Skip to main content

View Diary: BIG NEWS: For First Time, Britain & France May Recall Ambassadors to Israel | U.S. Red Line Crossed (393 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  always fun to throw in an Israel=Nazi Germany (8+ / 0-)

    reference just for a good time, isn't it?

    Cleverly hidden in the middle of the article--'you know the one'.

    Why don't you just say it?  Hiding from admins?

    You're unable to make your point without that (bannable) rhetorical flourish?  

    •  I believe the reference is to the Weimar Republic (18+ / 0-)

      You probably know that.

      Not even slightly bannable.



      Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

      by chuckvw on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:47:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  quit shit stirring. (0+ / 0-)

      "Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth" Samuel Johnson

      by Brecht on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:08:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It threw me too, to be honest (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bevenro, MichaelNY

        I almost rec'd the comment, I was reading along, and then I got to that and just recoiled.

        "Counsel woven into the fabric of real life is wisdom" - Walter Benjamin

        by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:10:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  me? who threw in the 'Just like 1930s!!!' (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY

        reference?

        You guys are sometimes so blind to your own rhetoric you have no idea there are other people in the room.  Quit your own shit stirring.

        •  And this helps how? n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Brecht, FistJab

          "Counsel woven into the fabric of real life is wisdom" - Walter Benjamin

          by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:10:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it doesn't. It infuriates me to no end that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            mahakali overdrive, MichaelNY

            people can slyly throw this  nonsense in and have their cheering section jump all over it.  I will stop posting in this thread--but I"m not going to apologize.  

            What REALLY pisses me off--is that the poster saw fit to bury that line mid-paragraph in order to bait.  It's unacceptable and poisons the already vicious environment of these threads.

            •  I wouldn't put the poster you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MichaelNY

              responded to in the category of a "cheering section." But I won't blame you for being annoyed by that comment either. Like I said, it stopped me completely.

              "Counsel woven into the fabric of real life is wisdom" - Walter Benjamin

              by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:16:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  oh, to Brecht? I have no beef with Brecht-- (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mahakali overdrive, MichaelNY

                I just was annoyed and responded to his comment using the same words he used towards me.

                It's the original comment that gets me.

                •  It bothers me too, comparing Jews with (9+ / 0-)

                  Nazis is a hallmark of antisemitism, but even more so, it's a kind of cheap shot. If they think of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany when they think of Jewish people, it's because of the horrific experiences we went through that are not even out of the memories of many who are still alive. For those of us who have family members who were in the Holocaust, to hear that there is an automatic association between "Jewish people" and "Nazis" is an inversion, and a very, very hurtful one. This is not history for me. It's still alive because I have living family members who were interred by Nazis. Can those reading imagine how I feel when reading through this, and then I read a comparison between the only Jewish state in the world and Nazi Germany?

                  It is offensive.

                  And I am Middle Eastern Jewish, so Israel is not my "homeland" (at least not in my mind). It's not thus political. I am pro-peace and generally interested in Middle Eastern politics all around. But I wish people could be a bit more sensitive to this because it is much like saying that African-Americans who are misbehaving in some way are "lynching" white people... it has that same sort of truly bad and hurtful cultural resonance to it.

                  "Counsel woven into the fabric of real life is wisdom" - Walter Benjamin

                  by mahakali overdrive on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:27:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sincere attempt to engage, (3+ / 0-)

                    respectfully take issue with a couple of points and promote constructive dialogue:

                    I find language surrounding I/P issues troublesome.  I think some people use imprecise terms without thought and that some use them very deliberately.  Why am I addressing this to you?  Because you provide an example and because you seem to be a reasoned and cool headed member of this community.  
                    You are (very rightly, IMO) taking issue with anybody equating Jews with Nazis.  Nevermind if the OP was really talking about Weimar Germany or not.  Even if the OP was hoping to invoke images of Nazi Germany, he would not be equating "Jews" with "Nazis", unless of course he was very mistaken in making comparisons or a real a-hole.  

                    He (or rather someone who really was talking about the Third Reich) might, however,  be trying to make a comparison between "The Likud Party" and the "The Nazi Party" or even "Zionism" and "Nazism"   I'm not saying that those comparisons are valid, but when people respond to comparisons  that are not being made, two things seems to happen: charges of, and denials of Antisemitism and a lack of engaging with opposing viewpoints, which stymies progress.  

                    I think the poster is trying to compare "Israeli Jewish voters of the 21st century" And "German Germanic voters of the early 1930's".  This is statement that one could argue with.  It may be wrong, but is at least valid in that compares similar items.  Is this offensive and if so, why?  Again, I am not trying to shit stir, but when reframed that way, is it palatable enough to agree or disagree with the comparison of two ethnic populations with political dominance destroying their own democratic state because of fear and racism?

                    There are people who feel that there are actions taken by the Israeli gov't are akin to some taken by South Africa under Apartheid or Germany under the Third Reich.  What can be done to promote discussion that acknowledges that reality without either side being dismissed as an Anti-Semite or an Israeli (or even Jewish) Exceptionalist*?

                    Finally, I am with you 100% that any references to African Americans lynching people today are unwarranted, offensive and wrong.  However, if the time came when mobs of African American murdered members of another ethnic group in order to: enforce their dominant position in society, sow terror in a target group, and gratify a bloodthirsty racism that bonded them together, I WOULD call that lynching.

                    *I have to get going, which means I don't know if that is the most precise term available, but it's the best I have given the time.  (It also means I will be delayed in any response to my "sincere attempt to engage", which I apologize for)

                    "Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars" --Casey Kasem

                    by netop on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:37:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thanks for the dialogue (0+ / 0-)

                      If a group tells you that something offends them, some type of metaphor or language, then one must find another term that is not similarly offensive.

                      I am an academic. I work with language. In the same exact vein that George Lakoff would suggest, all language creates meaning through indirect or direct metaphor (in a nutshell). So language is metaphoric, by nature. If language is metaphoric by nature, but someone is not responsive to understanding what connotations -- or associations -- are bound to arise if they say a certain word, the onus is on them to take note of any further objections to it.

                      Also, because language reflects cognition, and it reflects metaphoric and associative cognition, it stands to reason that in the vast majority of cases if someone is talking about Jewish issues, and then they refer to "Europe in the 1930's" being like these, this is a case of association between the most immediate group at hand. This is how language works. Unless the person writing has a stronger association between "Jews and Weimar," it is more likely that their cognitive association is between "Jews and Nazis." This is how the mind pairs language: through sets, often binary sets. Through these sets, we understand much of human cognition.

                      But even setting aside the immediate neurocognitive association of the poster, if the poster HAS previously engaged in I-P diaries, and yes, this person has, then they will be familiar with the association between "Jews and Nazis" as a contested one which is socially offensive. It would never be relevant to use this comparison unless Jews became Nazis. Whether some Israeli Jewish Governmental leaders are participating in apartheid or colonialism, this is not more similar to Nazi Germany than any other wide set of more obvious associations with the notions of apartheid or colony. My immediate associations will vary slightly from others, but they are socially and culturally situated. I can say that, for me, my first associations are "South Africa" and "Native Americans," respectively, but that is from being an American who came of age during the late Apartheid era.

                      Once a group of people explicitly state that a certain association is profoundly hurtful, insulting, or offensive, ethical people have a responsibility to try to avoid harming people with needless language use which is easily avoidable. Because language is implicitly metaphoric, overt metaphor is particularly extraneous and thus especially easy to avoid.

                      So instead of being vague -- which keeps open the possibility for those who would find this statement offensive to find it offensive -- the poster (and all posters) should attempt to be specific using concrete language to avoid negative associations. In this case, had the poster said "Israel is sure acting like the Weimar Republic these days," that statement would not have the same insulting tenor. Still, that is a bit of a Hegelian nightmare with a comparison of oppressor-oppressed. To avoid that entirely, why not just say "Israel is enacting an apartheid regime which is functioning as a colony, and this has historically proven as bad." Hey, one could probably even say "Israel is treating Palestine with all the respect that France has treated Bora Bora," and it would be an earnest expression of concern rather than a very loaded statement.

                      Don't compare Israel to Nazis or Germans. That's too loaded and is a very inflammatory thing to say.

                      I hope this makes sense. Sorry to bring up neurocognition, but to discuss metaphor and association, it's hard not to.

                      Click the <3 to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                      by mahakali overdrive on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:19:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Weimar Republic, circa 1930-33 (6+ / 0-)

      Wikipedia:

      The finance expert Heinrich Brüning was appointed as successor of Chancellor Müller by Reichspräsident Paul von Hindenburg on 29 March 1930, after months of political lobbying by General Kurt von Schleicher on behalf of the military. The new government was expected to lead a political shift towards conservatism, based on the emergency powers granted to the Reichspräsident by the constitution, since it had no majority support in the Reichstag.
      The Reichstag general elections on 14 September resulted in an enormous political shift: 18.3% of the vote went to the Nazis, five times the percentage compared to 1928. It was no longer possible to form a pro-republican majority in the Reichstag, not even a Grand Coalition of all major parties except the KPD, NSDAP and DNVP.
      From 1930–1932, Brüning tried to reform the devastated state without a majority in Parliament, governing with the help of the President's emergency decrees. During that time, the Great Depression reached its low point. In line with conservative economic theory that less government spending would spur economic growth, Brüning drastically cut state expenditures, including in the social sector.
      On 30 May 1932, Brüning resigned after no longer having Hindenburg's support...Hindenburg then appointed Franz von Papen as new Reichskanzler...

      Because most parties opposed the new government, von Papen had the Reichstag dissolved and called for new elections. The general elections on 31 July 1932 yielded major gains for the KPD and the NSDAP (the Nazis), who won 37.2% of the vote, supplanting the Social Democrats as the largest party in the Reichstag.

      Hitler refused ministry under Papen, and demanded the chancellorship for himself, but was rejected by Hindenburg on 13 August 1932. There was still no majority in the Reichstag for any government; as a result, the Reichstag was dissolved and elections took place once more in the hope that a stable majority would result.
      Franz von Papen stepped down and was succeeded by General Kurt von Schleicher as Reichskanzler on 3 December... Schleicher's bold and unsuccessful plan was to build a majority in the Reichstag by uniting the trade unionist left wings in the various parties, including that of the Nazis led by Gregor Strasser. This did not prove successful either.
      The parallels are obvious: a fragmented, polarized electorate, absence of a political consensus and consequent inability to form a stable governing majority in parliament, the decay of democratic institutions, economic crisis, and a consistent drift to the far right, towards ultra-nationalism.

      Do you deny that those things are happening in Israeli politics? Is it not a fact that a man who called for the execution of Arab MKs as traitors sits in the Cabinet as secretary of state and deputy PM, and head of the third-largest party in the Knesset?

      Where do you think Israeli politics is going? When Bibi's government ends, who follows after him? Do you think his successors will be more moderate, or more extreme? If you believe it will become more moderate, where do you think this moderate trend will spring from?

      I ask these questions because I want to know what you think.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 03:13:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site