Man returns Holocaust medal

[Trinopus]

@Malthus

Not defending the reference, but I imagine it to be more a matter of perspective.

The ME is a very dangerous place - has been for a long time. The laser-like focus on the Israel-Palestine issue tends to obscure that, leads people (reasonably enough) to conclude that, if there is so much news about it, and so much talk about the human tragedy of it, it must actually be worse that what is going on elsewhere in the ME.

For example, if you were to tell people that more Palestinians have been killed in conflicts with other Arabs than in the conflict with Israel, most people would be I think genuinely surprised.

This works. Thank you.

@VarlosZ

Sure. In fairness, I understood what **Trinopus **was getting at, so my criticism may have been a bit petty. For some reason the mis-used reference just bugged me is all.

I actually did think about it at the time, but couldn’t think of another obvious and universally known allusion. Clearly, the plank is not in the person’s eye, but, so to speak, in his brother’s eye.

@YogSosoth

I also agree.

There, Trinopus. We good? . . .

Well, three posts in agreement don’t balance four or five entire threads with hundreds of posts. So… Nope! I want media parity! Until as many people gripe about issue X as do about issue Y, the world is that much out of balance.

I know better, obviously. I have little patience with people who argue this point in full seriousness. I hope it’s clear that this is an impractical ideal. News coverage has a “market” component – some stories, the readership and viewership just aren’t interested in, and how ya gonna sell Labor Day Tire Sale Ads on that basis?

(And, even if it were some kind of rule, how would it be enforced? Some governmental agency that measures column-inches and broadcast seconds, and mandates proportional coverage? Yikes!)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Trinopus

Shades of gray still exist in this world, no matter how hard you seek to deconstruct them.

That applies to both sides of the argument.

[Trinopus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That applies to both sides of the argument.

Owls lay round eggs. (i.e., I think everyone here already knew that.)

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

My ‘take’ on such matters is that there is an extremely powerful narrative out there - among Jews and non-Jews alike - that views Jews as morally superior because they are (or rather have been) underdogs. The victims of persecution and abuse by the majority society, which (at best) tolerated their presence.

The epitomie of that is, of course, the Holocaust.

The conflation of Jews-as-suffering-victims and Jews-as-morally-superior is, of course, rudely broken in the case of modern Zionism. A state in which Jews are a majority, and whose army has crushed its enemies repeatedly, and who has ruled over others (often for the worse), is hardly an example of “moral superiority” in the above sense: it makes Jews nothing more than another ethnic group, a majority in another nation, no better and no worse than any other.

This rankles for those invested in the “Jews as morally superior” narrative. It seems, to them, as a total betrayal - assuming that they conflate Jews and Israelis.

Wait, aren’t we all supposed to strive to be moral?

Thing is, ask the average person what they would prefer: to be an example of persecuted moral superiority, or to live an ordinary life? The average person is apt to tell those invested in the “moral superiority” narrative that they can keep it. Who wants to die or be persecuted just so that others can feel good about how morally superior they, the victims, are?

Israelis don’t have to be persecuted to be moral. They don’t have to die to be moral.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Ibn_Warraq

No, that’s not what I said at all. Reread my post.

I read it, it just didn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps you could put it another way.

It sounded like you were saying that the “righteous among nation” probably feel about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians the same way that people who defended Koreans against racism felt about the racism in Korea. It seems to me that they would at least be bothered by the racism in Korea.

So why wouldn’t people who defended Jews against nazi persecution be bothered by the Israeli treatment of Palestinians?

[The_Second_Stone]

@Alessan

Reminds me of something I wrote here years ago. Basically, when most of the world says “never again” about the Holocaust, they mean “We will never allow something like the Holocaust to happen again”. When Israelis say “never again”, they mean, “Next time they come for us, we’ll be ready.”

There is really only one nation in the world that is obsessive and compulsive and can say that they are ready, and that is the United States.

Individual people can act morally, often at great risk to themselves, such as the man referred to in the OP. Individuals and groups can also inspire other people to consider the morality of their actions and to do truly stunningly moral things. When WWII finally came to the US, it was from Japan at Pearl Harbor, and from Hitler from a podium. Roosevelt focused most of the resources of the US on the guy who initiated the attack from the podium, not the people dropping bombs. History shows little disagreement with this decision, but it was far from a sure thing.

People acting as nations, or as mobs, as the Nazis and Imperial Japanese did, or as all countries do from time to time, also sometimes justify their actions as the correct moral thing to do.

Woodrow Wilson is generally despised for his position of wanting not to punish the Central Powers after WWI. What Roosevelt put in place and Truman and Marshall carried out after WWII was punishment of the individuals and rebuilding of the peoples represented by the government that carried out the worst atrocities in all of human history. The Nazis and Imperial Japanese were stunningly evil.

Today modern Germany, and to a large extent modern Japan, are model international citizens. Germany teaching the atrocities, and Japan whitewashing them.

[Alessan]

Huh?

[VarlosZ]

@Alessan

Huh?

I’ll co-sign this. What the hell are you talking about?

[Jonathan_Chance]

@The_Second_Stone

Originally, you said Hedges had an excellent reputation. Now, when one of the usual libelers of people critical of reporting unfavorable things about Israel comes up with the usual sort of scurrilous insults to his character, you decide to change your mind.

You say you question my judgment. So be it. I’d be offended if you thought I judged things the way you do. Yours always interprets away any criminal activity of the government of Israel by attacking the credibility and judgment of others, all others, respected or unknown.

So what do I think of your judgment? I don’t respect it. In fact, I’m in contempt of it because of the way you dismiss anything that doesn’t agree with you and join in the piling on of the libeling. I want to make clear, I’m criticizing your judgment, not you personally.

First you assert that no such activity as Hedges had reported, but you did not yet know about existed. You answered my question as to whether your “no it is not” referred to legality or the machine gunning by saying the machine gunning never happened.You had and have no evidence to prove that it didn’t except a bizarre belief that the IDF couldn’t possibly do such a thing, putting aside everything human beings know about armed conflict and atrocities. You choose the believe the libels of someone whose consistent record on the SDMB is to libel people critical of Israel. When confronted with the Hedges report, you conceded (which you now take back) that he was generally reliable, but he was wrong here (not maybe he was wrong, but wrong) due to poor observing. When the poster you mention collects all the libels around the internet about Mr. Hedges, collected for the people who have been embarrassed by his reporting, you fully credit that, even though it is, on its face motivated to smear. I put in several reports of similar incidents, and you poo-poo each one as not being exactly the same or corroborated. Even though they are mostly the same. No such report is going to be corroborated by anyone you would ever put credence in because if they corroborated, you would put the in your unreliable column as you always do. No report from a family or non-famous witnesses would get the slightest credence from you, as we have seen you dismiss them.

You then dismiss Mr. Hedges Pulitzer credentials as meaningless. It is not a stamp of truth, but it is stamp of professional excellence, something the people libeling Mr. Hedges don’t have. There is a reason that I have not responded in years to the poster you have referred to. He is a one sided advocate and a libeler on behalf of Israel.

Israel has blockaded the citizens of Gaza. Israel has objected to any nation recognizing a government in Gaza. Israel collectively punishes in Gaza, destroying whole buildings to get to one person. Israel shoots at ambulances. Israel bulldozes homes and protestors. Israel affords none of the people killed or deprived of property any kind of trial. Israel bulldozes the homes of relatives of suspected terrorists without trial. Israeli attacks kill thousands upon thousands. Israel blames this on an organization they label as criminal (Hamas), and then claims that Hamas is supported by the people and properly elected, but refuses to recognize as a government and insists, apparently correctly, that no other government in the world should recognize it as a real government. Based on the criminal tying of Hamas to the people, Israel bombs the people. And you deny this is genocide. That is your right.

You’ve made clear my judgment means nothing to you, but I judge you to be someone who is only an advocate in an argument, not someone open to being persuaded. You’ve taken the side of the rich and powerful and the authoritarian oppressors. History shows this is usually the profitable and winning side.

You’ve denied genocide here, I want to make clear that I consider that no different than a Holocaust denier except that in this case there are thousands of prospective deaths and that Holocaust deniers are usually deeply mentally disturbed. You are clearly not suffering from mental illness. I call it willful blindness.

The Second Stone,

After review, the use of the word ‘libel’ and ‘libeler’ directed at Ibn Warraq in the above post should not have occurred. I realize that such language is used in the outside world in such arguments, but here, directed at another poster, it is an insult. I’m simply mod noting it here, due to the age of the post and the potential for ambiguity, but further uses in a similar manner will earn warnings and could potential lead to suspension or banning.

I hope I make myself clear.

[Shodan]

@Malthus

My ‘take’ on such matters is that there is an extremely powerful narrative out there - among Jews and non-Jews alike - that views Jews as morally superior because they are (or rather have been) underdogs. The victims of persecution and abuse by the majority society, which (at best) tolerated their presence.

The epitomie of that is, of course, the Holocaust.

Quite true, IMO.

I would add that there are efforts to cast the Palestinians in the same role. Hence the labelling of a two-state solution as apartheid, the military blockade as ghettoization, etc.

Thing is, ask the average person what they would prefer: to be an example of persecuted moral superiority, or to live an ordinary life? The average person is apt to tell those invested in the “moral superiority” narrative that they can keep it. Who wants to die or be persecuted just so that others can feel good about how morally superior they, the victims, are?

If you ask the average person what they would prefer, very likely they would pick as you describe. In the case of Hamas, however, the leaders are being asked if they would prefer that others - namely the civilians and human shields - suffer so that Hamas can (try to) gain the upper, moral hand. And we see how they chose.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@The_Second_Stone

There is really only one nation in the world that is obsessive and compulsive and can say that they are ready, and that is the United States.

Depending on what you mean by “obsessive”, “compulsive”, and “ready”, this is either false or meaningless.

When WWII finally came to the US, it was from Japan at Pearl Harbor, and from Hitler from a podium. Roosevelt focused most of the resources of the US on the guy who initiated the attack from the podium, not the people dropping bombs.

This, fortunately, is a lot easier to deal with. It is pretty clearly false. The US, although it provided materiel and men to WWII in Europe, was much more the primary mover in the war against the Empire of Japan in the Pacific.

Regards,
Shodan

[VarlosZ]

Totally off topic:

@Shodan

The US, although it provided materiel and men to WWII in Europe, was much more the primary mover in the war against the Empire of Japan in the Pacific.

It was the primary mover in the Pacific, but its primary effort was nonetheless in Europe – not by a huge margin, but still. “Europe First” was the agreed upon strategy by the Allies.

[Shodan]

Both of what you said are true.

Regards,
Shodan

PS - yes, off-topic. So nm.

[Malthus]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Wait, aren’t we all supposed to strive to be moral?

Sure. Only people differ on what it means to “be moral”.

For example, those with the “Jews are more moral because they are (or rather were) suffering underdogs” equate, to an extent, suffering with morality.

Others have the opinion that morality is not inconsistent with self-defence.

Israelis don’t have to be persecuted to be moral. They don’t have to die to be moral.

Agreed. Nor does underdog status confer moral superiority.

[YogSothoth]

@Trinopus

Well, three posts in agreement don’t balance four or five entire threads with hundreds of posts. So… Nope! I want media parity! Until as many people gripe about issue X as do about issue Y, the world is that much out of balance.

;p

We all agree Syria shouldn’t be shelling its own cities, there’s really no argument here. So of course there’s less topics devoted to that.

[The_Second_Stone]

n/m wrong forum

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Malthus

Agreed. Nor does underdog status confer moral superiority.

Sure, but oppressing a people for generations and causing the suffering of millions doesn’t get you a lot of moral high ground either.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Sure, but oppressing a people for generations and causing the suffering of millions doesn’t get you a lot of moral high ground either.

You do realize just how many groups who’s cause you seem to be championing this applies to don’t you?

For that matter, It’s quite odd since you’ve specifically said you found Kawukji’s attempt to “kick the Jews into the Sea” to be “honorable” and thought it was wrong that the Jews beat him back, though you presumably are glad the Jews didn’t get exterminated.

If you think an avowed Nazi like Kawukji can be “honorable” when attempting to slaughter Jews, why he surprised at people thinking it’s “honorable” for the Jews to fight back?

[The_Second_Stone]

@Malthus

Agreed. Nor does underdog status confer moral superiority.

Or viewed as having valuable lives and property and culture worth saving.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@The_Second_Stone

Or viewed as having valuable lives and property and culture worth saving.

That last is an interesting choice of words.

How old is “Palestinian culture” and how is “Palestinian culture” distinct from say Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian or Iraqi culture?

Thanks in advance for your response.