Brokaw, Obama, the Israelis and the Nazis: Are there any limits to the MSM’s Moral Stupidity?

In my talks on the impact of al Durah, and how his image mainstreamed the comparison of the Israelis to the Nazis, I point to this banner in Paris:

pdlr medium
Place de la République, October 6, 2000.

And this comment by Catherine Nay (against a graphic background provided by International ANSWER.

I point out that Nay is a major news anchor, the equivalent, say, of Tom Brokaw (only she’s written books on the political process). And then, assuming I’m talking about the Europeans with their special problems with the Holocaust, I ask,

    What kind of moral idiocy can compare the symbolic power of this image — let’s say the boy was even killed by the Israelis in a gun battle — with an image that symbolizes the deliberate murder of over a million children and six million civilians?

Indeed, I’d argue that the comparison is actually an act of moral sadism — designed to deeply wound Israeli and Jewish moral self-respect.

Now Brokaw comes along to show that the French/Europeans, with their deep psychological problems, do not have a monopoly on the moral idiocy/sadism market. In an interview with President Obama at Buchenwald he asks the following question: (HT Honest Reporting)

Brokaw: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

The president’s answer shows he has a much firmer grasp on the moral universe than Brokaw. But what Brokaw’s question illustrates is how far the trope Israel=Nazis has “progressed” in the last nine years.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What’s particularly tragic about that is that the ludicrous notion that the Israelis are like the Nazis — if they are, they’re incredibly incompetent — compare 6 million dead Jews in twelve years of Nazi rule vs. 2 million more Palestinians in 40 years of Israeli rule — disguises the much more disturbing parallels and historical connections between Nazism and both Palestinian Nationalism and Islamic Jihad. Talk about not keeping your eye on the ball.

Barry Rubin answers Brokaw’s question for Obama in a slightly more assertive way:

From Buchenwald, Israelis learned that others will usually not stand up for them. Jews–many of them today’s Israelis–watched as Britain, France, and other countries wouldn’t stop Hitler and indeed were ready to “engage” with him. Just as European countries and many in America are willing to do today with Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah despite their openly genocidal programs.

Israelis learned that your neighbors may well turn on you out of greed or antisemitism or for their self-preservation or to avoid conflict. At worst, they will turn you in to the Nazis; at best they ll feel bad.

When Jews in the 1930s called for a boycott of Nazi Germany there was no support from other groups. Many said this behavior was alarmist, unnecessary, and that Jews were trying to drag America or other countries into war for their own reasons. Others didn’t want to lose the money they made in these transactions. Just like today.

In the British archives I read documents in which British officials expressed their hopes that boats on which Jews were trying to escape from Nazi-occupied countries were turned back to their places of origin. In 1945 and after, British policy proposed forcing Jewish survivors back to Germany and Poland.

Lesson: Don’t put your trust in foreign princes but in your own strength and strategy.

Israelis also learned that while others discount the threat to you–Hitler doesn’t really mean what he’s saying–you better ignore all the experts and politicians and academics and journalists who argue that there is no real danger, that the Germans were just people who wanted a good life and nice things for their children. Just like today.

They learned to understand the irrational and ideological in politics, the kind of thing that most European and American leaders don’t comprehend nowadays. Committing the Holocaust helped German lose the war, but the regime there was more interested in wiping out Jews than in the welfare of its own people and even its own pragmatic interests. Just like most Middle East regimes today.

Lesson: If Iran’s president says he’s going to wipe you off the map, and so do Syria, Hamas, Hizballah and many others, take them at their word.

In addition, Israelis learned that whatever Jews do will be criticized, mistakes exaggerated, concessions unappreciated. And so the Jews who saw what happened or experienced it themselves knew they had to have their own country, which defended itself, and could define its people’s own interests.

There’s something nowadays we call double standards. If America accidentally kills Afghan civilians, it is forgiven. If Sri Lanka kills thousands of civilians it is two paragraphs in a back page. If Hamas and Fatah deliberately kill Israeli civilians as their main strategy this proves to some they must be engaged and their grievances resolved. If Iran’s regime calls for mass murder, it is not a big enough deal to make that state a pariah.

But it Israel accidentally kills civilians being used as human shields by Hamas or Hizballah, in wars set off by attacks on itself, many seem to believe it has lost any right to exist. Incidentally, as of now, not a single incident has been documented for the Gaza war earlier this year showing that anything Israel did was anything other than within the bounds of law and proper behavior.

Read the rest.

63 Responses to Brokaw, Obama, the Israelis and the Nazis: Are there any limits to the MSM’s Moral Stupidity?

  1. Lorenz Gude says:

    “Committing the Holocaust helped German lose the war, but the regime there was more interested in wiping out Jews than in the welfare of its own people and even its own pragmatic interests. Just like most Middle East regimes today.”

    There’s the rub. Regimes usually, but not always, act in their self interest. The level of fanatical activity – suicide bombers, rockets etc. – directed at Israel makes it impossible to discount that the Iranian government might attack Israel with nuclear weapons even if it knows it is likely get massively nuked in return. I can only see Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas dramatically increasing their attacks if backed by a nuclear Iran. I don’t see how Israel can justify not taking out Iranian nuclear facilities if it has the capacity.

  2. oao says:

    to the question in the title of the post the answer is no.

  3. Eliyahu says:

    Both traditional mainstream Christian denominations and secular, even anti-Christian, modernists [including "leftists"] enjoyed a sense of superiority both moral and intellectual over the Jews. The Holocaust obviously disproved the sense of moral superiority, which Jews and some non-Jews brought to the Europeans’ attention after the war. Hence, the moral complaints by the theretofore despised Jews were deeply wounding to some Euros. A blow to self-esteem, to amour-propre, to their worldview and so on. Some refuse to let empirical truth change their worldview.

    Hence, many awaited their opportunity to take moral revenge on the Jews, even on flimsy pretexts [such as the al-Durah affair]. This came out prominently in the media over the 1982 Lebanon War, whereas few cared one way or the other that some 20,000 Syrians had been massacred by their own govt at Hama just a few months before Israel came into Lebanon. All these moods and prejudices were artfully played on by psywarriors in the Western media [and govts] cooperating with Arabs [including PLO spokesmen/women] trained by Westerners in psywar tactics and strategy [cogwar].

    It is important to stress that these moods and prejudices were also strong on the Left, most of which came out of the Judeophobic traditions of Voltaire and d’Holbach in France and Kant-Hegel, etc., in Germany. Kant and Hegel were both influential on Marx’s Judeophobic prejudices [see R Misrahi, Marx et la Question Juive]. Today we see that most of what is called Left converges with the EU and State Dept and Obama in their demands on Israel. Much of the so-called Left and “human rights” orgs in Israel are EU financed.

    Catherine Nay had a psychological need to speak as she did. As RL points out, there is no real moral comparison or equation, even if the conventional narrative about the al-Durah “killing” were true. But in order to deal with such hateful and hate-inciting remarks as that of Nay, the profound psychological ressentiment must be acknowledged. The obtuse fellows who guide Israeli hasbara/public relations/ and the obtuse fellow who sits in the Israeli president’s residence next to the Van Loon Institute do not seem to capable of dealing with such psychological phenomena.

  4. Eliyahu says:

    It is false and short-sighted to think that the moral admonitions so often made in Israel’s direction result from objective moral judgements or any attempt at same. Rather, we are dealing with old hatreds and prejudices awaiting revindication.

  5. Lorenz Gude says:

    Thank you, Eliyahu. That comment makes it clearer. I’ve been fundamentally puzzled by the viciousness of the reappearance of anti Semitism. I’ve sensed what you call the revindication of old hatreds and prejudices, but putting it so clearly really helps.

  6. Ray in Seattle says:

    Eliyahu, like LG I agree that your comment #4 is enlightening. These things come from deep in the sub conscience and have little or nothing to do with objectivity. Intellect is harnessed after the fact only to justify their beliefs and the behaviors they engender, not to examine them.

  7. Ray in Seattle says:

    Further on this topic, scapegoating is a well identified psychological phenomena. A Google search for psychology scapegoat turn up 259,000 hits.

    One site I picked at random (scapegoat.demon.co.uk) defines it thus:

    Scapegoating is a hostile social – psychological discrediting routine by which people move blame and responsibility away from themselves and towards a target person or group. It is also a practice by which angry feelings and feelings of hostility may be projected, via inappropriate accusation, towards others. The target feels wrongly persecuted and receives misplaced vilification, blame and criticism; he is likely to suffer rejection from those who the perpetrator seeks to influence. Scapegoating has a wide range of focus: from “approved” enemies of very large groups of people down to the scapegoating of individuals by other individuals. Distortion is always a feature.

    Notice there was no mention of reasoning, critical thinking skills or intellect here.

  8. Ray in Seattle says:

    Aside from the psychology of scapegoating, which focuses on displaced blame – I believe there is also an even more fundamental psychology at play whereby when an identified person or group is attacked by what is recognized as the in-group, individuals who see this happening are often emotionally aroused to join the attack – to pile on to some despised victim. Mob rule, the lynching party mentality takes over. I think this plus scapegoating accounts for the world’s inability to help Israel to defend itself and even for the way that many people who enjoy Western freedoms join in verbal and political attacks against Israel.

    I believe the apparent helplessness of the victim increases this psychological rage against the misfit that the in-group has identified. Likewise, belligerent angry behavior by the victim, striking back ferociously is what diminishes the attacks by the crowd who emotionally lose interest in a fight where they might get injured. Israel’s caution is seen by many as Israel’s fear of being criticized by the US and Europe – not as concern for Palestinian lives.

    In that sense, I believe Israel’s extreme caution and attempts to minimize Palestinian civilian suffering creates greater rage against Israel and the IDF, not less. And it probably recruits more in the West to antisemitic and anti-Israel views.

    Again, these are psychological phenomena. Reason is only used to justify the behavior dictated by the underlying psychology. It is futile to try to change minds using reason against this deeply embedded human nature of scapegoating and mob rage that has become the driver of events.

  9. obsy says:

    Ray: Again, these are psychological phenomena. Reason is only used to justify the behavior dictated by the underlying psychology. It is futile to try to change minds using reason against this deeply embedded human nature of scapegoating and mob rage that has become the driver of events.

    Exact!

    Considering the in-group argument:
    1. There is no harm to those that verbally attack Israel. Most often they get a warm welcome for it. So personally it is a good offer — especially in honor/shame cultures.
    2. There are rules to the game. Ahmadinedjad overplayed it — for a consensus in the population, but he made a lot of friends.
    3. Image that cause pity for Israel are suppressed. Any news of terror attacks in Israel trail comments that the victims were evil Settlers or that the state is not building bunkers to use victims for propaganda or that some Israeli anywhere demands retaliation.

    I think the last point is important because pity is the antagonist to mob-attack induced hatred and I assume it is stronger in the long run.

    Which leads me to this thought:
    Obviously it is important to:
    1. distinguish between Israel and the Jews, or
    2. deny the holocaust, or
    3. love the holocaust

    Including all unreasonable (but relieving) combinations.

    There could be strong psychological pressure on anti-Zionist anti-Zemites of the first category. And that is a voucher for flawed reason.
    Which could include thinking about Israel equals Jews whenever it is convenient and about Israel not equal to Jews whenever that is convenient.

  10. obsy says:

    I guess the easiest way to overcome this “Jews (not) equal Israel” issue is to say the Jews have changed. Jews of the holocaust good — Jews of nowadays evil.

    Actually, that is the topic of this article.
    The Muslims are the Jews of today (al Durah became the ghetto boy) and the Jews are …

    The second part of the sentence is most often left to the imagination of the audience. But we are lucky to have the picture at the top of this article to help our imagination.

  11. Anti-Semitism: Maintaining Distinctions…

    As happens with far too much regulairty, the latest heinous crime that has a political dimension is being used by left and right to push their agenda. Yesterday, a hate filled, anti-Semitic, anti-government, neo-Nazi conducted an assault on the Holocau…

  12. Lorenz Gude says:

    I have no disagreement with the discussion about the psychology of scapegoating, but I find myself returning to what originally caught my interest in Eliyahu’s comments – the notion of revindication when it comes to explaining the surprising resurgence of antiSemitism. Rereading Eliyahu’s comments he explains the internal psychological process of the resurgent antiSemites thus:

    “Hence, the moral complaints by the theretofore despised Jews were deeply wounding to some Euros. A blow to self-esteem, to amour-propre, to their worldview and so on.”

    This psychological process would seem a secondary or follow on effect of the original scapegoating process involving our old friends honor and shame. (I’m not saying Europe is an honor/shame culture, but that those feelings exist and have great power in all cultures and ironically are driven into the unconscious by political correctness.) AntiSemitism. exposed as extremely dishonorable by the Holocaust, evokes shame among many Euros. Shame is an extremely uncomfortable emotion and strongly motivates those who feel it to seek relief. Finding the Jewish victims are human and sometimes do bad things causes the shamed to point out every flaw and indeed project many of their own flaws as well as exaggerate – even manufacture – evidence of Jewish bad behavior as we have seen here at Augean Stables. So I’m seeing the phenomena as shame acting like a compressed spring and perhaps being a significant source of the energy behind the resurgence of antiSemitism.

  13. Lianne says:

    From Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092196.html

    If I have this straight-
    Israel provides sufficient food to Gaza, however the food is not distributed equitably (presumably because of the militants and other power centers, clans etc), therefore Israel should provide more food. Huh?!?

  14. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy said, There could be strong psychological pressure on anti-Zionist anti-Zemites of the first category. And that is a voucher for flawed reason.
    Which could include thinking about Israel equals Jews whenever it is convenient and about Israel not equal to Jews whenever that is convenient.

    One thing about behavior driven by strong emotion is that it is not subject to fine distinctions – which are after all, one main benefit of the development of reason in primate brains. Just as a dog, which only has emotional belief to guide its behavior, can easily acquire the belief that all men with hats (different looking men) are aggressors about to attack them – mob rage and scapegoating can find victims in a person who shares any obvious characteristics of the more generally identified target – or even is suspected of same.

    These are deep human, even mammalian, responses that were solidified in early humans over the millions of years when all humans came in two versions – they were either friends and protectors (in your tribe) or deadly threats to your survival (not in your tribe).

    Scapegoating and mob rule are in some sense an emotional means of establishing others clearly as members in one of those groups or the other – a process which adds to a tribe’s sense of security even if some innocents have to die at times. It also serves as a warning to others in the tribe that violations of tribal traditions will be costly. The most serious punishment in primitive tribal societies is banishment. When someone in the tribe is selected out for being different, is scapegoated, and the mob descends – one is well advised to pick up a stone.

  15. noah says:

    “neo-Nazi conducted an assault on the Holocau…”

    Hardly a neo-Nazi. The killer is 88-years old.

  16. Ray in Seattle says:

    LG says, . . I find myself returning to what originally caught my interest in Eliyahu’s comments – the notion of revindication when it comes to explaining the surprising resurgence of antiSemitism.

    And I find no fault with this thesis. My view, as I’ve described it, is that any behavior is the result of an integration of many emotional forces that are aroused by the situation at that moment. These can come from learned beliefs (the emotional connection between objects and survival) as well as from memories of past events, instincts, pre-dispositions, etc.

    When analyzing behavior (what this blog is largely about) it’s useful to consider whether one emotional driver (an emotional belief such as the need for revindication) is stronger than another – and why that me be true. IMO a good case can be made for your (and Eliyahu’s view).

  17. Ray in Seattle says:

    Thinking more about that though, I will add that the need for revindication, operating at the honor shame level, certainly would make a person more open to antisemitism at first, I think stronger impulses are necessary for the overt antisemitic violence and hatreds that seem to becoming more common.

    I suspect that initial needs for vindication of honor as re the holocaust give way to stronger and more primitive emotions in those who take up the stone. I doubt that George Galloway loses any sleep over deniable European enabling of the holocaust that might have happened 65-70 years ago.

    But it’s an interesting question.

  18. E.G. says:

    In psychology, the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process is called rationalization.

  19. Ray in Seattle says:

    EG says, In psychology, the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process is called rationalization.

    Yes, but such constructions are not always logical – although they are always justifications. Hence, a term becomes inexact because of its comfortable familiarity. One should always question and test assumptions if true understanding is the goal. Otherwise familiar terms can become traps for the intellectually lazy.

  20. Sophia says:

    I think Eliyahu is definitely on to something -

    Question though: how much has the supposed moral weight on the UN contributed to Israel’s suffering and also to global antisemitism?

    I would argue, it’s had a huge and deleterious influence. This isn’t just a European phenomenon now, it’s global.

    Part of that is manifested in the very existence of UNWRA, which both perpetuates the conflict and establishes a hierarchy of victims.

    Apparently the Palestinian Arabs are one level and everybody else has to make do with underfunded, understaffed UNCHR, even considering the enormity of present day conflicts, genocides and dislocations.

    Now, why is this?

    Another factor is the non-attention given to Arab Jews, hundreds of thousands of whom were victimized, looted and driven out to the point that only a handful remain in the entire Arab League.

    Their presence actually more than counterbalances the Naqba, and they were not compensated, their history is barely even acknowledged and their losses were huge.

  21. Sophia says:

    I meant to say, moral weight “of” the UN.

    Supposed moral weight.

  22. oao says:

    eliyahu is of course correct.

    however, a major part of the reason for the resurgence of anti-semitism is that those damn joos, even when they are under genocidal threat again manage to behave so much morally than everybody else. and this must be inbearable to anybody deeming himself utterly superior morally, but with nothing to show for it at best, the contrary at worst (consider the left!).

    this also explains the systematic faking of information about the reality of the conflict, of ignoring counter information, etc. and why israeli better countering of the lies would not help, which they instinctively sense.

    passing time since the 1st holocaust would have perhaps diminished this. but the arab israeli conflict, the exposure of the left for what it was (the fall of the USSR included) and now the western crisis (and the scapegoating it induces) have combined to push it the other way: they rekindled it and gave it intensity.

  23. oao says:

    in other words, without the lies, ignoring of facts on the grounds and focusing on israel/jews exclusively, there is nothing. and that must be rather scary.

  24. JD says:

    That quote from Nay very much highlights your argument that part of Israel-hatred is the need for release from Holocaust guilt in France, because of their complicity.

    As for the Jews as Nazis parallel, this is straight out of early Soviet Zionology. Arab people imported it via Western Leftwing hate literature such as Chomsky’s melding of anti-Israelism and Marxist apologetics.

    Tom Brokaw should not be blamed too much. The structure and rhetoric of the speech demanded such a question. Reasonably, the speech could be read to be making such equivalency, although Obama I think was trying to say the Holocaust “caused” the creation of Israel, which many believe, especially those in the world who get their history from Steven Spielberg films.

  25. Ray in Seattle says:

    oao says, in other words, without the lies, ignoring of facts on the grounds and focusing on israel/jews exclusively, there is nothing. and that must be rather scary.

    My sense is they are not scared. They are vindicated. They are savoring the lush and fulfilling self-righteous flavor of the same emotional hatreds that nourished so many of their kind over the ages. They have the momentum.

    This could change. One major terror attack on US soil and Obama may be done – especially the further he commits politically to Arab victory over Israel before that happens. That could make way for a RW administration in 2012 and liberal losses in congress. The conservatives would do well to find someone worthy of office. Bush was not. Running Bush for the office and the way it was accomplished via the USSC is why Obama is president today.

    The Arabs know this and will try to reign in their fanatics for a while as long as Obama is doing the heavy lifting.

  26. JD says:

    “is called rationalization.”

    There is also projection. Such as, genocidal thinkers projecting the same thinking in Jews.

    Here is an interesting article from the London Times:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/world_agenda/article6462959.ece
    “World Agenda: the Taleban? They’re puppets of the US”

    The story shows how some Pakistanis believe the Taliban is a tool of the US, India and Israel.

    There is an insightful reader’s comment to the story worth considering:

    “”When people had to undergo a major reversal in their attitude and belief, they have to rationalise the change. In this case, Muslim Pakistanis (the army) fighting Muslim Pakistanis (the Taliban) is a cosmic event, so any rational goes to ensure mental peace (even declaring Muslims as non-Muslims).

    Fazil, London, UK”

    I think Fazil knows well what he is talking about, and that is the religious prohibition of fighting other Muslims. This “cosmic” explanation can go to the Naqba too–the reason why it was so galling is not that it was a military defeat, but shocking and totally contrary to religion that the inferior people could have such a victory. It challenged religious expectations.

  27. obsy says:

    Ray: One thing about behavior driven by strong emotion is that it is not subject to fine distinctions – which are after all, one main benefit of the development of reason in primate brains.

    I think there are at least exceptions to this. Imagine a case where someone is furious but does not act because social norm would not allow it. Wouldn’t it be possible that he gets violent as soon as he can think of an excuse?

    I at least think I have observed this when I was in school.

    Maybe it is the interaction between motivation and planning. Actions need a feasible (reasonable) plan.
    So this would not fit to our case.

    I try another one:
    If emotions asks you to do one thing and the other to do the opposite, what would happen?
    Reason might effect the action. The question would be: would your decision change you, so that you make a fine distinction in your morals? And how deep would this be rooted?

  28. Ray in Seattle says:

    obsy, I do not remove reason from the behavior equation. My view is that logical conclusions are given an emotional “valence” by the brain that must then compete with other emotional signals that might be present. This is a secondary effect and therefore less potent in the face of strong emotion. That’s why reason can be easily over-ridden when strong emotions are present. But it is the emotional potency of a logical conclusion weighted by such as one’s experience and confidence in their ability at solving that type of problem that competes with the other emotions – not the logical result itself, which has no potency outside of a survival context that provides the valence.

    Soldiers and police, fire-fighters, etc. are placed under great emotional stress in training so that they can practice using their reason when strong emotions are present. They are trained to ignore the emotions from the battle and trust the induced emotions from their reason. Those who do best at that become the best soldiers, etc. They are also instilled with purely emotional beliefs such as “always obey your officers’ orders no matter what”. These “trained beliefs” help produce good soldiering behavior under fire.

    I’m not sure I answered your specific question but if you wish I’ll try again if you ask again in another way.

  29. obsy says:

    Ray,

    that is interesting. Makes me want to read Marshall’s “Men against fire”.

    I’ll try it that way:
    How would you explain anti-Zionists who see themselves as not antisemitic, but at the same time show signs of antisemitism (e.g: saying that Jews in politics and finance are proof that Israel controls the world)?

  30. oao says:

    My sense is they are not scared. They are vindicated.

    yes, but i was referring to another aspect of it, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. the only way to get vindication is by distorting or ignoring reality. and i think they are scared of losing the vindication.

    The Arabs know this and will try to reign in their fanatics for a while as long as Obama is doing the heavy lifting.

    that would be my expectation too. except arabs tend to be unable to restrain themselves.

  31. oao says:

    remember what i was saying about netanyahu being a lot of talk and little else?

    http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/06/heartbreak-netanyahu-to-shift-left-in.html

  32. davod says:

    The president’s answer shows he has a much firmer grasp on the moral universe than Brokaw. Yes. but he did link the two with normally.

  33. Lorenz Gude says:

    Thanks Ray for bringing the two lines of thought together more. Your comments re George Galloway make it plain to me I was not talking about the extreme or even violent anti-Semites. I’m thinking about the more quietly revindicated who sneer from behind the cloak of anti-Zionism. The ones who make up the majority of the new PC anti-Semites who need to feel better about themselves. I have sensed what Eliyahu talked about – what I called that compressed spring of need for vindication. I am not surprised that bigots still exist – like the poor they will always be with us – but by the broad social phenomena of ‘respectable’ anti-Semitism. I thought I would never see it in my lifetime any more than I have expected lynching to become fashionable again.

  34. obsy says:

    Ray,

    To make things clearer: I didn’t mean that your theory needs to be able to explain that case. After all different people are sometimes anti-Semites for different reasons. Not every European is traumatized (and not every European is anti-Semite).

    But if it can explain that case, I would have the answer that I was looking for.

  35. obsy says:

    oao: remember what i was saying about netanyahu being a lot of talk and little else?

    You did.
    I just hoped Obama had finally overplayed.

    Sad!
    I guess this also means Iran is getting the bomb.

    It is the age old problem:
    You can’t really help people who are not willing to help themselves.

    I will have to get used to a world map without Israel on it.

  36. oao says:

    I thought I would never see it in my lifetime any more than I have expected lynching to become fashionable again.

    that’s what education was supposed to ensure. and those who forget the past…

  37. oao says:

    incidentally, the situation is now getting much worse because in addition to the so-called left the anti-semitic right is coming back too. there isn’t much they agree on except judeophobia. and together they can do a lot of damage.

  38. oao says:

    part of the reason the progressives distorted their ideology to favor islamism and judeophobia:

    http://pryce-jones.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2NkN2NlZDcyNTNhMzU5ZDc3NTdiYjY0NTQ0NTQ5ZTg=

  39. oao says:

    Peres to EU: Set Temporary Borders for PA State
    President Shimon Peres proposed Thursday to with EU chief Javier Solana that Israel and the PA agree to temporary borders for a new Arab state.

    yeah, right, let EU decide that.

  40. oao says:

    looks like the israeli elite has the same instinct for suicide that the western elites have.

    as well as ignoring their people:

    A new survey shows that most Israelis see no need to give in to U.S. demands regarding Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.

  41. oao says:

    does anybody wonder why mitchell has settled in israel?
    wouldn’t even-handedness suggest he sets camp in wb too?

  42. oao says:

    Unbelievably sick anti-Semitic children’s choir from Phelps hate cult

  43. oao says:

    it’s not always forbidden to use the T word:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/13/video-obama-auto-team-called-shareholder-lawyer-a-terrorist/

    if this does not reveal the true nature of the alibama govt i dk what will.

  44. Eliyahu says:

    Lorenz, Ray, Sophia and oao, thanks for your kind comments about my remarks.

  45. RfaelMoshe says:

    The distorted equation of Israel and Nazis by Europeans smacks strongly of transference as a means of dealing with silent, inherited Holocaust guilt. By transposing Israel with the Nazis, and the Palestians with the Jews, it makes the Holocaust a more ordinary occurence, less horrific,even a “normal” event. It lifts some of the consequences of their grandparents’s actions (or inactions) from these modern European liberals. It makes their grandparents and their country seem less monsterous if they can say,”look the Jews do it too!”, even if its not exactly true. This must be a strong motivation as it requires overlooking a great deal of reality but pyschology has alot more power than politics.

  46. [...] From the beginning, Enderlin has referred to anyone who questioned his work on al Durah as part of “groupuscules d’extrême droite” [splinter groups on the far right]. Notice how the term “honor” here works to link Enderlin’s reputation with a judgment of his work that insists on his objectivity and impartiality, despite, or regardless of the evidence. Note also how the composer of this missive has managed to bar any defense of Israel that questions journalists — a nice example of cultural AIDS at work. A French Jew — in this case Karsenty — criticizes Enderlin, and almost by definition, his claims not only fall on deaf ears, but they prove the bad faith of this “supposed” community and its solidarities. As a result, Europeans (and now, increasingly Americans) cling to the very images that have corrupted their own morality… [...]

  47. tergium hulotov says:

    I see a major flaw in the thinking here and it is all due to the fact you believe in false information.the common jew is under as mucjh or more mind lock/control than the jewish owned media provides for the european/american/canadian consumers,(lol)once a lie becomes entrenxched and is believed as truth unquestionably,serious flaws develop in all that flows from it.all assumptions based on a false info is wrong anything and everythjing based on false info is wrong.and everything here is based on false info,I.E antio semtism is jusat a rascist thing no reason to resent jews ,and that the holocaust gassing of 5 million jews was an actuasl occurence.,persecution of jews was not because they thought is was a good idea , there were are legitamate beefs with the jews if you care top look at the record.from the comments i can evaluate just how much the beliefs you have in false hiostory and how wrong your psychological observations based on it are. just a friendly observation,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>