Sharon: ‘No one cared’ about Holocaust

[sabra]

<<SNIP>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870869/

Sharon: ‘No one cared’ about Holocaust
Israeli leader says lesson is Jews can only rely on themselves

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:57 a.m. ET Jan. 26, 2005

JERUSALEM - In a speech marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Wednesday that the world “didn’t lift a finger” to stop the Holocaust.

Sharon said Jews learned a lesson from the genocide that they can only rely on themselves.

In unusually harsh remarks to parliament, Sharon noted that when the Nazis began deporting Jews from Hungary to Auschwitz in large numbers in 1944, Allied forces did not bomb the railroad tracks leading to the death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. Sharon said that over a period of several weeks, more than 600,000 Jews from Hungary were killed in Auschwitz.

“The sad and terrible conclusion is that no one cared that Jews were being killed,” Sharon said.
“At the time of the most terrible test, friends and benefactors didn’t lift a finger,” he said. “This is the Jewish lesson of the Holocaust.”

<</SNIP>>

[Inland]

1. That's not a lesson.

A lesson would be, that countries should stand up against oppression and genocide. Don't think that Sharon has learned that lesson any better than anyone else.

[eyl]

13. Except that

observation of the last half century or so teaches that countries won't stand up against oppression and genocide. That being so, Sharon's point has validity (up to a point, anyway).

[King Mongo]

14. True

The US still supports Sharon and I don't understand why Bush doesn't stand up against oppression. It's so strange that he supports it.

[Inland]

35. It has a point, but I am not sure about the lesson.

Sharon's lesson may just as well be that nobody is going to help the palestinians when Israel oppresses them. That's the distinction I was trying to make.

[ashiebr]

16. A lesson would be that..............

.........Israeli leaders should stop quoting the horrific actions perpetrated by Nazis in the 1930s as if they excused Israeli actions in the 21st century.

I guess the Holocaust is like patriotism...."The Last Refuge of a Scoundrel".

[DemFromMem]

99. Double standard?

Would you get away with complaining about a native American reminding Americans about the genocide they faced in this country or an African American reminding people of the suffering under slavery. But the Jews are just whiners, huh?

Israeli policies today ARE a direct response to the 1930s. Most Israelis have close relatives who died in the Holocaust and it shapes their collective psyche. To act like the near extermination of the Jewish people and five decades of living surrounded by hostile neighbors is meaningless is ignoring reality. That's not to say Israel cannot be criticized. But trying to say it is not valid for Israelis to cite the lessons of the Holocaust - particularly on this major anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz - is in no way constructive.

[Darranar]

109. Native Americans do not have a state and are not oppressing anyone. n/t

[ashiebr]

117. the Jews are just whiners.........

What an appalling thing to say or to accuse others of saying. Retract it now!

I said that "Israeli leaders should stop quoting the horrific actions perpetrated by Nazis in the 1930s as if they excused Israeli actions in the 21st century".

How TF do you get from that to your squalid excuse for an argument that Israeli policies (which ones you don't say) are a direct response to the 1930s? The lesson they should have learned is that cruelty to others is never, ever excused.

Fer Chrissakes live in the 21st century. Not the 1930s.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

137. 'Bullshit hyperbole such as "the near extinction of European Jewry"'??????

Every single word of that "bullshit hyperbole" is absolute truth AND YOU GODDAMN WELL KNOW IT!!!!!!!!

[Englander]

133. Yes way...

Emotional blackmail & insults do not make for a convincing argument;
why not try again with reasoning, & a wee bit less venom?

[QueerJustice]

138. ``but I suspect there are plenty of folks out there who would agree ``

yes there are....

[Djinn]

144. actually I doubt you touched anything

the myth that Israel had it existed at the time, could have protected jews is detailed below (jews are considerably safer OUTSIDE Israel than in it) as is plenty of evidence that disputes that.

It's best not accuse others of trying to "de-legitimise" the country, it's offensive

[Darranar]

145. The issue of where Jews are safer is beside the point, I think...

the advantage of Israel is that Jews couldn't be that much less safe there than they are now, unless the state is destroyed, while in, say, the US, if the Christian Right continues gaining power that may not be so.

And if conditions in the US do become overly harsh for Jews, which I admit is unlikely, Israel will always remain an option.

Whether the benefits outweigh the costs is something about which I am far from certain, however.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Djinn]

149. does that include me

or only jews who beliefs and feelings you have personally approved?

[Djinn]

121. maybe if the native americans

had annexed and occupied someone elses land for 40 years your comparison would be relevant.

No-one saying the Holocaust shouldn't be remebered/memorialised and learnt from, people are however a bit cynical to hear Sharon bang on about lessons not being learnt.

The insinuation is that jews are all alone because in the 30/40's no-one stopped the Holocaust, no-one stopped it because it wasn't in their strategic or financial best interests, just like very few nations do anything to stop what's happening to the Palestinians and I can't say I remember Israel doing much to stop any of the attempted genocides/arbitrary detention/torture of those in other nations.

Israel didn't stand up and stop what happened in Cambodia, Burma or Rwanda...neither did anyone else and it wasn't because they were anti-cambodian, anti-burmese or anti-Rwandan, it's because there was no BENEFIT to it, no nation ever acts out of altruistic motives.

People also dispute the "see wee need to steal land and demolish houses" because of the "never again" line of reasoning, which is a total non sequiter - pre Israeli Zionists weren't much more helpful to european jews than the US/UK etc were, it was always a POLITICS thing not an ingrained anti-semitism thing.

[CoffeeCat]

2. Makes me wonder...

...why more nations aren't decrying Gitmo.

It's one of the worst things our nation has ever done.

It makes me so sick.

[sabra]

3. Agree. The truth is slowly coming out...

and it's very ugly!

[StarsEncore]

4. There's NO comparison between Gitmo and

the Holocaust!! As a Jewish man with a mother who survived and a father who didn't survive the Holocaust, that's an offensive statement. Crack open a history book and check it out!

[sabra]

6. Agree with that too!

You can't compare the two, no doubt! But never the less Gitmo shouldn't be allowed...

[ynksnewyork2]

8. Totally agree, Stars!

[CoffeeCat]

9. We agree...

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the horrors of the Holocaust cannot be compared with what is happening in Gitmo. Saying that Gitmo and the Holocaust are comparable--would be an insult to what your family endured, and all Jewish people.

We do agree.

I apologize if I miscommunicated.

My concern is that Gitmo is a slippery slope--a dangerous precursor that could lead to horrible crimes against humanity. We're rounding people up that have been charged with no crime. We had them in cages at one time. The secretive nature of what's happening there and the isolated environment rings alarm bells. In addition, there are many reports of torture and mistreatment. Furthermore, Gitmo's location is highly suspect. It's isolated and technically, American law doesn't have to be followed there.

I believe that these conditions set up the possibility of horrible outcomes for human beings. I believe all governments should avoid--at all costs--situations that mirror the precursors that happened in the concentration camps.

I'm concerned that we really don't know what is going on there.

I hope that explains my opinions better.

Again, my apologies if I offended you. I do understand what you are saying and I agree.

[madrchsod]

5. when is this

pile of crap going to join arafat. then maybe the nation of israel can move forward

[bemildred]

7. Spreading more oil on the waters as usual.

:puke:

[drdon326]

10. What the hell does that mean ?!

.

[bemildred]

11. Nothing, ignore it. nt

[drdon326]

12. I tried that...its not that easy. n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

37. Sharon; The Exxon-Valdez of Politicians...

n/t

[bemildred]

42. The drunken captain of that ship comes to mind.

I just found the desire shown here to spread fear and paranoia telling.
It is certainly true that the holocaust was, well, the Holocaust, but
it is not true that nobody lifted a finger, it took the armed might of
Russia and the USA to stop the Nazis, and that is quite a finger, and
there were persons in good number in the occupied countries that risked
their own lives and well-being to help the victims of the Holocaust.
Labelling the entire human race as anti-semitic, as Jabba does here, is
a bit much.

[eyl]

44. Not the entire human race, and

not anti-semites, no. But if the Holocaust taught us anything, it was that we couldn't depends on anyone else to save us. The US and the USSR stopped the Nazis, true. But they hardly did so out of any desire to help the Jews; any such help was almost incidental. There were a lot of things they could have done to ameliorate the situation (such as not turning back Jewish refugees), which they didn't do.

[bemildred]

46. What part of "nobody" are you quibbling with?

FWIW, it is true of anyone, anywhere, throughout most of history,
Jews and non-Jews alike, that they could not rely on anyone but
themselves to save them. It's not special.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

[QueerJustice]

60. Right you are...

and thats why today in 2005 we have the means (Israel) to protect ourselves....

[bemildred]

85. And welcome to it.

It doesn't look to me like it's doing all that good a job of it,
but if it makes you happy, more power to you.

[Djinn]

69. read some history

find out why MANY many attempts by the USA, UK and other nations to increase jewish refugee intakes were defeated.

Come back and tell us how the international zionist movement repeatedly BLOCKED these movements because they were pushing for Palestine and ONLY Palestine as the destination.

Read - it's ALL out there.

Why some people beleive that Jews alone are righteous and would somehow ignore the temptations of politics. Not all Islamic nations look out for each other and assist each others people, not all Christian nations do - why would Israel if it were not in it's best inetersts to do, much like the Zionists of pre-Israel.

[Englander]

87. Standard Sharon m.o...

Rewrite history,use incendiary rhetoric & try to be as offensive as possible.

Dozens of countries & millions of people fought against the Nazis;
Soviets,US,Uk,European countries,Commonwealth countries,Australasia,India,Africa,Carribean & Canada.

[Igel]

112. My quibble with what you wrote is that the USSR and

USA did not lift a finger to stop the Holocaust; you can't revise history that way. Each acted only to protect their own asses.

Stalin was all to happy to divvy up Poland a la Catherine the Great. FDR was all to happy to sit on his rump for two years while France went Vichy and the only non-Nazi areas of Europe were Russia and Britain.

Hitler invades Russia ... Russia's in the game.

Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, and Germany declares war on the US ... FDR's in the game.

Jews being killed in Germany and German-occupied countries ... below the radar.

[bemildred]

115. I don't disagree with you there.

Saving the people in the cattle cars was not a high priority.
Not the highest priority, if anyone prefers that wording.

I'm not trying to defend the US or USSR in their conduct of the war,
or implying that anti-semitism is not or was not a real problem,
I'm saying that Sharon is a fear-mongering blowhard.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Wrong, Arik! Many righteous gentiles risked their lives for the Jews

Raoul Wallenberg was one of many righteous gentiles that risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis. The problem was with the governments, including our own, that didn't want to accept any refugees.

[eyl]

18. You're being overly literal

Given the state of the world, Sharon's statement is likely correct (though I'd hate to test the matter experimentally) that Jews (as a group) cannot rely on others (as a group - though even there there were exceptions, e.g. the Danes) to save them.

Case in point - you stated that "The problem was with the governments, including our own, that didn't want to accept any refugees." Had Israel been established ten years earlier, they would have had somewhere to flee to, whatever the rest of the world did (in fact, that's the motivation behind the Law of Return).

[QueerJustice]

19. if Israel had existed in all...

...probability The Holocaust would not have happened...

Since the creation of the Jewish state we have learned to fend for ourselves against all enemies including ones of the intellectual type....

[Djinn]

21. what?

how on earth can you justify that - how would a little country in the middle east have stopped the Nazi's?

[Behind the Aegis]

22. it might have been true

Not to speak for Queer Justice, but it seems to me the post is saying that had Israel existed then that many Jews would have been able to find a safe refuge. Many Jews who were murdered became victims after they were refused entry into a variety of nations. Had Israel been there, they would have had a safe port, so to speak. I also think that had Israel been there, they would have spoken out against the atrocities and, perhaps, procured other nations to intervene much sooner.

[Djinn]

23. so that would have prevented it?

every single jew (not to mention gypsy, socialist, trade unionist, communist, homosexual, etc etc etc) in Europe could have just fled to a tiny strip of land in the middle east?

also that would have made Hitler VERY happy - one of the early plans WAS a "transfer" when that proved impossible (because other nations refused entry) he started on the slaughter.

As for a jewish homeland welcoming european jews fleeing the Nazi's -what happened to the 250 souls who never got off the Patria?

Every nation does what's best for that nation - not each individual who lives within it - and individual people don't always look out for their "brothers and sisters" - see Romkowsky and the Lodz ghetto.

Perhaps if Israel had existed at the time the response who have been similar to Chaim Weizmann who felt that countries could only accept a limited number of jews otherwise they'd get "disorders of the stomach" and that only young jews should emigrate "The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They were dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world...Only the branch of the young shall survive...They have to accept it."

his buddy Greenbaum added "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Europe".

or there's

"Henry Montor executive vice-President of the United Jewish Appeal who refused to intervene for a shipload of Jewish refugees stranded on the Danube river, stating that "Palestine cannot be flooded with... old people or with undesirables."

"On December 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared its readiness to find temporary refuge for endangered persons. The British Parliament proposed to evacuate 500,000 Jews from Europe, and resettle them in British colonies, as a part of diplomatic negotiations with Germany. This motion received within two weeks a total of 277 Parliamentary signatures. On Jan. 27, when the next steps were being pursued by over 100 M.P.'s and Lords, a spokesman for the Zionists announced that the Jews would oppose the motion because Palestine was omitted"

The Zionist movement did very little to ease the suffering of European jews, they did nothing to persuade Britain and the US amongst other nations to approve more refugees - in fact they worked against it time and time again, viewing Palestine as the only option - they were politicians after all

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. So why would you assume Djinn hates Jews?

Read the question in yr post and the question in her post and try to *think* about why djinn inserted 'Arab' instead of 'Jew'. Is that possible?

Violet...

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

40. Are you refering to this;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=81993

where you posted a link to a website that has this introduction on it's frontpage?

"If you are offended by strong right wing views
and bad language, you should probably
fuck off now and go hug a tree."

And where you had this to say about the writer of this blog;

"Its a pleasure to know there are Aussies who understand this truth and reading this re-affirms my respect."

So,is there some confusion;are you praising some-one who holds "strong right-wing views"?

[Djinn]

47. about as pathestic as beyond teh aegi's comments

ehich I would have preferred stayed - given people such as yourself always doubt that anyone DOES call me antisemitic or self hating.

BTW - please provide the quote where I "praised' that exhibit - I said it was on private property and the people involved had every right in a free society to do that.

But then again FACTS have necver been a big part of your arsenal have they drdon

[eyl]

27. As I recall

the case of the Patria, it was sunk by accident; the intent was to damage it enough to prevent the British from sending it (along with the refugees on it) back to Europe.

[Englander]

29. Making a hole in the side of a ship....

tends to result in that ship sinking.Scuttling a vessel when there are 2000 people on board is a really bad idea,and gives the clear impression that anyone attempting such an action is not greatly concerned about the health or welfare of those 2000.

[eyl]

30. Exactly what I said

the intent wasn't to blow a hole in the side of the ship, but rather to damage the engines; someone screwed up.

[Englander]

38. Exploding a mine on board a ship...

will have one result; that ship sinking,with a hole in the hull.
Haganahs' intention was to scuttle the Patria,the only difference that the size of the explosives used made was to drastically reduce the amount of time that Patria took to sink. The intention was to create a small hole,instead a large hole was created.

" The Haganah leaders decided to prevent the Patria from leaving port by sabotage. A mine was prepared at Haifa, concealed in a cloth bag and smuggled aboard the ship, where it was handed over to one of the Haganah liaison officers. On November 25, 1940, at about 9 a.m. the mine was detonated. The intention was to blast a small hole in the vessel's side so that that it would slowly take in water allowing time to evacuate all those on board. However, the mine blasted a large hole and water flooded into the hold. Within 15 minutes the ship began to list with only a small portion remaining above water. Some 250 people (200 of them Jews, and most of the remainder British soldiers) went down with the ship. This was the largest number of victims of any single operation conducted by an organization since the beginning of British rule in Palestine."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/irgunill.html

[eyl]

39. Uh

the link you posted stated the deaths were unintentional, contrary to your assertion above.

[Englander]

41. How does....

"...anyone attempting such an action is not greatly concerned about the health or welfare of those 2000."

translate as "any deaths were intentional"?


Also,the Patria was to be sent to Mauritius,not Europe.

[eyl]

43. from your link

"The intention was to blast a small hole in the vessel's side so that that it would slowly take in water allowing time to evacuate all those on board"

The quote in post #39 isn't form this link, as far as I can see?

[QueerJustice]

62. there is a difference between...

intention and outcome....

[Djinn]

48. hahahahaha

right so sending those fleeing the Nazi's back into their arms was a good idea - also if you beleiev the "just damage it" line I've got some land you may wish to buy.

The point is Zionist groups in the main DID NOTHING to assist those suffering in Europe NOTHING AT ALL

[QueerJustice]

55. that sounds like revisionist history to me...

[Djinn]

71. really

so why did they blow a hole in the ship - what was their intention/reasoning? why did they have a problem with the refugees being taken to Mauritius? surely if the idea was just to get them out of the hands of the Nazi's this would have been fine??

how many different instances do you want of Zionist groups objecting to US/UK (and elsewheres) refugee intake increases? how many would it take to prove to you there was something of another agenda happening here and it had NOTHING to do with saving jews, why did they keep insisting it was better to be in Palestine than anywhere else - why the "one cow in Palestine worth more" quotes???

any answers queer justice or just more assertions that you can not back up?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. Some can make educated guesses...

How would the existance of Israel had made any difference to Soviet Jews? Right up to the invasion, they had no reason to flee the Nazis, so it's not like there was any great incentive for them to give up the lives they knew and flee...

by the way - that 'honest' question of yrs is pretty stinky and is just a clumsy way of trying to get around the rules banning people accusing others of anti-Semitism etc. I wouldn't try that again if I were you...

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

45. educated guesses

The point of my post was that we can "guess" about all kinds of outcomes had Israel existed, but it it didn't. Personally, I feel many Jews would have no lost their loves had the state been there. But, we will never know.

btw -- it was an honest question! I have no reason to resort to subterfuge on a discussion board. Since my post has been deleted I cannot reread my question, but I believe I asked, "do you..." not "why do you..." Asking someone "why" would indicate that I felt the poster did hate. By asking "do you," I was asking for clarification. If I did ask "why" then the post rightly was deleted and I owe the poster an apology. I also stated that had I thought she was anti-Semitic, I would have come out and said it (after rereading the "rules" I know that is wrong and I would have gone back and 'alerted' the moderators). So your assessment that it was a "clumsy way of trying to get around the rules banning people accusing others of anti-Semitism is inaccurate. I was just being honest and asking for an honest response.

Please feel free to pull up my name in a search and read some of my other posts. You will find that I do not attack people on this board. I am, more often than not, clear in my intentions in my posts.

[Djinn]

49. first of all I'm a she not a he

and as my post was also deleted I'll fill you in

I AM Jewish and members of my extended family (grandfathers side) were killed in the Holocaust, his cousin was also killed when Zionist terrorists blew up the King David Hotel.

Whilst admittedly an atheist (as is my father and as was my grandfather) Hitler would have considered my family Jewish and the Israeli government would allow me to emmigrate.

Criticism of Israel is not and never will be anti-semtism, one of the biggest Israeli critics I've ever met is a concentration camp survivor.

Pretend all you like about your intentions when asking if I "hate jews" - somehow I don't beleive you

[Behind the Aegis]

51. I know it was deleted, but I read it before it was removed.

I also know you are a "she" since I wrote: I also stated that had I thought she was...

"Criticism of Israel is not and never will be anti-semtism..." And, in my other post I said I agreed. That assertion is as silly as saying anyone who doesn't support *ush is anti-American.

"I AM Jewish...","Whilst admittedly an atheist..." So, which is it? Are you Jewish or atheist? Or are you meaning "Jewish" as a cultural thing and not a religious thing?

"Pretend all you like about your intentions when asking if I "hate jews" - somehow I don't beleive you" You don't know my intentions and it wouldn't matter if I explained it because you wouldn't believe it anyway, which is your right. Just as it is my right to not care what you believe about me or my intentions.

[Djinn]

52. what are you getting at

"I AM Jewish...","Whilst admittedly an atheist..." So, which is it? Are you Jewish or atheist? Or are you meaning "Jewish" as a cultural thing and not a religious thing?

you do know that a large percentage of Israeli's are not practising right?

you do know that both the Jewish community AND it's enemies over the years regard Judaism as cultural not just religious?? (personally I see it as a religion but Israel doesn't so I'm not sure why YOU need to)

you do realise that regardless of my belief in God "hating" members of my own family would be a little odd?

[Behind the Aegis]

53. it was what it was...a question

I wasn't asking about all of Israel, I was asking you, personally, because you said you were both Jewish and atheist. One cannot be Christian and atheist. However, some people see Judaism as both a religion and a culture. Therefore, you cannot be Jewish (religiously) and atheist. However, you could be Jewish (culturally) and atheist, which is why I asked the question I did.

"personally I see it as a religion but Israel doesn't so I'm not sure why YOU need to" Where did I state, or even imply, that I felt Judaism had to be one or the other? I simply asked which meaning you were using because it could mean there was a conflicting statement. You did answer my question though.

Many people hate their own family, but I never asked that question.

"you do know that a large percentage of Israeli's are not practising right?" You do realize that many Israelis aren't even Jews? As for non-practicing Jews in Israel, I have never seen any stats on it, so this is news to me, if true.

[QueerJustice]

70. Bravo..

I agree 100% with you...I am not religious at all , but very much part of the Jewish people....

..It is impossible for you to be self hating and I do not believe you are....Your just not a patriot lol ;)

"I AM Jewish...","Whilst admittedly an atheist..." Makes complete sense to me....

[Djinn]

73. how can I be a patriot (or not)

to a religion? I am not and never have been an Israeli, only two members of my extended family have ever lived in Israel (though wasn't Isarel at the time) why would I be patriotic to it (btw I do realise you weren't being overly serious here)

atheist and jewish actually doesn't make a LOT of sense to me, but I guess if a religion is around long enough it becomes cultural, although really I'm probably more culturally Christian (my mum's side of the family being a tiny bit more religious than dad's) but the Jewish community has no problem accepting "cultural/ethnically" jewish so I don't see why the poster above does, personally I think there's another point being made (or attempting to be made) here

[QueerJustice]

76. It is the ``Jewish People``

that is the ``nation`` a lot of Israeli`s belong to....

[drdon326]

56. Ironic,isn't it?

"and the Israeli government would allow me to emmigrate."


yes they would......congratulations...youre an israeli.


is this sinking in yet??

[Djinn]

64. and your point is...

oops sorry don - forgot you never actually needed one

[drdon326]

72. Now is that nice??

hey, i tried.

Sorry the irony was lost on you. I wont give up on you...i'm hopeful.

[Djinn]

75. "is this sinking in yet"

isn't irony don (but Americans do seem to struggle with the meaning of that one) it's just snarky snide drivel.

[drdon326]

79. Noooooo.......

wasnt snide......you took it the wrong way.

hey, i like the fact you are PROUD to be jewish...and yes,you're right israel would welcome you.......just in case it gets a little crazy down under.lol

[Djinn]

80. not proud

not ashamed either, much like not "proud" or ashamed to be Scottish or an Australian citizen - I had very little to do with any of these.

[QueerJustice]

57. Why do you continually have to...

explain to all the Jewish posters here that you are Jewish...Why do you think that the would not presume you are or not?
I never had to explain that to anyone.....

[drdon326]

59. QJ.....

I look at this in a positive light.....i like the fact that djinn is proud to be jewish.

I view this as the first step in her journey of self-identification.

I'm happy she says that.

[Djinn]

77. it's pretty simple really

when someone accuses me of being anti-semitic it pisses me off - funny that.

No-one has ever accused you of wanting all jews dead, or of "hating" Israel - that's why you don't have to. Besides you waffle on and on about it regularly, you've even told me about your exchanges with your jewish pals in Melbourne.

Jeebus queer justice what are you smoking today and can I have some?

[QueerJustice]

81. I don`t do drugs

unlike a lot of other gay guys ;)
I do like a scotch with my dad , cousins and brothers tho...

and When I get to Australia would be happy to treat you to one...or dinner... :)

[Djinn]

82. make it a nice aged one

and I'll have a wee dram - btw - when you say "when" does that refer to a specific date or was an if/when?

[QueerJustice]

83. I am overdue for a visit to Australia...

someday....Just found out that my 25 yr old cousin in Sydney ``came outa `` the closet...more incentive to visit in 2005/2006 mebbe....

[Djinn]

84. just a travel tip

sydney sucks! if you want a city trip go to Melbourne if you want beaches/rainforests go to QLD and if you want the "eral" australian bush thing go to Darwin/Kakadu...

and now back to endless arguing about I/P ;-)

[QueerJustice]

58. ``Criticism of Israel is not and never will be anti-semtism``

Well while all Criticism of Israel is not anti-semtism....the second part of your statement is incorrect.....

A lot of it is most definatly anti-semitic...and a vast majority of Jews take offence and feel that it is ...(being the victims they should decide if it is or not) and I will venture to guess that a small tiny minority of Jews do not believe it is...

...while it is impossible to prove these statistics , you probably could take a straw poll of any Jewish community in the world , including our Jewish community here on DU and I will bet I am right....

[drdon326]

61. I missed that part......

i agree with you....100%.

[QueerJustice]

67. thank you....

..its obvious but apparently the obvious needs to be stated.....

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Is this the tag-team you speak of constantly?

Also, since when has the world elected *you* to decree what is and isn't anti-semitism?


Violet...

[QueerJustice]

104. nobody ``elected`` me...but having grown up in..

a pretty racist country ,and being Jewish and Gay I do have a good inkling of what is and what is not anti semetism...and what is and what is not Homophobia.....in general...as I said I am prepared to wager the vast majority of the Jewish world would agree...try a straw poll at your work ;)

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Okay, give some examples...

How about a few examples of what would be considered anti-Semitism, and a few examples of what isn't anti-Semitism when it comes to criticism of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. Or if you want I can give you a few examples and you can say whether they are or not?

Also, are you trying to say that only people who are members of a group know what is and isn't discrimination against them? It's just that I've encountered women who label just about anything said or done by men as sexism. And if questioned about it, they'll also claim they have the vast majority of women agreeing with their opinions. And if questioned again, they'll start screeching and labelling women who disagree with them as traitors. I see some of that sort of thing at work in this forum at times...

Violet...

[sherilocks]

111. Violet, you asked for some examples of

anti-semitism. Just venture out to the other forums in DU like LBN and GD-P or GD. There hasn't been one thread about Judaism, threads having nothing to do with Israel whatsoever, where one or more DUers haven't jumped in with a diatribe against Israel. Latest example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1191429

All of the referenced posts were deleted. If certain DUers equate all Jews with Israel, and if they hate Israel so much that they cannot see that there are two sides to the issue, than I have to conclude that most of these same DUers are probably anti-semitic as well.

There are a few left with a whiff of anti-semitism, like "did the Jews ever thank the Vatican?", but not quite there.

[drdon326]

116. "Anti-Zionists. But We Have Nothing Against the Jews as Such"

There are Jewish leftist anti-Zionists and we consider this proof that anti-Zionists could not possibly be anti-Semitic. Not even the ones who cheer when Jews are mass murdered. These are the only Jews we think need be acknowledged or respected. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think murder proves how righteous and just the cause of the
murderer is, except when it comes to murderers of Jews. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We do not think the Jews are entitled to their own state and must submit to being a minority in a Rwanda-style ''bi-national state,'' although no other state on earth, including the 22 Arab countries, should be similarly expected to be deprived of its sovereignty. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We think that Israel's having a Jewish majority and a star on its flag makes it a racist apartheid state. We do not think any other country having an ethnic-religious majority or having crosses or crescents or ''Allah Akbar'' on its flag is racist or needs
dismemberment. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

We condemn the ''mistreatment'' of women in the only country of the Middle East in which they are not mistreated. But that does not mean we have anything against Jews as such.

http://www.editorsoffice.de/ME_plaut.htm

[Darranar]

119. An exercise in hypocrisy...

The fifth example you pasted isn't at all anti-semitic, any more than spending money on protecting the US rather than feeding starving African children is anti-African. Causes are causes, and the existence of greater wrongs does not mean that lesser wrongs should remain un-condemned. Even if there really isn't any mistreatment of women in Israel, which is not true, inaccuracy is not anti-semitism.

If someone were to claim that Hamas' suicide bombings prove how righteous the Palestinian cause is, that would be disgusting trash, but it would not be anti-semitic. The claim being illogical, morally vacuous, factually inaccurate, etc. is irrelevant - none of that makes it anti-semitic. If someone were to claim that murderers of Jews are always righteous because they are murdering Jews, that would be anti-semitic as well as disgusting trash, but it would not be anti-Israel.

If the twenty-two Arab states were occupying another people and were living on land relatively recently taken from its indigenous inhabitants, many of whom living horribly in refugee camps due to their expulsion by the current inhabitants, Plaut might have a point in regard to the third paragraph you pasted.

The rest is rather similar: strawman attacks derived from the equation he condemns others for making, namely that Jews = Israel.

[QueerJustice]

120. ``There are Jewish leftist anti-Zionists ``

And boy...do they ever find them.....Talk about a ``vocal`` and TINY minority.....but the view of the VAST majority of Jews is ``ignorant`` and Neandarthall-ish....

[Violet_Crumble]

123. Thanks...

That thread had so many deleted posts, it was impossible to work out what was going on in it. Considering that thread was related to WWII, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel came up in some form or another.. It appears to me that in this forum, there's 'pro-Israeli' posters who can't even make a fleeting reference to WWII without bringing Israel into it. I have the same question as Darranar about why if equating Jews with Israel is an example of anti-Semitism, why is it that the Israeli govt and those who label themselves supporters of Israel go to such lengths to equate Israel with Jews? They appear unwilling to accept criticism of the policies of Israel as being anythign but anti-Semitism. Personally I think anyone who equates all Jews with Israel is a complete twit, and that applies to anyone who does it, no matter what views they have on the conflict...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

124. Queer Justice! Are you going to try answering my question?

I'd really be interested in seeing some examples from you...

Violet...

[QueerJustice]

135. heres one answer meantime while I..

get energy after a heavy day at the hospital to give you more :)


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86161&mesg_id=86161

[Darranar]

140. The case you cite is undoubtedly anti-semitic...

but, hypothetically, do you think it is possible for a ridiculously ignorant and biased anti-Zionist to claim something along those lines without being anti-semitic?

[Djinn]

122. so what - if the vast majority of a group hold an OPINION

it's still an opinion. That is such a lame argument Queer Justice.

I mean the vast majority of Palestinians beleive:

*they are being oppressed by a colonising force
*that house demolitions are collective punishment
*that children are deliberatly targetted
*in their right to return

I guess we';ve just solved a few problemettes there hey? - as long as a majority of a certain group of beleive something ...abracadabra...it's true.

[Darranar]

110. Examples?

What sort of criticism of Israel do you consider anti-semitic?

[sherilocks]

113. Read my post #111

I know the question wasn't meant for me, but I thought I'd direct you to my answer to Violet.

[Darranar]

114. Saw that. But it doesn't really answer my question...

what criticisms of Israel are anti-semitic?

And a side point in regard to your post: why is it that whenever someone opposing Israeli policy makes an equation between Israel and Jews, he or she is (rightfully) criticized, but when pro-Israeli policy Jewish leaders make the same equation, usually to advocate Democratic support for Israeli policy or to smear, if merely by implication, harsh critics of Israel as anti-semites, few comment?

[QueerJustice]

34. The simple truth is....

Killing of Jews in a distant country TODAY is not possible....The reason being ..Israel....(and the mighty IDF)

[QueerJustice]

63. Yes to answer your question...

"so that would have prevented it?"

YES....

A lot of people,myself included, conclude that...

(and it is what I learned in Hebrew school in South Africa, and it is what is taught today in 2005 in Hebrew schools all over the world including Moriah Hebrew school in Australia)


...if Israel existed then,The Holocaust in all probability would not have occurred OR it would defiantly have not been on the scale of 6 million Jews exterminated......

[Djinn]

65. well if you were taught it at school it must be right...haha

plenty of people were once told tat lie about "a land without people" closer to my home people were taught about "terra nullius" didn't make it the truth.

Evidence available certainly doesn't bear out this supposition

[QueerJustice]

68. So do you think it could happen today...

With the existance of The Jewish State?

Which is an argument for the importance of such an existance BTW.

[QueerJustice]

33. The same way this Tiny country...

TODAY could protect us form just about anyone.....just like it did when it rescued Israeli Jews and other Jews from Entebbe...comprehend?

[Djinn]

50. scale?

the Entebbe involved 100 people - saving all the Jews in Europe would have been a wee bitty more difficult, not to mention that the Palestinian terrorists holding them did not have one of the largest armies/economies in the world and a bunch of international allies.

But yeah there's a relevant comparison to be made there :eyes:

[QueerJustice]

54. think it could happen today with Israel in existance?

[Djinn]

66. yes

for the reasons spelt out above - thought I'd made that point - what would have Israel done to protect 10 of millions of people?? perhaps razed ALL of the OT to fit them in?

[QueerJustice]

74. nonsense...

with the mighty army at her disposal today ``never again`` truly means just that....

[Djinn]

78. delude yourself all you like

[Englander]

88. Y'know,I was wrong about you....

being a visitor from Mars;
you're posting from another dimension,from an alternate reality..

:crazy:

[QueerJustice]

89. second time you come up with that ``mars``answer...

Is that the best you can do?

Are you inept at civil discourse ? OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN RUDE??

[drdon326]

90. .

Are you inept at civil discourse ? OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN RUDE?

Tough choice. Both?

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[drdon326]

96. I would answer how I really feel about your post...

but i just dont feel like getting banned today.

i'm amazed it is still up.

[QueerJustice]

100. ``your posts are only here to provide entertainment value``

with some intellectual effort...one can clearly see that most of my posts are really profound...

School yard insults and taunts such as ``yer views are extra-terrestrial``or that they come from ``mars`` are in my mind equivalent to ummm...

...``your mother is fat``or ``your feet smell`` which I have not heard since Standard 5 in Primary school....which is simply not entertaining to me anymore...since about the age of 9yrs old.


Best I leave it to other DU posters to decide...





:bounce:

[Violet_Crumble]

101. I've decided...

I tend to agree with much of what Englander's had to say. I have zero sympathy for those who arrive here and act with no civility and who don't add anything constructive to the discussion leaving post after post loudly whining and portraying themselves as being victims of that which they themselves are guilty of...

Violet...

[QueerJustice]

103. .......

[Violet_Crumble]

106. Oh!

Was I supposed to agree that yr posts are very profound? You don't pay me enough to bend the truth that much, QueerJustice! Don't you worry, yr still my buddy! :pals:

Here's a little pollyannaish bit of wisdom for you that's worked for me in the past. If you want to be treated civilly, treat others that way, and most will keep any negative opinions to themselves and treat you like yr not a twit. Those who keep on doing it after you've made a real effort aren't worth talking to (though I sometimes can't resist replying to the generally nasty posts of one who I've decided is not here to have any constructive discussion). Of course, there's a small number of folk who'll just take very subtle and gentle digs at you - unless they're in a really bad mood and can't be bothered camoflaging the digs so you don't have to read the post multiple times before it dawns on you that they weren't being as agreeable as you first thought. They're pretty harmless...

signed

Pollyanna...

[QueerJustice]

107. ``Don't you worry, yr still my buddy!``

Thats what I believed ..and therefore deleted the post even tho it was not at all nasty :)

[Englander]

131. Thank you,Violet...

Cheers! :toast:

[Englander]

129. Here's a suggestion..

Try constructing a reasoned,coherent & thoughtful arguement for yer case.Be prepared for criticism,whichever form it takes,and try not to reply with a facetious or witless response.Try to keep outlandish &/or obviously RW views & perspectives out of yer well-constructed & convincing post.

If you do that,I'll stop suggesting that you live on the other side of the galaxy. If you don't know how to,try learning. Because from where I'm sitting,you sound like a (albeit gay) reactionary old Tory,with yer absolutes,& yer glorifying of the Military,& yer support for colonial oppression.

If the ridicule continues,you can always take heart from Gandhi,although I'm not sure that this quote is relevant in yer case;

"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win."

:)

[QueerJustice]

134. your the last person whos advice I would ...

respect.

You should learn something yourself from all your deleted posts above...

[QueerJustice]

20. and your wrong...

yes many did...but at the time especially in Germany and Poland ,not enogh did (period)

[IndianaGreen]

28. Sharon would have flunked the DU I/P rules

when he used language sucha as "all" gentiles. This is like saying all Arabs are terrorists and all Israelis are oppressors.

[Carlos Martillo]

86. 20 million + Slavs disagree

They cared, and died.

[Jack Rabbit]

94. Brace yourself for a rare moment: I agree with Sharon

EDITED for grammar and clarity

One could argue that the world had no direct knowledge of the death camps save from those who escaped from the Third Reich. Since defectors are usually unreliable, this was viewed with skepticism. Nevertheless, this is no alibi.

Before the war the Nazis had put in place systematic discrimination against Jews with a series of exclusion laws that stripped them of everything from their rights as citizens to their right to repose in their gardens after sundown. That, coming long before the construction of Auschwitz, should have raised more alarms than it did.

There were, of course, feeble cries of outrage. There was nothing more.

Today, when we see horrors and injustices such as Rwanda, Darfur, Guantanamo and other places, there is little more than feeble cries of outrage. Have we learned nothing?

[bemildred]

95. We haven't learned much. nt

[Darranar]

97. What do you think should be done? n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

98. Don't wait on world leaders to act

They have done nothing. They are afraid to do anything.

Boycott major GOP campaign contributors. Divest from corporations profiting from the war and occupation of Iraq. Demonstrate against the neocons wherever they go. Don't give them a moment's peace -- don't their helicopters land.

Those are things we can do. I would gladly entertain other ideas.

[Darranar]

108. Several good proposals there...

My question, which obviously was not very clear, wasn't really asking that however. The question was, even with the power of a superpower in our hands, what can be done about, say, the genocide in Sudan?

The US could intervene militarily - and perhaps escalate the war and cause a quagmire, making things even worse. A cursory glance at Iraq shows how that could easily happen.

The US could host negotiations - and watch as those negotiations fall apart, and the furious violence continue, with tens of thousands dying as a result.

The US could send humanitarian aid - and have that aid taken by the Janjaweed militias, and refused by refugee camps for fear of attracting attention from said militias.

Clearly, doing nothing is a morally untenable option. But the others appear little better.

The wisest course to take is to act before it escalates to the level of genocide or ethnic cleansing, but since as it is drawing attention to Darfur has not been very successful, this does not seem to be a policy likely to be adopted any time soon.

Military intervention appears to be the most effective course of action, but when not done skillfully and humanely, much can go wrong. What would happen if Human Rights Watch and other organizations succeeded at pursuading Bush into intervening in Sudan? He would not leave it at keeping the peace, and swiftly US forces would be dispatched to fight al-Qaeda and bring "democracy" to the Sudanese, whether they want it or not. The government in Khartoum would be replaced by a gang of thugs and collaborators in the style of the Allawi regime, and there would be a variety of forces intent on getting the US out. It would likely dissolve into a vicious conflict with just as many casualties as now, only one would have to add those slaughtered in the American invasion.

[Jack Rabbit]

125. A few steps

The US could intervene militarily . . . .

Prior to the ascension of the Bush junta, I might have agreed with that. However, anything Bush touches turns to a quagmire.

Where are the militias getting their support? This "war" against the residents of Darfur is not being fought on a shoestring. Weapons and ammunition need to be purchased and soldiers paid. Those sources must be identified and eliminated, just as sources of support for neoconservatism must be identified and eliminated.

[Jack Rabbit]

136. Here is a case in point concerning Darfur

From the Los Angeles Times via CommonDreams
Dated Sunday January 30

Erase the Darfur Blood Stain From California`s Pensions
By the Hon. Barbara Lee, US House of Representatives from California

Over the last two years, the Sudanese government and government-supported militias have undertaken a systematic campaign of violence and displacement, targeting civilians of the non-Arab ethnic communities in the Darfur region. Despite three U.N. resolutions, an estimated 35,000 people are dying each month. The Sudanese government remains defiant, and the violence, the genocide goes on.

I have just returned from the refugee camps on the Chad- Sudan border, and I am convinced that we must go beyond diplomacy to end the bloodshed. We must strengthen all efforts to cut off Khartoum's impunity by divesting from those companies that do business in Sudan.

A good place to start is with California's hidden stake in those businesses.

It may come as a surprise, but millions of Californians are inadvertently supporting the Khartoum regime. The California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) is the nation's largest public pension fund and one of the biggest investors in companies that conduct business in Sudan and thereby benefit the Khartoum regime.

Read more.

[Darranar]

141. This sort of thing is all too common...

I have seen similar articles discussing the influence of the arms trade in escalating the conflict, as well as that of Western oil companies in contributing to the economic conditions that are among the reasons for this tragedy. As usual, greed is a culprit in this tragedy.

I think one of the more effective and less destructive means of stopping, or at least impeding, these atrocities is indeed to enact sensible restrictions on these sorts of things, or in the case of individual action, to boycott companies engaging in such (though without a movement to do so such actions can be insignificant.) Another one is to support political candidates who are actually competent, unlike the current administration, and who are actually willing to seriously change things. (Such support, of course, would be a helpful step in regard to pretty much anything.)

Another possible countermeasure, though hard to apply in a situation that has already become violent, is the reduction of the horrid economic conditions that make disputes over resources and land matters of life and death, and therefore matters that flare up into murderous conflict.

[Jack Rabbit]

143. Also this concerning Darfur

From the BBC Online
Dated Tuesday February 1

UN urges Darfur war crimes trials

A United Nations report has called for those accused of carrying out war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region to be put on trial.

The report stopped short of calling the violence genocide, but said the government and its militia allies had killed, tortured and raped civilians.

A list of alleged war criminals was included in the report, but the names have not been made public.

The five-man team called for trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

But this is opposed by the United States, which does not recognise the ICC and favours the creation of a special court for Darfur instead.

The neoconservatives are attempting to block any attempt to bring the Darfur issue to the ICC, preferring to gut the ICC even at the expense of allowing war criminals in the Sudan to go free for want of a platform on which to try them.

There can be no doubt but the neoconservatives fear the very concept of international justice.

Thus, to fight both war crimes in Darfur and neoconservatism, the ICC deserves our support.

I just opened a thread on this in Foreign Affairs and Defense.

[IndianaGreen]

118. Palestinians are the Jews of the 21st century

America is as oblivious as to their plight under Israel's jackboots as it was about the Jews of Europe before and during the Holocaust.

[Jack Rabbit]

126. Boycotting and divesting in neoconservites will help here

As for Israel, there is no real consensus on what to do. Some believe Israel has no right to exist. I don't agree with that; even in so far as it may be an arguable point, that argument should have been held in 1948, not 2005. It is now way too late to discuss that issue.

If one were to wave a magic wand and make Israel disappear as a political entity as of this moment, it would only create the kind of humanitarian crisis that we should be seeking to avoid. Indeed, it could be as bad as any mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank would be. As British journalist Jonathan Freedland said shortly after the September 11 attacks: "the first task of the progressive (is) to feel compassion for their fellow human being."

The problem here is demanding that responsible parties in both the Jewish state and the Palestinian nation (for there is a Palestinian nation, even if there is no Palestinian state) marginalize their extremists and get on with the business of making a peace agreement. That peace will be less than perfect. I can't imagine a peace that gives the Palestinians a right of return or one that allows Israel the right to guarantee the security of Jewish settlements in Palestine. I can imagine a peace in which both nations are strong enough to keep order in their respective territory and have better things to do than go to war against each other.

There have been some optimistic noises coming out of the Middle East lately. However, I remain somewhat skeptical as to whether Abbas has the strength to marginalize the Islamist militants or whether Sharon has the will to marginalize the Yeshua councils. These are the extremists who will fight to the last drop of blood for the last acre of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It is these extremists -- all of them, whether any individual is a Jew or an Arab -- who must be made to sit down and shut up.

As for the neoconservatives, what answers have they had? Even if the Straussian philosophy had any appeal to people of goodwill (and it doesn't), we still have the Platonic disconnect between the lofty philosophical ideal and its implementation in the corrupt material world. No wonder these guys don't like reality. The neoconservatives on the one hand don't think they need to give any more than lip service to a Palestinian state, as if Palestinians had no legitimate grievances against occupation. They are 100% behind Israel, and believe Israel can do no wrong. Meanwhile, they play nice with repressive Arab regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, that fund terrorism. As long as they sell us petroleum cheap, they will turn a blind eye to their moral failings.

Therefore, undercutting neoconservatism can only help the situation in the Middle East. It isn't so much here that the neoconservative ideal should fill a compassionate person with horror as that their program is riddled with messy contradictions. Their right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabra]

148. I am sorry but that is BS!

Just last night, * announced that they will be sending 350 million to the Palestinians to bolster their security. Hmm.... Didn't Clinton help establish thousands of security forces for the country, what happened with that?

Your comparison has no merit.

[Englander]

130. "Hindsight is a wonderful thing...."

Those living in the 1930s didn't know where the Nazis were heading with their persecution of Jews & all non-Aryans. How did the discrimation compare,say,with US segregation,or SA apartheid,or conditions in the British Empire?

The first mention of the "Final Solution" is July '41,& the Wannsee Conference,which lead to the Holocaust,was in January '42.
As far as I am aware,the death camps were not known about before Summer of 1944,which was too late to save the millions who were killed.

I think that the die was cast after the Spanish Civil War & the Italian invasion of Abyssinia.By not fighting the German & Italian fascists,the rotw encouraged them,led them to believe that there was no great price to be paid for invasions & expansionism.

[Jack Rabbit]

132. Raises a point

The Nazis' evil was something that went beyond their treatment of Jews. Since Aryan was a phony abstract construct in the first place, they could have just as easily included German Jews as members of the master race as excluded them.

Even if the Nazis had treated Jews as equal to all other Germans and welcomed Jews into their ranks, they still would have been bent on world conquest and their order still would have been based on some sort of unnatural hierarchy in which they would have asserted the "right" to brutalize conquered people abroad and any political opposition at home. They still would have had to be stopped.

As it was, anti-Semitism was the central selling point of the Nazi program. It is more correct to speak of 11 million Nazi victims -- the total number of non-combatants who were systematically murdered by Hitler's regime -- but that does not change the fact that over half were Jews and that about two out of every three Jews who lived at the start of the war in lands that came to be occupied by Nazis were dead by the time the death camps were liberated. It was Jews who were the victims of systematic legal discrimination from the start of the Nazi regime; these laws were passed after Hitler became Chancellor but before he had consolidated his political power into what we have come to think of it.

If a political faction comes to power with a program based on an artificial social hierarchy, one should be very, very suspicious. These are people who probably will need to be dealt with sooner or later. That is something we should have learned from World War II.

Personally, I bristle every time a neoconservative speaks of democracy in favorable terms. It is Orwellian language. Neoconservatives, like Nazis, believe in an artificial social hierarchy; that is inherently an affront to democracy. True, it is a hierarchy based on something other than race (they aren't white supremacists) or religion (they aren't Iranian-style Islamic republicans), but on wealth which is mostly inherited, not earned. They believe that wealthy elites should have more say in the running of society and the rest of us should be dependent on their sense of noblesse oblige. We have now seen in Iraq that the neoconservatives will use military force to spread their anti-democratic system and will brutalize those who are even suspected of opposing it.

Every bit as much as Osama and al Qaida today or the Nazis of sixty years ago, the neoconservatives need to be stopped. We are too wise to fall for the false dichotomy of being with the neoconservatives or with the terrorists. We are democrats and we are opposed to both.

[Ian David]

146. Why didn't Sharon use the anniversary to speak-out about Prescott Bush?

It would have been a wonderful opportunity to take The Bush Family to task for their profiteering on The Holocaust.

Especially while Cheney was sitting there at Auschwitz wondering when he could leave to go snowboarding.

The same "friends and benefactors" that "didn't lift a finger" are IN THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT NOW!

Speak, Sharon! SPEAK!