Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm

This is the 'inspiration' behind this thread. Not so much whether this man should be extradited to Germany, but the reasons Germany want him.

He is a Holocaust Denier....

Now, I'm as cynical a person as you might hope to meet, and I certainly do not trust the media in the slightest. But come on. The Holocaust quite clearly did happen. Hundreds of Thousands of Jews, Gypsies and other unwanted souls disappeared in that time period. Mass graves were found. Concentration Camps can still be toured (though of course they are empty and defunct).

I even get the theory that it was some mental Zionist plot.....

But come on. For the plot theory to be true, a number of very bizarre things need answering....

1 ) IF they weren't killed, where are the missing people?
2 ) If it's not the people you claim, who is it in the mass graves?
3 ) This would have been performed during a MASSIVE World War, with the Camps being liberated towards the end as the Allied forces pushed through Germany. How exactly was this carried out?

I've heard of paranoia. I've heard of conspiracy theories, but surely there is just too much *proof* and *testimonies* not just from Prisoners but from their Jailors, to possibly doubt that it did happen, and on a terrifying scale....

There is film and countless photos of the camps being liberated, so who would allow themselves to be nearly starved to death just to screw with people's minds?

I agree that this guy should not be extradited. Holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK, and it should not be.

The evidence is overwhelming.

Only by allowing these right wing bampots to speak out in public, do we have the opportunity to refute and crush their lunacy.

I agree, this is also a matter of freedom of speech.

I am concerned over a lot of the Holocaust history, not because I do not beleive it was a lie, but because it is misremembered. Many other perople other that Jews died in the Holocaust, and there were more perpetrators than just the Nazis.

However there were protests by some groups, especially hardcore jewish groupsd about memorials being set up that included them. The Berlin memorial came under attack by Jewish groups for not being concerned soley with Jewish victims.

This is its own way Holocaust denial, and it makes very good copy too. In time it is hoped by some that non jewish victims will be forgotten entirely, in a way this is already happening. Non Jewish survivors dont get compensation.

Furthermore the Holocaust is used as an excuse by Zionists to say (paraphrased) 'we are the worlds victims,' Thus they do whatever they please to defend themselves, allowing for the terrible bigotries this mindset unleashes perhaps the Holocaust has served the good purpose it has, and if not to be remembered correctly is better forgotten.

Knowing that they shared the horrors with Romany and other gypsys, blacks, mental patients, Communists, Pentecostal Christians, Jehovahs Witnesses and homosexuals detracts from this. So it is ignored.

Even the yellow Stars of David the victims wore were misunderstood. It was in fact two triangles, the same thing, but with a different meaning. The first triangle depcited what you were, the second if you were also a Jew.

Homosexuals wore pink triangles, Communists red, christian groups purple, gypsys and other 'lesser' races brown etc. If you were a Jew but none of the rest of the above you got a second yellow triangle.

How often do you see this in the numberous films about the Holocaust, but infrwequnelty do you see the others colours and patches.
Also how many of you when first reading this thread would know immediately think anti-Semitism' but not any further.

Holocaust denial runs far further than most people think.

He's an Australian so its in the news here.

He shouldn't be extradited.

Germany should be chasing after people who break its laws within its own country, not going after citizens of other countries, in 3rd party countries.

This guy has 0 chance of a trial where he will be found not guilty (in Germany).

Yeah, sounds pretty off. I could understand if they were chasing war criminals or something... oh wait. Nevermind.
What is he actually guilty of? He 'published' something on the internet? Had a good laugh? Convinced himself of one of the more silly conspiracies out there?

If I'm reading this correctly, it's illegal to deny that the holocaust occurred. Just in Germany or the entire EU? I can understand the reasons for denying it, whether you believe it or not... some of those reasons COULD be considered anti-semetic... but arresting someone in another country for posting something on the internet... was this warrant issued by some Department of People-who-post-about-Nazis-and-other-stuff-the-German-government-cringes-about? Because that's just too complex a noun, even for German one. There's a conspiracy afoot, methinks.

There is no proof that Hitler systematically exterminated the Jews. They're still in Israel. Heh heh...

Orlanth wrote:
if not to be remembered correctly is better forgotten.

Qft.

It's illegal in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland. (Source: Wikipedia.)

The proposal for an EU wide law was refused by a number of countries including the UK as it would have interfered with aspects of race relations legislation.

A notorious British 'historian' David Irving was jailed in Austria for Holocaust denial in 2006. He had previously lost a major libel case against an American historian.

There's no doubt the Australian guy would be found guilty, because he is.

The proper question is whether Holocaust denial should be a crime, and that touches on issues of free speech and public debate.

In considering the criminalisation of citizens' behaviour outside the nation, what about child sex abuse? The UK law allows us to prosecute our citizens for acts of child sex abuse committed in other legal jurisdictions.

It is interesting the the UK did not sign up to that not on free speech but as a sweeteneer to an increasingly vocal Islamic minority.


I do not see any point in Holocaust denial, but it should not be singled out.

The UK does however sometimes 'bend over' on extradition issues.

That hacker Gary McKinnon is facing 60 years in a US prison for breaking into US military computers looking for UFO coverups, based from the UK. His expected sentence is purely on account of the embarrassment he caused rather than any supposed damage. People who caused actual damage get far less.
Meanwhile we cannot extradite Hamza to the USA despite his many proclamations urging violence, and his Al Quaeda connections because the European Court prevents this on human rights grounds.

It's a dog an pony show. I don't think Germany really expects him to be extradited but uses this to show just how anti-Nazi they are now. They still haven't really shaken that yet.

John Irving wasn't extradited.

It's a good thing to be anti-Nazi.

Interesting, Germany is not going after the President and government of Iran.

jfrazell wrote:Interesting, Germany is not going after the President and government of Iran.

Normally when people believe something stupid it's because it fits in with their greater worldview. People who like to claim 9/11 was a government conspiracy because they like talking about black helicopters and pretending they're living under this deadly dangerous tyrant government. But what's the reason for something as silly as denying the holocaust?

sebster wrote:Normally when people believe something stupid it's because it fits in with their greater worldview. People who like to claim 9/11 was a government conspiracy because they like talking about black helicopters and pretending they're living under this deadly dangerous tyrant government. But what's the reason for something as silly as denying the holocaust?

I've found that its usually motivated by an attempt to play down the significance of the event. Few people deny the fact that many people were exterminated by the Nazi's, rather they deny that it has any relevance to the rest of the world. This, I expect, is largely the reasoning behind Ahmadinejad's famous denial. Which makes sense, as Orlanth said it is a common counter to the orthodox Zionist position on the event.

Listening to Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) it becomes fairly obvious that Iran's view on the holocaust essential to understanding its position on Israel. From the Iranian perspective, the Jewish State is little more than a kind of unjust 'restitution' forced upon the entire region by Western powers. It is the ultimate symbol of Imperialism; a passing of Western problems (the holocaust had nothing to do with anyone in the ME) into Middle Eastern hands. Imagine the Soviet Union had won the Cold War and decided to relocate Chechen rebels to Washington D.C., granting them an independent state, and you'll get some idea of how Iran feels.

Edit: Similar arguments have been floated about 9/11. The terrorist strike on the WTC was terrible, but not terrible enough to beget the Iraq war.

One theory (HA!) posited about conspiracy theory believers is that they can't accept that there is randomness in the world. It isn't possible that some men got up one morning and flew some planes into buildings, because that makes life unpredictable. It is better to have sinister motives and order then to allow for entropy.

dogma wrote:
Listening to Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) it becomes fairly obvious that Iran's view on the holocaust essential to understanding its position on Israel. From the Iranian perspective, the Jewish State is little more than a kind of unjust 'restitution' forced upon the entire region by Western powers. It is the ultimate symbol of Imperialism; a passing of Western problems (the holocaust had nothing to do with anyone in the ME) into Middle Eastern hands. Imagine the Soviet Union had won the Cold War and decided to relocate Chechen rebels to Washington D.C., granting them an independent state, and you'll get some idea of how Iran feels.

That is not even remotely similar situation, antisemitism in the modern sense in the middle east had been brewing since the late 19th century and the desire to kill all the Jews goes back at least 80 years before Israels creation. It is also a lie stating that the Middle East had nothing to do with the Holocaust since the Mufti of Jerusalem (besides being a thorn in British and Jewish sides) was essential in helping the plan for the final solution even Dieter Wisliceny (Eichmann's chief lieutenant) recognized it would not have been possible without his contribution. He also formed Arab battalions in the middle east and Muslim SS brigades that rounded up Serbs, Jews and Gypsies for transportation to Ustasi death camps in Croatia. It does not stop there, the entire Middle East including Persia were supportive of the Nazi efforts to the point Mein Kampf remains a best seller in the Arab World and the most popular song in Arabic during the war called Allah in Heaven, Hitler on Earth. The Baathist, Gamal Abdul Nasser, King Ibn Saud, and Anwar Sadat were all supportive of the Nazi regime. So to sit there and state that the Middle East had nothing to do with the holocaust or Nazism shows a lack of understanding of history on your part, or a willing ignorance. This is only the barest outline I would suggest you puck up and read Hirszowicz's The Third Reich and the Arab East as a background so then you have a leg to stand on.

Dice Monkey wrote:
That is not even remotely similar situation, antisemitism in the modern sense in the middle east had been brewing since the late 19th century and the desire to kill all the Jews goes back at least 80 years before Israels creation. It is also a lie stating that the Middle East had nothing to do with the Holocaust since the Mufti of Jerusalem (besides being a thorn in British and Jewish sides) was essential in helping the plan for the final solution even Dieter Wisliceny (Eichmann's chief lieutenant) recognized it would not have been possible without his contribution. He also formed Arab battalions in the middle east and Muslim SS brigades that rounded up Serbs, Jews and Gypsies for transportation to Ustasi death camps in Croatia. It does not stop there, the entire Middle East including Persia were supportive of the Nazi efforts to the point Mein Kampf remains a best seller in the Arab World and the most popular song in Arabic during the war called Allah in Heaven, Hitler on Earth. The Baathist, Gamal Abdul Nasser, King Ibn Saud, and Anwar Sadat were all supportive of the Nazi regime. So to sit there and state that the Middle East had nothing to do with the holocaust or Nazism shows a lack of understanding of history on your part, or a willing ignorance. This is only the barest outline I would suggest you puck up and read Hirszowicz's The Third Reich and the Arab East as a background so then you have a leg to stand on.

I think there is a lot of misinformation you have read there, I do not think Hirszowicz an impartial historian, one is likely yo have less of a leg to stand on if one read his work at the exclusion of others. I wonder who benefits from the doctrine of connecting Arabs with Nazis.

As far as the Mufti of Jerusalem is concerned since when would the Nazis listen to Arabs, to them Arabs were clearly a lesser race, below 'even' the Slavs. After all Arabs are quitwe literally a semitic people, and that fact was not lost on Nazi minds. He was a useful tool in the Axis power agenda, but his overtures to Rome and Berlin were not taken at face value.

It is not unfeasible that the Nazis quoted anti-semitic rhetoric from Arabs, but under no means did they partner with them. The nearest to partnering with Nazism were various groups that sides with the third reich against the British as common enemies. This 'recruitment' drew from as far east as India. Anti British Imperialism rather than anti Semitism is the key. It should also be noted that there arer documents to show that some Zionist groups had dealing with the Third Reich, though not as friends. Haganah considered the British a more relevant enemy than the Germans. Admittedly those who made these overtures had no knowledge of what was happening in the concentration camps, but for that matter neither did most Germans.

The single reason why so many other peoples hate Jews is that the underlying principal of their whole religion is that they are Gods chosen children and that that makes them better than everyone else.

So they have been persecuted for 1000's of years.


that doesnt make it ok for them to be the brutal bullies that they are now in the form of Isreal.

Isreal deserves everything it gets.

Denying the holocaust is such a stupid thing to have as a crime.
if you think it didnt happen then you're obviously mental.
not criminal

Actually Orlanth, Dice Monkey is pretty much right. Claiming that to the Nazis, the Arabs were "clearly a lesser race" is a pretty shallow argument. I probably would have bought it when I was in high school. You don't think the Nazis compromised their doctrine or their views? The Nazis were as hypocritical concerning their views and their actual policies as any extremist group you can find, even from the beginning, but especially when things started to get rough for them. There were several Muslim Waffen-SS regiments and battalions created during the war, not to mention all the Slavic volunteer SS units. In a lot of ways, the Waffen-SS became a sort of Nazi Foreign Legion.

I don't know a lot about the Mufti's involvement myself, but it does seem he played a part. A brief perusal of Wikipedia can bring up some decent information.

Also, wasn't the Ba'ath party heavily based on the Nazi party?

Orlanth wrote:I think there is a lot of misinformation you have read there, I do not think Hirszowicz an impartial historian, one is likely yo have less of a leg to stand on if one read his work at the exclusion of others. I wonder who benefits from the doctrine of connecting Arabs with Nazis.

You sure can't trust those Jew historians, amirght?

weemonster wrote:The single reason why so many other peoples hate Jews is that the underlying principal of their whole religion is that they are Gods chosen children and that that makes them better than everyone else.

This isn't even close to true on several levels.

Dice Monkey wrote:

dogma wrote:
Listening to Khamenei (the Iranian Supreme Leader) it becomes fairly obvious that Iran's view on the holocaust essential to understanding its position on Israel. From the Iranian perspective, the Jewish State is little more than a kind of unjust 'restitution' forced upon the entire region by Western powers. It is the ultimate symbol of Imperialism; a passing of Western problems (the holocaust had nothing to do with anyone in the ME) into Middle Eastern hands. Imagine the Soviet Union had won the Cold War and decided to relocate Chechen rebels to Washington D.C., granting them an independent state, and you'll get some idea of how Iran feels.

That is not even remotely similar situation, antisemitism in the modern sense in the middle east had been brewing since the late 19th century and the desire to kill all the Jews goes back at least 80 years before Israels creation. It is also a lie stating that the Middle East had nothing to do with the Holocaust since the Mufti of Jerusalem (besides being a thorn in British and Jewish sides) was essential in helping the plan for the final solution even Dieter Wisliceny (Eichmann's chief lieutenant) recognized it would not have been possible without his contribution. He also formed Arab battalions in the middle east and Muslim SS brigades that rounded up Serbs, Jews and Gypsies for transportation to Ustasi death camps in Croatia. It does not stop there, the entire Middle East including Persia were supportive of the Nazi efforts to the point Mein Kampf remains a best seller in the Arab World and the most popular song in Arabic during the war called Allah in Heaven, Hitler on Earth. The Baathist, Gamal Abdul Nasser, King Ibn Saud, and Anwar Sadat were all supportive of the Nazi regime. So to sit there and state that the Middle East had nothing to do with the holocaust or Nazism shows a lack of understanding of history on your part, or a willing ignorance. This is only the barest outline I would suggest you puck up and read Hirszowicz's The Third Reich and the Arab East as a background so then you have a leg to stand on.

Of course it does, the desire to 'kill the Jews' is nearly as old as the ethnicity itself. Its something of a natural consequence of maintaining a coherent identity independent of a delineated 'homeland'.

In any case, the rise of modern Middle Eastern antisemitism coincided directly with two separate events. It first began building in the late 19th century, as you say, when Jews began to migrate in substantial numbers to Palestine. The antisemitism which resulted was not entirely dissimilar to any of the anti-ethnic prejudice which accompanies mass immigration; though it was certainly exacerbated by historical leanings in such a direction. This prejudice crystallized in the early 1900's with the inception of Orthodox Zionism, and its call for the creation of a Jewish state. In the wake of the Zionist project what had been a slow but steady trickle of Jews into Palestine became a virtual surge; their population rising from 24,000 in 1880 to 87,500 in 1915. Then, in 1917, along comes the Balfour Declaration. Suddenly you not only have a coherent ethnic group asking for its own state, but a major world power willing to help make it a reality. At first the British had no reason to intrude into the ME, that matter had been settled with the break-up of the Ottoman empire following WWI. As such, they explored a number of alternate solutions, most notably in Guyana and Uganda. However, the Mufti, being no fool, was unwilling to simply allow Britain to go about its business. Especially with the fervent Zionist Winston Churchill in power. He believed that, inevitably, England would turn its eyes to Palestine as an ideal location for the realization of the will that the Balfour Declaration (and its resultant political projects) conveyed. To this end, he seized upon Hitler's rise as a means of developing a connection to a European power in order to off-set the authority of the English. It was a brilliant move. At the time it appeared as though nothing would stop the German war-machine. And, even if some obstacle were to crop up, the Mufti would be able to use Hitler's final solution as a means of weakening Jewish power through a simple reduction of numerical weight. Of course this last component of the strategy was completely incorrect. Indeed, the affect of the holocaust was in precise opposition to what the Mufti intended. Allied observation of atrocities committed against the Jews created a massive well of sympathy for the Zionist cause. This sympathy, in connection with the need to prevent the Middle East from falling under Soviet influence, spurred on the creation of the state which the Mufti had hoped to avoid.

My statement that ME has nothing to do with the holocaust was made in light of relativity. Is there a connection? Yes. Is that connection significant? Not really. Truth be told, the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be understood politically as an outgrowth of anti-Imperialism in the former colonial world. Antisemitism is just an ideological side-show. Is there antisemitism in the Middle East? Certainly. But to presume that such a prejudice is anything but a tool wielded in the pursuit of larger political goals is wholly foolish.

dogma wrote:Of course it does, the desire to 'kill the Jews' is nearly as old as the ethnicity itself.

The problem with the jews being an ethnic one is fairly new, on a larger scale. It was typically a religious differentiation. The more honest truth is "the desire to 'kill the other' is nearly as old as humanity itself".

The problem with the jews being an ethnic one is fairly new, on a larger scale. It was typically a religious differentiation. The more honest truth is "the desire to 'kill the other' is nearly as old as humanity itself".

probably older

I don't think Germany really expects him to be extradited but uses this to show just how anti-Nazi they are now. They still haven't really shaken that yet.

My parents' generation is still touchy on the subject, but there is a strong anti-nazi movement among mine.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I think there is a lot of misinformation you have read there, I do not think Hirszowicz an impartial historian, one is likely yo have less of a leg to stand on if one read his work at the exclusion of others. I wonder who benefits from the doctrine of connecting Arabs with Nazis.

You sure can't trust those Jew historians, amirght?

What if I replaced that with: 'You sure can't trust those Arabist historians, amirght?'

Would you have a problem with this statement? If you want an unbiased eye on the Middle East political divide ask someone from outside the region.
I hope you are not trying the: 'he is criticising Israeli apologists so he must be anti-semitic'.
All too often I see this sort of tactic, it is an effective and insidious way of trying to shut down critique.

Ahtman wrote:

weemonster wrote:The single reason why so many other peoples hate Jews is that the underlying principal of their whole religion is that they are Gods chosen children and that that makes them better than everyone else.

This isn't even close to true on several levels.

You should listen to Israeli web radio, or look at the news. This is clearly what a lot of Zionists think and many are not afraid to say so. This might not include you or your friends, but it certainly isnt an insignificant minority.

I dont agree withn the 'Israel deserves all it gets' part of weemonsters post. They are in a tricky situation, it is clear that if they released their grip many Arabs would like nothing more than to push them into the sea.

Hordini wrote:Actually Orlanth, Dice Monkey is pretty much right. Claiming that to the Nazis, the Arabs were "clearly a lesser race" is a pretty shallow argument. I probably would have bought it when I was in high school. You don't think the Nazis compromised their doctrine or their views? The Nazis were as hypocritical concerning their views and their actual policies as any extremist group you can find, even from the beginning, but especially when things started to get rough for them. There were several Muslim Waffen-SS regiments and battalions created during the war, not to mention all the Slavic volunteer SS units. In a lot of ways, the Waffen-SS became a sort of Nazi Foreign Legion.

I don't know a lot about the Mufti's involvement myself, but it does seem he played a part. A brief perusal of Wikipedia can bring up some decent information.

Also, wasn't the Ba'ath party heavily based on the Nazi party?

What does this prove? What are you trying to prove, a general Nazi-Arab connection. This is what Dice Monkey implies. You are of course going to find individuals who joined sides at odds with their origins.
The SS were a political force, and drew from anyone they could. SS division Charlemagne was French, they and SS division Nordland, Scandinavians, still stood at the end in Berlin.

Yes the Third Reich made allies of convenience, as did some Moslems, amongst others, this proves my point. It is not a general Nazi-Arab alliance. Nore should it be implies hat Arabs or Arab leaders as a rule are/were Nazi sympathisers or supporters

Besides as stated Haganah cooperated with Berlin. At the very least they passed on intelligence data to the Germans. Let alone what the Sonderkommando (sp) did.
Of course you would not by this assume that the Jews were themselves allied with Hitler, so why tolerate the propoganda that the Arabs were. Individials maybe, and many cooperated to further thjeir own ends. Much of the Levant was under the British and French mandates as set up with the fall of th ottoman Empire in 1918. Many of those who coperated with Hitler did so in order to continue their own agendas.
Also factional rivalries in the Balkans preexisted long before the Third Reich and long survived 1945. Just look at the events following the collapse of Yugoslavia, the seeds of these conflicts wrre not set by the Nazis, but go back several hundred years. Many many factions sided with the Nazis and with the Communists as and when it suited them.
To single out Moslems to make a political point was more than a little loaded.

Hordini wrote:Actually Orlanth, Dice Monkey is pretty much right. Claiming that to the Nazis, the Arabs were "clearly a lesser race" is a pretty shallow argument. I probably would have bought it when I was in high school. You don't think the Nazis compromised their doctrine or their views? The Nazis were as hypocritical concerning their views and their actual policies as any extremist group you can find, even from the beginning, but especially when things started to get rough for them. There were several Muslim Waffen-SS regiments and battalions created during the war, not to mention all the Slavic volunteer SS units. In a lot of ways, the Waffen-SS became a sort of Nazi Foreign Legion.

I don't know a lot about the Mufti's involvement myself, but it does seem he played a part. A brief perusal of Wikipedia can bring up some decent information.

Also, wasn't the Ba'ath party heavily based on the Nazi party?

There is no doubt that the Nazi's and Arabs associated prior to, and during, WWII. The point is that antisemitism wasn't where they found the majority of their common ground. Rather, it was the massive upswing in Nationalism in Germany and Pan-Arabism across the Middle East which created a climate in which hate based rhetoric could take hold. The fact that antisemitism was at the center of that hate was coincidental at best.

More to the point, it seems odd to posit that the Nazis would be capable of compromising their rhetorical positions in talking to the Arabs, while simultaneously indicating that the Arabs (and now Persians) are unable to do the same in dealing with Israel.

Incidentally, the Ba'th party resembles the Nazi party more as a nod to the former's status as the iconic nationalist movement than as any indication of concurrent ideology.

Orlanth wrote:What if I replaced that with: 'You sure can't trust those Arabist historians, amirght?'

Context is important. If someone were to dismiss a historian off the cuff becuase of their last name I would take issue with it, regardless.

Orlanth wrote:You should listen to Israeli web radio, or look at the news. This is clearly what a lot of Zionists think and many are not afraid to say so. This might not include you or your friends, but it certainly isnt an insignificant minority.

There are people in many countries that think they are the bestest people EVAR and chosen for great things. You can always find Exceptionalists in almost any setting. Throw in clear and present danger and it will be exaggerated as a defense mechanism. It also is a misunderstanding of the "chosen people" conceit in Judiasm. You can find militant Christians and if you look hard enough, maybe a few militant Muslims that think they know all the answers. It doesn't change the fundamental dynamic just becuase there are extremes of a given thing.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:What if I replaced that with: 'You sure can't trust those Arabist historians, amirght?'

Context is important. If someone were to dismiss a historian off the cuff becuase of their last name I would take issue with it, regardless.

Big assumptions there, like you think you can read my mind. Who says this is anything to do with last name, it has far more to do with the content.
Dice Monkey implied that you had to study this writer in order to 'have a leg to stand on'. Essentially this means: there is only one valid side, agree with it or you are a fool. This can hardly be so on such a delicate and multi-sided issue as the Arab Israeli conflict. Indicating that he at least had swallowed the propoganda.

You are falling into same trap yourself. You are forcing an assumption that: critic of Israel = anti-semitic = evil. Thus you avoid having to face the issues by simply assuming bigotry on my part.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:You should listen to Israeli web radio, or look at the news. This is clearly what a lot of Zionists think and many are not afraid to say so. This might not include you or your friends, but it certainly isnt an insignificant minority.

There are people in many countries that think they are the bestest people EVAR and chosen for great things. You can always find Exceptionalists in almost any setting. Throw in clear and present danger and it will be exaggerated as a defense mechanism. It also is a misunderstanding of the "chosen people" conceit in Judiasm. You can find militant Christians and if you look hard enough, maybe a few militant Muslims that think they know all the answers. It doesn't change the fundamental dynamic just becuase there are extremes of a given thing.

It goes further than this, much of Israeli policy connects to this dogma. Israel is a very one sided society. freedom and democaacy for one part of the people oppression for the others. If an Israeli Arab goes on holiday, he is not allowed back into the country, let alone a Palestinian.
Just an example: Israeli settlers moved from the Gaza strip were given six months to move and the move was handled with 'gentleness and respect', if you want to move a palestinian from their home you give them a few minutes minutes warning to leave before the bulldozer moves in. These are not exaggerrations.


The 'Us and Them' attitude is common policy, not the utterances of a few fanatics at the fringe.

Orlanth wrote:Big assumptions there, like you think you can read my mind. Who says this is anything to do with last name, it has far more to do with the content. Dice Monkey implied that you had to study this writer in order to 'have a leg to stand on'. Essentially this means: there is only one valid side, agree with it or you are a fool. This can hardly be so on such a delicate and multi-sided issue as the Arab Israeli conflict. Indicating that he at least had swallowed the propoganda.

You are falling into same trap yourself. You are forcing an assumption that: critic of Israel = anti-semitic = evil. Thus you avoid having to face the issues by simply assuming bigotry on my part.

Sounds to me like you think you can read dice-monkey's mind and making the same mistake you seem to think I made that I didn't. I don't think you are antisemitic. I think your kinda ignorant and foolish on this subject, but I don't think it's because you hate all Jewish people.