So what's going on in Gaza?
Putin is now officially more moderate than Netanyahu.
As I was watching a video of The Entente Gold, I started thinking about how World War I created Fascism: many of the earliest Fascists had served in the first world war and their imperial ambitions reflected their disillusionment with losing so much territory in the late 1910s. I suspect that few of us understand how important it was to Fascism, so I am tempted to write an essay about it in the previsible future.
It is in the Arab perception of the Holocaust that Achcar’s book is at its strongest. Whereas Europeans see the Holocaust from the viewpoint of the perpetrators, Arabs see it as victims. This explains the role that Holocaust denial plays amongst Arabs. When Ahmedinajad hosted a Holocaust conference in December 2006 in Tehran, he was greeted with headlines such as ‘Enough stupidity’ in left‐wing Beirut daily Al‐Ahkbar.
Dr Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of the […] Knesset, who was driven out of [the neocolony] by Shin Bet (‘General Security Service’) wrote in Al‐Ahram that ‘Holocaust Denial does not undermine the moral justifications for the existence of the [neocolony] as some imagine. What it does, however, is hand the European right and [its neocolony] a convenient enemy upon which to unload their problems’ (p. 254).
Achcar asks the most pertinent question of all, namely whether all forms of Holocaust Denial are the same (p. 261). Many Arabs reacted to Zionism’s propagandistic use of the Holocaust by denial. This is entirely different from European neo[fascists], who hope for a repetition of the Holocaust [that] they deny.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
I might piss a lot of people off by saying this, but I honestly don’t believe that all Arabs who deny the Shoah should be treated like neofascists. Yes, what they say is terrible, but they aren’t hopeless. If they had conversations with anti‐Zionists who accept the Shoah as factual (e.g. Neturei Karta), then I believe that they could be persuaded to reconsider their doubt. They can explain to them that accepting the Shoah as factual does not mean justifying Zionism, and that Shoah education has the potential to help anti‐Zionism.
I cannot blame anybody for being upset by this news, but the Zionist ruling class deserves most of blame for people overreacting to its abuse of the Shoah.
When is the next thread? @GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml care to explain?
German historian Kai Struve has, for his part, estimated that units of SS‐Division Wiking were directly involved in the killing of between 4,280 and 6,950 Jews and other civilians in Galicia in the summer of 1941. Of these, 350–500 were killed in Hrymailiv/Grzymałów, 180–200 in Ozerna/Jezierna, 250–400 in Skalat, 2,300–4,000 in Tarnopol, 600–850 in Zboriv/Zborów and 600–1,000 in Zolochiv.801
I promise that China will collapse tomorrow.
About one hour ago I finished reading an article titled ‘Is it ‘anti-Semitic’ to acknowledge that Arabs are Semites too?’. It mostly quibbles over how misleading terms like ‘antisemitism’ are, but it gave me some food for thought on something that the author had the opportunity to address but managed to miss.
Anti‐Arab and anti‐Jewish sentiments overlap in numerous ways. There are not only some similar stereotypes—that they’re unfair merchants interested in world domination—but fervent Judeophobes also tend to hate Arabs, often seeing them (and other races) as ‘pawns’ in Jewish plans. Admittedly, it is unlikely that anybody would mistake Ashkenazim for Arabs, but it is very tempting to think of anti‐Arab racism as not only an Arab but also a Jewish concern, because often such attackers are just as willing to target Jews as well; Judeophobia is not far off.
I am planning to read The Arab and Jewish questions: geographies of engagement in Palestine and beyond, because I have a feeling that I may be onto something here, but presently it sounds like I’m grasping at straws. I have a lot to think about; maybe these two prejudices are more closely related than they look.
Sorry that I gave you my cold.
I have a feeling that they’re only publishing this now that it’s convenient for them, but honestly, aside from the neoliberal viewpoint, it was not one of the worst articles that I’ve ever read. I have talked before about this word and I rarely use it precisely because it can be so ambiguous. There isn’t even a scholarly consensus on it.
Scott Straus has counted 21 different definitions of genocide. Genocide has been a legal, political, moral, and empirical concept that means different things to different people.10 There are several scholars, including Helen Fein, Leo Kuper, Herbert Hirsch, and Kurt Jonassohn, who question the very rationale for the debate on definition. In view of the ‘bewildering array of definitions’, as Kuper put it, the UN Genocide Convention is indeed the only reasonable option.11
Usually, the dissenters express their disagreement by refusing to participate in the argument. Nobody has dared to put it plainly: the debate on definition of genocide is futile! Scholars may continue arguing about the term ‘genocide’ for decades, without reaching any conclusions, or even a working definition more functional than that agreed upon in 1948. It is practically impossible, considering all the different professional backgrounds of the participants in the discourse (put it to vote?).
Some commentators have objected to the UN Genocide Convention as a political compromise between major international players. However, international law is made up of political agreements. Were the discussion on the definition of genocide to be reopened today at the UN — which is rather unlikely — politics would come to dominate the debate much the same as they did 60 years earlier.
(Emphasis added. Source.)
I certainly don’t blame the OP for assuming ill faith: this is the Wall Street Journal, after all, and the timing is a reasonable cause for suspicion. That being said, I would still prefer that we use other terms for this type of atrocity. What the neocolonists are attempting is extermination.
Financial Times is quite obviously a CCP front.
I promise that China will collapse tomorrow.
I don’t have a habit of celebrating anybody’s death, not because I think that it’s tasteless, but because I simply don’t have the same level of hatred and energy in me for that anymore. So I feel the same way about militant anticommunists as I do about angry snakes: they’re simply more obstacles to overcome and that’s all.
That being said, I have to admit that the community’s happiness has rubbed off on me, and that has made my night better.
I hesitate to say it since we were probably all thinking it already anyway (and I wouldn’t be the first), but I like how the 1990 atrocity story about Saddam Hussein allegedly massacring incubator babies was a successful pretext for invading Iraq, and yet even though there is undeniable evidence of the Netanyahu régime committing the same atrocity in Gaza, the neoimperialists don’t want to do a damned thing about it!
The Argentinean military Junta sponsored a wave of anti‐Semitic attacks. Bombs exploded in Argentine synagogues and Jewish schools.6 The [Zionist neocolony] had a choice: between selling arms to the military Junta or defending Argentina’s Jews. [The neocolony] chose the former. Jacobo Timerman (1923–1999), the founder and editor of the liberal La Opinión, was arrested in April 1977 and savagely tortured. As an example of his torturer’s anti‐Semitism, the following is a good example:
a hysterical voice began shouting Jew, Jew, Jew! The others join in and form a chorus ... Now they’re really amused and burst into laughter. Someone tries a variation, while still clapping hands: ‘Clipped prick, clipped prick.[’] It seems [that] they are no longer angry, merely having a good time. I keep bouncing in the chair and moaning as the electric shocks penetrate my clothes. (Timerman 1981: 60–61)
Timerman’s high profile forced [the neocolony] to make diplomatic representations ‘but it did not make public demands as it did on behalf of Jews in the Soviet Union’ (Rein and Davidi 2010: 9–11). It is claimed [that] it ‘secretly pressured Argentina to free Timerman’ (Kleiman 1982: 80). [Zionist] Ambassador Ram Nirgad asked Timerman to sign a letter saying that he was well treated and had no problems with the government. Timerman refused (Rein and Davidi 2010: 16).
Timerman was attacked in the United States by […] Zionists who believed [that] he ‘asked for what he got’.7 The Neoconservatives argued that [the neocolony] was ‘an important supplier of arms and military equipment to Argentina’ and therefore the Junta could not be considered anti‐Semitic (Lobe 2013). Dr Marcos, whose son Mauricio held [neocolonial] citizenship and was murdered by the Junta, was a founder of As[ociació]n de Familiares de Desaparecidos Judíos. He described how he and other Jewish families knocked again and again on the door of the Embassy, and were always sent away.8
(Source.)
Oh man I love reminiscing about how great life was in the Middle East before Hamas existed. In 1948, absolutely nothing of any consequence happened. Same for 1967. The birds were chirping, the bees were buzzing, wolves and sheep were living happily together, it was nothing but flowers and sunshine and puppy dogs and rainbows as far as the eye could see. It was wonderful.
Now imagine all of that SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTING INTO A HORRIFIC NUCLEAR INFERNO AND SCREAMING IN AGONIZING DEATH ALL AT ONCE.
That was exactly what happened the very microsecond that Hamas was invented. Worse than both the opening of Pandora’s box and Eve’s eating the forbidden fruit combined, easily.
I can’t say yet!
I have a lengthy rant prepared for the day after tomorrow.
Here is a hint: it has something to do with horseshoe theorism.
Just like the rest of the U.N.