Skip to main content

View Diary: Israeli Security Chief and Holocaust survivor compares Israel to Nazi Germany (173 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ah yes, it's the old ' Hey--a holocaust survivor (5+ / 6-)

    compared Israel to Hitler's regime--therefore Israel is kinda like the Nazis' trick.

    with the 'but I don't REALLY think Israel is a bunch of Nazis!!' disclaimer.

    Yes, you do.  Or you wouldn't have posted it.

    Let the record show that the diarist associates Israel with Nazi Germany (but pretends not to) because a Token Holocaust Survivor™  said so.

    •  Why do you sh!t on Avraham Shalom? (13+ / 0-)

      Your kind of jokes

      Token Holocaust Survivor™
      are exactly the kind of jokes the oppressor would make about the oppressed. You show no respect for Shalom, but it does not help your cause.

      Israel is colonizing and humiliating (and terrorizing) the Palestinians. Eventually there will be consequences. The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.

      He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

      by Sophie Amrain on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 12:51:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you show no respect for (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

        victims of the actual holocaust by supporting a false (and quite sick) equivalence.

        Shalom, and 13million other people, endured their own private hell.  If he wants to go and draw contrived links between Nazi polices and an overzealous Israeli right, that's his prerogative, but he is wrong to do so.

        colonizing (and humiliating) is awful, but it is not the same as systematic and rapid extermination.  One has zero to do with the other.  And the trick of invoking a Real Live Holocaust Survivor (note the 'joke' again--of course it's not a joke but irony which you clearly can't detect), is pretty poor.

      •  also that quote had nothing to do with Shalom (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        himself but with the diarist's use of a survivor to attempt to prove an invalid point.

        Although I stand by my assertion that his equivalency is 100% wrong.

      •  History does bend towards justice (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bevenro, livosh1, Hey338Too

        That's why Israel exists and is a strong nation after 2500 years of persecution and oppression of the Jewish People.

        Thanks for pointing that out.

        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

        by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:02:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The topic is the persecution of the Palestinians. (0+ / 0-)

          Thanks for trying to reframe the entire conversation though.  :(

          Fail.

        •  Israel was founded in 1948 (0+ / 0-)

          #history

          •  Israel is a lot older than that... (0+ / 0-)

            Remember Israel existed long before it's present incarnation which was indeed founded in 1948.

            #historylearnit

            It is quite just that the Jewish people should once again have a homeland in their ancestoral lands.

            After 2500 years of brutal oppression and persecution (give or take) there is once again a Jewish Homeland. Indeed the arc of history has bent towards justice.

            Now... please remind me, when was there ever a nation of Palestine? Can you please cite the dates and territory it existed in.

            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

            by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 01:50:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Palestinians are descended from the Hebrews also (0+ / 0-)

              #facts

              They are just as entitled to that land.  So to answer your question 2500 years ago.

              •  Wait.. so are you saying that the Palestinians are (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Hey338Too

                really Jews? You might want to tell them that as I don't think they know.

                No one ever said there shouldn't be a Palestinian State btw, just that there should be an Israel and Jewish State and that the arc of history bends towards justice... which is, the creation of Israel and a Jewish State.

                But my question was a very simple one - straight to the point and has an easy yes or no question. Let's try it again shall we:

                Please remind me, when was there ever a nation of Palestine? Can you please cite the dates and territory it existed in.

                "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 04:00:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Never said Jews, I said Hebrews (0+ / 0-)

                  Jew and Hebrew are not synonymous.

                  And most Palestinians may or may not know this, but they are genetically similar to the Jewish people.  #science
                  http://features.beliefnet.com/...

                  By your logic if the Palestinians decide to merely name their country Judea and Samaria instead of Palestine then their claim would be legitimate.  That seems kind of arbitrary and superficial.

                  •  Whoops... but no.. . (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Hey338Too

                    You say:

                    Jew and Hebrew are not synonymous.
                    Ummm, yes.. they are. The Jewish people in ancient times were known as "the Hebrews". Hebrew is the ancient language of the Jewish people and it commonly was used even thousands of years as a synonym for "Jews".

                    SO.. while some Palestinians are descendents of the Hebrew peoples that populated the area, most are not. But even if they were it still is irrelevant as they are NOT part of the Jewish people. Were they, a separate people there would have been a nation of Palestine would there not?

                    then you go to this:

                    By your logic if the Palestinians decide to merely name their country Judea and Samaria instead of Palestine then their claim would be legitimate.  That seems kind of arbitrary and superficial.
                    Wrong on a few different levels. Let's look at those levels:

                    1. You make an assumption in this sentence that I don't think the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a part of the land, but, that is not true. I very much believe that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim to a part of the land.

                    2. So, Israel is just the name of a nation and that is why you think I say that it legitimizes itself? Really? That is very uninformed view. Israel was a nation created by the Jewish people in ancient times and carried over throughout the years of persecution and oppression as a synonym for Jewish People. The term "People of Israel" refers to Jews.

                    Now, the Palestinians some of whom are descended from the original Jewish people simply would not name their nation Judea and Samaria, because those are the ancient names for Jewish territory. So it's kind of silly to even make that statement.

                    SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?

                    It seems you can't since you seem to be claiming that Palestinians and Jews are one in the same and that the Palestinians are the descendents of the ancient Jews.

                    "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                    by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 05:09:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  First of all what you are saying is not true (0+ / 0-)
                      SO.. while some Palestinians are descendents of the Hebrew peoples that populated the area, most are not
                      Our recent study of high-resolution microsatellite haplotypes demonstrated that a substantial portion of Y chromosomes of Jews (70%) and of Palestinian Muslim Arabs (82%) belonged to the same chromosome pool (Nebel et al. 2000). Of those Palestinian chromosomes, approximately one-third formed a group of very closely related haplotypes that were only rarely found in Jews. Altogether, the findings indicated a remarkable degree of genetic continuity in both Jews and Arabs, despite their long separation and the wide geographic dispersal of Jews.
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...

                      Now please present to me this mythical study that says most are not.

                      You say the Jewish People in ancient times were known as Hebrews.  Well based on scientific analysis the same can be said of Palestinians.  Scientifically Palestinians thousands of years ago were known as Hebrews.

                      Israel was a nation created by the Jewish people in ancient times and carried over throughout the years of persecution and oppression as a synonym for Jewish People. The term "People of Israel" refers to Jews.
                      Actually Israel was created by the Hebrews who were polytheists until the Babylonian exile.  During this period the Yahwehists (monotheists) began dominating Hebrew theological thought.  Before that the Yahwehists were a very small sect among the Hebrews.  By the time they returned they were basically under Persian rule then Roman rule with some brief periods of autonomy sprinkled throughout.

                      So you would be incorrect when you say Israel was created by the Jews.  It was created by polytheists whose religion eventually died out.  Their descendents became the Jews and eventually the Palestinians.

                      So while the "People of Israel" is commonly referred to Jews exclusively, historically and scientifically that is inaccurate.

                      •  that's a simplistic view of things... (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                        most people who pay attention to this sort of thing are well aware of the genetic (and other) similarities (you may also include linguistic similarities--both Hebrew and Arabic are linguistically similar to Akkadian, for example).

                        But 'Hebrews' and 'Israelites' are a tribal identity.  As with other tribal identies--such as the Canaanites or Amorites, there is obviously a question as to self-identity at the time--after all, we're using late Iron Age texts to try to piece together Late Bronze/Early Iron identities, so that is obviously fraught--and you're not always going to have genetic/archaeological/historical/linguistic/evidence line up.

                        But ethnic identities do ultimately develop, and the term Hebrew is clearly identified with the Israelite/Jewish population (Palestine, or Palestinian, is known at least from the period, and (I didn't realize this next bit--but apparently there are poorly defined geographic references as early as the 12th cent. BC in Egyptian and Assyrian texts)

                        My point is this:  VB has never denied that the Palestinians have the right to self-determination, and a state, as does Israel.  But there are lots of legitimate historical reasons for assigning land to each group simply because each group has, for all intents and purposes, always been there.  (by always I mean more than 2,000 years)

                        And while there is always intermixing between groups--these things are fluid--you're really not making any case by asserting that somehow the People of Israel aren't Jewish, or that the Palestinians and Israelis are the same people, or whatever.  No tribal identity is 100% airtight, of course--but they are still accepted as legitimate.  Your framing diminishes both Palestinians AND Jews.

                      •  What bevenro said and...... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        You said:

                        You say the Jewish People in ancient times were known as Hebrews.  Well based on scientific analysis the same can be said of Palestinians.
                        So are you then asserting that there was a nation of "Palestine"? Can you tell us about that nation. When it existed and what territory it was comprised of?

                        And while we are at it... who then were the people known as Palestinians? Were they occupants of the nation of Palestine?

                        Actually Israel was created by the Hebrews who were polytheists until the Babylonian exile.
                        While I do understand that your whole point here is to show that Jews are not indigenous to Israel or that area and that really the people currently known as Palestinians are, that simple historical fiction will not fly here.  

                        As bevenro succinctly explained religions evolve and take on different traditions from their original base. Look at Christianity or Islam. Both developed different paths and offshoot sects. However, the original Hebrews WERE associated and became the Jewish people.

                        When one talks about "Hebrew" people they mean one group of people and one group of people only; that would be the Jews. Despite your attempt to change that, that my friend, is reality.

                        The original kingdoms of Israel were indeed created by the Jewish People, as were the dual kingdoms of Israel and Judea.

                        Their descendents became the Jews and eventually the Palestinians.
                        And this quote betrays your point, that you are trying to establish that the Jews of today are NOT indigenous to the Land of Israel and that the real indigenous natives are the people now known as Palestinians.

                        Sorry but...

                        So while the "People of Israel" is commonly referred to Jews exclusively, historically and scientifically that is inaccurate.
                        No. But nice try. This is an old trick to delegitimize the Jewish claim to Israel. I'm surprised you pulled that one out here.

                        So again and I keep asking this but, you just don't want to seem to answer...

                        SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 10:48:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  You seem to have trouble understanding the fact (0+ / 0-)

                          that Juadaism didn't exist until sometime during the 6th century B.C.

                          And like I said whatever you call your country is irrelevant.  I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make by saying there has never been a Palestine.  You are pulling your argument out ofthe Newt Gingrich playbook, and not surprisingly making very little sense.  I'm not going to fight your straw men.

                          And yes many of the descendents of the Hebrews became Jewish, in addition many of their descendents later became Christian and Muslim.  

                          Point is the Jewish people are not the only rightful heirs of the Hebrew people.  Palestinians are their heirs as well.

                          •  Say what? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too
                            You seem to have trouble understanding the fact that Juadaism didn't exist until sometime during the 6th century B.C.
                            Really now? You going to stick with that one?
                            And like I said whatever you call your country is irrelevant.

                            Actually, I call my country America or more formally, The United States of America.

                            I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make by saying there has never been a Palestine.
                            My point is that history does support that there was a nation called Israel, the Nation of Israel was a Jewish State, and since it was destroyed the Jewish people around the world have faced 2,500 years of persecution and oppression... SO when people talking about "arc of history" bending towards justice here mention the Palestinians, they really should be mentioning the Jews since... They were the ones wronged in ancient times.

                            There was NO ancient state of Palestine and honestly the people there who were not Jews are a conglomeration of those people who traveled through the area and either settled, or were brought there against their own will. Of course some of those people are also descendents of Jews forced to convert during the Caliphate.

                            You are pulling your argument out ofthe Newt Gingrich playbook, and not surprisingly making very little sense.  I'm not going to fight your straw men.
                            LOL, I am not pulling a "page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook" because of two things. First of all, I believe the Palestinians ARE a people. I believe there is enough history behind the Arab inhabitants of the area between the Jordan and the Med. that justifies that there has developed a separate culture of people that now call themselves Palestinian. Unlike Newt and his friends, I don't believe that Palestinians are a new people. I think they have a legitimate claim on part of the land. You don't seem to get that.

                            If anyone is trying to play the "Newt card" it is you, in claiming that the Palestinians are really just the descendents of Jews. You deny the Jewish people our heritage.

                            This is a great fail:

                            And yes many of the descendents of the Hebrews became Jewish, in addition many of their descendents later became Christian and Muslim.  
                            The overwhelmingly great majority of descendents of the Hebrews became Jews. Only through forced conversions and persecutions can the Christian and Muslims claim to share descent. That is the truth, not the pseudo science and simplistic conclusions of those who would deny the Jewish connection to the land.
                            Point is the Jewish people are not the only rightful heirs of the Hebrew people.  Palestinians are their heirs as well.
                            And your point is wrong. The Palestinians are not the heirs to the Hebrew People, they are however, through culture and history heirs to part of the land. Stop trying to make this something it is not.

                            You see, I believe the Palestinians SHOULD have a State in the land between the Jordan and Med. I also believe that the Jews should have a State between the Jordan and the Med. I believe in my heart that there cannot and should not be one State for these two different people. I don't think it would ever work for either group.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:14:21 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Really now? You going to stick with that one?" (0+ / 0-)

                            That is historical fact.  You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.

                            The overwhelmingly great majority of descendents of the Hebrews became Jews. Only through forced conversions and persecutions can the Christian and Muslims claim to share descent.
                            So when the Polytheists converted to Judaism during the Babylonian exile that was a legitimate conversion, but converting to Islam or Christianity (i.e. the Palestinians) does not make you an heir to the Hebrews?  Interesting...
                          •  Ummm.... What you think are facts are not (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            But I get that you need to cling to them to maintain your fantasies about the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

                            Judaism traces it's roots to far before the Babylonian exile and the religion is over 1700 years old (at least).  So maybe only your little mythos places them at 600 C.E. BUT that is about that.

                            #historyfactslearnthemknowthemlivethem

                            The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians and the Jews ARE NOT the same people despite your insistence that they are.

                            As for the this comment... Seriously, stop while you are way behind. Just face it, the pseudo-science you may believe simply doesn't bear up to reality.

                            We all get you have an agenda, and that by cherry picking sentences here and there you want to delegitimize Israel and the Jewish people. But that crap only flies in that place where the Hard Right, meets with the Hard Left (and all the silliness about "TEH JOOZ" ensues. So, saying that Judaism is only 2500 years old AND by saying Palestinians are really the heirs to the Hebrew people is all fine and good for the non-reality based community but not so much for us who live in the real world.

                            Just sayin'

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 10:23:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  facts: (0+ / 0-)
                            Both the archaeological evidence and the Biblical texts document tensions between groups comfortable with the worship of Yahweh alongside local deities such as Asherah and Baal and those insistent on worship of Yahweh alone during the monarchal period.[3][4] During the 8th century BCE, worship of Yahweh in Israel stood in competition with many other cults, described by the Yahwist faction collectively as Baals. The oldest books of the Hebrew Bible, written in the 8th century BCE reflect this competition, as in the books of Hosea and Nahum, whose authors lament the "apostasy" of the people of Israel, threatening them with the wrath of God if they do not give up their polytheistic cults.

                            The monotheist faction seems to have gained considerable influence during the 8th century BCE, and by the 7th century BCE, based on the testimony of the Deuteronomistic source, monotheistic worship of Yahweh seems to have become official, reflected in the removal of the image of Asherah from the temple in Jerusalem under Hezekiah (r. 715-686 BCE) so that monotheistic worship of the god of Israel can be argued to have originated during his rule.[5]

                            Hezekiah's successor Manasseh reversed some of these changes, restoring polytheistic worship, and according to 2 Kings 21:16 even persecuting the monotheist faction. Josiah (r. 641-609 BCE) again turned to monolatry. The Book of Deuteronomy as well as the other books ascribed to the Deuteronomist were written during Josiah's rule. The final two decades of the monarchic period, leading up to the Babylonian sack of Jerusalem in 597 BCE were thus marked by official monolatry of the god of Israel. This had important consequences in the worship of Yahweh as it was practiced in the Babylonian captivity and ultimately for the theology of Second Temple Judaism...

                            The oldest writings of Judaism that survive directly date from the Hellenistic period.
                             This includes Hebrew and Aramaic papyri with biblical fragments such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Greek documents such as the Septuagint. The contact of Israelite and Greek cultures resulted in the development of strict monotheism which recast the national god of Israel in the role of the creator of the universe, corresponding to The One or The All of Hellenistic religion[citation needed]. Other scholars contend that the development of a strict monotheism was the result of cultural diffusion between Persians and Hebrews. While (in practice) dualistic, Zoroastrianism believed in escathological monotheism. Some[who?] suggest that it is not merely coincidence that the Zoroastrianism's model of escathological monotheism and the Deuteronomic historians strictly monotheistic model receive formative articulations during the period after Persia overthrew Babylon.

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
                            Both Jews and Palestinians share a very similar HLA
                            genetic pool (Table 3, Figures 4, 5 and 6) that support a
                            common ancient Canaanite origin.
                            http://www.stml.net/...

                            And in the words of Vince Masuka:

                            Thanks for playing

                          •  as a professional archaeologist, I find your (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            wikipedia reliance entertaining :)

                            (and I have worked on Canaanite/Israelite sites, by the way)

                            anyway, no one is arguing that the genetic pool is that dissimilar between Semitic peoples.  VB is simply saying that the terms 'Israel' and 'Hebrews' pertain to a Jewish identity--NOT that there weren't other people on the land considered 'Palestine' by the Greeks.

                            You are arguing something--but I'm not quite sure what?  

                          •  I am not sure where he going with this (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            as well... the fact is that Judaism can trace it's roots to close to 2000 B.C.E. NOT 500 B.C.E.

                            I am sort of thinking he is going with the canard that the ancient Jews became the Palestinians (or some such nonsense) and that it is the Palestinians who are the true inheritors of the legacy of the Jews. The old "Jesus was a Palestinian" thing.

                            And you are right... no one says that there are not commonalities in the Semitic peoples of the Middle East. You are also correct that in saying that I am not claiming that there are not legitimate non Jewish heirs to part of the land between the Med. and the Jordan. Just that those people ARE NOT the Hebrews (and Hebrews used as it really means Jews).

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:02:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i think you're right about the diarist's intended (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            point--

                            although it really doesn't make any sense.  I mean, I suppose you can have a whole sociological debate about whether or not ethnic identities are 'real' or not--(I did a seminar on that with respect to the Amorites once) but that's way beside the point anyway...

                          •  Depends on which conotation you are using (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm referring to the ethnicity of the ancient people who lived thousands of years ago.

                            Today their descendents are of multiple ethnicities Sephardic, Ashkenazi, and a community of Arabs who live in the greater Israel region.  And these ethnicities comprise of multiple religions including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim.  The oldest being Judaism and the newest being Islam.  Fact of the matter there is no pure Hebrew ethnicity anymore.

                            But yes another connotation of the word Hebrew refers to any Jew.

                          •  Thanking yourself for playing? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Your Wiki link besides being "The simplistic view of Judaism" betrays both your lack of understanding of Judaism AND history.

                            Sure there were polytheistic cults within the religion just as there were different sects within Christianity and Islam (and still are). There are however traces to the Jewish people and their worship that runs back to at least 1700 B.C.E.

                            Hey Obamalover20122 - how about instead of your continued display of only a cursory knowledge of the subject of Judaism and all this... How about you come clean and just tell us what point you are trying to make, and what you think that P.O.V. will support? OR are you ashamed to talk about that here and hence this sort of torturous circuit of nonsense?

                            What is it that you really wish to say?

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 12:11:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh btw... did you think we would not (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        read your link???

                        I mean there is this comment:

                        In comparison with data available from other relevant populations in the region, Jews were found to be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors.....

                        .... Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin differed from the other Middle Eastern populations studied here, mainly in specific high-frequency Eu 10 haplotypes not found in the non-Arab groups. These chromosomes might have been introduced through migrations from the Arabian Peninsula during the last two millennia. The present study contributes to the elucidation of the complex demographic history that shaped the present-day genetic landscape in the region.

                        But in any case... Is it a surprise that Mizrachi Jews who stayed in Israel would be related to parts of the population now known as Palestinians? Of course not, I freely grant that local Arab populations would have a relationship to the Mizrachim. They come out of the same pool.

                        However, the Ashkenazim and Sepharadim... are also Jews and also share markers with Mizrachim but NOT with the local Arab Population.

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 11:00:47 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The data collected by these researchers (0+ / 0-)

                          also found that the Ashkenazi Jews were most closely related to... Palestinian Arabs (see Table 2).

                          •  You did read the analysis of table two didn't you? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Because that comment does not make it seem like you did.

                            Here let me quote from the report:

                            The three modal haplotypes in the Palestinians and Bedouin were entirely restricted to the two Arab populations. On the other hand, chromosomes with the modal haplotypes of the Jews and of the Muslim Kurds were observed in all the populations except the Bedouin. The three Jewish communities had many additional haplotypes in common with Muslim Kurds (table 3). They shared more haplotypes and chromosomes with Muslim Kurds than with either Palestinians or Bedouin. (vb1 emphasis)
                            However, since the Palestinian people are a conglomeration of many other groups AND the original inhabitants of the area this makes sense.

                            As it does that the Jews would have ties to the Turks and Kurds since they were scattered in various diaspora's throughout history.

                            I am going to suggest that you actually read the report you link to rather than like your diary looking to cherry pick lines here and there to justify your points. You might have seen this:

                            About the Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin

                            Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin are largely nomadic Arab herders, with a tribal organization. They live in all Arab countries, constituting about one tenth of the population (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). The Bedouin population of the Negev desert was found to be most distant from Jews and Muslim Kurds and to be closely related only to Palestinians.
                            which supports that the local population who have become known as Palestinians were a conglomeration of peoples moving through the area that did eventually settle down.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:32:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Reading is fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                            In table 2 Ashkenazis are most closely related to Palestinians... not Palestinians are most closely related to Ashkenazis.  Those two statements have two different meanings.

                            Point is they have common ancestors.  And saying the conversion to Judaism from Polytheism still makes them legitimate heirs but not Christianity or Islam from Judaism is silly.

                          •  Nice try.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hey338Too

                            Some Palestinians do have common ancestors with the Ashkenaz. And some have common ancestors with the Mizrachim and Sepharadim. No one denies that, Of course they would, as they are Middle Eastern people with a basis in the Fertile Crescent but, to say that the Palestinians are infact the heirs to the Hebrew People and the Kingdoms of Israel is ridiculous to say the least.

                            But congrats, because outside of the very Hard Right or Hard Left no one actually agrees with you.

                            "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                            by volleyboy1 on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 11:55:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  heirs to what??? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                            Everyone who lived on a land at some point can stake some historical claim to the land.  Whether or not that is achieved, who knows.  But somehow it seems like you're trying to say that since Judaism evolved from polytheism the ethnicity doesn't exist, unless it's also Palestinian..

                            or something.

                            This discussion is nonsensical and weird.  Anyway, you mention 'Christian' and 'Muslim'--both groups of whom have well over a billion people and many millions of square miles of land.  The Jews had NO land until about 70 years ago...and I agree that the Palestinians have the right to land in the region as well.

                            But the contortions  you're going through to get there--when we are actually all in AGREEMENT that the Palestinians have deep ethno-historical ties to the region--is just...

                            strange.

                    •  This basically means Solomon and David (0+ / 0-)

                      were Polytheists.  Not Jewish

                      •  false dichotomy. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        volleyboy1, Hey338Too

                        Many monotheistic religions have aspects of polytheism throughout (the tetragrammaton YHWH, for example has different aspects of God reflected in the name), and the trinity--even angels)

                        Anyway, we haven't proven that David and Solomon actually existed anyway--although if they did, and Israel existed as a small kingdom, it's probable that it would have been run under a 'state religion' of Judaism.  Even if Judaism were influenced by other religions (e.g. Canaanite--which undoubtedly it was) that doesn't make it any less Jewish.  As you yourself note, these religions evolve.

                      •  No actually it does not. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Hey338Too

                        Again....

                        SO again... Please remind me of when there was ever an independent nation of Palestine, and what territory it occupied. Can you do that?
                        You keep refusing to address that question. I wonder why that is.

                        "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

                        by volleyboy1 on Sat Feb 02, 2013 at 10:35:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

    •  You are a guest in my home (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Smoh, WattleBreakfast

      please be respectful when posting in my diary.

      •  lift the HR. (5+ / 0-)

        your diary is insulting and offensive--and as per rules of this site it is also anti-Semitic.  (see equating Israel w/Nazi Germany)

      •  i will retract my criticism slightly-- (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ubertar, volleyboy1, JNEREBEL

        since you are discussing an acclaimed documentary.

        I think that knee-jerk associations of Israeli policies w/Nazi Germany are rightly bannable around here (and generally anti-Semitic)

        but this isn't quite that egregious, although you clearly seem to support the association to some extent.  Note I didn't HR your diary.

        •  Nothing knee-jerk here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          WattleBreakfast

          The diarist is sharing the content of a documentary -- one that will be widely discussed.

          It's unfair to threaten banning because you don't like the topic, or don't accept any real criticism toward Israeli policy.

          The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

          by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:41:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I spend an enormous amount of my time on (0+ / 0-)

            and off-line vehemently criticizing Israeli policy.

            Don't make assumptions about people.

            The diary contains some material that is considered unacceptable on this site.  Not my rules.

            •  You're being kind of a bully (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WattleBreakfast

              and trying to shut down discussion with references to your own family's experience.

              I'm usually offended by Nazi analogies -- they are lazy. But in this case, the diarist is quoting an individual who knows a lot more than I do, and has a legitimate opinion. The diarist's opinion is also legitimate. Worth a debate -- not HRing, which is another form of bullying.

              The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

              by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 09:23:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  don't think I 'hr'ed anything... (0+ / 0-)

                not sure what you're talking about?

                shutting down discussion?  not sure what that's all about, but...

                Anyway, I offer a longer response at the end of the thread.  If that doesn't clarify for you where I stand on things, I'll just leave it at that.

    •  if you really don't understand how offensive your (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      alain2112, WattleBreakfast

      use of the word "token"  combined with "holocaust survivor", i suggest you watch the wwII series on pbs with the graphically disturbing images of bergen-belsen, auschwitz or any of the other death camps.

      and, fyi, ther ARE no "tokens" for survivors, except perhaps, the tattoos on their forearms.

      your comment is beyond decent and acceptible.  you need to apologize now and then you need to do some serious soul-searching to try to understand where such a vile comment originated from within you.

      hr'd

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:06:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take your self righteous and despicable (7+ / 0-)

        comments away from me.

        Why don't you insult my entire ethnic background while you're at it?  Yeah, I know a thing or two about modern Jewish history.  Most of my relatives who didn't get out of Europe no longer exist because of it.

        You know damn well the point of that comment.  It is to illustrate the vileness of using a holocaust survivor to try to draw a false parallel between Israel and the Nazis.  It's just like saying 'well, a black/gay/native American guy/woman said it's ok, so whatever offensive comment follows has an automatic shield)

        It's unacceptable, and it is a cheap shot by the diarist to use it as a cover for their comments--no matter what Shalom may have said in the documentary.

        You know exactly what the comment means.

        •  then it is more disturbing that you chose the word (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, alain2112, WattleBreakfast

          "token" in your comment.

          you made the choice to use the word "token", not i.  i come from the south during the era of segregation, during the time of great racial division.  that word appears to have significant connotations for me in a different manner than it does for you.

          as to the substance of the diarist's post (which, btw, i disagree with the premise but see how he/she followed that line of thinking) - that does not change the offensive use of the word.

          i am deeply sorry about the loss of your family to the devastion brought on by the inhumanity of the nazis - without your clarifying your personal losses, your comment can be read in a very negative light - as i did and am sure others have as well.

          is it not better to enlarge the conversation and debate the merit (or, rather, lack of...) of the diary than use language that can produce reactions opposite of what you intend?

          You know exactly what the comment means.
          and, no, i don't know exactly what the comment means, that is why you got the reaction you did from me.

          i simply ask you this:  isn't it better to explain what you mean rather than using emotionally charged words that produce reactions opposite to your intended meaning?

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 02:53:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  after seeing the Jews = Nazis comparison (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, Hey338Too, livosh1

            dozens--and probably hundreds of times on this site, no, I am honestly fatigued of providing an academic explanation.

            wait...are you saying you objected to the term 'token' rather than this perceived 'mockery' of a holocaust survivor?  Because that I wouldn't have guessed at all.

            •  i objected to both. the use of the word "token" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alain2112, WattleBreakfast

              it is used to denigrate anyone.

              second point:  i just spent days crying watching the pbs documentaries on the camps and those who died and those who survived.

              and while i am not jewish, i am fully aware of the horrors of that time - from the history of wwII with full illustrations of the destruction of that war, the opening of the camps and the pictures of the dead and dying - a book left deliberately where a young child could look and see and cry and question how ANY human being could do those things to another.

              i have close friends who survived by being sent away as small children never to see their families again - i have friends whose parents had those tattoos... so don't lecture me on my reaction to the use of your word.

              oddly enough, we are on the same damned side, yet we fight each other over a poor choice of words?  and while we do that, what happens is that the inhumane ones laugh and slip past us to continue the destruction without check.

              it's time for us to think - ALL of us - to pick which battles are worth fighting and then how to effectively fight those battles.

              as you are fatigued of providing an "academic" explanation, one that i have not seen here because i am not HERE 24/7, i am fatigued at the anger we direct among ourselves - when we should be channeling that anger where it really belongs - at injustice and bigotry and hatred.

              now, i'm off to the barn, so i'm not ignoring any response you might make until later tonite...

              peace - shalom - namaste

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 03:31:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  and you purport to educate me on Auschwitz? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        I will not engage you again, here or elsewhere.

        Good day, sir.

    •  Uprated for unjustified HR's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, JNEREBEL

      The GateKeepers is a very complex movie as is discussed in a headline article at The Times of Israel

      Opponents who depict Israelis as oblivious or hateful won’t find much support for that here. Even some of the documentary’s villains — the Jewish extremists who fomented Rabin’s murder — get their own counterbalance: an image of an ultra-Orthodox Jew with a sign that says “I’m ashamed” soon after the killing.

      Beyond its individual participants, “The Gatekeepers” reflects positively on Israel in another key way, demonstrating the relative transparency and accountability of the establishment.

      As in “The Law in These Parts,” a recent documentary that examined Israel’s legal system in Gaza and the West Bank, “The Gatekeepers” relies on testimony from top officials — men who believe it is their duty to share important information with the public.

      Naturally they have their own biases and agendas, but their willingness to testify in the open suggests good things about their conception of democracy — what even tough-minded intelligence veterans owe their fellow citizens and society.
      To single out the interview of one man to make a point like this is doing exactly what bevenro is claiming.

      I would also say that the diarist is in violation of the HR rule but to be honest the admins. have abandoned all rules concerning HR's so that is what is. They should just do away with those rules because honestly, they have no intention of enforcing them.

      "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

      by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 03:59:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was pissed off when I posted so (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hey338Too

        I can see why people may have misinterpreted the intent (athough I'm pretty sure that some people just ignored my intent anyway--so go these threads)

        I haven't seen the documentary yet, though.

        •  Ok - then do you think I should pull my uprate? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bevenro, livosh1, Hey338Too

          I happen to think you are right though, but I will respect your wishes.

          Frankly, all this talk about equivalency with the Nazi's is disgusting because while the Occupation may be a number of things there is nothing even comparable in it to what happened during the Nazi period. And despite the hypocritical and frankly mind numbing ignorance displayed by people who would make the claim and use people who were traumatized by the Holocaust to help "prove" their point.. it just isn't true.

          "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

          by volleyboy1 on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:26:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's up to you--you can pull it if you like since (0+ / 0-)

            it won't bring my comment back anyway!

            Diarist obviously doesn't see what he/she is doing here, and the support for that sort of thing around here is aggravating (but expected unfortunately..)

          •  You say that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WattleBreakfast
            And despite the hypocritical and frankly mind numbing ignorance displayed by people who would make the claim and use people who were traumatized by the Holocaust to help "prove" their point.. it just isn't true.
            But the diarist didn't do that -- the former chief depicted in the film did.  Isn't it striking that a man who lived in Germany during WWII and also served in Israel's military would make such a strong and provocative statement?

            The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

            by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:46:39 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Count my mother as a "token Holocaust survivor" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast, Obamalover20122

      who was one of the few of her extended family to survive.

      How dare you.

      It's not just a zip code, it's an attitude.

      by sboucher on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 04:25:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How is a former Shen Bet Chief (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WattleBreakfast

      a "Token Holocaust Survivor"?

      Why not engage this topic instead of shooting the messenger?

      Nazi analogies are always fraught, but the diarist did not make up the quote or the film.

      The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

      by LiberalLady on Fri Feb 01, 2013 at 08:37:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  diarist is using it to score points. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        that's blatently obvious--kind of shocked you're not seeing it.

        I have no problem with the fact that Avraham Shalom said it.

        It's interesting that only a few sites like MondoWeiss  (and, of course, DKos) are leading with the

        'Former Shin Bet Leader Compares Israel To Nazi Germany' line.  That should tell you a few things...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site