Perhaps the most gloriously bigoted film of the decade

In order not to waste any more time, let's get to the points.

As for presenting evidence, I shouldn't have to present any since I represent the normal viewpoint on the issue. The onus is on you, as the maker of wild statements, to present your evidence.

There are many people in the world, who are neither crazy nor bigoted nor evil nor misinformed, for whom the very existence of the state of Israel is a wild statement. Why are your perspective and all the trends of thought you take for granted better than anyone else's?

So population decreases in a country over a period of nearly half a century for a variety of reasons...including an EPIDEMIC and you claim this as an example of colonial genocide?

This is supposed to be coming from someone who claims empathy with other people's "right to live in safety and defend themselves? ". Wow.

The victims of the Holocaust also died out of a variety of reasons -- including typhoid fever, starvation and a whole list of infectious diseases.

You establish a difference based on whether or not the victimizers had, for a prolonged period of time, a deliberate intention to wipe out the victims. This is extremely disingenuous and based on the initial mistake of assuming you know what the victimizers' intentions were, or assuming their intentions were simple and easily showcased. This reveals an absolute misunderstanding of colonialism. Colonists did not have any more faith in the humanity of their indigenous subjects than Nazis had in that of the Jews. They broke even less of a sweat in debasing them. The fact they didn't organize a conference in Wannsee to explicitly kick-start physical elimination obeys to a number of reasons, most prominently the fact that they didn't even think they were worth the effort since colonial subjects were a useful workforce (which was the main use for the Jews up until Wannsee, btw) and there was no rush in them ceasing to be since there was no World War to tend to, coupled with the fact that in the first decades of colonialism the "undesirable" subjects were restricted to the colony and few of them ever made it to Europe.

So if I run over you with my truck and leave you to rot on the side of a road, does that make me less evil than if I actively chase you with a knife down the road? Will it make any difference to you in a couple of minutes? And if it's with the truck, will you have the certainty that it was an accident?

Horrible as your other examples are, they are different. They do not have an efficient, small group of people effeicently slaughhtering an entire people. In Rwanda, the Hutus perpetrated their genocide using mainly machetes and clubs and were able to do what they did because they were the majority and they had thousands doing the killing.

Again you make a mistake. What matters is that there was a situation of superiority (numerical as with the Hutus, or due to widespread access to "modern industrial capabilities" as with the Nazis) which allowed them to victimize people. In both cases, they did it because they could, regardless of why they could. To me, whether it was circumstances or technology that put them in the requisite situation of supremacy over their victims is just a matter of detail.

Who is a worse criminal, the one who takes your wallet at knife point in a dark alley and threatens your credit card PIN number out of you, or the one who cleanly hacks into your bank account from his computer? You'll say the second because according to you he's got more brains and education, and because the dark alley scenario is probably not in your imagination; well I'm sorry but to me they both are one and the same: if I were unlucky enough to find the first one, my bank account would be empty by sundown just the same. A knife on an unarmed person's throat (or a five-against-one situation in a dark alley) is just a tool to achieve a goal, same as the hacker's knowledge on computing.

Anyway, this is not the issue. The issue is, do Jewish people have a right to live in safety and defend themselves?

They have a countries where their grandparents were born (in Europe and elsewhere), where they would now not be persecuted. They also have a country where, in spite of being less than 1% of the population, they are over-represented in the higher social and economic echelons of society. It's called the United States of America. With minimal outbursts of anti-Semitism for over a century, at least compared to Europe. They don't need any artificial claims of a "homeland" justified on the fact that the ancestors of some of them were there 2000 years ago. if we accept that we should accept even more ridiculous homeland claims like I said in my first message -- which you carefully avoided answering. Again: if the Visigoths invaded my country in the fifth century AD, why can't I claim a German or even a Swedish homeland?

There is a rational and moral justification for fighting anti-Semitism (as well as other forms of racism which I doubt you're willing to fight) but there is no rational nor moral justification for Israel. You can rant over this as much as you want. Israel means putting people from the most diverse national and cultural backgrounds together under a fictional political construct, just because they have Jewish descent or think they do (I have distant Jewish descent on my mother's side btw, can I also join??). Israel means recovering a language which was used only in religious services (for most of the European Jewry spoke Yiddish or the vernacular languages of their countries) and making it into the official language of the "nation". Israel is an illusion and an excuse.

I am not a zionist. I am someone who tries to view situations from a fair and impartial perspective. The majority of of the average people would side with me.

I don't need the majority of people to side with me. If you were a Darwin supporter at the turn of the 20th century, would you care whether or not the average Englishman agreed with you (which he would have not)?

The average people watch football games in their sofas, vote every 4 years and in all important issues basically do what they are told without even questioning it. Don't claim the moral bene placito of the average people if you want to make a point. It's useless. Better try to make the point on your own. Quoting the average people or using them as dialectical currency amounts to intellectual laziness.

You on the other hand, appear completely blinded by your hatred of Israel. Because of people like you, there will never be peace in the region.

Oh yes there will. It'll be the peace of graveyards. Thanks to people like you.

For all I know, the most racist and intolerant comments I've heard about a number of issues come from American Jews, Israelis and Zionists. We're all supposed to be empathetic to the plight of Jews, out of fear they will put a black and white picture under our nose to make us feel guilty, but a portion of them and their supporters think they have carte blanche to make the most astoundingly bigoted remarks you can hear nowadays in mainstream debate. Keep on in that direction, see where this will take you. My conscience is clear anyway.

reply share

add reply

formatting help