Hitler Lost; Nazism Won
Berlin, squeezed by Russians, Adolf Hitler took his life, the Reich lost.
Yet Nazism won as it wholly altered and, in modernizing anti-Semitism, re-invented and re-invigorated the lunacy.
Prior to the S.S., European Jew-Hatred flowered in two incarnations. When Rome converted, Christianity became lethal to Jews in successive and overlapping waves:
. Religious anti-Semitism: convert or die (you may not live here as Jews);
. Political anti-Semitism: leave or die (you may not live here);
The irony of Nazism’s transformative recasting of anti-Semitism was such that it didn’t need the Reich to survive for it to thrive. The third incarnation of anti-Semitism,
. Racial anti-Semitism: you are a cancer on humanity, a pathogen, (you may not live).
You may not live here as Jews.
You may not live here.
You may not live.
Nazism won because isolating and condemnatory racialist ideologies are far more powerful, incendiary, infecting, infectious, and lasting than marginalizing political and religious ideologies are. There remains no anti-Semitism that isn’t rife with racialist assumptions, stated or no; there lingers no anti-Semitism limiting itself to religious and/or political solutions.
This is why the founding documents of every neo-Nazi group and every self-identified anti-Israel terror organization does not waste much time excoriating Israel. This is why every one of their founding documents, whether written hard upon the Third Reich’s destruction or much later, announces as its core purpose the extermination of Jews everywhere and the elimination of Israel as but a path to the Prize, the answer to the cancer, a once-and-future Solution.
07/10/2019 @ 5:02 pm
” This is why every one of their founding documents, whether written hard upon the Third Reich’s destruction or much later, announces as its core purpose the extermination of Jews everywhere and the elimination of Israel…”
Is this why Israel is a non-constitutional, ethnocentric, theocratic, ‘democracy’ that ‘dabbles’ with policies that smack of racism and apartheid?
07/10/2019 @ 5:21 pm
Ron…next you’ll ask me when I stopped beating my wife…. 😉
07/10/2019 @ 6:30 pm
Not so….
No intention to ask a “loded question”..
.
However, there is no “denial” in your response…
So let’s parse:
Non-constitutional;
Despite a commitment to do so since inception, Israel has not adopted or ratified a constitution.
ethnocentric;
Israel is committed to maintaining a majority Jewish population…
theocratic;
Much, if not most, of Israeli law, and interpretations thereo, is predicated on the religious tenets and principles expressed or articulated in religious source documents…
‘democracy’;
The Israeli parliament or is democratically constituted, with members democratically elected to represent the general population…
However, the parliament must retain a Jewish majority regardless of political or ideological affiliation….
Policies that involve racism and apartheid
cannot be avoided re the requirements of national security and national identity….
Feel free to correct me where I’m wrong in any aspect. I’m not married to any of this….
But I am curious…..
07/10/2019 @ 6:49 pm
And after that you’ll ask me when did I stop killing small, woodland creatures.
Either your comments are tendentious or so lacking in actual knowledge abt Israel, its laws, its history, its regional context, as to render a different reply from me rather impossible.
I suggest you take this up w Kosh. His patience is far greater than mine.
07/10/2019 @ 6:51 pm
…or w Alan, of course, whose expertise also surpasses mine, tho I know him far less than I know Kosh, but I cannot vouch for Alan’s patience or lack of it.
07/10/2019 @ 11:24 pm
There are two separate issues here. The first is the Holocaust and Israel. They are not as linked as people assume. Israel was planned before the Holocaust happened. What the Holocaust did above all is show just how necessary Israel is though we already knew that. The Holocaust gave urgency to an extremely long-term pre-existing situation.
Israel is not what this post is about. For one thing, I’m not sure that Arab anti-semitism is racial rather than religious.
But I’ll look at Israel as its own issue. To begin with, Israel was not founded by, nor was its government set up by, religious Jews. It was set up mostly by secular Jews. The religious population has grown since because of birth rate. So no, Israel was not set up as a theocracy. Certain functions were given to the religious community to run but not the government as a whole. If Israel were a theocracy, pork would be illegal and it would be illegal to drive on Saturday. Neither is true, though the Orthodox would like both to be. And, of course, Tel Aviv would not be one of the most gay friendly cities in the world.
The fact that there’s no constitution is not something I can answer but not all nations have them. You worry about that more than most because you’re an attorney by training.
Ethnocentric? Blatantly, though that’s true of most countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. Deliberately, but in this case there’s a very specific reason, and it’s the reason Israel was founded in the first place: It’s the only way Jews could ensure that there was one government in the world which would not persecute Jews for being Jewish. The world had two thousand years to prove Jews didn’t need our own state to guarantee our safety. The world failed. Universally. Bigotry in the US was not based on safety or survival in that White Americans didn’t need to persecute Native Americans or enslave Africans to guarantee survival. Jews needed a majority. You’re proving that here.
To begin with, you’re putting Democracy in quotes. In actuality, Israel is functioning more successfully as a Democracy than the United States is. In the US, laws are now made for the benefit of the wealthy. Israel isn’t like that to the extent that the US is. Israeli Arabs have the vote. And Parliamentary representation.
How many countries outside the Western Hemisphere – which is to say countries that were mainly founded on the basis of tribes – would allow their ethnic majority to be outnumbered by another population? Forget Hungary, do you think Sweden would? How about Japan? We’re talking Democracies here. Do you have any idea how racist Japan is?
How many countries around the world do you ever refer to as Apartheid? In terms of Jews, most Arab countries have functioned that way. Today, though there are plenty of Arab citizens of Israel, it is illegal for a Jew to be a citizen of the Palestinian Authority. The PA also doesn’t accept gay citizens (unless there’s been a recent policy shift I don’t know about). The main reason most Arab countries aren’t “Apartheid” is that they have no Jews left, or pretty tiny populations.
Do you know anything about the Uyghurs? They’re a Muslim minority in China who are frequently arrested and prevented from worshipping. Neither Muslim citizens of Israel nor Muslims living under Israel military occupation are prevented from worshipping. The Uyghurs are being seriously oppressed, not for posing an active threat to the rest of China but for being themselves. (They’re not firing rockets, blowing up busses, any of that.) As, of course, Tibetans have been. You should ask Jon about his personal experience with Chinese bigotry toward Africans. Have you ever referred to China as an Apartheid country?
There are oppressed minorities all over the world. How many of the countries with oppressed minorities do you refer to as Apartheid?
This is not to say that Israel is innocent, though I think Israel is less guilty than you think given what they face, and they’ve shown more restraint in the face of deadly arms fired across their border than any other nation I can name in world history.
I’m not asking you why Israel’s conduct bothers you. It bothers us, too, though to a different extent than it bothers you. I’m asking you why a very average country when it comes to human rights should take more heat than so many countries behaving worse. American aid? There are two reasons for American aid, though other countries have at times gotten enormous aid packages, including Egypt. The first reason is that the US gets a lot out of the relationship when it comes to technology, military testing, and intelligence, particularly on terrorists. The second is that the consequences of Israel facing conquest are different than that of any other country I can think of at this point. If any other country gets conquered, most of its population stays in place. If Israel were to get conquered, that’s unlikely. The threat is larger.
Which brings me to yet another point: If the US reduces aid to Israel, Israel’s surgical approach to fighting Hamas when they launch various arms across the border will probably end up reduced because it’s more expensive than taking out a city block if a rocket is shot from that area. Iron Dome is also much more expensive than the incoming rockets it shoots down. Reducing aid to Israel would damned near inevitably lead to more Palestinian dead. That’s a consequence of reducing aid to the country whose military does more to limit collateral damage in warfare than any other country in Earth’s history.
Don’t call it Apartheid in Israel without calling it that in places where it’s worse. Don’t talk about theocracies when there are real theocracies in close proximity to Israel, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Gaza. And quite possibly Turkey pretty soon. Don’t blame Israel for insisting on maintaining an ethnic majority when that is most of the world’s norm – and where most of the world has far less proven reason to worry about that.
07/11/2019 @ 7:31 am
Your ability to distill actual history from nonsense is unsurpassed, Kosh.
07/11/2019 @ 11:05 am
Unlike many here and elsewhere who would purport to argue with me about the black condition, black history, and the black experience, I will not under any circumstances purport to argue with you or any other Jewish person about the Jewish condition,history, or experience…
The responses given here have added to my woefully inadequate knowledge base re Israel…and I thank you for taking the time to provide some clarification…
The one sticking point that I have with your presentation here is your justification for the apartheid that is practiced in Israel as a matter of national defense, security, and identity…
It should not be justified on the basis of “everybody else does it”….
American. “Jim Crow” was apartheid practiced as a matter of law and accepted as a societal norm for more than 100 years after the Civil War had ended….
Together with the Black or slave codes that were in place in the 13 colonies and then the original 13 states, American “apartheid” spanned a period of more than three and a half centuries…
There’s no way one should accept a return to the oppression of apartheid here because “everybody else is doing it”.
Frankly, I don’t care how racist Japan is….That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that racism is alive and well here…Japan’ racism cannot be an excuse , rationale, or justification for the continuation of racism here or a return to the apartheid that was practiced here…
We’re in real trouble as it is. We’ll be in worse trouble when the Trumps and McConnell’s et al begin their call for a return to apartheid here because they’re doing it in Japan, Israel, Iran and elsewhere…
BTW MLK’s posture re Israel was couched in a political necessity that people like Chuck Schumer no longer acknowledge…
McConnell’s rush to empanel ‘conservative’ jurists to the Federal bench is quite in keeping with what might be perceived as a grand scheme to gird white America against the prospect of becoming a numerical minority without losing control of the reigns of government…
07/11/2019 @ 12:07 pm
Ron Apartheid, in this context, is you slapping the faces of every person who lived under South African rule prior to the change. It’s also you slapping the face of every person who lived under US slavery, Jim Crow, and state-sanctioned segregation in post-War America. It’s a slap to the Freedom Riders, the counter-sitters, those thousands lynched. And you do this bc you are so very lacking in Near East history that you assume a simplistic equation among Arab, Palestinian, and the worst aspects of the African American experience, and between every Israeli gvt and US gvt in the eras mentioned.
It’s beneath you.
Comment all you will; Kosh is the soul of patience; I am not. I’m done w this.
07/11/2019 @ 12:12 pm
I consistently draw a distinction between justifying Israel’s behavior and isolating Israel for blame. Don’t treat me as if I don’t. I have no objection to criticism of Israel, nor am I interested in justifying Israel’s behavior on the basis that it’s generally done. However, I am extremely concerned about double standards applied to Israel. When there are worse human rights violations all over the world, to chose Israel to criticize alone, which is done both by the United Nations and the American (actually world) Left, strikes me as suspicious at best.
When you talk about apartheid, are you referring to the occupied population or the Israeli Arab population? I don’t think either is apartheid, but that’s a further discussion. The issues are different. The Israeli Arab population is a genuine civil rights issue but is also treated way better than the occupied population. That population became occupied for military reasons and continues to be occupied for now different military reasons. If those second military reasons didn’t exist, the Palestinians would have had a state thirty years ago.
07/11/2019 @ 4:07 pm
@JW; “…you assume a simplistic equation among Arab, Palestinian, and the worst aspects of the African American experience…”
Apartheid is defined as follows:
“racial segregation; specifically : a former policy of segregation and political and economic discrimination against non-European groups in the Republic of South Africa”
—-Webster’s
If there is a false equivalency re the racial segregation practiced by South Africa and the racial segregation that was once practiced by The United States of America, in my view, it exists in the fact that South Africa was established as a constitutionally racist regime while America ostensibly was not…
As a practical matter I defy you or anyone else here to show how there was a substantial functional difference….
You wish to deny that Israel engages in policies and practices that smack of apartheid, that’s your prerogative…
However, if what Israel does in the name of national security, national defense, and/or national identity isn’t at least akin to apartheid, then what, pray tell, is it?
Kosh, Israel enjoys a unique relationship with the United States and the Jewish community has historically shared a unique and distinct kinship with the Black community here.
My sense, and this is only my sense, is that there is, or has been, a change or shift of allegiances that is worth scrutiny…
What the hell is Schumer doing and what are my foreign aid tax dollars supporting?!
I would not limit my concern to Israel alone or single Israel out here…
Keep this in mind:
You won’t march under an antisemitic banner. Am I not entitled to be concerned about my money being used to support race based discrimination anywhere in the world, especially viz a viz sovereign entities that are our international allies?
07/11/2019 @ 5:38 pm
It isn’t race based.
07/11/2019 @ 6:05 pm
Race based or not, discrimination, segregation, suppression, repression , and oppression of any stripe raise flags and are a cause for concern….
07/11/2019 @ 7:26 pm
Again, it depends on which population you’re talking about and I don’t see you differentiating. There are two separate issues. If a claim is to be made of apartheid, the only population that might qualify would be Israeli citizens and though they face some discrimination, it’s closer to what current American discrimination looks like than to apartheid or Jim Crow. The West Bank and Gaza populations would regard the Israelis as foreigners, as the Israelis would regard them. The eventual solution will be two states at which point most of this crap will stop because the crap is based more on mutual threats than on racism per se. You will hear some Rightists talking in ethnic terms but that’s a two way street. The relationship doesn’t look like either a South African or an American Black/White relationship. Assumptions of inferiority are not what drive this. Assumptions of hostility do.
07/12/2019 @ 1:10 am
“Assumptions of inferiority are not what drive this. Assumptions of hostility do.”
Finally, an answer that I can discern as making some kind of contextual and historical sense…
Thanks
07/12/2019 @ 7:23 am
No problem
07/12/2019 @ 7:35 am
…for one….
01/24/2024 @ 3:53 pm
Perhaps the silver lining is that Benny Franklin was not electrocuted. Folk! Those days and nights … NOW … unabashedly [as I A Wait the Cat Carver {…} I shall dedicate my restriction+fictions to MARY TRAVERS!
Or>e: MC< Standford University's disciplined emphasis MAJORS.H.E.L.T.E.R
& hey-Hey-HeY:::: IsAAc Asimov [cola wars?]LO;}[ prolly IS is not St. Peter like we didn’t start the FIRE noir walk on coals chapter VOTE!!! K*ant we the flex
get the PAIN 0UT 0′ CHEMO?
Just JP + ME: gently I weep as there’s been a dire lack of imagination since
JOHN LENNON was murdered
B // 00 /\