turned away fleeing Jewish refugees.

I would not like to survey Australians today and ask what they know of the Armenian genocide by Turkey during WWI, or in more recent times the Rwandan genocide of 1994. How can we forget the genocide committed by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Most likely Australians in general know little to nothing about these and other horrendous events that have taken place in modern times. WAR and MASS MURDER go hand in glove. If this evil is to be avoided in the future we must educate the young against ignorance, otherwise history will easily repeat itself.

On a more positive note just to provide a balance -
there were also, of course, numerous courageous men
and women who refused to participate in the subjugation
and destruction of the targeted groups and individuals.

There were Jews who interceded with their lives to save
persecuted Christians, there were Christians who died
in their attempts to save Jews. They died, some along
with their entire families, or accepted their fates in
concentration camps rather than betray their fellow men.

Some are known. but most perished and are known only to
God. These heroes embody human nobility in its highest form
and stand as beacons in the otherwise bleak history of
World War II.

A school board in Tennessee has banned the Holocaust book -
"Maus" by Art Spiegelman. It's acclaimed as the "most
effective and successful narrative ever done about the
Holocaust."

Has anybody read it?

It's available from your local library or good book shop.

I'll have to try to get a hold of it and see for myself
what (if any) problems there are.

Sorry, here's the link:

http://cnbc.com/2022/01/26/tennessee-school-board-bans-holocaust-comic-maus-by-art-spiegelmann.html

My apologies I misspelt Spiegelman's name.
Here's the link again:

http://cnbc.com/2022/01/26/tennessee-school-board-bans-holocaust-comic-maus-by-art-spiegelman.html

Hi rache, good to hear from you as always. My apologies, I included those you mention as "others" in my opening post, I was fully aware of who they were, thankyou for expanding on that. Those innocents deserve recognition for their pain suffered, just as the Jews do. Please put it down to my slow typing and post word limits.

david f is a great guy, and one of the best posters on the Forum. I wish I had half his knowledge. I'm getting tired of replying to the Forums Old Farts. I should reply to such a terd now, but I can't be bothered, I'll let the fool stew in his Nazi uniform.

david f makes a wild claim Christianity has promoted far more hostility against Jews than Islam.
Yet he cannot substantuate this from any text or current religion / world view - except the Koran and Islam.

Paul 1405 doesn't consider davidf to be and Old Fart, although I believe he is the oldest poster we have. Paul seems to obsessed with farts and turds, even though he cannot spell turd, writing it as 'terd'.

Dear Josephus,

I wish it it were a wild claim about the promotion of hostility toward Jews by Christianity. Christianity is the biggest source of Jew hatred. There are many references. One is the followinng;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

In recent years Protestant Nazi Germany was responsible for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews.

The Protestant KKK in the United States is a source of hatred against blacks, Cathoics and Jews.

Christianity in general has promoted Jew hatred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_Christianity

"Antisemitic Christian rhetoric and the antipathy towards Jews which result from it both date back to the early years of Christianity expanding on pagan anti-Jewish attitudes, which were reinforced by the belief that Jews had killed Christ. Christians adopted ever-increasing anti-Jewish measures over the ensuing centuries, including acts of ostracism, humiliation, expropriation, violence, and murder, measures which culminated in the Holocaust."

Open your eyes.
.

I am an old fart being 96. I don't know of older posters. I think ttbn is right.

Good on you david f. There's nothing wrong with your 96 year old mind, and you are you are always thoughtful and respectful to others.

Hi David F,

My definition of 'Old Fart' is a regressive with no forward thinking ability. Clear of mind, clear of thought, could be a progressive thinker at 96, or a regressive nong at 26. Nothing to do with age, all to do with attitude.

ttbn, couldn't even type the heading, do it once its a mistake, do it twice like you, makes you a goose.

Btw, sorry for misspelling your nick, add it to your dozens of spelling mistakes, people in glass houses....

Great, why not fill their minds with more irrelevant crap.

Dear Josephus,

The following is more on the subject of Christian ideas promoting Jew hatred.

https://medium.com/solus-jesus/five-common-anti-semitic-christian-teachings-ca72d5ac10aa

The person who wrote is a Christian pastor. Some Christians have looked at their own faith with a critical eye.

Paul 1405,

Sad. Very sad. You just keep making a fool of yourself.

In reference to David F's comment http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9739#329529

According to David F's link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism#Early_years

"In 1519, Luther challenged the doctrine Servitus Judaeorum ("Servitude of the Jews"), established in Corpus Juris Civilis by Justinian I from 529 to 534. He wrote: "Absurd theologians defend hatred for the Jews. ... What Jew would consent to enter our ranks when he sees the cruelty and enmity we wreak on them—that in our behavior towards them we less resemble Christians than beasts?"[3]

In his 1523 essay That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, Luther condemned the inhuman treatment of the Jews and urged Christians to treat them kindly."

Martin Luther's change in attitude to the Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies#Against_the_Jews

"In August 1536, Luther's prince, John Frederick, Elector of Saxony, issued a mandate that prohibited Jews from inhabiting, engaging in business in, or passing through his realm. An Alsatian shtadlan, Rabbi Josel of Rosheim, asked a reformer, Wolfgang Capito, to approach Luther in order to obtain an audience with the prince, but Luther refused every intercession. In response to Josel, Luther referred to his unsuccessful attempts to convert Jews: "I would willingly do my best for your people but I will not contribute to your [Jewish] obstinacy by my own kind actions. You must find another intermediary with my good lord." Heiko Oberman notes this event as significant in Luther's attitude toward Jews: "Even today this refusal is often judged to be the decisive turning point in Luther's career from friendliness to hostility toward the Jews" yet, Oberman contends that Luther would have denied any such "turning point". Rather he felt that Jews were to be treated in a "friendly way" in order to avoid placing unnecessary obstacles in their path to Christian conversion, a genuine concern of Luther."

So it seems that initially Martin Luther was sympathetic to the Jewish situation but over time he seemingly came to believe that Hebrew's were just seeking to establish a beachhead for invasion through bad faith superficialities.

Throughout literature there is talk of crypto-Jews, crypto-Muslims, etc- perhaps there is also such a beast as a crypto-Communist.

There is usually two sides to an argument.

Kudos to Josephus on correctly holding Paul1405 to account to his plain gaslighting tactic to attack quote un-quote "anti-semitism".

1. Using the word anti-semitic implies that Hebrew Semite's are incapable of wrong or criticism- itself is prejudice
2. everyone is prejudiced and so everyone has to be prejudiced
3. It appears to be prejudiced to demand that a people not be allowed to control their own culture and territory according to what they believe is in their own interest
4. One prejudice doesn't justify another
5. I'm sure there are items I've missed in this list

AC, can you expand on that fly by "irrelevant crap" comment. In your opinion did the Holocaust take place, and/or in the numbers generally propagated. Some say no, its all anti Nazi propaganda to make that nice man Hitler look bad.

What's your take?

"In recent years Protestant Nazi Germany was responsible for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews."

Its just a ridiculous assertion. The Holocaust was carried out by a very unProtestant Nazi Germany who leadership were not only not practicing Christians but were antithetical to all things Christian.

See if you agree with these statements....

* the Holodomor (7 million Ukrainians killed) was carried out by Russian Orthodox Soviet Russia
*the Killing Fields (2 million Cambodians massacred) was carried out by Buddhist Khmer Rouge Cambodia
* the Rape of Nanking (300000 killed) was carried out by Shinto Japan
* the Great Leap Forward (70 million killed) was carried out by Confucian Communist China

Anti-Semitism isn't something unique to Christianity. Its at the very core of Islam. Whatismore, it precedes Christianity. The Romans went after the Jews with particular relish and Nebuchadnezzar was no fan either.

So the genocide was a Nazi atrocity not a Christian one. It should also be noted that extermination of the Jew was not the original Nazi aim. They had previously allowed almost all German Jews to leave and up to 1942 the general Nazi idea was to find the Jews a homeland as far from Europe as possible. Had the war gone better for the Nazis (eg a peace treaty with Britain in 1940) Hitler's aim was to move the Jews to somewhere like Madagascar - a plan not dissimilar to FDR's 'M project'. It was only when the war started going badly for them that they settled on a different 'final solution' to the Jewish problem.

Re the asserted link between war and genocide...

The Holodomor in Ukraine took place when there was no war.
The Killing Fields in Cambodia - no war.
Mao's genocide - no war.
The Uyghur genocide currently occurring - no war

To mhaze- sometimes I think certain people such as Paul1405, Foxy bait the conversation in order to score a political point- by discussing the topic the way they've framed it "they win"- but your knowledge as always is impressive- kudos.

Even getting drawn into discussions on The Holocast seems to enable them to score a point.

Someone put me onto a book The Holocast Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein

"In his memoir he recalls strongly identifying with the outrage that his mother... felt at the carnage the United States wrought in Vietnam. One childhood friend recalls his mother's "emotional investment in left-wing humanitarian causes as bordering on hysteria". He "internalized [her] indignation", a trait that he admits rendered him "insufferable" when talking about the Vietnam War, and that imbued him with a "holier-than-thou" attitude he now regrets."

http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/1781685614

I was surprised to learn that Khmer Rouge were Red (Communist) Khmer's- well rouge does mean red in French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

"The Khmer Rouge is the name that was popularly given to members of the Communist Party of Kampuchea and by extension to the regime through which the CPK ruled Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. The name was coined in the 1960s by then Prime Minister Norodom Sihanouk to describe his country's heterogeneous, communist-led dissidents, with whom he allied after his 1970 overthrow."

So the Khmer Rouge appears both Buddhist and Communist. Yet Maoist's seem to reject (or kill) Buddhism.

Heterogeneous seems to be another word for 'multicultural'- in this case 'multicultural killers'.

mhaze, earlier you said the war saved the Jews, through Allied intervention, then you claimed it hastens their demise as the war was going badly for Hitler. What's it to be.

Yes CM, talk of the Holocaust does tend to stifle your philosophical argument. It's full of inconvenient truths which doesn't do your brand of extremism much good.

Talking about multiculturalism?

I wonder how many people realize that the British
for example are not a single race but a hotchpotch of
ethnic groups that have settled within their shores down
the centuries.

They are well and truly a mixed bunch. The notion of racial
purity among the British is a fallacy and their multiculturalism
dates back to the Dark Ages and beyond.

The Celts and Picts were among the most ancient settlers of the
British Isles. They were followed by the Romans in the first
century AD. Then there was a succession of invasions by the
Jutes, the Angles and the Saxons. There's more at the
following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk.2/hi/uk_news/1288231.stm

Interesting.

Here's the link again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1288231.stm

"earlier you said the war saved the Jews, through Allied intervention"

Yes that's correct. The gas chambers ran basically right up to the time the allies arrived.

"you claimed it hastens their demise as the war was going badly for Hitler"

Yes that's correct. While Hitler thought he'd win the war, he had no plans to exterminate the Jews. His idea was basically the same as FDR's ie move them out of Europe. It was only when that option was removed that he adopted plan B so-to-speak.

"What's it to be."

Why can't it be both? Try a little nuance. But the war didn't cause the Holocaust. Had that been true the Holocaust would have started in 1939 rather than 1942.

_____________________________________________________________________

Foxy,

We've been down this road before. Britain is no more a mixture of races than any other nation in Europe or Asia. Pick any country and go back a millennium or two and you'll find multiple invasions and conquests.

You've also made the mistake of confusing multiculturalism with multicultural, but the difference is for another thread.
Nonetheless, its a mistake to think that British culture was measurably changed by these invasions. Current research shows that, in the main, the invaders didn't impose their culture, but instead adopted that of the natives which remained primarily unchanged over the centuries. I'd venture that the same can be said for most nations over the centuries.

_________________________________________________________________

Canem wrote :"I think certain people such as Paul1405, Foxy bait the conversation in order to score a political point- by discussing the topic the way they've framed it".

You might note that as soon as I start talking about genocide and multi-million murders in Communist countries, Paul runs for cover. You'd find the same thing if I mentioned the Marx was as anti-Semitic as any other German.

The idea is to only talk about those things that make certain groups look bad. For old Trotskyites like Paul, the very notion that the leading mass murders in history are primarily Marxists is too shocking to ponder.

mhaze,

Read the link I gave from the BBc.
Argue with them not me.

Some cultural things happening in Britian currently are in violation of true British Culture. We must look at the basis of ideals - are they based on moral law? The ten commandments the basis of jewish law have been the basis of all functioning societies for 5,000 years; remove them and society fails.
1. Worship and aspire to understand holy Character.
2. Do not become devoted to trivial or ascribe power to things.
3. Do not attribute bad character to the most holy.
4. Keep one day in seven for rest and reflection.
5. Respect and care for your parents.
6. You shall not plot the death of another.
7. You shall not lust for anothers wife.
8. You shal not steal anothers property.
9. You shall not give false testomony of another to destroy their character.
10. You shall not covet others property etc.

"AC, can you expand on that fly by "irrelevant crap" comment. In your opinion did the Holocaust take place, and/or in the numbers generally propagated. Some say no, its all anti Nazi propaganda to make that nice man Hitler look bad."

I don't know, I wasn't there, I wasn't even born yet.
- Suppose I'd start there...

Why is it important?
Why does it even matter?

Plenty of people died in WWII not just Jews
Whats the significance in their supposed story above others?

- There's millions of stories of hardship and tragedy in those war years, many never told.
Why should we want to hear the word 'holocaust' over and over like a broken record?

1. Worship and aspire to understand holy Character.
2. Do not become devoted to trivial or ascribe power to things.
3. Do not attribute bad character to the most holy.
4. Keep one day in seven for rest and reflection.
5. Respect and care for your parents.
6. You shall not plot the death of another.
7. You shall not lust for anothers wife.
8. You shal not steal anothers property.
9. You shall not give false testomony of another to destroy their character.
10. You shall not covet others property etc.

Christians are idiots anyway.
I saw all through the pandemic the idea that God would save them, like they were immune from Covid or if they did catch it, AND DIE that it would be Gods will.
- Praise the Lord -

What I didn't see from Christians an understanding that they too could spread the virus to others and cause harm, even death.

In their minds if they catch Covid and give it to someone else and that someone else dies as a result, then that's God's will too.
- Praise the Lord -

They don't see that they would have caused someones else's death.
So I think they are all mentally retarded, drunk on their own bs.
- And a danger to others -

Funny how they come across so high and mighty with these virtuous rules for others to follow.
How about you follow other peoples rules instead?
Well no, that's because no other rules exist for them, they are beyond reproach.
And to challenge them, would be to challenge God.

How about they learn not to do harm instead?
- Stupid Religions -

AC what is your beef? I and my wife are free of Covid and tripple vaccinated and isolate as much as we can. Grow up! We live in a closed Housing village of 377 people and now forty-nine people have Covid, Why? because they socialise in clubs.

An old Fascist like mhaze will try to minimize the NAZI involvement in the holocaust by claiming that Hitler's real intention was to re-house Europe's Jews at some undisclosed location. He claims it was only because the war was going badly for Germany that murder become the preferred NAZI option. This is untrue, from the time Hitler came to power in 1933 thousands of innocent people were murdered in various ways by the NAZIS. The 'Final Solution' plan was the result of the Wannsee Conference held in Berlin in January 1942, when Germany was winning new territory in the East, and winning the war.

For some Fascists if they can't deny the Holocaust took place, they find an excuse for their good man Hitler, or simply try to deflect to the monster Stalin etc to get away from it all. Good one mhaze.

In a sense ideological or religious genocide is very similar to ethnic genocide- depending on the particular case- the ideological genocide that occurred under Mao's china was ten times worse than "The Holocast". Many of the details in the "Russian and Chinese Holocasts" are unknown even today as I understand.

I might think that in the past the human beings value as slaves was more valuable than the land they occupied. Perhaps there will be more genocide to come if we don't manage our populations. The world will reach 8 billion March next year- and the flood of refugees into the West will accelerate- everything else being equal. Interesting times ahead.

Thanks mhaze for the clarification.

The German Churches and the Nazi State | Holocaust Encyclopedia (ushmm.org)

Background

The population of Germany in 1933 was around 60 million. Almost all Germans were Christian, belonging either to the Roman Catholic (ca. 20 million members) or the Protestant (ca. 40 million members) churches. The Jewish community in Germany in 1933 was less than 1% of the total population of the country.

How did Christians and their churches in Germany respond to the Nazi regime and its laws, particularly to the persecution of the Jews? The racialized anti-Jewish Nazi ideology converged with antisemitism that was historically widespread throughout Europe at the time and had deep roots in Christian history. For all too many Christians, traditional interpretations of religious scriptures seemed to support these prejudices.

The attitudes and actions of German Catholics and Protestants during the Nazi era were shaped not only by their religious beliefs, but by other factors as well, including:

• Backlash against the Weimar Republic and the political, economic, and social changes in Germany that occurred during the 1920s
• Anti-Communism
• Nationalism
• Resentment toward the international community in the wake of World War I, which Germany lost and for which it was forced to pay heavy reparations.

These were some of the reasons why most Christians in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They were also persuaded by the statement on “positive Christianity” in Article 24 of the 1920 Nazi Party Platform, which read:

"We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good.

continued

continued

Despite the open antisemitism of this statement and its linkage between confessional "freedom" and a nationalistic, racialized understanding of morality, many Christians in Germany at the time read this as an affirmation of Christian values.

Protestant Churches in Nazi Germany

The largest Protestant church in Germany in the 1930s was the German Evangelical Church, comprised of 28 regional churches or Landeskirchen that included the three major theological traditions that had emerged from the Reformation: Lutheran, Reformed, and United. Most of Germany's 40 million Protestants were members of this church, although there were smaller so-called "free" Protestant churches, such as Methodist and Baptist churches.

Historically the German Evangelical Church viewed itself as one of the pillars of German culture and society, with a theologically grounded tradition of loyalty to the state. During the 1920s, a movement emerged within the German Evangelical Church called the Deutsche Christen, or "German Christians." The "German Christians" embraced many of the nationalistic and racial aspects of Nazi ideology. Once the Nazis came to power, this group sought the creation of a national "Reich Church" and supported a "nazified" version of Christianity.
The Bekennende Kirche—the "Confessing Church"—emerged in opposition to the “German Christians.” Its founding document, the Barmen Confession of Faith, declared that the church's allegiance was to God and scripture, not a worldly Führer. Both the Confessing Church and the "German Christians" remained part of the German Evangelical Church, and the result was a Kirchenkampf, or "church struggle" within German Protestantism—an ongoing debate and struggle for control between those who sought a "nazified" church, those who opposed it, and the so-called "neutral" church leaders whose priority was the avoidance both of church schism and any kind of conflict with the Nazi state.

continued

continued

The most famous members of the Confessing Church were the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, executed for his role in the conspiracy to overthrow the regime, and Pastor Martin Niemöller, who spent seven years in concentration camps for his criticisms of Hitler. Yet these clergymen were not typical of the Confessing Church; despite their examples, the Protestant Kirchenkampf was mostly an internal church matter, not a fight against National Socialism. Even in the Confessing Church, most church leaders were primarily concerned with blocking state and ideological interference in church affairs. Yet there were certainly members of the clergy and laity who opposed and resisted the regime, including some who aided and hid Jews.

The Roman Catholic Church in Nazi Germany

The Catholic Church was not as sharply divided by different ideological factions as the Protestant church, and it never underwent an internal Kirchenkampf between these different factions. Catholic leaders were initially more suspicious of National Socialism than their Protestant counterparts. Nationalism was not as deeply embedded in the German Catholic Church, and the rabid anti-Catholicism of figures such as Alfred Rosenberg, a leading Nazi ideologue during the Nazi rise to power, raised early concerns among Catholic leaders in Germany and at the Vatican. In addition, the Catholic Centre Party had been a key coalition governmental partner in the Weimar Republic during the 1920s and was aligned with both the Social Democrats and leftist German Democratic Party, pitting it politically against right-wing parties like the Nazis.

Before 1933, in fact, some bishops prohibited Catholics in their dioceses from joining the Nazi Party. This ban was dropped after Hitler's March 23, 1933, speech to the Reichstag in which he described Christianity as the “foundation” for German values. The Centre Party was dissolved as part of the signing of a 1933 Concordat between the Vatican and Nazi governmental representatives, and several of its leaders were murdered in the Röhm purge in July 1934.

continued

continued

Summary

In both German churches there were members, including clergy and leading theologians, who openly supported the Nazi regime. With time, anti-Nazi sentiment grew in both Protestant and Catholic church circles, as the Nazi regime exerted greater pressure on them. In turn, the Nazi regime saw a potential for dissent in church criticism of state measures. When a protest statement was read from the pulpits of Confessing churches in March 1935, for example, Nazi authorities reacted forcefully by briefly arresting over 700 pastors. After the 1937 papal encyclical Mit brennender Sorge ("With burning concern") was read from Catholic pulpits, the Gestapo confiscated copies from diocesan offices throughout the country.

The general tactic by the leadership of both Protestant and Catholic churches in Germany was caution with respect to protest and compromise with the Nazi state leadership where possible. There was criticism within both churches of Nazi racialized ideology and notions of "Aryanism," and movements emerged in both churches to defend church members who were considered "non-Aryan" under Nazi racial laws (e.g., Jews who had converted). Yet throughout this period there was virtually no public opposition to antisemitism or any readiness by church leaders to publicly oppose the regime on the issues of antisemitism and state-sanctioned violence against the Jews. There were individual Catholics and Protestants who spoke out on behalf of Jews, and small groups within both churches that became involved in rescue and resistance activities (for example, the White Rose and Herman Maas).

After 1945, the silence of the church leadership and the widespread complicity of "ordinary Christians" compelled leaders of both churches to address issues of guilt and complicity during the Holocaust—a process that continues internationally to this day.

Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC

Hi Josephus,

My beef is with Christianity and Christians in general.
They act high and mighty and beyond reproach but their ideology is flawed.
I don't have anything against you personally.

Are you saying that I didn't see Margaret Court and a host of other stories all over the world during the pandemic of Christians saying Jesus makes them immune Jesus is the cure?
Do you think these people may have by chance spread the virus and done harm to others?
Are you saying my observations are wrong?
If they can get that wrong.. then they certainly don't own any path to righteousness and salvation.
They're wolves in sheeps clothing.

My beef is virtue-signalling from Christians who themselves cant tell the difference between harming others and not harming others.
- It's good that you can tell the difference, it seems.

And there's a difference between harming others outright, and mere words - (though I accept words can cause harm)
The only crime I committed was to type words:
- I didn't spread covid or infect anyone, or their elderly parents.

If you identify as a Christian you should teach the rest of your lot some values and not be hard on me for speaking truth.

Sorry to hear the people in your complex care only for themselves.

Hey Canem Malum
"In a sense ideological or religious genocide is very similar to ethnic genocide- depending on the particular case- the ideological genocide that occurred under Mao's china was ten times worse than "The Holocast". Many of the details in the "Russian and Chinese Holocasts" are unknown even today as I understand."

I remember hearing stories about the NKVD Headquarters in Kiev under Stalin.
Stories of people being tortures, limbs cut off.
A whole basement full of blood, bodies and body parts.

Stories of peoples guts being cut open, their intestines nailed to a pole, and then whipped and made to run around the pole for amusement until their entire guts is ripped out.

Stories of people being killed to be fed to other starving people, with the full knowledge that no other food is coming, and it will be your turn to die and be fed to others tomorrow.

When you teach the kids about the Holocaust Paul, make sure to include all of the facilities included at Aushwitz, if you actually know.
Go do some googling and look that up, then try convincing people its purpose or intention was a death camp.

Look at those facts, and the narrative you telling doesn't quite add up.
I'm not saying there wasn't hardship and people didn't die in crap conditions.

- But America got there months after Germany was in tatters and all the supply lines had been bombed months prior and everyone was starving.
Are you going to tell that story?
Will you tell the truth or leave that part out?
That's why we see the horrible pictures of living skeletons, when the camps were finally liberated.

Thanks for the information AC- horrific. I guess it's harder to find the mass graves for the "Russian and Chinese Holocasts" given the regime continuity. Thanks again.

Hey Calum Malum,
Horrible stuff, though I can't vouch for the accuracy of these stories, as I wasn't there.

Lots of terrible things happen during wars.

Take the Yellow House in Albania for example, some of which is known.
Apparently during the war in Kosovo in 1999, civilians were abducted and murdered to have their organs harvested and sold on the Black Market.

http://thebloodyellowhouse.wordpress.com/

I think the numbers might be higher than reported though.

AC,

What are you saying, Aushwitz wasn't a purpose built death camp, where over 1 million people perished. Are you saying there were no purpose built gas chambers and ovens to burn the bodies in? Are you saying deaths were somewhat accidental, caused by mostly "cramped conditions". Do you deny the Holocaust and 6 million dead, caused by State sanctioned murder?

CM is ready to agree with what you say.

There is something about Aushwitz at 9pm tonight on SBS.

It is evident that the ten commandments have been violated in the behaviour of nations we are discusing. Yet people want to do things with a different set of values.

The Ten Commandments are:

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I think the ten commandments can be reduced to four. I see nothing wrong with making idols. It doesn't hurt anybody. The first commandment allows polytheism as long as one puts the god in the Bible first so the commandment seems pointless. Putting the name of the lord in vain also hurts no one. There are different sabbaths for Jews, Christians, Muslims and possibly others. Covetting also hurts nobody. In the Bible only women are condemned for adultery so the commandment is sexist and unfair.

I favour honoring father and mother, not stealing, murdering or bearing false witness and discarding the other six commandments.

Hi david f,

I believe it was only in recent times, the word kill was removed from the Ten Commandments, and the word murder substituted, thus sanctioning state sponsored murder. A true Christian is a pacifist. In Buddhism there are no Commandments, but to strive for true Enlightenment one has to have a personal set of Commandments and values to live by.

Josephus wrote, “It is important to realise many Jews fled to Christian England during the Holocaust.

It is important to remember the Evian Conference:

“Between 1933 and 1939, Jews in Germany were subjected to arrest, economic boycott, the loss of civil rights and citizenship, incarceration in concentration camps, random violence, and the state-organized Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") pogrom. Jews reacted to Nazi persecution in a number of ways. Forcibly segregated from German society, German Jews turned to and expanded their own institutions and social organizations. However, in the face of increasing repression and physical violence, many Jews fled Germany. More Jews might have left Germany had such countries as the United States and Great Britain been more willing to admit them.

Between 1933 and 1939, Jews in Germany were subjected to arrest, economic boycott, the loss of civil rights and citizenship, incarceration in concentration camps, random violence, and the state-organized Kristallnacht ("Night of Broken Glass") pogrom. Jews reacted to Nazi persecution in a number of ways. Forcibly segregated from German society, German Jews turned to and expanded their own institutions and social organizations. However, in the face of increasing repression and physical violence, many Jews fled Germany. More Jews might have left Germany had such countries as the United States and Great Britain been more willing to admit them.

Between 1933 and 1941, the Nazis aimed to make Germany judenrein (cleansed of Jews) by making life so difficult for them that they would be forced to leave the country. By 1938, about 150,000 German Jews, one in four, had already fled the country. After Germany annexed Austria in March 1938, however, an additional 185,000 Jews were brought under Nazi rule. Many Jews were unable to find countries willing to take them in.

Many German and Austrian Jews tried to go to the United States but could not obtain the visas needed to enter. Even though news of the violent pogroms of November 1938 was widely reported, Americans remained reluctant to welcome Jewish refugees.

continued

continued

In the midst of the Great Depression, many Americans believed that refugees would compete with them for jobs and overburden social programs set up to assist the needy.

Congress had set up immigration quotas in 1924 that limited the number of immigrants and discriminated against groups considered racially and ethnically undesirable. These quotas remained in place even after President Franklin D. Roosevelt, responding to mounting political pressure, called for an international conference to address the refugee problem.

In the summer of 1938, delegates from thirty-two countries met at the French resort of Evian. Roosevelt chose not to send a high-level official, such as the secretary of state, to Evian; instead, Myron C. Taylor, a businessman and close friend of Roosevelt's, represented the US at the conference. During the nine-day meeting, delegate after delegate rose to express sympathy for the refugees. But most countries, including the United States and Britain, offered excuses for not letting in more refugees.

Responding to Evian, the German government was able to state with great pleasure how "astounding" it was that foreign countries criticized Germany for their treatment of the Jews, but none of them wanted to open the doors to them when "the opportunity offer[ed]."
Even efforts by some Americans to rescue children failed: the Wagner-Rogers bill, an effort to admit 20,000 endangered Jewish refugee children, was not supported by the Senate in 1939 and 1940. Widespread racial prejudices among Americans—including antisemitic attitudes held by the US State Department officials—played a part in the failure to admit more refugees.”

In general Christian countries were unwilling to give refuge to Jews fleeing Nazis.

Paul1405 wrote:

I believe it was only in recent times, the word kill was removed from the Ten Commandments, and the word murder substituted, thus sanctioning state sponsored murder. A true Christian is a pacifist. In Buddhism there are no Commandments, but to strive for true Enlightenmentone has to have a personal set of Commandments and values to live by.

Dear Paul,

There are many translations of the Bible. In the original Hebrew Masoretic text the Hebrew word meaning murder was used.

Generally when people call something true it conforms to what they believe. I imagine every Christian believes he or she is a true Christian whether or not that person is a pacifist. As far as I am concerned every Christian is a true Christian if they believe they are.

According to the net:

10 Commandments of Buddhism are:
• Do not destroy life.
• Do not take what is not given you.
• Do not commit adultery.
• Tell no lies and deceive no one.
• Do not become intoxicated.
• Eat temperately and not at all in the afternoons.
• Do not watch dancing, nor listen to singing or plays.
• Wear no garlands, perfumes or any adornments.
• Sleep not in luxurious beds.
• Accept no gold or silver

Dear David F.,

Thank You for providing us with this information.
What a tragic history. It is hard to believe that
Christians who supposedly follow the teachings of a
Jewish Rabbi could be so anti His people. It is
difficult to understand.

I'm not an expert but in my limited understanding Christian's have done more for Hebrew's than many other cultures.

Britain created Israel- and suffered for it- the two main negotiation points after the war were-
1. the war bank debt and
2. Israel.

As I understand Britain is still paying WWII debt. Perhaps Britain could have negotiated better debt relief if it gave up the Israel negotiating point. Is it the Hebrew position that Britain isn't broken enough.

The West continues to favour Israel in the Middle East- financially and otherwise.

The US has allowed the Hebrew culture to develop since the 1880's and now contains one of the largest populations of the Hebrew diaspora globally.

No other culture will come to our aid as our Anglo-sphere culture is being destroyed- only we can protect ourselves. We will see things that others won't.

In modern times people assaulted in public don't get aid- because people don't feel safe to do so.

I guess it's David F's view that Christian nations are bad because his people were attacked by a Christian nation and other sovereign Christian nations didn't do what he wanted and therefore Christianity and Christian nations need to be destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

http://news.yahoo.com/germany-stunned-rash-years-sex-assaults-132433588.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3684302/1-200-German-women-sexually-assaulted-New-Year-s-Eve-Cologne-elsewhere.html

Western nations including the US at times have attempted to create an environment for world stability- but our resources are limited- so we need to decide what is in our enlightened interest for ourselves. Others will always disagree and may wish us to be penalised for our efforts.

In the end we can't fix all the problems of the world and shouldn't try- maybe we can solve some problems- not all.
If some cultures want to destroy our civilization on that basis- well that's their choice- and responsibility.

I can understand that WWII was the last biggest disaster to Hebrew culture- as a result countries in the West lobbied to have Israel created as remediation- one of the main stated issues was that the Hebrew's didn't have anywhere to go when the German government enacted their 1930's policies- the creation of Israel would give Hebrew's somewhere to go if similar occurred in the future- other cultures have also had big disasters- over emphasis on one disaster deprocates other realities.

Most have sympathy with the Hebrew situation but there is only so much sympathy to go around- at some stage we need to focus on other things.

Hebrew people seem to be saying that they aren't happy with their treatment. Is the Hebrew people saying that they want more?

Nobody expected the Spanish inquisition.

I'm not an expert but that is my understanding.

I think it's time for a new phase in the Jewish discussion.

Anyone can call himself or herself a Christian without actually being one. I believe in the idea of Christianity, but I have no time for organised Christianity which fell under the spell of Left wokeism long ago. The Catholic Pope, Francis for instance, is more South American socialist than he is Catholic.

The latest outrage to come from the Anglican brand is a 40ish looking priests saying that Jesus Christ was practising transgenderism when he washed the feet of Apostles, because that was a job women usually did. Apparently Jesus 'the tranny' did other things generally done by women.

I'm now worried that I could be transgenic too. I've done the washing and ironing for about 30 years, and I cooked and cleaned for about 5 years after I retired and my wife was still teaching.

Foxy wrote :" Read the link I gave from the BBc.Argue with them not me."

My apologies Foxy. When you wrote your post I thought you were stating your opinion and using the link to support that. I didn't realise you were just regurgitating someone else's opinions

_______________________________________________________________________

"An old Fascist like mhaze "

I object. As I taught you a coupla months back, Fascists are socialists. And I object to be linked with such a moronic notion as socialism </sarc>.


" try to minimize the NAZI involvement in the holocaust "

Actually, and this'll probably go over your head, saying that the Nazis originally intended to relocate the Jews increases their crime, since it shows that they knew mass extermination was morally wrong.



"re-house Europe's Jews at some undisclosed location."

Well I did mention that location earlier. But it was over a day ago and therefore its no surprise that its exited Paul's memorybanks.



"He claims it was only because the war was going badly for Germany that murder become the preferred NAZI option"

I don't claim....I know. Paul's lack of historic understanding or even curiousity leds him down the garden path again....

"Rademacher recommended on 3 June 1940 that Madagascar should be made available as a destination for the Jews of Europe. With Adolf Hitler's approval, Adolf Eichmann released a memorandum on 15 August 1940 calling for the resettlement of a million Jews per year for four years, with the island being governed as a police state under the SS. They assumed that many Jews would succumb to its harsh conditions should the plan be implemented.[5] The plan was not viable due to the British naval blockade. It was postponed after the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain in September 1940..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan

Compare Roosevelt's 'M Project' plans...
http://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/m-project-franklin-delano-roosevelt-jews



"simply try to deflect to the monster Stalin..."

Yeah I knew that pointing that most mass murdering regimes were Marxist wouldn't please you

mhaze,

I was giving historical facts concerning Britain -
not regurgitating opinions.
And I thought the BBC was a good source to share
that most people would accept and understand.
Apparently in your case I was wrong.

The BBC's almost as woke as the ABC. Defund the ABC.

My goodness there has been some denialism writ large by the usual posters.

Firstly it must be said that the relative impact on indigenous cultures of Australia's original inhabitants, particularly in the South East of the country, far exceeded that which so sadly afflicted European Jews. This genocide deserves primacy in our education system because we are still dealing with its impacts today.

Next it is irrefutable that Christian anti-Semitism has always been a central feature of the faith.

The expulsions of Jews from countries like England and Spain is a case in point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

Hitler was originally quite favourable towards Jews and found anti-semitism repulsive but he was radicalised by the rightwing Christian mayor of Vienna.

The anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament are well known.

In some addled brains the issue of the Mufti in Jerusalem siding with Hitler allows some sort of transference of guilt. It does no such thing.

Hitler's penned words were very clear:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord".

Those words stand against any attempt from some here to obfuscate Christianity's deep historical role in the persecution of the Jewish people.

Just live with it.

Here is a great interview with George Steiner that's
worth a read:

http://forward.com/culture/367139/you-really-need-to-read-this-terrific-interview-with-george-steiner/

Canem wrote: "Thanks for the information AC- horrific."

Except AC's wrong. Unspeakable things happened at the hands of the NKVD but nothing approaching AC's fantasies. Refer to "Gulag Archipelago" (the unabridged version) or Conquest's "Great Terror". Despite the terror, the Stalinists were anxious to adhere to legal requirements. They extracted confessions through all sorts of unspeakable means (eg one poor soul watched his wife and 10 yr old daughter raped and only 'confessed' when they bought in his 8 yr old daughter). But the type of things AC talks of are from earlier periods and probably were true even then. eg the story about forced self-disembowel is something attributed to AmerIndians and was more propaganda than fact.

______________________________________________________________________

Most of the 10 Commandments relate to things that all societies must enforce if they are to function - don't kill, don't steal, don't lie. Its possible to envisage a society that functions successfully without the religious parts of the commandments but all the others are absolute requirements. Its just easier to enforce if they are delivered by the deity rather than the government.

________________________________________________________________

"In general Christian countries were unwilling to give refuge to Jews fleeing Nazis."

In fact the vast majority of the Jews who left Germany before 1938 went to Christian countries. Some of the more foresighted headed to Palestine but most ended up in Britain, France, Poland and Eastern Europe where they ended up being caught in the Nazi net anyway.

When you only research something from one angle, your conclusions are inevitably jaundiced. This is david f's problem. He only looks at anti-Semitism from the point of its existence in Christian nations and therefore assumes its a Christian issue. He ignores the vastly more profound anti-Semitism in the Islamic world and ignores all those Christian nations, movements and people who have provided succour to the Jews over the centuries. Unless you think the Jews were historically insane, you have to ponder why they persisted in Christian society over the millennia. Things might have been periodic bad, but they were more often good and clearly better than elsewhere

I note the dismissal of the Hebrew ten Commandments for an inferior set of values that people prefer to live by. Unless one contemplates a higher character, one will never reach a higher character. We must envisage and contemplate the highest character if we are to improve ourselves personally and our society.

1. Worship and aspire to understand holy Character.
2. Do not become devoted to the trivial or ascribe devotion to things.
3. Do not attribute evil character to the most holy.
4. Keep one day in seven for rest and reflection.

Many want to discard the devotion to holy character because to them it seems irrelavent; but unless character is in focus every behaviour is justified.

5. Respect and care for your parents.
6. You shall not plot the death of another.
7. You shall not lust for anothers wife.
8. You shal not steal anothers property.
9. You shall not give false testomony of another to destroy their character.
10. You shall not covet others property etc.

Here is a more historical perspective of Jewish
refugees - Holocaust:

http://vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/27/14412082/refugees-history-holocaust

mhaze, you conveniently fail to mention the Wannsee Conference held in Berlin January 1942, where it had been approved at the highest level by Hitler himself that the 'Final Solution' to the Jewish problem be carried out. The Wannsee Conference put that order in train.
BTW, in January 1942 the Nazis were winning the war. In the West there was only Britain to contend with, for the Nazis that was a formality. In the East the Nazis were in control with the Russians in retreat. For you to say the Nazis only decided on mass extermination because they were losing the war is wrong. With certain victory in sight, it was time to act.

The defeat of Nazi Germany began with their defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad Aug 42 to Feb 43 and then with the Allied success with the D Day operation June 44. These events took place after Wannsee Conference. Once the 'Final Solution' kicked off there was no stopping it.

For those interested in historical trivia - The very first treaty Hitler signed on coming to power was a Concordat with the Catholic Church where they were guaranteed certain privileges in return for them dissolving their moderately oriented political party, giving him a clearer run at holding power.

The Church then signed a similar treaty with Mussolini.

It was also common for Hitler's birthday to be acknowledged and celebrated each year from the Church pulpit and many citizens thought Hitler to be on a holy crusade with religious support.

Also, anti-Jewish sentiment had been around long before Christianity - even back to ancient Greece. The reasons given are much the same as those used ever since and have now overflowed into Islam with some items (no loyalty to the State, establishing of enclaves, anti-social beliefs etc) still used by the extreme right today.

Hi david f,

Something interesting about Buddhism.

http://www.learnreligions.com/buddhism-philosophy-or-religion-449727

Interested to read your opinion.

Paul1405 wrote:

“http://www.learnreligions.com/buddhism-philosophy-or-religion-449727

Interested to read your opinion.”

Buddhism can be defined as a religion or philosophy depending how we define religion and philosophy. I consider Buddhism a non-theistic religion.

We tend to romanticize what is foreign to us and reject what is close at hand. We romanticize Buddhism as a religion of peace. It is except when it isn’t. Although I am not a Christian I find some wisdom in some of the words of Jesus.

Matthew 7:16 is part of the Sermon on the Mount. This verse continues the section warning against false prophets. Ye shall know them by their fruits.

That is wise. Look at what they do – not what they say.

When Buddhists take power they are corrupted by it as others are. They are corrupted in Sri Lanka where a Buddhist ruling class persecutes the Hindu Tamils.

Roger Williams, a Baptist minister, headed Rhode Island colony, the first unit of government anywhere in the world which had separation of religion and state in its basic law. He recognized that Christians would also be corrupted by power. I admire Roger Williams and think there should be no Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim governments anywhere. In all countries people should be free to accept any religious belief or reject any religious belief.

Jesus recommended separation of religion and state:

Matthew 22: 21 KJV
… Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

I find that the corpses produced by communism were no accident. They follow from the Manifesto, and I wrote about it. Why so many corpses? - On Line Opinion - 4/10/2011 is my article on the subject.

The Jew hatred promoted by Christianity is a historical fact. It will not be countered if it is not recognized.

Jesus spoke about recognizing one’s own faults. Matthew 7:3. “ And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ”. King James Version (KJV)

I wish Christians would take that to heart.

david f, you said "The Jew hatred promoted by Christianity is a historical fact."

You need to clarify what you mean by Christian - the term is vague. The Roman State Church and sections of its reform were called by that name ie Lutheran. However, they do not reflect the teachings of Christ even as people calling themselves Buddahist do not live the beliefs and teachings of Buddah. There is no one term that fits all. The truth is the Gospels say Christ wept that his fellow Jews would repent, he never encouraged their murder. Though the Koran does say to murder Jews and places Jesus among their prophets.

Dear Josephus,

The Jew hatred emanating from Christianity is found not only in the New Testament but in the history of discrimination, persecution and murder of Jews through much of the history of Christianity.

In Antisemitism and the New Testament - Wikipedia you will find the following:

According to Rabbi Michael J. Cook, Professor of Intertestamental and Early Christian Literature at the Hebrew Union College, there are ten themes in the New Testament that have been a source of anti-Judaism and antisemitism:

1. The Jews are culpable for crucifying Jesus – as such they are guilty of deicide.
2. The tribulations of the Jewish people throughout history constitute God's punishment of them for killing Jesus.
3. Jesus originally came to preach only to the Jews, but when they rejected him, he abandoned them for gentiles instead.
4. The Children of Israel were God's original chosen people by virtue of an ancient covenant, but by rejecting Jesus they forfeited their chosenness - and now, by virtue of a New Covenant (or "testament"), Christians have replaced the Jews as God's chosen people, the Church having become the "People of God."
5. The Jewish Bible ("Old" Testament) repeatedly portrays the opaqueness and stubbornness of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.
6. The Jewish Bible contains many predictions of the coming of Jesus as the Messiah (or "Christ"), yet the Jews are blind to the meaning of their own Bible.
7. By the time of Jesus' ministry, Judaism had ceased to be a living faith.
8. Judaism's essence is a restrictive and burdensome legalism.
9. Christianity emphasizes love, while Judaism stands for justice and a God of wrath.
10. Judaism's oppressiveness reflects the disposition of Jesus' opponents called "Pharisees" (predecessors of the "rabbis"), who in their teachings and behavior were hypocrites (see Woes of the Pharisees).

In the Roman Empire there was competition between Jews and Christians for market share. Christians won.. It is better to eat pork and not be circumcised than to be forbidden to eat pork and be circumcised so it is no wonder that Christians won.

As we mark International Holocaust Remeberence Day, we should remember the millions of innocent men, women and children who have suffered and died because of war.

I still say its vitally important to teach our young about the events of war, and the horrors of war, but also instill in them a belief that war is futile and how they should strive for peace in this world.

Dear Paul,

It would be great if our world leaders would start
taking notice of the vast array of experts who are
willing and able to guide us through the coming difficult
years. A better world is possible. It will take effort.
It will be difficult. But it will be worth it.

The measure of our society over history is our fidelity to
our principles. We must remind our government and our people
to remain faithful to those principles or otherwise our
society, like so many in the past, will be swept on the
ash heap of history.

Last night I tried watching a film about the Holocaust on
SBS. I could not watch all of it - it was horrific.
I could not believe that human being could that to other human
beings.

David f, the report quoted only focuses on a Roman interpretation of Jesus, because the Roman State had problems with controling the Jews. They tried to anialate them in AD 72. Anti-semetism is not a recent attitude, the Arabs have centuries of hostility to Israel.

Hi Foxy,

I watched SBS, yes the inhumanity of the "ordinary" individual towards his fellow man is at times unbelievable. People like Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc could not do what they do without the complicity of many of their fellow human beings, in many cases ordinary folk like you and I. The sin is blind acceptance, "its not my concern, its not my business" from ordinary people allows injustice to to become the accepted norm. Such doco's should be shown to children at an appropriate age and be open to discussion, if they are going to learn decent attitudes for a better future.

The ravings of the 5 or 6 regular forum posters from the radical extreme, are not a true reflection of society in general, thank god. Their views represent the half a percent mob, so there is some hopeful possibility for a decent tomorrow for our children and grandchildren.

Dear Paul,

What got to me was when one of the administrators was
asked why did they kill children? He replied that it
was because of "their blood." I thought - "What?"
He went on to explain it was what was in their veins.
What they would grow up to be. They had to be destroyed.

I could not believe what I was hearing. What kind of "blood"
did they think that Jewish people possessed that was different
from non- Jewish people? Sick. Sick. Sick! Mental degenerates!
As I said - horrific!

They should have questioned what kind of blood they themselves
had to make them think like that.

Paul what radical extreme anti- semetic are you talking about - obviously, the Australian Greens.

http://aijac.org.au/australia-israel-review/greens-problems-with-israel-and-jews-worsen/
"Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, has been attending rallies with similarly disgraceful placards. Instead of sexist slogans, these placards are undeniably antisemitic. Some depict Jews as pigs and monkeys, others advocate for the deaths of Israeli civilians via a “third intifada”.

The Australian Greens have an anti - semetic record to destroy Israel.

"Senator Richard Di Natale the former Victorian Greens Senator has previously stated he does not support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state and distastefully used a Parliamentary condolence motion to condemn Nobel Peace Prize winner and former Israeli President Shimon Peres. Senator Di Natale also leading the Greens in demanding a partial boycott of Israel".

Dear Josephus,

If you want to make things better, you don’t point the finger elsewhere. You don’t blame others. You look at what you or those representing you have done.

You are very good at pointing elsewhere. Look at the beautiful words of Jesus. Blame the Catholics, the Roman interpretation of Christianity – anything but confronting the bloody record of Protestant Christianity.

Some Protestants have confronted the dark parts of their religion. Some Protestants have looked at their history and tried to make things better. Jimmy Carter is one of them. Southern Baptists have a history of racism, supporting the KKK, opposing anti-lynching laws, fighting to preserve slavery and other nasty acts. Jimmy Carter, a Southern Baptist, when he was president tried to make up for that. He was a Christian who looked for inspiration from something more basic than the predominant view of his branch of Christianity. As president he advanced civil rights, appointed blacks to important positions, made peace between Israel and Egypt and reversed US imperialism in transferring control of the Panama Canal to Panama. Dietrich Bonheoffer, a Protestant theologian, gave his life in opposing Hitler. John Brown, a Protestant, gave his life in the fight against slavery. He is buried in the Town of North Elba not far from where my grandparents lived, and I have visited his farm which contains his grave. Heed the words of Pastor Niemoller:

First they arrested the Communists - but I was not a Communist, so I did nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats - but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then they arrested the trade unionists - and I did nothing because I was not one. And then they came for the Jews and then the Catholics, but I was neither a Jew nor a Catholic and I did nothing. At last they came and arrested me - and there was no one left to do anything about it.

You can continue to point your finger elsewhere or you can draw inspiration from those Protestants who tried to make things better.

The ABC report on Bob Brown and his view of Israel.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-28/lapkin---the-greens27-warped-worldview/2813242

"The official Australian Greens statement on "Israel/Palestine" is instructive as to the party's propensity for anti-Jewish bias. It calls for the expulsion of all Jewish inhabitants living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The de facto result of this policy would be that any newly-created state of Palestine would be an ethnically pure political entity entirely devoid of Jews. By contrast, Israel is a multi-cultural nation whose population includes over 1 million Arab citizens.

The Greens' policies towards Israel reek of rank hypocrisy. And if pejorative double standards imposed on the world's only Jewish state don't constitute a form of ethnic bigotry, then the word antisemitism has lost all practical significance."

I wonder who are the extremsts Paul talks about? Interesting?

david f, is your comment an attempt to silence those that identify from where anti- semetism in Australia is promoted? I thought that was the subject we were discussing.

Be aware I have five Orthodox Jews [15 members] in my family One a Rabbi. Two of the families live in Israel. So how does your accusation apply to me?

In my view we should still be celebrating Australia Day 26 Jan- not International Holocaust Remembrance Day 27 Jan.

It's interesting that China appears to be a soft target for Hebrew politics and lobbying.

It's also interesting to see Hebrew politics (also Communist/ Gay/ and even Chinese politics) playing out subtly through popular media (TV and Movies)- through disproportionate revisionist projective history/ identity/ morality- etc. You start to understand why they banned western movies under the Afghani-Taliban government. Even in the west they've said "TV rots the brain". It's rare these days to watch a TV episode and not see signs of thought manipulation and brain-washing.

Foxy talked about principles- Well Saul Alinsky in book 'Rules for Radicals' says that communists should hold the enemy accountable for their own principles.

In my view one should never let ones actions be dictated by the opposition or enemy- one needs to decide for oneself where to apply what principles- don't try to argue with the enemy it's pointless to try and change them- let your glory shine- and talk to the people- like Jesus did.

http://biblemythhistory.com/are-the-arabs-a-semitic-people/

As far as the Ancient Greek's being anti-semitic (anti-Jewish?)- it probably depends on how you define semitic- pre-Jerusalem's destruction- the Greek's were effectively the guardian's of Europe protecting the "Hot Gates"- The Persian's had a view that was pretty racist against Europeans too. They slaughtered many Greeks.

We'd need to look at the circumstances where Greek's and Jews interacted. I guess you could loosely say that Alexander the Great was Greek and he conducted certain policies against the Jewish culture amongst others. Alexander's campaigns could have been a reaction against Persian aggression- perhaps even Philips death was a Persian plot- maybe mhaze can provide some direction here.

I can understand that Hebrew's have "a bee in their bonnet" but that doesn't mean that everyone should be executed for not taking off their hat.

Paul,

I didn't say that the change in Nazi policy was due to them losing the war, but that it wouldn't have occurred had the war gone better for them. Here's my original paragraph on this - nothing's changed....

"So the genocide was a Nazi atrocity not a Christian one. It should also be noted that extermination of the Jew was not the original Nazi aim. They had previously allowed almost all German Jews to leave and up to 1942 the general Nazi idea was to find the Jews a homeland as far from Europe as possible. Had the war gone better for the Nazis (eg a peace treaty with Britain in 1940) Hitler's aim was to move the Jews to somewhere like Madagascar - a plan not dissimilar to FDR's 'M project'. It was only when the war started going badly for them that they settled on a different 'final solution' to the Jewish problem."

So in my original post, I mentioned the 1942 change in policy which you've now discovered. I wasn't talking about them losing the war, just that the way the war went eliminated the chances for their original plan.

Did you even read the links I sent through which make the exact same point. I even quoted from the Wikipedia article on it in the hope that it would make it clearer for you. I guess its the old case of being able to lead a horse to water but not being able to make it think.

You see paul, when you decide to just ignore certain facts because they don't suit your ideology, you just end up down the garden path.

What's the view like down there?

Talking about principles.

American Educational Psychologist Dr. Haim Ginott wrote
about a letter that teachers would receive from the
Principal each year:

"I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw
what no person should witness: gas chambers built by
learned engineers, children poisoned by educated
physicians, infants killed by trained nurses. Women and
babies shot by high school and college graduates.

So I am suspicious of education.

My request is this: Help your children become human. Your
efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled
psychopaths or educated Eichmanns.

Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important only if they
serve to make our children more human."

This has become the mission statement and educational
philosophy of some Holocaust educational institutions
and it really sums up what a mission statement of teachers
should be.

Canem,

"mhaze can provide some direction here"

There is no evidence that Alexander the Great ever dealt with the Jews. At that time the Jews were an insignificant tribe eking out an existence in along the lower Jordan. Alexander, during his conquest of the Persian empire, travelled the coast roads, conquering the Phoenician cities of the coast. He never, for example, went to Jerusalem which was a small town in those days. Unlike the Samaritans, the Jews had pledged their submission to Macedon and Alexander in turn allowed them to continue to live as they had under the Persians.

Later, in the two centuries of Greek rule following Alexander, the Greek culture came to dominate the region and influenced the Jews as much as any other group. The new testament is written in Greek and many of the Essene beliefs had Greek foundations.

As to the death of Philip II, there are three theories:

* a palace coup led by Olympias, Alexander's mother because Philip was planning on cutting her son out of the succession.

* petty palace squabbling that went too far.

* A Persian plot. The Persians had been defeated by Greeks for the previous 150 yrs and their policy was to keep the Greeks divided so that they couldn't unite and overwhelm Persia. Philip united the Greeks and was indeed planning an invasion of the Persian Empire.

My own view is that it was petty palace jealousies that were stoked by Persian agents

Dear Josephus,

I am a Jew, and I don’t support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. As long as Israel is a Jewish state non-Jews will be second class citizens. I support Israel’s existence as a state for all of its citizens regardless of their religious beliefs.

I don’t think it antisemitic to be against Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I think the religious beliefs of its citizens should be no business of any country.

I don’t think there should be Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish or Muslim states. Every country should be a country for all its citizens whatever they believe or don’t believe in the matter of religion.

Israel does not have civil marriage. People should be free to marry who they like without intervention of clergy.

Israel does not have a state school system. Boys and girls of different backgrounds should have the opportunity to grow up together, learn together, marry who they like and work together.

I would like to see Israel become a democracy, and it cannot become a democracy as long as it is a Jewish state.

Dear David,

«Israel does not have a state school system.»

That would be nice because I do not support state-run schools.
However, 70% of Jewish primary school children in Israel study in the state school system: 51% in secular state-schools and 19% in religious state-schools.

Arab children (23% of all children) also mostly study in state-schools, but these are separate because the language there is Arabic, not Hebrew.

«Israel does not have civil marriage. People should be free to marry who they like without intervention of clergy.»

Why should the state provide marriage services at all?
Of course people should be free to marry, choosing for themselves who marries them (if any) and what all that means (if anything).
There should be no civil marriage, nor registration of marriages, because it is not up to states to define what marriage means.

«I am a Jew, and I don’t support Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. As long as Israel is a Jewish state non-Jews will be second class citizens.»

What IS a "Jewish state" anyway?

Is the state there in order to serve its actual people or in order to serve some abstract ideas of what people should be like?

In my view it is the former, which means that the state should strive to make its population happy, at least comfortable. It is not possible to simultaneously make everyone happy and comfortable, but at least the majority should be. Shouldn't they?

[continued...]

[...continued]

Since the majority of Israelis are Jews and since the core of Judaism is the Sabbath, a "Jewish state" for me means, first and foremost, a place where people have the maximum freedom to observe the Sabbath and enjoy its spirit, where nobody needs to worry about losing their job for refusing to work or open their businesses on Saturdays, where no one can be summoned to court on Saturdays or told by council to move their parked car due to roadworks, where higher standards apply on that day for preventing noise-pollution, etc.

Israel is the best environment for those who keep the Sabbath. While some other Jewish laws and customs are also supported, the Sabbath and the Hebrew calendar are at the center of what makes Israel Jewish.

Let me state it boldly: if you, a Jew, do not observe the Sabbath, then indeed you have no need for a Jewish state.

I agree that non-Jews should not be second-class citizens, but if they want to live in Israel, then they need to accept that the public calendar there is not the Western calendar, not the Muslim calendar, not the Chinese calendar, not the Mayan calendar, but the Hebrew calendar, that the closest to the Western "weekend" is Friday-Saturday while Sunday is a normal working/school day.

Regardless of one's religious beliefs, one cannot expect to work at the office or be served at a department when it is closed because the majority wants it closed, or to mow their lawn noisily when families stroll peacefully in the streets, conversing and greeting each other on their way to/from synagogue.

Similarly India has some characteristics of a "Hindu state" because Indian law recognizes what is so central to Hinduism - the Sannyas (renunciate) stage of life, whereby those who renounced the world are legally considered "civily dead" to which different laws apply.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It's good to hear from you. I would like to see Wednesday as the Sabbath.

David

Dear David,

«I would like to see Wednesday as the Sabbath.»

Great, then you should be able to gather some like-minded people, converge on (buy up) some town or village and form there your own independent state where Wednesdays are the official day of rest and weeks start on Thursdays!

mhaze- Thanks for your analysis- 2300 year old gossip is still juicy.
My knowledge of this period is spotty- and I may be completely off track- but it appears that perhaps the semitic peoples may have been the ones that attacked European's first. It could have happened either way. My understanding is that the semitic peoples loosely correlate with the twelve Old Testament Biblical tribes. I appears that the semitic tribes were part of the Persian empire that attacked Europe.

Maybe the military strategy of Rome- which was an extension of the Greek empire in a sense- was to 'dominate' the Middle East so that the other powers of the region didn't ally against Rome namely Punjab's, Egyptians, etc. Part of the way it appears to achieve this was by taxation- but it struggled to dominate the vast territory that Alexander had 300 years before.

In a sense one could say that for the Hebrew's Christianity was a way to subvert the hated Roman's after 70AD- it'd be difficult to get evidence for this. The Roman's probably would have eventually seen a monotheistic god as more suitable- I suppose- even without Hebrew influence- but perhaps it would have taken a less destructive form.

Perhaps the semitic tribes also displaced Punjabi and Aryan territory after Hatshepsut (1479 – 16 January 1458 BC).

Maybe it's all in my imagination.

It's funny how the majority of antisemites are presently to be found on the left whinge of politics.

The UK Labour were rife with it and to some extent so is Aus Labor and greens.

shadow minister,

To be critical of Israel's policies and actions
does not equate to being antiSemitic. Palestinians
are Semites too.

"I would like to see Israel become a democracy, and it cannot become a democracy as long as it is a Jewish state."

Yes, I think we'd all like to see Israel as a better democracy. And Syria and Egypt and Lebanon and Iran and Saudi etc etc.

But so long as Israel exists as a small state surrounded by foes who, given the slightest chance, would wipe it and its people from existence, compromises from the ideal world have to be made

Anti-Semitism is being anti-Jew. Its just semantics to say that other peoples are also, in some circles, called Semites. There is no ambiguity when someone is called anti-Semitic.

"Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism." Wikipedia

Canem,

After Alexander, the Jewish state grew in wealth and prestige. This was partly because it benefited from the destruction of the Samaritans and the obliteration of Tyre and the Phoenicians. After Alexander's empire broke up into parts, Judah sat between two of the most powerful - Ptolemaic Egypt and the Seleucids. This can often be a bad place to be (eg Poland which has been wiped out four times between Russia and Prussia) but the Jewish leadership was smart and benefited from both sides.

When Rome arrived, its main concern was Egypt which became the bread-basket for Italy. And Judea became the best place to protect Egypt from eastern invaders. Again the leadership were smart and backed the right side - eg Octavian.

But that unravelled when they became radicalised by the Essenes/Maccabees and picked the wrong side following the overthrow of Nero. Vespasian/Titus destroyed Judea for, it turned out, almost 2000yrs and the problem of European Jews was born. (Side note - the Coliseum was paid for from the plunder taken from Judea.)

"The Roman's probably would have eventually seen a monotheistic god as more suitable- I suppose"

They did. They started following Sol as the supreme God and while they never quite got to monotheism prior to Yahweh Sol was elevated above all others. The Christians tried to link Sol with Yahweh/Jesus which is why you see Jesus claiming to be 'the light', why you often see a solar halo around Jesus in depictions and why Christmas is 25/12 which is really the Rome celebration of Sol Invictus

Yuyutsu wrote:

Great, then you should be able to gather some like-minded people, converge on (buy up) some town or village and form there your own independent state where Wednesdays are the official day of rest and weeks start on Thursdays!

Dear Yuyutsu,

I think it more worthwhile, more conducive to peace and more interesting to learn to live with people who think differently. To gather with like-minded people may be a prelude to conflict and hate for people who aren't like-minded. Even if people are like-minded their young may not be of the same mind as their parents.

mhaze wrote:

But so long as Israel exists as a small state surrounded by foes who, given the slightest chance, would wipe it and its people from existence, compromises from the ideal world have to be made.

Dear mhaze,

Of course, compromises have to be made, but if the compromises are too great the original purpose is lost.

Objections to Israeli domestic policies, settlement,
occupation, or treatment of the Palestinians are
political positions, not antisemitic slurs. Objections
to Israeli policies happen all the time in Israel
itself and among Jews everywhere. Just as someone can
oppose the policies of the US, France, China, Saudi Arabia,
or any other nation. Doing so does not make them a bigot.

However -

What is important - we do need to be aware that antisemites
are drawn to Israel debates and that we are vigilant about
rejecting their bigoted language and derogatory remarks
and that we do prevent them from corrupting the critical
conversation about the Jewish state and its conduct.

It is a complex situation.

Dear mhaze,

You quote: "Antisemitism is hostility to, prejudice towards, or discrimination against Jews. A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite. Antisemitism is considered to be a form of racism." Wikipedia

So what is hostility to and prejudice toward Palestinians?

In December 2020 Australia yet again voted against a UN resolution about the middle east situation. We joined Israel, Canada, the US, and a few pacific nations to be part of just 7 countries which voted against a basic resolution calling titled "Peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine".
http://www.undocs.org/en/A/75/L.34

This gang of 7 countries repeatedly votes in this manner with anything to do with Israel.

We use to pride ourselves as a country which stood up for the under dog. No longer.

What people like you do is to try and claim that status for the nuclear armed nation of Israel which spends 10 times the amount on military weaponry than any of its neighbours.

It's victim claim just doesn't fly so why do you continue to insist it?

david f,

"Of course, compromises have to be made...."

Oh good to see that your views have a little nuance. I felt that was lacking in your earlier posts.




SR,

Welcome back from your sabbatical. Enough separation from 1 November I guess.

"So what is hostility to and prejudice toward Palestinians?"

Well since, as I taught you earlier, there is no race called 'Palestinian' there probably isn't a term....although anti-terrorist would seem to fit the bill.

"The violence between Israelis and Palestinians is
often falsely presented as a conflict between two
equal sides with irreconcilable claims to one piece
of land."

" In reality it is a conflict over territory between
a nation-state, Israel, with one of the world's most
powerful and well-funded militaries, and an indigenous
population of Palestinians that has been occupied, displaced,
and exiled for decades."

There's more at the following link:

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/israeli-palestinian-conflict-101/

Dear mhaze,

Sabbatical from what? From you? Hardly.

If you aren't posting in the threads I am for whatever reason that is on you.

So now you have stooped to Singer's level of racism, not recognising one of the Semitic peoples, the Palestinians, as real. Even the Nazis didn't go that far in this regard.

In terms of terror dealt out by either side the Israelis own that score card by a country mile.

Dear David,

«I think it more worthwhile, more conducive to peace and more interesting to learn to live with people who think differently.»

This being your preference, I fully respect it.

I hope you similarly respect the choices of others with different preferences.

«To gather with like-minded people may be a prelude to conflict and hate for people who aren't like-minded.»

Yes it may, or it may not.

I cannot see it necessary or likely for people who prefer to rest on Wednesdays to be in conflict with others who prefer to rest on Tuesdays. Not on these grounds anyway.

«Even if people are like-minded their young may not be of the same mind as their parents.»

Granted, and then these young should be able to create their own environment where they are free to live as they choose.
But you cannot tell in advance, even before they are born, what their preferences are going to be, nor is it justified for the older generations to sacrifice their lifestyle over that hypothesis.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Our preferences are not set in stone. We can learn to live with people who think differently. Although I am not a Christian I think some of the things Jesus did were both wise and practical. He associated with publicans and sinners. He shut nobody out. That's a good example to follow. Limiting my associations to people who agree with me would be boring and stultifying. In participating in online opinion you are interacting with people who disagree with you. Are you the worse for it?

SR,

It's racist to say they're not a race? When everything is racist then nothing is.

Even their fellow Arabs (that's the race so-called Palestinians belong to) have had a gutful of the Palestinians.

http://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-694955

Thanks for your reply mhaze.

Re Israel- Overall I believe in the existence of Israel and it's religious ethnical segregational nature because it's in the Wests (inc European), Jewish, and probably the worlds interest.

Most arguments have multiple sides- segregational vs multicultural- of course there are subtleties to both sides. For example segregational and multicultural doesn't always mean what you think it does- with arguments based on strawman. Perhaps these could be considered relative positions at particular points in time. All cultures have considered this argument at different times. For example "Gyms for Females" are segregational.

Anti-Semitism

1. The word and those that use the word 'anti-semitism' could be considered as 'racist' as it implies a 'dis' against against a particular group (Hebrew's) being somehow worse than a 'dis' against another racial group (for example my bias Anglo-British).

2. Also using the term 'racist' implies that a racial attack is somehow worse than another form of prejudice/ bigotry- such as ideological prejudice- ubiquitous for example within terrifying Communism. Therefore using the word 'racist' and those that use the word 'racist' is/ are bigots.

3. One person's rights don't begin where another's end. This implies potential conflicts of rights where both are valid- it may be impossible to come to a compromise- because the positions are essentially incompatible or otherwise- resolving a stalemate can be achieved by changing the domain. One way to do this is by accusing the other party of some fault- according to some arbitrary moral framework (such as the concept of anti-semitism)- often one that they didn't agree to- eg. an accusation of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. 'Pariah status' denies common rights. Defense of charges is proof of the accusation. Often it appears in the sick 'modern regime' that in a 'diad' the first to make an accusation dominates- this seemingly creates an 'accusation rich' regime- creating a toxic feedback loop.

I believe that the hollowing out of traditional hierarchical structures results in greater relative tyranny.

There are human paradoxes here that can only be resolved with subtlety.

Equality politics creates a different tyranny.

The danger of seeking difference is the trap of novelty- some discernment/ distinction is necessary- some things are more different than others- some novelty is dangerous- identity is also important- principles are important- novelty is infinite- comfort and stability vs fear and unknown.

Some use the accusation of "fear of the unknown" to get their way- of course everyone is afraid of the unknown- it's an accusation that one cannot avoid- and you wouldn't want not to be afraid of the unknown. Everyone has their choice on which unknowns they feed on.

It relies on the instinct of people to dispute an accusation- to create confusion as in an ambush- to devastating effect- and testament to the bad faith dishonesty of the accuser.

It's a measure of wisdom to understand the benefits of both the familiar and exploration.

There are those always in others pockets rather than putting them in their own... (some people here won't understand this comment).

David F said- "We can learn to live with people who think differently."

Answer- I would ask "Can you learn not to live with people who think differently from you?"

That would also be "thinking differently"! If "thinking differently" is the goal we should aspire to.

People only want you to "think differently" if they want something from you.

Foxy,

It is antisemitic to criticise the actions Israel takes in self-defence while completely ignoring the atrocities and aggression by Palestinians that engender Israel's need to defend itself.

Both Hamas and Fatah representing the Palestinians pay youths to murder Jewish civilians and subsidise the families of those killed trying to do so.

shadow minister,

So in your opinion - Israel's policies and actions
against the Palestinians is "self-defence," whereas
those of the Palestinians in trying to protect their
rights you consider as - " murder?"

As stated earlier - the reality is - it's a conflict
over territory between a nation-state, Israel, with
one of the world's most powerful and well-funded
militaries, and an indigenous population of Palestinians
that has been occupied, displaced, and exiled for decades.

Read the following link:

http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/israeli-palestinian-conflict-101/

shadow minister,

There is a growing trend to equate criticism of Israeli
state policies with antisemitism. It appears to be an
intent on silencing critics of Israel than halting
antisemitic threats.

Israel should be subject to the same critiques as other
nations. We don't need the weaponization of the
definition of antisemitism.

We can oppose the policies of the UK, US, France, China,
North Korea, Russia, or Saudi Arabia. We can oppose the
actions of the Israeli government. Doing so does not
make us bigots.

Objections to Israeli domestic policies, settlements,
occupation, or treatment of the Palestinians are political
positions, not antisemitic slurs. And criticizing the
Jewish state is not anti-Jewish. In fact it happens all
the time in Israel itself and among Jews everywhere.

Foxy,

At what point do you call a man randomly stabbing civilians self-defence?

Is driving a vehicle into a crowd self-defence?

Is deliberately firing rockets into civilian areas self-defence?

Firing the same rockets from populated civilian areas using the civilians as a human shield is a war crime. Israel attacking the same areas from which the rockets have been fired is not.

shadow minister,

Repeated military attacks, assaults on Gaza - a highly
populated area, qualifies not as "self-defence" but
as war crimes

Foxy said- "Objections to Israeli domestic policies, settlements,
occupation, or treatment of the Palestinians are political
positions, not antisemitic slurs. And criticizing the
Jewish state is not anti-Jewish. In fact it happens all
the time in Israel itself and among Jews everywhere."

Answer-

Everyone is prejudiced- people shouldn't necessarily aim to be free from prejudice. You would die if you didn't look after your own interest.

Some Jews will see criticism of Israel (or the Jewish diaspora) as anti-semitic (or biased)- that's fine- it may even be true- but if Israel is acting in a way that I believe is against my interest I'm going to stand up for my interest- even if "they" call me racist- even if I am acting racist. You can be acting racist and looking after your valid interest at the same time. It's important to remember that they are probably almost certainly acting racist (or biased) too.

Most people understand that some level of compromise is necessary in negotiations- I believe that in some contexts the Hebrew diaspora needs to make more compromises and concession points.

Foxy appears to make a distinction between criticism Israel Government verses criticism of the Hebrew diaspora- the subtle implication that criticism of the diaspora is out of bounds. All diaspora have cultures some of these cultures conflict with other cultures- it's ok to fight for your own cultures interest in a conflict.

Foxy also implies that internal Hebrew diaspora criticism is different than criticism external to the diaspora

There is the inescapable fact that Israel has
held Palestinians and their land under occupation
for more than 60 years, and that successive
governments continue to facilitate Jewish settlements
and enact laws that reduce the Arabic language and
Palestinian history to 2nd class status.

It's critics rightly argue the Israeli government should
be held accountable for its policies, decisions and
actions.

The well respected Amnesty International has said Israel's actions against the Palestinian people amounts to "apartheid", which is considered a crime against humanity by the international community.

Dear Paul,

Not only Amnesty International but the Human Rights
Watch has stated that Israel's policies towards the
Palestinian people could constitute a form of
genocide.

I tend to root for the underdog. In much of history Jews have been the underdog. In Israel that is no longer true. Underdogs are generally less attractive than the overdogs. They have a sense of grievance which is generally justified. Power corrupts. A sense of power corrupts. Many Israelis have been corrupted. To have a Palestinian state will set up an entity in competition with a stronger neighboring state. It will not bring peace as a Palestinian state will seek allies against their more powerful neighbour. Palestinians are human. Jews are human. Maybe they can recognize their common humanity by eliminating the barriers that separate them. Lack of civil marriage, lack of a common public school system and lack of a goverment neutral toward religion are the barriers.

I know Israeli's who have been removed from their farms by Israel to make way for Arab settlements. Palestine was an area of land settled by Arabs; originally historical Land owned by Israelis before their disperson.

Some Arab Nations that support Hamas want to keep the conflict with Israel hapening till Israel is removed. their chant is, "From the River to the Sea Palestine shall be free." They do not believe Israel has a right to a Nation to exist or a Land. To support the Arabs and Hamas against Israels existance is anti-semetic no matter how they fight and plan their battle.

Some nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabs and not as a nation anti-semetic, as they have accepted the right of Israel to exist.
___________________________________________________________

Palestine refers to an area not a people:
"The Ottoman Empire was enormous with the capital located in Istanbul. The territory stretched across the modern borders of Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel. At the height of the empire, the borders even continued into parts of modern Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and Iraq.

During the time of The Ottoman Empire, the concept of Syria stretched from the border of Turkey all the way to Gaza; this means the older concept of Syria included the territory of modern Israel."

From the document on Hamas General Principals.....

"“Hamas” is a Palestinian Islamic national liberation and resistance movement. Its goal is to liberate Palestine"

"Palestine, which extends from the River Jordan in the east to the Mediterranean in the west and from Ras Al-Naqurah in the north to Umm Al-Rashrash in the south, is an integral territorial unit. "

"Palestine is an Arab Islamic land."

Explain again how they are just "trying to protect their rights".

This might help your understanding. (Its from the BBC so, as explained earlier, it must be true)....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-13331522

Hamas's charter defines historic Palestine - including present-day Israel - as Islamic land and it rules out any permanent peace with the Jewish state."

repeat.....rules out any permanent peace.

Explain again how they are just "trying to protect their rights".

_____________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, well know historian and Nazi expert, Whoopie Goldberg, has advised that the Holocaust had nothing to do with race

Dear David,

«Our preferences are not set in stone.»

Indeed. But this does not imply that they need not be respected.


«We can learn to live with people who think differently.»

Yes, assuming that we don't know how to do it already.

But knowing how to do something cannot invalidate our choice not to use that knowledge at every opportunity.


«Although I am not a Christian I think some of the things Jesus did were both wise and practical. He associated with publicans and sinners. He shut nobody out. That's a good example to follow.»

I'm also not a Christian, yet I agree that Jesus had many good teachings, especially by example, including the above.

Nevertheless, what was appropriate for Jesus is not necessarily appropriate for you and me; and what his disciples needed to learn in their given circumstances is not necessarily what we need.

Certainly, we should not look down on others, but we still would be wise to discriminate who we associate with.

Jesus was right, but also the psalmist. Psalm-1 begins with:
"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night."

So if we want to head in one direction and others want to head in another, then no hard feelings, but we should stick to our own path.


«Limiting my associations to people who agree with me would be boring and stultifying.»

If you have a direction in life, then it's best to associate with supportive others who agree in general.

If boredom be the price, then so be it. There still can be interesting and fruitful discussions about the nuances. Arguing with people who have no goals in common, is a fruitless waste of time.


«In participating in online opinion you are interacting with people who disagree with you. Are you the worse for it?»

Sometimes, when I could make better use of my time.

From memory the Israeli's didn't choose the current ridiculous borders. The conflict has occurred because of the borders. Admittedly the Israeli's are trying to make living in the in-between land (which the new settlements have popped up) by the Palestinians as untenable- in order to consolidate a bad situation in their own favour.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I feel I have benefited from airing our disagreements.

David

In history Jews, Muslims and in some contexts, Catholics, were looked down upon by WASPs and/or European protestants; pre 20thC there were not too many issues in the Middle East between communities e.g. under the Ottomans.

A late uncle (Scottish Catholic mum) joked a decade ago that nowadays Catholics and Jews are honorary WASPs in Australia, but inspired by political purposes and expanding the franchise.

Issue for Jews, Catholics and Muslims had been the 20thC nation socialist states which were secular, but the dominant religion had privileges e.g. Sunni Islam in Turkey (vs. local Alevi). Added to that had been the influence of the anti-semitic hoax 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' which was distributed throughout the Middle East pre/post WWII, apparently from Egypt secret services.

Fast forward, former Israeli PM Netanyahu recommended GOP trained pollsters and electoral consultants, Finkelstein and Birnbaum, to Hungarian PM Orban to cook up the Soros conspiracy for electoral victory.

Not only has it too been spread widely and supports the 'great replacement', it gives voters a bob each way i.e. if Christian, it allows kicking down or dog whistling Jews and/or Muslims.

Foxy,

Accusing Israel of apartheid and or genocide is by definition anti-semitic and childish as today's millennials calling conservatives fascists.

Secondly, it is clear that you have no concept of what constitutes a war crime and could care less about the actual war crimes committed by the Palestinians.

While attacking civilians is a war crime, striking back at armed combatants within civilian areas is not. Similarly, deliberately launching attacks from heavily occupied civilian areas is a war crime.

Finally, stating that all the areas captured in 67 Palestinian lands is mendacious as pre-1948 many Jews lived in these areas and were ethnically cleansed by the Arabs living there with many synagogues torn down.

When Hamas and Fatah stop deliberately targeting civilians then they can legitimately call on the outside world for protection.

shadow minister,

Objections to Israeli domestic policies, settlements,
occupation, or treatment of the Palestinians are
political positions, not anti semitic slurs. Israel
should be subject to the same critiques as other
nations. We do not need the weaponization of the definition
of anti semitism.

Kindly do not corrupt the critical conversation about
the Jewish state and its conduct.

There is the inescapable fact that Israel has held
Palestinians and their land under occupation for more than
60 years and that successive governments continue to
facilitate Jewish settlements and enact laws that reduce the
Arabic language and Palestinian history to 2nd class status.

Its critics rightly argue the Israeli government should be
held accountable for its policies and decisions.

The violence between Israelis and Palestinians is often
presented as a conflict between equal sides with irreconcilable
claims to one piece of land.

In reality it is a conflict over territory between a nation-state,
Israel, with one of the world's most powerful and well-funded
militaries, and an indigenous population of Palestinians that
has been occupied, displaced, and exiled for decades.
The Palestinian death toll far outweighs that of the Israelis.

What about Whoopi Goldberg? I cannot stand the woman, but she seemed to voice the view - held by many people - that Jewishness is a religion and not a race. She said something about white people killing other white people in response to a genuine racist who brought up the old 'white supremacy' slur.

Arabs are also Semitic, but Hitler thought well of Islam, and accepted a leading Imam's advice on how to deal with the 'Jewish question'.

Many of the Negroid race in Africa are jews. If they are discriminated against, is it because of their race or their religion?

Foxy,

Yes "Objections to Israeli domestic policies, settlements, occupation or treatment of the Palestinians are political positions" however, those that focus on these issues while deliberately turning a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Fatah against Israeli citizens and against each other are invariably deeply antisemitic.

The critical conversation about the Jewish state and its conduct is already deeply corrupted. That Hamas still calls for the complete destruction of Israel seems to pass most of these racists by.

That Israel has a powerful army is due to the 3 times that far more populous and well-armed Arab neighbours have tried to wipe out Israel and many of them are technically still at war with Israel.

That the conflicts that cost so many Palestinian lives are invariably started by the Palestinians is because the Israeli's are skilled in defending themselves. It still doesn't seem to stop the Palestinians from starting the next fight that they will lose.

Whoopi Goldberg's remarks are surprising to say
the least. It just goes to show how some Americans
know so little about the Holocaust.

The Holocaust was about the Nazi's systematic annihilation
of the Jewish people - who they deemed to be an inferior
race. They dehumanized them and used this racist propaganda
to justify slaughtering 6 million Jews.

Racism was central to Nazi ideology. Jews were not defined by
religion, but by race. Nazi racist beliefs fueled genocide
and mass murder. Nazis regarded Jews as "parasitic vermin"
worthy only of eradication. They implemented genocide on an
unprecedented scale.

Terrorism is the criminal acts of the oppressed. War crimes are the criminal acts of the oppressors. Usually the body count resulting from war crimes outnumber the body count resulting from terrorism. The corpses making up the body count on both sides are victims. Oppressors at one time may become oppressors at another time and vice versa. To eliminate both criminal acts get rid of the inequities of power. Those in power will rarely give up power. It has happened in South Africa with Mandela and de Clerk so it can happen.

Foxy wrote: "Whoopi Goldberg's remarks are surprising to say the least."

Actually they're not. In terms of the beliefs of people like 'Goldberg' (its her stage name) what she says is perfectly understandable and makes perfect sense.

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has taught these people that racism is something that only whites can do to BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of Colour). BIPOC people can never be racists according to CRT.

Now sometimes Arabs can be considered to be BIPOC. But Jews never can, even though they are both Semitic.

Therefore, according to the tenets of CRT, when white Nazis killed white Jews, it simply couldn't be racist. Neither were BIPOC...therefore no racism. And that's what Goldberg said. Now it might be that the people who generally fall for all the CRT crap, were shocked at the results of their 'logic' and it might be that they are shocked that she said the quiet bit out loud, but that doesn't mean that her think was wrong - at least not wrong in the jaundiced world of new-racism.

In fact, what she said makes perfect sense in that world. She's now trying to take those words back as quickly as she can. Not because they are wrong but because it might cost her her phoney-baloney job.

_____________________________________________________________-

david f wrote: "Terrorism is the criminal acts of the oppressed. "

Actually, terrorism is the criminal acts of those who claim to be oppressed.

There you go....fixed it for you

I think Whoopi summed up the left's point on Jews.

"The increasingly influential “woke” worldview has taken to dividing the world between beneficiaries of white privilege and people of colour. Jews, predictably, are generally viewed as white in this schema. As a result, much of the left now sees Jews as complicit in a discriminatory system that oppresses non-whites."

So essentially the bleeding heart lefties on this site see this as a white vs black struggle and the blacks are always entirely innocent.

The left is a broad tent containing people with many different points of view. The right is a broad tent containing people with many different points of view. Unfortunately, many prejudiced people try to fit them into tiny boxes. If more on each side could open their respective minds they might see that they have many things in common in addition to their differences. Some on each side are able to do that. Others are not. Some are able to see that not every difference can be put in right and left boxes, and even that right and left are not always the most significant difference.

Hi David,

I'm not a fan of the terms Left and Right, blame the French for that one. I think of politics like the Solar System with the Sun in the center, but not a place to dwell permentnenly. Politics varying from the extremely moderate Mercury to the extremely radical politics of Neptune. The vast majority of us are happy with the political environment of Earth, somewhat moderate but far enough out to seek change when its acceptable. Sometimes we are on the left of center, sometimes right, but never too far from the center. It don't take much to shift the majority from the moderate to the extreme, and how often have we seen that.

I ask, a party like One Nation, call it moderately extreme, given power how extreme could it become. The answer is a pineapple, but one can only wonder.

The people who can make changes are not inside david f's tent at all.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict is not about to end
any time soon. However it is never too late to expect
an Israeli government of any political stripe to behave
morally and legally and re-discover the true Jewish
soul. After decades of failed policies why do so many
Jews and their supporters still think that the Jewish
state can only thrive through force alone.

Surely the time has come in which the long occupation and
the myriad of ways in which Israel has persecuted another
people for generations - the time has come for this to stop
and for all Israeli citizens to be granted equal rights?

But I suspect that this is not about to happen any time soon.

Foxy wrote:

< However it is never too late to expect
an Israeli government of any political stripe to behave
morally and legally and re-discover the true Jewish
soul.>

The true Jewish soul is a mythical creature like the Messiah and the unicorn. Put a people in a situation where they are surrounded by enemies. If they don’t succeed in fighting them off they will be destroyed. If they succeed in fighting them they will be transformed by the victory into a people which relies on force. Power corrupts. So does victory.

The transformation of the Jewish state into a state for its entire people is unlikely.

Dear David F.,

We can live and hope that eventually things
will get resolved.

http://haaretz.com/1.4815975

Foxy wrote:"After decades of failed policies why do so many
Jews and their supporters still think that the Jewish
state can only thrive through force alone."

As I pointed out earlier, the Palestinian enemies of Israel, who exist right on her doorstep, remain committed to the destruction of Israel. Far from thinking Israel can only THRIVE through force, the logical conclusion to that is that Israel can only SURVIVE through force.

The Palestinian and Iranian leadership have said more than once, that while Israel might win war after war, they only need to lose once to have every Jew in the Levant killed or removed.

Israel may not be an ideal democracy. It may not be the most liberal nation on earth. It may not marry up to the lofty, though false, standards Foxy et al demand of it. Yet given the strains its enemies put on it, given the constant vigilance its enemies force on it, it is remarkably democratic, remarkably liberal.

We have seen how Foxy et al, when put under far less threat than Israel faces daily, immediately and wilfully and enthusiastically succumb to the most illiberal and undemocratic policies thinkable. That Israel hasn't so succumb is quite amazing.

"The well respected Amnesty International has said Israel's actions against the Palestinian people amounts to "apartheid","

Well respected by those who like to have their prejudices confirmed.

Amnesty made their announcement in Jerusalem, as free a city as is possible in the middle of a war-zone. Yet while choosing to make their claims in Jerusalem, they - Amnesty - tried to suggest they were actually in Beirut - a far less free and less accommodating place.

For the ignorant, and by way of contrast to the way Arabs are treated in Jerusalem...

"Two notable things about Beirut. First, it’s controlled by Hezbollah, a terrorist organization with no respect for human rights. Second, it’s the capital of Lebanon. For decades, where Palestinians are denied citizenship, and, per Wikipedia, “they are also legally barred from owning property or entering a list of desirable occupations. Employment requires a government-issued work permit, and, according to the New York Times, although ‘Lebanon hands out and renews hundreds of thousands of work permits every year to people from Africa, Asia and other Arab countries… until now, only a handful have been given’ to Palestinians.”

But enough of such unwanted facts....Let's get back to beating the Jew.

mhaze,

Do read the link I gave to David F.,
Anthony Leowenstein explains things far better
than I could. Why do you see only Israel as the
victim in this conflict?

Foxy,

The Leowenstein article is behind a paywall. Maybe its worthwhile, but my experience of Leowenstein is that its more likely to highly partisan and full of errors that he hopes the naïve reader will fall for. But who knows.

"Why do you see only Israel as the
victim in this conflict?"

Did you read my previous posts? The leadership of the so-called Palestinians have, as an explicit policy, the destruction of Israel and the removal by death or otherwise of the Jewish inhabitants. Israel has no such policy. The 'war', if that's what you want to call it, continues because Hamas and Fatah leadership want it to continue.

I don't know why you want to advert your gaze from the fact that Israel, under the most intolerable external pressure of any state on the planet (save perhaps Ukraine and Taiwan) still achieves a level of democracy and liberalism unheard of in the rest of the M-East.

The Palestinian leadership (note how I separate the leadership from the people) could have peace tomorrow if they so desired. They don't.

Again I'd point out that when you were put under far less pressure than the average Jew, you reacted in a much more authoritarian manner than does Israel.

Other Arab states and groups have had enough of the Palestinian leadership's shenanigans and are walking away from supporting them. See the article I posted earlier from Kuwait, the data I posted above concerning Lebanon and the states signing up to Trump's Abraham Accords.

mhaze,

I didn't realize that haaretz.com is under a paywall.
I just joined up and no - problems. I like their
articles. All I had to do is choose a password.

Anyhow. I can see that we're going to have to agree to
disagree on this one. The Australian Jewish News published
a letter sometime ago that read:

"I have always believed that whatever Israel does is always
right for the Jews."

This uncritical and anti-intellectual stance completely
contradicts the noble Judaic tradition of rigorous thought
and dissent that I have come to believe in since my days
at uni - thanks to my teachers.

Foxy,

Haaretz, unless you have a paid subscription, allows 5 free articles per month. I've already reached that level. I'll perhaps read the article next month.

" can see that we're going to have to agree to
disagree on this one. "

Do you accept that the written policies of the Palestinian leadership call for the destruction of Israel? If not why you reject their own words.

If yes, then do you concede that Israel has the right to do whatever necessary to avoid that fate?

It is a fact that more than once the Palestinians have been offered a two-state solution that gives them about 90% of the occupied territories, but both times it has been rejected because the Palestinian leaders didn't want to be seen as weak and preferred to see their youngsters throw themselves against the Israeli defences with predictable consequences.

SM, do you consider those who complain about Zionist tanks being driven over Palestinian mother's and babies as anti-Semitic?

mhaze,

The popular media both in the US and here has been sold
the myth that Israel is the victim in this conflict and
is only defending itself against its hostile neighbours.
Look at the history beginning with Ben Gurion. Read his
letters and correspondence. They are very revealing.

I have a question for you. Do you concede that Israel sits
on stolen land, pushing out an indigenous population,
burning down homes, killing civilians, then cries when they
fight back even though they have billions of dollars invested
in defense while the people fighting back have rocks and
essentially bottle rockets.

Israel has been in violation of multiple international laws and
in violation of the Geneva Convention, but nothing happens
because the US blocks anything from happening and supports
Israel.

The West Bank remains undr direct Israeli military and
civilian control.

As I said earlier - we are going to have to agree to disagree
on this one.

shadow minister,

Mahmoud Abbas has consistently and recently accepted
the two-state solution. Rejection of individual peace
plans because of their flaws is not the same as rejecting
the two-state solution.

Israel has also rejected peace plans, yet that does not
mean it has rejected the two state-solution.

A two state solution is worth pursuing.

Foxy,

"The popular media both in the US and here has been sold
the myth that Israel is the victim in this conflict and
is only defending itself against its hostile neighbours."

Well you might call it a myth but the Palestinian leadership specifically and over a long period have said that their aim is to destroy Israel and kill and/or expel all Jews from the Levant. On what basis do you decide to ignore what they actually say. What Ben Gurion said 70 years ago might have some minor relevance to today and certainly has relevance in understanding that past period.

Why do you, however, decide to ignore the specific words and threats from the CURRENT Palestinian leadership? Do you think they lie in their stated aims?

If they are not lying, if indeed they do hope to achieve the aim of destroying Israel, do you think Israel has the right to defend itself? If not, why not?

"Do you concede that Israel sits
on stolen land"

No. Stolen from who? Israel exists in the original Palestinian Mandate. The nation exists within those original boarders. It is no more 'occupied' or 'stolen' than say, Tennessee is stolen as a result of having lost a civil war. A civil war was fought in 1948 and that established the existence of Israel as being the land of the Palestinian Mandate.

"while the people fighting back have rocks and
essentially bottle rockets."

Am I to take it that you're OK with Israel defending itself, but that it should do so with one arm tied behind it back in order to make the fight fairer? I wonder if you'd be in favour of make the fight fair if you lived in the attack zone of Hamas' rockets?

Pauliar,

Those that falsely claim that Israeli tanks are deliberately driving over Palestinian mothers and babies are certainly anti-semitic.

As a green, you have shown your true anti-semitic colours. You should be ashamed.

Foxy,

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/israel-has-done-everything-it-can-for-peace-and-was-rejected-opinion-669687

"It is essential to know that the Palestinians turned down two concrete Israeli offers of peace according to their own demands (in 2000 and 2008), ending the occupation and creating a Palestinian state. That’s to say, the vaunted, holy peace process reached its logical conclusion, but it did not result in peace. Twice.
By rejecting these offers, the Palestinians destroyed the Israeli peace camp. Support for the two-state solution, Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace, has dropped to its lowest level among Israelis, 42%. Zionist Israeli political parties built on the idea of peace with the Palestinians scramble to remake their images but still poll in single digits. That includes Labor, which ruled Israel practically unchallenged for the first three decades of its existence. Whatever government emerges from Israel’s current political mess will not have peace with the Palestinians anywhere near the top of its agenda. The issue will continue to be a club to bash political opponents with, no more.
By turning down Israel’s offers in 2000 and 2008, the Palestinians betrayed their Israeli backers, creating instead a whole new classification: the Oslo-disappointed – a reference to the 1993 and 1995 accords between Israel and the Palestinians that were supposed to have led to a two-state solution but failed.
Yet the chorus continues. Here are some of the options of “all Israel has to do”:
• Pull out of the West Bank
• Create a federation with Palestine and Jordan
• grant full citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank
• Allow unlimited humanitarian aid to enter Gaza
Let’s look at these, one by one:

• Israel pulled out of Gaza unconditionally, removing its 8,500 settlers and its military, in 2005. The hope was that Gaza would be a hub of international trade, progress, and enlightenment. Instead, it became a hub of Hamas terrorism, repression, and rocket attacks. No one in their right mind would expect Israel to just up and pull out of the West Bank after that, leaving its main population centres less than 10 miles from the border."

Cont,

• A federation with Palestine and Jordan would create a state with a huge majority of Arabs and a minority of Jews. The Jews would get a Bantustan formerly known as Israel, and the overriding Arab majority in the joint government would … well, just imagine.

• There are those who believe that we should all just be citizens of some state no longer, or not for long, called Israel, and we’ll just live happily ever after. Among the advocates are Jews who believe that the biblical land of Israel belongs to the Jews, and Arabs who believe that this is the most efficient way to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Guess who’s right.

• Humanitarian aid is already moving into Gaza, and the turf wars over who will control it are afoot. The new US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, says it will weaken Hamas and presumably lead toward peace. He probably knows better. We’ve been here before. Hamas controls Gaza and Hamas will control the aid and the building supplies, siphoning them off for its own “needs”—primarily rebuilding the tunnels and weapons workshops destroyed in 11 days of Israeli airstrikes.

That brings us to the distortions. First, when in the history of the world was the side that was attacked with more than 4,000 rockets pressured to stop its own military operation, acknowledged as accurately hitting Hamas targets and not so many civilians by no less than the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency, the obsolete and hate-mongering UN Palestinian refugee organization, after just 11 days? How long did the US carry out military operations in Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands, with little pressure from the world to stop, and little or no evidence that anyone there actually attacked the US? Israel appears to be in a whole new category of nations with its own very special set of rules. But we knew that.

mhaze,

"Violence is part of the resistance to occupation.
The basic fact is not the violence; the basic fact
is the occupation. Violence is a symptom; the
occupation is the disease - a mortal disease for everybody
concerned, the occupied and the occupiers."
(Uri Avnery).

Have you read Ilan Pappe's book - "The ethnic cleansing of
Palestine," and its relevance to resolving the conflict?

_____________________________________________________________________

shadow minister,

It all depends on whose version of events you read, doesn't it?
Here's another version for you:

http://theguardian.com/world/2017/may/16/the-real-reason-the-israel-palestine-peace-process-always-fails

mhaze said
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9739#329848

"Foxy wrote: "Whoopi Goldberg's remarks are surprising to say the least."

Critical Race Theory (CRT) has taught these people that racism is something that only whites can do to BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and people of Colour). BIPOC people can never be racists according to CRT.

Now sometimes Arabs can be considered to be BIPOC. But Jews never can, even though they are both Semitic.

Therefore, according to the tenets of CRT, when white Nazis killed white Jews, it simply couldn't be racist. Neither were BIPOC...therefore no racism. And that's what Goldberg said."

Answer-
Thanks mhaze for this analysis it makes sense.

On other issues

I think that some play both sides of conflicts- to greater or lesser effectiveness- play both friend and foe- not because their politics is subtle not because they are misunderstood- but because they play to win. Hebrews are extremely politically astute and play the political game very successfully. All generals need to sacrifice the safety of their own troops for the greater good. Hebrews are very dangerous adversaries but if they have their own territory maybe they will learn to live in peace. Maybe it's a mistake to hope that some can change- like "the scorpion and the frog"- in this case the Roman's may have been right to destroy Jerusalem. But for the moment lets see if the Judean's can live in peace if they have their own territory again.

I see the "US's freedom of religion" provisions as undermining it's "government of/for/by the people" provisions. It seems to create the opportunity to subvert the US structure in an age of ubiquitous transport/ mass refugees. Different phenotypes (aka races) and religious groups have their own cultures that are often found incompatible with other cultures- different cultures need their own territory- segregation of nations- let them all rule themselves according to their own traditions- good fences make good neighbours. There are those that use "the need of societies to evolve" to justify destroying tradition and society- subtle.

I suspect that some Hebrew's say they don't support Israel but they still want to "win"

Foxy,

So now Hamas throwing child soldiers at Israel is Israel's fault.

FFS grow up.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-695445

"If you want to know what is really at the heart of the Palestinian conflict with Israel, don’t ask the politicians or the diplomats. Go to the real experts: Palestinian children. Unlike the rest of the world, they’ve been paying close attention to what their leaders and educators have been teaching them – and they’re already signing their lessons in blood.

Children interviewed on PA TV for years have been echoing the messages they have been taught by the PA and Fatah: that Israel has no right to exist, and that their goal – for which they are anxious to sacrifice their lives – is Israel’s destruction."

Foxy,

More lies from the Guardian, an anti-semite left whinge newspaper.

shadow minister,

More lies from The Guardian?

And you're quoting from the Jerusalem Post as gospel?

Get real.

Shonkyminister, again with the name calling.

shonky, when young Israelis protest the killings of Palestinian mother's and babies, the Zionest army take them out and shoot them. Are they anti-Semitic as well? The young protesters for protesting, and the Zionest army for shooting Jews.

Foxy said you were quoting from the Jerusalem rag. I didn't bother reading your cut and paste diatribe, life's too short, but a new low even for you.

I see the left pushing to make everbody believe one view and use guilt and shame to make it happen - so their World view is the only view acceptable.

When the Mayflower ventured to America, the occupants were looking for a place to practise their faith unhindered. When Abraham left Mesopotamia, he was looking for a place to practise his faith. When Moses led the Israelis out of Egypt, they were looking for a place to practise their faith. When Nehimiah was sent from Persia to build the walls of Jerusalem, he was enclosing a place to practise the faith as written in the torah.

The question is to be asked: Does Israel have the right to have a place to be free to practise their religion?

Currently in America, Poland and Australia religious freedoms are under attack by the left who want to abolish religious thought and establish moral corruption as a social norm. You cannot isolate or discriminate against people who hold opposing views that threaten violence against your freedoms and values.

Similar truckies feel removal of their freedoms is happening to them, there is only one view held as acceptable. Israel has a right to restrict who threatens their freedoms and remove those that purpose violence.

Josephus,

"Violence is part of the resistance to occupation.
The basic fact is not the violence; the basic fact is
the occupation. Violence is a symptom; the occupation
is the disease - the mortal disease for everybody concerned,
the occupied and the occupiers."
( Uri Avnery).

Josephus wrote,

“When the Mayflower ventured to America, the occupants were looking for a place to practise their faith unhindered.”

The above is not true. The Puritans were free to practice their faith unhindered in the Netherlands. The Netherlands had freedom of religion. However, the Puritans had to live with people with other religions. Some Puritans turned away from their religion and turned to other faiths or rejected religion entirely. The Puritans wanted to set up a theocracy.

The Puritans came to North America to set up a theocracy where only their religion could be practiced. They hanged Quakers and exiled dissidents.

One of the dissidents who left Massachusetts was Roger Williams, a minister, who set up the Rhode Island colony which was the first unit of government anywhere in the world to have separation of religion and state in its law.

Dear Josephus,

In any democracy which has separation of religion and state one is free to practice one's religious faith. It is only when the religious faith restricts the freedom of others that the faith needs a special enclave.

In a democracy one is free to marry who one chooses to marry.

In Israel there is no civil marriage. Marriage must be approved by clergy.

In the US and Australia a Jew may practice what type of Judaism he or she believes in to the extent he or she wishes.

In Israel until very recently Orthodox Judaism was the only kind of Judaism recognized by the government.

I contribute to IRAC which is The Israel Religious Action Center and works for pluralism and religious freedom in Israel.

Foxy,

The Guardian is well known for being rabidly anti-Israel and makes no pretence of being unbiased and in some cases crossing the line into antisemitism.

https://honestreporting.com/tag/the-guardian/

On top of that, the opinion piece you linked to has several factual errors.

The undeniable fact is that twice in recent history peace treaties have been drawn up that would have given the Palestinians nearly everything they asked for and they walked when the Israelis had accepted them.

Pauliar,

Nearly everything you post is a lie and your recent posts are no exception.

SHONKY, to you the uncomfortable truth is a lie. So be it.

JOSE'

Are you one of those self-righteous PURITANS?

The PURITANS settled the Connecticut River Valley from 1620 onwards, they soon began a symptomatic GENOCIDE of the Native Tribes. In 1637 PURITAN leaders John Mason and John Underhill along with several hundred others raid the PEQUOT village of Mystic, setting it on fire, killing 300 to 400 PEQUOT men, women and children. Mason writing later of the event said; "The Lord was pleased to smite our enemies in the hinder parts, and to give us their land as our inheritance." Over the following months the PURITENS dissolved the PEQUOT Nation, banning the mention of the tribes name. Some surviving PEQUOT were given over to the Narragansetts and Mohegants as slaves, others were sold off into slavery in Bermuda and the West Indies.

The PURITANS committed GENOCIDE against the PEQUOT and other Native Americans.

Pauliar,

You are a liar and a fraud and wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the arse.

Perhaps you could show proof of young Israeli protesters being taken out and shot?

shonky,

You certainly won't read about it in the Jerusalem Rag, or the Murdoch Gutter Press, your favourite source's of "news". Its all over the net, go look.

Foxy,

"Violence is part of the resistance to occupation."

And thus the anti-Israel crowd justify the violence. And in the case of Foxy, not only justify the violence by the Arabs against the Jew but then complain when the Jew reciprocates.

The claim there is an occupation is a-historic rubbish. The Arabs aren't disputing that the territory of Palestinian Mandate remains valid. They just complain about who is running it.

So having fought a civil war and two international wars to try to gain control of the territory of the Mandate, they now hope that they can achieve their victory by other means - primarily via anti-Israel activists in the west.

But its all unravelling for the Arabs in Palestine. They are being abandoned by their fellow Arabs who recognise that the Palestinian cause is both historically invalid and currently unachievable. These states now recognise that constant, unwinnable enmity toward Israel achieves nothing. They also know that their main foe is Iran and their main ally in that fight is Israel.

If the Fatah/Hamas leadership had the welfare of their people as their main concern, they'd take this on board and seek peace. But the leadership does best when there is conflict. (Arafat died a very wealthy man and Abbas is reported also accumulating wealth at the expense of his followers).

The violence will stop when the Fatah/Hamas leadership recognises they can't achieve their aims through violence or when those in Gaza and the West Bank get new leadership

SM,

Paul writes :" the Zionest [more Zion than most?] army take them out and shoot them".

Paul has this a-historic way of viewing the world where he imagines that his fantasies are reality and, while refusing to provide support for his claims, demands that they are true until proven false.

If I were to claim that the moon of the second planet in the Proxima Centauri is made of strawberry yoghurt, its doesn't remain true just because no one can disprove the assertion. But that is, essentially, Paul's shtick.

mhaze,

I would love to agree with your take on the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict but then we
would both be wrong.

Professor Ilan Pappe, middle-East journalist,
author, and expert - Antony Leowenstein and
many others have written about the conflict
and what needs to be done.

I appreciate your opinion. However I prefer to
take notice of people who actually know what they
are talking about - not arm-chair critics like
yourself. No offence.

"However I prefer to
take notice of people who actually know what they
are talking about"

Actually you prefer to take notice of people who tell you what you want to her. That's why you so often end up on the wrong side of the issue. Its how you fell for RussiaGate. Its how you fell for the Kavanaugh fantasies.

Personally, I prefer to gather the data and form my own views rather than meekly adhere to what self-proclaimed 'experts' assert. But to each their own

mhaze,

Once again you are wrong. I've been taught to look
at not only both sides of the coin but around the
edges as well. And whether you like it or not -
the historic facts are there for all to see and
their relevance applies to resolving the conflict.
I don't unfortunately see it happening any time soon.

Dear Josephus,

«When Abraham left Mesopotamia, he was looking for a place to practise his faith.»

Yes, that's what he did... if he existed.

«When Moses led the Israelis out of Egypt, they were looking for a place to practise their faith.»

Modern research indicates that only the tribe of Levi was exiled in Egypt and took part in the exodus while the other Israeli/Hebrew tribes remained at home, in Israel, where [Abraham possibly rolling in his grave] they worshiped the idols of Ba'al and Ashera. While the Levites conquered them by force, the Israelis continued to worship idols, including in the Jerusalem temple, until the time of Josiah's reforms, http://www.britannica.com/event/Deuteronomic-Reform

They may have indeed been looking for a place to practice their faith, but what faith was it?

«When Nehimiah was sent from Persia to build the walls of Jerusalem, he was enclosing a place to practise the faith as written in the torah.»

Nehemiah established a reign of terror akin to the Islamic State over the Israeli community that remained in Israel and never went to exile, demanding all men to disown their non-Jewish wives and children. Some of those who loved their families managed to escape and ran south with their families to join the Samaritan community (which is why the Samaritans were so despised by the Pharisees).

Practicing one's faith is virtuous.
Forcing it on others is a different matter altogether.

«The question is to be asked: Does Israel have the right to have a place to be free to practise their religion?»

Yes of course, everyone does.

But do they practice?

A new Jewish immigrant arrived in Israel on a ship with five new fridges.
New immigrants are entitled to bring in all their household possessions duty-free.
So he was asked by the customs officer:
Q. What are these for?
A. Well, being religious, one is for meat and one is for milk.
Q. And the others?
A. I need another meat/milk set for Passover.
Q. What about the fifth then?
A. Well, what if I sometimes like to eat pork?

mhaze,

If you care about equality, human rights, justice, and
international law - then tell us what your vision for
justice looks like. If you see "a place where Jews can be safe,"
Great! I agree. But Jewish safety should not come at the cost
of Palestinian lives and freedoms.

"Two states for two peoples?" Well, with continued settlement
construction, displacement, and the network of checkpoints dividing
up the land. Israel is making that impossible in the near term so
we need to talk about respecting Palestinian equality, dignity and
human rights.

Israel as a refuge for Jewish people was created on land where people
were already living, through a process which displaced and killed
many of them, and now continues to grab more land and resources
at the expense of the Palestinian population. The reality of life
for Palestinians under Israeli control fits the definition of
"apartheid."

I don't want to continue to argue. That's why I think we should
agree to disagree on this one. We are both entitled to our opinions.
And if you truly believe in equality, human rights, justice and
international law - you should be cheering me on. Or at least
thinking about what's being said. See you on another discussion.

Have a nice day.

Foxy,

Between 1948 and 1967 when the Palestinians had control over East Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza, the atrocities against Jews in Israel were even worse than they are now. Most of the Arabs killed in this period were trying to kill Jews.

Israel has always been willing to trade land for peace, but it is clear that peace is not something the Arabs are capable of. The difference is that now Israel is far more capable of defending itself.

The five main factors about apartheid were:
The whites had their way and say. ...
Interracial marriages were criminalized. ...
Black South Africans could not own property. ...
Education was segregated. ...
People in South Africa were classified into racial groups.

Only a Jew-hater would accuse Israel of apartheid or being like Nazis.

shadow minister,

Criticizing Israel's policies and practices is not
the same as criticizing Judaism. It is not anti-Semitic.
And Israel's policies and practices have not changed
since its inception as the following quotes show:

David Ben-Gurion Israel's first Prime Minister said in 1948:

"We must do everything to insure they ( the Palestinians) never do
return... the old will die and the young will forget."

General Moshe Dayan:

"There is no more Palestine. Finished."

"We have no solution. You (Palestinians) shall continue to live
like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we shall see where
this process leads."

Former Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's approach to Palestinians:

" beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts
so badly, until it's unbearable."

And - "Once we squeeze all we can out of the US it can dry up and
blow away."

The current Prime Minister of Israel - Naftali Bennett:

"Israel will not divide its land. we're already too small."

"I want the world to understand that a Palestinian state means
no Israel state. That's the equation."

Israel sits on stolen land, pushing out an indigenous population,
burning down houses, killing civilians, then cries when they
fight back even though they have billions of dollars invested
in defence. Israel is and has been in violation of multiple
international laws and in violation of the Geneva Convention, but
nothing happens because the US block anything from happening
and supports Israel.

"

You could make the argument that cultural rights take precedence over individual rights- to deny a culture the right to exclusive use of any territory is to deny the existence of the culture (it doesn't necessarily have to be the territory of Israel- but this seems to be the most logical context).

I believe that the Palistine / Israel borders can be altered to accommodate the sacred sites of both cultures and prevent land locking- without the checker board pattern of the current borders- which gives Israel control over the movement of poor Palestinian foot traffic.

Both sides stubbornness have contributed to the tension of the situation- each expecting the other to flinch.

I agree that Israel may be too small for all of the Hebrew diaspora of the world- which includes all of the millions of Hebrews living in the US.

Hebrew's argue that the Palestinian culture isn't as enterprising as Hebrew culture (different cultures are going to vary in their enterprise variable- they have different values) and so they may be onto something when they imply that they cannot come to a compromise with them- because permanent warfare suits their purpose because they get aid (amongst other things) as a substitute.

Sometimes two apparent opponents can collude in a conflict in order to attack a third party.

Some times a third party creates a conflict in order to achieve some other objective.

I suspect that more is going on than meets the eye.

But one thing I suspect- it's always about power- but that doesn't mean power is bad- or that it isn't the best of bad choices.

One layer of the onion affects the other layers

Dear Foxy,

«And Israel's policies and practices have not changed since its inception as the following quotes show:»

Israel was never monolithic in views, there were many others, so I wonder why you only listed the most ugly quotes from the worst scum of Israeli leaders?

Many Israeli leaders wanted to treat the so-called-Palestinians well and give them back their land, some even tried but the so-called-Palestinians stabbed them in the back and decimated the Israeli peace movement.

«but nothing happens because the US block anything from happening and supports Israel.»

Forget about that silly US: nothing happens solely because Israel is strong and does not need to ask for anybody's permission to do what it wants. I wish the same could be said about Australia.

---

Dear Canem Malum,

«I believe that the Palistine / Israel borders can be altered to accommodate the sacred sites of both cultures»

It is not as simple because there are many more than just two cultures there. Israel's society is roughly divided into four main sections with little in common that already find living together difficult: secular, religious-nationalists, Haredi-Orthodox and Arab-Muslim. Palestinian society is also deeply divided between secular and Muslim.

The only valid border is the pre-1967 line with absolutely no alterations.

«I agree that Israel may be too small for all of the Hebrew diaspora of the world- which includes all of the millions of Hebrews living in the US.»

Why do you call them "Hebrews"? Most of them cannot speak Hebrew, a portion of them can read the Hebrew prayers, but only mechanically without understanding their meaning.

Israelis developed a unique new Hebrew culture. Most of the Jewish diaspora who were not born there would therefore never really fit or feel at home in Israel, regardless of its size.

Foxy,

The land was stolen from the Jews originally. If you are going to use the right of first possession then all the land is Jewish.

If you are looking at more recently then you need to protest the 50% of Poland that Russia took and expelled the Poles and the 50% of Finland that Russia took and expelled the Finns. Not to forget Tibet etc.

Yuyutsu said- "Why do you call them "Hebrews"?"

Answer- Apparently Jewish people prefer to be called Hebrew. It's my small attempt to keep the discussion respectful- without devolving into subservience. But I'm not Hebrew so what would I know.

Dear Canem Malum,

Technically, Hebrews are the descendants of Abraham the Hebrew (meaning, who has "crossed over") and also include most Arabs and many others, descendants of Abraham's son Ishmael and grandson Esau.

In the Bible however, this term was mainly used as a derogative by Egyptians and Philistines, or to refer to slaves who were descendants of Abraham.

In modern times, certain anti-religious Zionists described themselves as "Hebrew" in order to stress their ethnic origins and connection to the land of Israel while rejecting any connection with the Jewish religion, which they despised as being a feature of diaspora/exile.

The most technically-accurate word to describe Jews used to be "Israeli", meaning a descendant of Jacob (whose name was later changed to "Israel"), the grandson of Abraham. However, that term is now ambiguous because it also describes the citizens of the modern state of Israel, many of whom are not descendants of Jacob.

While most Jews today would habitually describe themselves as "Jews", the word "Jew" only became popular at the time of the Maccabees and was hardly mentioned in the Bible. It technically refers to a member of the tribe of Judah (one of the 12 sons of Jacob).

The ancient United Kingdom of Israel broke into two: "Judea" and "Israel", but since the kingdom of Judea lasted longer while most people of "Israel" were exiled and lost, most (but certainly not all) of Jacob's remaining descendants today are of the tribe of Judah, thus the popularity and common acceptance of this inaccurate term "Jew".

I think that this thread has shown clearly that Anti-Semitism is entrenched in Aus in the left whinge of politics.

Yuyutsu, Well stated!

I would like to hear by video the actual context and quotes Foxy makes of Israeli Prime ministers rather than reports from journalists putting their spin on the Hebrew words spoken by the Prime Minisers.

SM, this thread shows that Nazism didn't die with Hitler in 1945.

Jose' you didn't respond to the fact that those good Christian PURITANS were shown to be genocidal maniacs. If you look at the modern Christians, wherever they went they had a Bible in one hand, and a gun in the other. Preached love and kindness to the native one minute, then shot him dead the next, and then stole his land.

Paulnazi,

Apparently not. It goes well with anti-semitism.

shadow minster,

You do realize that all these accusations of "anti-
semitism," actually do more harm. They turn people
who may have been sympathetic off. And it is wearing
thin to keep harping on and on about anti-semitism
while at the same time being anti-semitic in the treatment
of Paleastinians who are also semites.

I have been taking virtual tours of Jerusalem
recently. What a fascinating and beautiful place.
Tel Aviv is also great.

I would love to visit and discover it for myself.
Fat chance with the current conditions.
What a shame. Why does everything have to be so
one-sided and going only one-way in this conflict?

At this rate it won't be solved in our lifetime.

Foxy,

So mentioning that Hamas brutally murders members of the LGBT community, non-Muslims and pays people to kill Israeli citizens is racist?

Or is it your view that all this brutality is justified? if so enlighten me.

shadow minister,

Brutality of any kind is never ever justified.
Neither is racism. Self-examination is key.
Atrocities have no excuse and feeble attempts
to shift the blame are also sad and rather lame.
Denial has to stop and cease if the goal is to
achieve peace.

How's that for enlightenment?

Dear Foxy,

The term, antismemitism, was invented in 1879 as a scientific sounding term for Jew hatred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism

The root word Semite gives the false impression that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic people, e.g., including Arabs, Assyrians and Arameans. The compound word Antisemitismus ('antisemitism') was first used in print in Germany in 1879[6] as a scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ('Jew-hatred'),[7][8][9][10][11][12] and this has been its common use since then.[13][7][14]

Dear David F.,

Thank you for the explanation.

What I find problematic is the mis-use of the term -
anti-Semitism. That any criticisms of Israel's
policies and programs is labelled as anti-Semitism.

Criticizing Israel's policies and practices is not the
same as criticizing Judaism. It does not equate to Jew
hatred.

"Semitic" was commonly used specifically for anything Jewish -
see this Hebrew typewriter labeled "SEMITIC" (enlarge to see clearly or turn to 3rd photo):
http://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/hebrew-typewriter-536-c-1cc4b7e848

Dear Foxy,

If one criticizes Israel's policies for the same reasons one would criticize any nation's policies it is legitimate criticism and not antisemitism.

If one criticizes Israel's policies for another reason the other reason is usually antisemitism.

My cousin was head of the Orthodox Union and stated his 'unconditional support' for Israel. When I told him that 'unconditional support' means precisely that and you will support the state no matter how wrong its actions are he accused me of mouthing an antisemitic trope. He remains my cousin, and I remain critical of unconditional support.

Dear David,

«My cousin was head of the Orthodox Union and stated his 'unconditional support' for Israel.»

Unconditional support is not the same as unconditional agreement.

One can well support the ones they love by stopping them from doing stupid things that harm themselves - and what could be more harmful to Israel than its 1967 occupation?

Dear David F.,

I find it difficult to understand anyone being anti
any people. You might not like a certain person
on an individual basis -
for a variety of personal reasons but to be against
an entire group of people - people that you don't even
know - you'd have to have something seriously
wrong with you

cont'd ...

Dear David F.,

There are different opinions within families.
So I understand about your cousin and his views.
I have family members with whom I also don't
see eye-to-eye. But they are family - and we
tolerate each other. I try not to broach certain
subjects with them knowing how they view things.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Unconditional support is not the same as unconditional agreement. It is worse. It means one supports even though one does not agree.

Dear David,

«It is worse. It means one supports even though one does not agree.»

Yes, that was the story of Bhishma in the Mahabharata, who was the grand-grandfather of the whole clan of Kurus.

In his youth, when his mother was gone, his father King Shantanu wanted to marry a new wife, he was desperately in love with Satyavati, but her father refused to marry her off saying that Bhishma and his progeny would take over her sons as kings. For love of his father, Bhishma then took two terrible oaths that:
1) he will always remain celibate.
2) he will always unconditionally remain and support whoever sat on his father's throne.

So his father remarried and two generations later there came to rule King Dhritarashtra who was blind in more than one way, not only physically but also blind to the evils of his sons. The feud between Dhritarashtra's evil children and his nephews, the good sons of his brother, the late king Pandu, deteriorated and became more and more foul until the big war between them was inevitable - and 186 years old Bhishma who could stop it but due to his vows only watched in agony as the events unfolded, who was also the best warrior at the time, was forced to fight on the side of evil. In his heart, even while fighting against them, he always supported the good sons of Pandu and he was so relieved once he was gravely wounded in that war so he could no longer fight.

... but in the context of this thread, that would be the case if Israel was inherently and irredeemably evil, rather than just fallen due to a poor mistake. I believe that Israel can be redeemed, if only supported through tough love to let go of the poisoned fruits of its 1967 war.

Foxy,

Criticising Israel is not in itself antisemitism. What is antisemitism is falsely accusing Israel of "war crimes" or apartheid, comparing them to Nazis or generally holding Israel to standards that are not applied to the Palestinians.

Notably, the entire Hamas organisation has now been classified as a terrorist organisation.

shadow minister,

Criticising Israel's policies and practices is not
anti-semitism. We've already covered all of this
and citing terms like "war crimes" and "apartheid"
where applicable, is done according to international laws
that Israel continues to break.

As for Hamas? Hamas is the largest of several Palestinian
militant Islamist groups that rules Gaze. The humanitarian
situation for millions of Palestinians in Gaze has
deteriorated. The strips economy has collapsed and there
are shortages of water, electricity and medicine.

Will listing Hamas as a terrorist organization do anything
to advance the cause of peace?

Foxy,

The problem is that you and other left whingers say the right things and then do the opposite.

"Criticising Israel's policies and practices is not
anti-semitism.... citing terms like "war crimes" and "apartheid"
where applicable"

It would appear that you have no idea was is and isn't a war crime or even what apartheid was let alone where they are applicable.

For example, all Israeli citizens, Jewish, Muslim, black, brown white have freedom of movement in Israel, the right to vote and the right to stand for parliament. None of this was possible for non-whites under apartheid. Calling Israel apartheid is as flawed and frivolous as fwit demonstrators calling conservatives Nazis.

Similarly, anyone with a passing understanding of the Geneva convention would realise that Israel's retaliation against rocket fire was entirely justified according to the GC and not a war crime. Whereas much of what Hamas was doing was clearly war crimes.

So do yourself a favour and read the terms of the GC and what Apartheid actually was before making yourself look either like an ignoramus or a racist.

shadow minister,

Clearly ONE of us has made a mistake and wasted the
OTHER'S valuable time.

This is an A and B conversation
C your way out.

shadow minister,

All you have to do is look up Wikipedia's link on
'Israel and the Apartheid Analogy," and then
the Human Rights Watches take on "Israeli
Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,"
Oh and there's also Amnesty International, and the list
goes on.

But according to your perspective - they're all "ignoramuses,"
well - as always - we all know who the mental midget is.

Kindly don't respect my wishes and don't address any more
posts to me. I don't want to inter-act with you any more.

I meant to say - kindly respect my wishes and
DON'T address any more posts to me.

Foxy,

You have clearly demonstrated who is the mental midget.

In spite of the huge differences between Israel and South Africa (which clearly you are incapable of addressing), it is convenient for antisemites to label Israel apartheid.

By this loose and woolly definition, every single Arab nation is apartheid so is the government of Gaza and the Palestinian territories and China and Russia. Yet the whining from the left is directed at one race only.

Immediately after the 1948 war Jews were expelled from the territories occupied by the Arabs and the separation is mutually enforced.

The article in Wikipedia to which you directed me doesn't actually reach any conclusion.

Next time, try and bring your A-game.

For some on the extreme right it's fashionable to claim; "I'm no NAZI I love Jews" whilst at the same time praising the likes of the Christchurch terrorists Brenton Tarrant for his actions.

shadow minister,

I will not do this song and dance with you.

Kindly refrain from further contact with me.

Foxy,

I am not contacting you. I am responding to the baloney you uncritically regurgitate on this forum and the misguided racism it infers.

If it makes you happy I will not address you but won't stop reacting to the substance of your posts.

shadow minister,

I'm just going to let my middle finer do the talking.

Pity you can't type properly.

If you could you would appear semi-literate.

People worship movie-stars, pop-singers,
semi-literate athletes, football players,
TV personalities, and many others who may
not be literate.
Why? Because they're talented!

Hi Foxy,

Some from the extreme right see themselves as the "intellegent", the Hermann Goring types of the party. Can you please add Brenton Terrant to that list.

Some extremists will even travel thousands of km's to be near their hero.

Pauliar,

Some from the extreme left say that they love children. What do they mean by that?

I don't know shonky, you tell me.

Pauliar,

Surely you're not that stupid.

P.S. Your mate and neighbour Brendon Tarrant originally wanted you as a character witness but then realised it would harm his case. He's keeping a spot for you.

Paul1405 would call the US terrorist for attacking WWII Japan. Sometimes force is justified- the police just or unjustly use it ubiquitously. Would standing up to the Chinese immigrants in Tibet by the Tibetans be considered by Paul1405 as terrorist. I'm not saying that what Brenton Tarrant did was right or wrong based on his version of morality but at least we should try to understand his morality before judging it. It seems fairly clear that Tarrant's morality is in conflict with the establishment that control the enforcement apparatus the immigration policy, etc. It leads to the question of under what conditions laws should be constructed.

In this line of thought- there has been a recent perception of "encroachment of absolutes" such as anti-racist policy that seems even to trump the will of the people. Absolutes tend not to have the subtlety required by human situations.

It's a bit of a cop out to say that someone has done something because they are mad and leave it at that.

I think Paul1405 has missed a step- solving the problem before understanding it- but maybe I've done the same thing

I am saying what Brenton Tarrant did was definitely
wrong. He murdered 51 people and injured up to 40
in Christchurch. It was the worst mass murder attack
that New Zealand has ever seen. The man has been
given life in prison with no chance of parole.

His actions were inhuman. He showed no remorse. An
entirely self-absorbed psychopath. He failed to
achieve what he wanted - to divide New Zealand people.
He failed. Instead he united people. He's the loser.
The arms of New Zealand surrounded the victims and their
families. The arms became linked. Karna did the rest.

Hear, hear Foxy.

"Paul1405 would call the US terrorists for attacking Japan". The unclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were acts of terror. Most other hostile acts were acts of war by both sides. Although atrocities were committed by all sides in the name of war. None of which I condone.

SM, you have a fellow traveler in CM. He attempts to mittigate and minimize, and then in some perverted way justify the terrorist acts of Brenton Tarrant with Nazi style nonsense.

"I'm (CM) not saying that what Brenton Tarrant did was right or wrong"

By all reasonable judgement what Tarrant did was WRONG, despite a Nazi looking for justification.

ps. Its you CM who advocates the unprovoked nuclear destruction of millions of innocent Chinese.

shonky, you said yourself you made some kind of pilgrimage to Christchurch recently in the name of work.

Paul1405's acts on OLO are possibly terrorist in nature- but it's not my decision to make- I can just try and analyse his motives.

Notice that Paul1405 didn't comment on the Tibet invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Tibet_by_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Is Foxy implying that Brenton Tarrant tried to provoke a race war in New Zealand? Is she implying that a race war- or at least a change in racial dominance- is not already occurring? We should analyse these implications.

Cultural issues are in crisis worldwide. Universities and Mass Media are seemingly out of touch with large groups within nations. We need new moral assumptions.

Over thousands of years the nature of reality and morality has been redefined in some senses- we need to question some of the moral principles that have been recently adopted as absolute.

Many ideologies are quite happy to see other ideologies killed off along with the people if necessary- I plan to see my culture survive.

To help Tibetan culture survive- I can offer some assistance too- my culture is my priority.

I guess Paul1405 is happy to see unprovoked Chinese attacks on Tibetan's without the nations objection. It's naive to believe getting rid of the CCP heads won't be immediately replaced. The Chinese national infrastructure needs to be disabled.

Ayn Rand says "if the guilty don't pay the innocent must".

Geopolitics is a dirty business but there are a few ideas that are more likely to lead to stability and the survival of cultures.

I'm willing to look at the way that Tarrant thinks whether uncomfortable or not to discover if there is some small seed of possibility that points to a better future than that offered by the Mass Media the Universities awful Legal Systems and other self servers. Tarrant's interests parallel Mass Media/ University/ Legal Institutions- the institutions apparent failure to address the needs of many large groups within the nation- maybe it's time to at least listen to the so called "extremists".

I don't have all the answers- but some think they do- these are the people that try to force their ideas on you.

Who knows Tarrant may have been a false flag operation by the communists to promote Dostoevsky style "tabula rasa".

Anyway as journalists will say the 5W's- What, why, where, who, how- but some get too hung up on the who. As if "a name" encapsulates anything- a magical spell to invoke.

I suspect that Trotsky wasn't above a bit of murder. People and animals have been murdering and killing each other since time began. The only difference between killing and murder is state sanction- as we can see from Corona mandates- the law can be somewhat arbitrary. Is a doctor that fails to act guilty of murder?

Philosophers have been arguing over ethics for thousands of years and will hopefully continue to argue for many more thousands- the alternative is some ideology clamps down on free thought.

Different societies may come to different conclusions on ethics that work for their society.

Free action is different than free thought.

Law isn't the same as morality.

Laws should probably reflect the views of the cultural ideological group (a people).

If you have a choice between a small number of people dying and a large number of people dying should you choose the smaller number of people?- this isn't always a theoretical problem.

If you have a choice of some people dying and a whole culture dying should you favour the culture

CM, what a load of GIBBERISH.

Dear Paul,

It is best not to give CM a platform.

He comes from the same dark place as Brenton Tarrant
that spawned the likes of Anders Breivik in Norway.
Darren Osborne (who drove a truck into Muslim
worshippers in London in 1917) and Dylan Roof (who
attacked black parishoners in a south carolina
church in 2015).

These people are animated by a hatred of tolerance,
a hatred of equality and multicultural values.
They believe violence against unarmed civilians is
justified.

Walk away.

I understand that Paul1405's eye sight isn't what it normally is- so I'll leave him be.

I'm not sure that Foxy's comments are helpful- but she probably thinks the same of me- if Foxy could show the same level of insight into her enemies then perhaps there will be less war.

Anyway it's sort of pointless to call a black dog black...

Paul,

Once again you are a LIAR and a fraud. At no point have I tried to minimise what Tarrant did, in fact, you are the one doing it.

Also, you are the one trying to pretend that the two senior green paedophiles never existed.

Or a bad dog bad!