Certainly any reasonable country’s broad humanitarian policy would be against genocide, but it’s probably obvious that when we’re talking about the Shoah, we are not talking about an “anybody, anywhere” type of situation. That’s obvious, right?
I see this silliness has raised its head again.
In English, “anti-Semitism” is simply the term coined in the 19th century to describe anti-Jewish bigotry. Coined, it may be added, by people who proudly adopted the label of “anti-Semite”.
It is widely understood as such. I have no idea why some think that pointing out that being “anti-Jewish bigots” is somehow a superior category to be in, than being “racist”. Strikes me that, even if they aren’t exactly the same thing, they are both just as bad. In any event, “race” as it is generally used has a whopping share of social construct of identity - as does “Jewish identity”.
It seems complete and utter bullshit speculation. The closest the wiki gets to citing any primary sources, is in an angry exchange of poetry between a German and Israeli poet.
Now I’m sure that Israel takes poetry seriously, but I have serious doubts if they put poets in charge of their nuclear strategy. :eek:
We’re a very small country, you know. You can’t expect us to protect the whole world.
That’s America’s job.
Here’s a link of Israeli Defense Force F-15’s flying over Birkenau death camp.
I don’t think “Never Again” is a distinct promise, it’s a posture. It’s saying “we’re heavily armed and still pissed.” Threats of violence are more effective when it’s not certain how far the other party is willing and able to go.
Superior or not, I’m pretty sure the term was coined by the receiving end. Why invent something patently inaccurate for yourself? “Quick, what can we accuse these bigots of?”
To describe English clubs that are “restricted”, perhaps.
Do you object to the term because Arabs are also considered to be “semetic”?
You are wrong.
Got it! It’s still wrong so I don’t think I’ll ever be guilty of it, no matter what I say or do.
What the hell point are you trying to make?
You’re like one of those jerks who feels compelled to point out that “decimated” used to mean “kill one out of ten” when somebody uses it to mean “seriously fucked up.”
Things can mean more than one thing. You understand that, right?
As others have pointed out, you are incorrect. What you forget is that people who hated Jews were proud of their Jew-hatred, and quite happy to peg it to 19th century notions of “race” because that has pseudo-scientific respectability. The term “Anti-Semite” was coined because it sounded more “science-y” than “anti-Jewish” - it played to the then-fashionable penchant for scientific racism.
Which makes your current objection kinda ironic.
As Chaucer is, shall Dryden be.
I have re-read this thread several times since I started it and this post is the one post that I have read many, many times.
Yes, and the question then becomes: Why?
Our understanding of security is informed by the Voyage of the St. Louis and similar experiences. The promise of Israel is, in part, the promise that there will always be a refuge for the Jewish people. I assume that any attempt to eradicate this refuge in an effort to eradicate this people will be resisted by any means necessary.
Got no problem with that…just so long as there is an understanding that “resistance” to prevent an action is not the same thing as vague “retaliation” after the fact…especially if there is a possibility that others not involved get caught up in the retaliation.
Like it or not - it’s not up for vote.
Again…only this time, to get the right effect, fold your arms and cock your head slightly sideways and raise an eyebrow.
I’m not suggesting that it’s “up for a vote”(whatever that means). I’m saying that there is a difference between prevention at all costs and retaliation after the fact that could spread to innocent parties. Yes, at one time the Major Powers had a MAD policy…and it was MADness in my opinion.
Two points …
It is unclear to me how “never again” could be construed to mean “retaliation after the fact,” i.e., after we allowed it to happen again.
Tragically, all significant geopolitical conflict impacts innocent parties.