I have read quite a bit of literature from socialist sources on the Israelis/Palestinian issue. This is quite typical of the sort of thing I read, any thoughts or criticisms? Be warned it is quite long, but worthwhile:
Originally posted by kevlar: I have read quite a bit of literature from socialist sources on the Israelis/Palestinian issue. This is quite typical of the sort of thing I read, any thoughts or criticisms? Be warned it is quite long, but worthwhile:
He isn't a socialist he is a marxist - there is a difference. Obviously dialectics isn't your subject either. Secondly he is hardly an impartial party is he. Let's see one of the posts he held was Director of the Committee in Defense of the Lebanese and Palestinian Peoples. Nope, that wouldn't indicate any bias, would it?
Hey Kev you really should have googled this guy first his bio is online.
In earlier days whilst working as secretary for Bertrand Russell (during his latter years) he released excessive statements in Russell’s name. Russell repudiated these posthumously.
One of his recent and current causes are "anti-zionism" and "US aggression against Osama Bin Laden". Wow.
However it does highlight how the Far Left has championed anti-Israel sentiment. It wasn't always this way. In the 50s and 60s Israel - the underdog, and with the Kibbutzim as pure socialism in action - was the darling of the Left. Until the alliance with the US grew, and then Israel became just another way to indirectly bash Uncle Sam. Since then, the anti-Israeli movement has infiltrated University campuses everywhere and through blatant selection has ensured a Centre-Left that is similarly poisoned against Israel. I was at University in Glasgow when Glorious George was MP there. I was witness to many of his racist diatribes, which were gobbled up a treat by the pro-Palestinian Labour Movement (in fact the leader of the University Labour Group was Palestinian, and was less than amused when I wanted to join).
I was more interested in hearing what people thought about the content. What I read seemed to be very well sourced, well documented and above rebuke, especially when it came to Zionism and the Facists/Nazis. Due to the author quoting Zionist comments that appear, on the surface, to be quite damning.
It's a left wing perspective. Fair, but with that context.
It's impossible to consider the Middle East (now) without taking a view on the Holocaust. Schoenman's fourth point almost dismisses this hugely important factor.
I don't know enough about the history to know whether any collusion took place (with the Nazis), but it's actually irrelevent to events today - Isreal demands security partly as a consequence of the Holocaust, end of story.
Originally posted by Cornucopia: It's a left wing perspective. Fair, but with that context.
It's impossible to consider the Middle East (now) without taking a view on the Holocaust. Schoenman's fourth point almost dismisses this hugely important factor.
I don't know enough about the history to know whether any collusion took place (with the Nazis), but it's actually irrelevent to events today - Isreal demands security partly as a consequence of the Holocaust, end of story.
I feel that is an extremely important point - one which cannot be emphasised too strongly.
Over five million Jewish men, women and children were murdered by the Nazis in WW2.
It is too many for me to contemplate. It's up there inhabiting the same realm as "number of habitable worlds in the universe" and suchlike.
Once, on a trip through Jerusalem, I visited the Yad Veshem Museum, which is dedicated to the atrocities of the Holocaust. Being a non-Jew I nonetheless felt incumbent to discover what I felt was at least a sobering event. The experience was overwhelming for me; every sordid detail had clearly been painstakingly researched with intensely, dreadfully emotional results. When one exits the main museum, thinking that the torpid experience is over, a dark and slighly sunken building lies off to one side with a path meandering into it. I followed a small trickle of people into it, leaving the extremely harsh midday light and plunging into stigian blackness. A metal rail was provided for essential guidance. Rounding the first corner, one is met with countless tiny points of light, seemingly suspended in the darkness - more points of light reveal themselves as one continues following the path to the exit. In the background, muted childrens voices can be heard, laughing and chattering, with the occasional break into a heart-rending monologue of how almost 1.5 million Jewish children were killed by their captors.
When I was about 10 we went on holiay to Poland. My parents felt they had to go to Aushwitz, and took me and my sister too, although as far as I remember, they considered leaving us in a hotel.
I don't remember much about it because the true horror never hit home. I do remember a huge wall of pictures of the victims. At some point I'm going to have to go back to make some sense of these picture memories that don't have the emotional impact they should.
I don't think, though, that its always helpful to dwell on the Holocaust. We should use (for want of a better word) the horros of the past to ensure that it never happens again (yet we still let Rwanda happen in 94). The Holocaust is often used, utterly despicably, by some to excuse the actions of certain groups (not just Israel). We should judge modern actions and politcal decisions on their own merit, without weighing in the with suffereings gone by.
After all, how many people still complain about the formation of the Jewish ghetto in Rome in in the 15th Century? And the sacking of Carthage by Rome? Where do you draw the line?
Originally posted by merlinthewizard: When I was about 10 we went on holiay to Poland. My parents felt they had to go to Aushwitz, and took me and my sister too, although as far as I remember, they considered leaving us in a hotel.
How erroneously protective! Isn't the point that the young learn the lessons of the past?
quote:
I don't remember much about it because the true horror never hit home. I do remember a huge wall of pictures of the victims. At some point I'm going to have to go back to make some sense of these picture memories that don't have the emotional impact they should.
Ah, well, I would respectfully suggest that if one cannot recall any emotional side-effect then it would be impossible to draw a formative opinion about the value of such things.
quote:
I don't think, though, that its always helpful to dwell on the Holocaust. We should use (for want of a better word) the horros of the past to ensure that it never happens again (yet we still let Rwanda happen in 94). The Holocaust is often used, utterly despicably, by some to excuse the actions of certain groups (not just Israel). We should judge modern actions and politcal decisions on their own merit, without weighing in the with suffereings gone by.
That is, if you pardon me saying to, a thoroughly horrid and despicable thing to say. Millions of people were killed and - I may have misread the above - you are suggesting that the nett result of this horror is that the lessons of history should be ignored.
I do so hope that I have misrepresented your opinion - please do correct me!
quote:
After all, how many people still complain about the formation of the Jewish ghetto in Rome in in the 15th Century? And the sacking of Carthage by Rome? Where do you draw the line?
I would suggest, quite humbly, that it is not the complaint that is at issue - but the lessons of history. And, yes, of course people should recall such terrible events. We have the benefit, however, that the Holocaust is a most recent occasion and thus bears far greater inspection and exposure.
Originally posted by Joobs: .................. In earlier days whilst working as secretary for Bertrand Russell (during his latter years) he released excessive statements in Russell’s name. Russell repudiated these posthumously.
..................
I know Bertrand Russell was a clever bloke but posthumously repudiating something is some trick.
However, I'm impressed that you worked for the great man. Wasn't he the chap who fell foul of the old library index problem whereby you have to decide whether the index includes itself or not (or something like that)?
Originally posted by merlinthewizard: After all, how many people still complain about the formation of the Jewish ghetto in Rome in in the 15th Century? And the sacking of Carthage by Rome? Where do you draw the line?
Those events must be considered in their historical context as must the holocaust. We condemn the holocaust because genocide was against the moral code which we basically all subscribed to at that time and of course because it is recent history. Events in the distant past such as sacking of cities is not really the same given that such actions were seen (by both sides usually) as legitimate acts of warfare.
It is similar to the argument for reparation for slavery - some argue that we should pay for our part in this, but why? It was a practice which (though now generally deemed wrong) was at the time legitimate. We do not ask the Greeks to pay for the Spartan's treatment of Messenians who were turned into slaves called helots. Nor do we ask the Italians to pay for what the Romans did in every country they conquered.
One really must judge past events on the circumstances and morals prevailing and in force at the time and not impose modern morals onto any judgement one cares to make.
Originally posted by Joobs: .................. In earlier days whilst working as secretary for Bertrand Russell (during his latter years) he released excessive statements in Russell’s name. Russell repudiated these posthumously.
..................
I know Bertrand Russell was a clever bloke but posthumously repudiating something is some trick.
AFAIK he repudiated the claims in writings which were disclosed after his death - hence posthumately. C'mon guys you know I ain't in that afterlife nonsense.
quote:
However, I'm impressed that you worked for the great man.
I think your snipping (or maybe it was my grammar, can't be bothered checking back) gives the wrong impression, I never worked for Russell but he did.
Originally posted by =Ego: How erroneously protective! Isn't the point that the young learn the lessons of the past?
You think young children should be exposed to the full horros of the holocaust? No. When too young to understand the issue, but old enough to remember the horror, it only results in mnetal anguish. As I said, I remember little of the emotional side, so I didn't actually learn muh from the visit.
quote:
Ah, well, I would respectfully suggest that if one cannot recall any emotional side-effect then it would be impossible to draw a formative opinion about the value of such things.
Not really, its not like I know nothing about it now a decade or so later.
quote:
That is, if you pardon me saying to, a thoroughly horrid and despicable thing to say. Millions of people were killed and - I may have misread the above - you are suggesting that the nett result of this horror is that the lessons of history should be ignored.
I do so hope that I have misrepresented your opinion - please do correct me!
Your misunderstanding is in my use of the word dwell. My suggestion is that too much emphasis is put on the Holocaust, that people bring it up in arguments too often. We need to move on. The Holocaust, for all its tragedy, has little impact on the modern world (as winessed by the continued genocides since). I said quite specifically that we should use history to make sure the worst parts are not repeated. How you read this to be suggesting that the "lessons of history should be ignored" is beyond me. Like any death, there is a mourning period. But people move on, wives and husbands re-marry etc. The process I am talking about is the same, and, in both cases, it has nothing to do with forgetting.
quote:
I would suggest, quite humbly, that it is not the complaint that is at issue - but the lessons of history. And, yes, of course people should recall such terrible events. We have the benefit, however, that the Holocaust is a most recent occasion and thus bears far greater inspection and exposure.
But it is not the most recent. 6m Jews were killed (plus 6m others, romanys for exmple, who are always forgotten ), yet in 1994, just 12 years ago (compared to 64 yrs ago) 1m people were killed just as brutally, yet no one did anything. Right now, right NOW, people are being ethnicly cleansed in Darfur, yet we do nothing. We need to remember what happened 12 yrs ago, what is happeneing now, as people, naturally, tend to consign the Holocaust to history (as the world is so different now) and therefore don't associate such horror with the modern world. Yet it is so important that people realise that the horrors of the Holocaust are being replayed as we speak. The Holocaust is history, Darfur is not. THAT is what we need to realise.
), yet in 1994, just 12 years ago (compared to 64 yrs ago) 1m people were killed just as brutally, yet no one did anything. Right now, right NOW, people are being ethnicly cleansed in Darfur, yet we do nothing. We need to remember what happened 12 yrs ago, what is happeneing now, as people, naturally, tend to consign the Holocaust to history (as the world is so different now) and therefore don't associate such horror with the modern world. Yet it is so important that people realise that the horrors of the Holocaust are being replayed as we speak. The Holocaust is history, Darfur is not. THAT is what we need to realise.
