ARIEL SHARON: The man who taught the Jews to fight back

More at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0603120375mar12,1,4852924.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Thank you, Ron.

Do you remember who did what during partition?

How much am I paying for this?

"Northern United States"

Now did he?

worked out his childhood fears by worshiping bullies instead of respecting men of peace. what has the jewish intellectuals done for humanity lately? the once great works of humanity have fallen silent under the weight of the repression of the palestinian people. is there no voice of peace in israel? is there no jews who think that israel has broken god`s laws? or are all the citizens in israel as terrified as mr grossman was and in reality still are?
it is easy to be a bully and it is much harder to be a friend

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

sheesh what a statement!!!!....not only must jews tolerate anti semetism but now were critized because we havent done ENOUGH for humanity lately!!

i could list the patents by israeli jews (or our incredible lookdown radar system)....but i prefer to concentrate on this new version of the jew...the one who doesnt have to tolerate anti semetic laws where he lives...doesnt have to tolerate people who threaten to kill him, wipe him off the face of the earth, call him pigs and monkeys....
no were no terrified...we proud, and its about time!


as far as that absurd statement goes....well, can we replace the jews with another social/religious group?...or will that get my post deleted?

plus the fact that medical strides are made quite often at israel's hospitals.

until the day arabs and assorted malcontents disavow all progress made by the "evil jews" and refuse any and all kinds of medical intervention my wish is for the palestinians head over to saudi arabia for ALL medical care.


and don't tell anyone....but there are lots of people who prefer to see jews suppine and begging than being powerful and proactive. those meek little days for jews are OVER!

I'd say that Jewish intellectuals are still doing what they've always done through history, and adding a fair bit to the world...

Violet...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

thats like crying:...please dont hurt us..we really are still contributing to society".....

perhaps a more appropriate response to such an absurd statement would be some more along the lines....why the fuk should the jews be singled out to "contribute to society".....

whether we do or not is hardly relevant...it just so happens that the jewish culture obvioulsy has something to it, but, that doesnt mean the jews "have to" or their worth somehow goes down (what have you done for us lately....)

I was pointing out what should be an obvious fact. If you choose to read something into that that wasn't there, that's not my problem...

Violet...

when jews are singled out, in this case for "not contributing enough" or as they should be....its simple anti semitism....if you cant see it, then you simply dont understand its nature....

I didn't single out Jews for not contributing enough. Are you sure yr responding to the right person?


Violet...

n/t

Sharon was a warrior for this generation - how sad that we still need one.

Israel, though the sentiment, that Arabs must be transfered (ethnically cleansed) from Israel, it is quite popular among a significant minority of Jewish Israelis.

I suppose if one is going to post a devotional to Ariel Sharon, a man whose War crimes are many and spans a half-century, then a nod to Kahane in the same thread seems to fit right in.

I was eight and got a shoe in the head for being a Jewish kid in Crown Heights. You don't know anything about the times that made Kahane.

Nearly all of my family perished before I was born - if we'd stood up then, it might not have happened, so yeah, I'm sympathetic to those who recognize the force is sometimes necessary. Israel wouldn't be a homeland for my people if six million of us hadn't been exterminated - and I won't condemn those who have defended it against repeated attacks.

This nation was founded on worse crimes than Sharon's, so if there's collective guilt - you share it. I, for one, will be happy when Israelis and Arabs can live in peace within secure borders.

I am really sorry someone attacked you. But Kahane is not the answer. He was part of the problem.
Sharon was part of the problem.

I did not bring up collective guilt, but the guilt of two men. They did not give the idea of resistance against attacks, but they inspired many to racist and terror attacks. Kahane followers, the JDL, is listed as a terror organization. This is *not* self-defense.

Your sympathy is meaningless - you're waiting to attack, but I'm not a victim anymore. I lived through the urban violence that brought Kahane to power - and Americans had everything to do with creating the underclass that sent a shoe to my innocent head.

You don't know where the problem begins; you just feel a smug superiority because you don't recognize your own guilt.

You bet the JDL was for self-defense ... those of us unlucky enough to live next to America's problem didn't want to be victimized again.

I never agreed with Kahane's views on expelling Israeli citizens, regardless of their race or religion - but I certainly understand where he came from - and until you've experienced the terror we felt here in Brooklyn after Martin Luther King was assassinated, I don't accept your right to judge me.

by Sharon. Palestinians experience everyday the daily violence of the occupation. They experience the loss of their land and homes and crops and water sources, all brought by the policies of Sharon.

As for the JDL, I will say that it is no better than the KKK. That is not my view alone, but you can ask the ADL and the good people at the Southern Poverty Law Center and they will say the same thing. It is nothing less than a domestic terror/hate organization.

When most of the refugees were displaced. Sharon was responsible for trouncing the Egyptians in the Sinai during the '67 war - so you can't blame that one on him either.

But you're not interested in history or reality ... you're like George W Bush, seeing everything in black and white.

I'll have none of it. I've spent too much time working with underprivileged kids in *this* country to hear you whine about children you've never met.

I mentioned the guilt of Sharon and Kahane, you said i was talking about collective guilt... when i mentioned none of that.


"Palestinians experience everyday the daily violence of the occupation. They experience the loss of their land and homes and crops and water sources, all brought by the policies of Sharon."

Sharon is not responsible for the policies of occupation that marked his time as Housing minister and then finally as prime minister? Hasn't he been running the govt for the last 5 years, up until his illness? Haven't tens of thousands of Palestinians been forced out of their homes in just the last 5 years, homes demolished? Hasn't Sharon long been an advocate of taking Palestinian land and using it for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and isn't that what his leadership produced. No need to look back 58 years (a long and crime-filled history), when the last decade has enough, under the leadership of Sharon.

A person that describes an organized hate group as organizing for "self-defense" describes me as being simplistic?

What do you know what children I have met?

"A person that describes an organized hate group as organizing for "self-defense"..."

Haven't you described Hamas the same way? Or have I misread your multitude of posts?

If it is on a multitude of posts, you should have no problem finding one.

I just can't believe how people misread or misquote me. One time, in the thread regarding the Corrie play, i suggested that if there were a play that were anti-semitic, that the director of the playhouse not even bother trying to take a poll, the right thing to do would be to not present it. My point was that a)the Corrie play was not anti-semitic b)when one comes along that is, (David Irving becomes a playwrite?) he should just reject it.

The amazing thing is that somehow this post was quoted out of context, and it was argued that i was supporting bookburnings and embassy bombings in response to the anti-Muslim cartoons. Does blind support for Israeli policies make one illiterate?

the play about Corrie is by some by some jews and israelis considered anti semetic....you may disagree, but that doesnt mean its not, same argument about the movie: passion of christ. If one supports not presenting anti semetic material than the play about Corrie is one of them. (who better to determine what anti semetic material is but jews?). You may believe its about some brave girl going to protect the palestenains...but thats only your opinon..and not that of many jews or israelis.

so which way are you going to go?...stop anti semetic plays....and pretend that the play is not anti semetic because you say so?....which means you do support censorship, except when you dont think so. Does that make you THE CENSOR!.

and if you want to censor anti semetic plays...i guess the means you want to censor anti muslim cartoons...and anti muslim books (rushdi)..and anti muslim movies (from denmark)...how about the "passion of christ"..should that have been banned? (pretty anti semetic).

Censorship has nothing to do with israel but it does have everything to do with freedom of expression. (Corries film is exactly that, freedom of expression, just as much as the cartoons are)...so which is it? censorship or freedom?...which side of the line do you fall on?

That is freedom of expression. In fact, he has to choose and reject some. If there were 400 plays that wanted to get shown for one night (or more) each year, then he would have to choose. He has a right to choose, people have a right to criticize his choices (same with newspaper editors... again, they have to make choices, or their papers would each by a 1,000 pages long daily, and still some people would not get to be heard). Rejecting an editorial cartoon is not the same as book burning. Criticizing a man for including a hateful cartoon is not the same as book-burning. I mean the dutch editor certainly had an agenda (that is the way many people see it) and people have a right to criticize that. I do not advocate burning embassies or flags. Editors and playhouse directors exercise judgment, it should be better.

In this country we would not jail anyone for publishing racist cartoons or writing deceptive history books. Many places in Europe that is not the case. David Irving, a racist anti-semite, published a book that denied the holocaust. He is now facing prison time. On principle, you think he should not have been prosecuted?

There is no "Jewish" position on Israel, on Rachel Corrie, on anything.
You ignore the fact that no small number of Israelis and Jews are royally pissed at Nicola for NOT showing the Corrie play, not only because they do not see it as anti-semitic, but that it is a story they want to be heard. So he will hear from them too.

The thing is, that it will performed in New York, and those that value what Corrie stood for really have been done a favor by those who wanted the play stifled.
http://www.rachelswords.org

first off, i dont ignore the fact that many israelis and jews are pissed that the play wasnt shown (i personally dont understand why it wasnt shown elsewhere)...but i also dont ignore the fact that some are, and they have every right to call it anti semetic.....and the playwrites have an agenda just as much as the dutch editor...and the director of the movie submission.

and I dont believe David Irving should be prosecuted for his beliefs much less put in jail for them.

and the cartoons? critizing the editor is not the same as not printing them for fear of ones life or because a satirical cartoon might "hurt" some people (thats what satirical cartoons do)...not every muslim thinks they're racist and bigoted....

so where does that leave you?....you've seemed to have skipped over the question: pro censorship (i.e. the cartoons should not be allowed to have been printed..... but movies and plays that hurt other people are OK) or anti censorship....let people express themselves as they see fit.

________________________________

I've noticed a trend that you dont like to answer questions that force you to make choices with your beliefs....I understand why, its tough...but thats still no excuse.

try to be clear...making a stand, its like coming out of the closet....makes you feel good.

the directer of the playhouse exercised his by "postponing" the play, the people who criticized him for it, exercised theirs. If he changes his mind and the performance goes on, then others may criticize him, go right ahead.

I don't think the publisher should be arrested or killed for publishing the cartoons, people should be free to criticize him for it. Personally, i think there are worse offenses to Muslim and Arab people that the cartoon, its not something that would inspire that much protest from me.

Is that anti-censorship? I think so. Let everyone express themselves.

Now, i am still waiting to hear about my supposed descriptions of Hamas.

that one didnt belong to me...nor do i recall you writing about it......

as far as the criticizing the playhouse, director, actors...thats part of democracy and hence i have no problem with it.....just as i dont have a problem with the cartoons, or other cartoons that i may or may not find rather despicable.

so yes that puts you on the anti censorship side of the line.....where liberals are supposed to be. (you surprised me with that one)

Worst. self-defenders. ever.

Meir Kahane...assasinated.

His son and daughter-in-law...killed by terrorists.

Irv Rubin..suicided.

Earl Krugel...murdered in prison.

These JDL clowns can't even defend themselves much less the Jewish people.

progroms of russia?...WWII (rare instances), blood libels of the arab states, europe.....

i would say it wasnt within the culture to fight back...unless you have some examples to list?....i can only list a few....since the days of bar kockba: warsaw ghetto, some partisan groups during WWII..

whats your list look like?

it has been their means that was lacking,
when something was lacking,
and the notion that Jewish culture has ever
been passive and unresisting is ridiculous,
and I say it is not for me to prove otherwise,
it is for this self-righteous fathead to prove
his slur on the Jews.

however if you say the jews fought back...perhaps a list is in order?......

the record of that belligerent, incompetent blowhard Sharon. Jewish culture thrived for near two thousand years in diaspora, under pressure from the aggressive and totalitarian medieval church, making cultural contributions as estimable as those of any people in history, and you want to denigrate them because, lacking the territorial base and numbers to support it, that had no major military campaigns? Like that is some sort of defect? Like that is the only way to show courage and to fight back? OK. You keep that.

the jews had and have a rich culture and enriched every land they were in...and also endured anti semtic laws, without protesting, were thrown out of countries without rebelling, were the vicitms of progoms and did nothing.....

its not a matter of denigrating the history of the jews....those are the simple facts....they didnt fight back, the accepted their "secondary status" everywhere they went...and it existed everywhere they lived, be it in the west or the east.

was it a defect?....it certainly was cultural and it reached its peak of passivity during WWII....at that point i would say yes, walking in to a gas chamber to die is definitely a defect.

(btw, you never did make that list of jews fighting back..but it seems you changed the definition to making "cultural contributions"...how does one do that?...change definitions in the middle?)

They never accepted a damn thing, that's why they are still Jews. What were they supposed to do? Commit suicide? Run off a cliff? That's how they got kicked out of Palestine in the first place, annoying the Romans from Nero to Hadrian. There is nothing laudable about picking a fight you know you're going to lose, and everything to praise in getting along with ones neighbors, especially when the outnumber you by one or two orders of magnitude. There are many very touching stories of Jews resisting in the ways availible to them, throughout the diaspora, dancing in the face of death. L'Chaim! And you want to praise a butcher like Sharon. Israel exists today because is supported by other, larger powers, not because Jews used to be pansies and now they are Bruce Willis clones.

There is nothing laudable about picking a fight you know you're going to lose, and everything to praise in getting along with ones neighbors,...now i understand...anytime a jew fights back its defined as "picking a fight"..got it. Far better to let your countryman every so often run through your village, burn down some homes, kill a couple of people..and call it "getting along" than put up some kind of defense....that would be "picking a fight"....

or if "when they outnumber you by one or two orders of magnitude"...then for sure you shouldnt do anything....get along, let them kill you.....great philosophy, if your outnumbered than your going to lose, so why bother protect yourself. ..except all it did was get the jews killed and hated more.

funny about the fact (like the F-16)...they get in the way. Little tiny israel was (is) outnumbered far more than a mere 2:1, fought back and won. If israel had your attitude, 1948 would have been one more slaughter (er "getting along) of the jews.

Few jews resisted.....and yes they danced in the face of death...because the cossacks told them to as did the christians and so many others.

___________
this one is good too:
That's how they got kicked out of Palestine in the first place, annoying the Romans from Nero to Hadrian....the jews actually resisted...and thats called "annoying" the romans. So, as I understand the situation the Palestenians are now "annoying" the israelis....and infact its that "annoying" that is the problem. (or is it different what the jews did to the romans and what the palestenains are doing to the israelis--how does that work?)

hey..what about that list of the jews fighting back:
1)
2)
3)

interesting note:
Israel exists today because is supported by other, larger powers, not because Jews used to be pansies and now they are Bruce Willis clones.....got it, the IDF really didnt win any wars...like the Egyptians claimed, it was the US air force that wiped out their air force in 67

____________

to conclude-because there are some real gems in that post:

jews fighting back is: Picking a fight

jews fighting back is "annoying" (and they deserve whatever comes after that)

jews shouldnt fight back if outnumbered (they're going to lose anyway-wimps)

jews getting along means every so often getting your village burnt down and accepting it

israel is totally dependant upon the US, without which it wouldnt exist (includes the 48 war, in which their was a complete embargo on military equipement to israel)

or and my favorite: the F-16 is a poor recon platform

blah blah blah.......i couldnt find a translator for it......and since i just want to "get along" and not annoy anyone,i guess i shall ever so politely request a translation

hang onto their culture and religion they should not have to put up with spoiled, arrogant Israeli blowhards that think an F16 is a good reconnaissance tool putting them down for not being tough enough or not having enough guts. Faugh! Something smells here. The Jews of the diaspora knew far better than Sharon ever did what it means to be a mensch. :puke:

arrogant Israeli blowhards that think an F16 is a good reconnaissance tool....seems the air forces of the world disagree with you...and spend a fortune on that disagreement: perhaps you should tell General Dynamics that?....perhaps you would like to enlighten some of us ignorent fools who spent time looking over photos taken by F-16s that we were wasting our time?.........

here i'll start the list: The F-16 is not a good recon tool because:

1)
2)
3)

(i'll pass it on to the IAF, whom I'm sure will share the knowledge with the US airforce)

i noticed that the lists remain empty?..the ones where the jews fought back....and the reasons for the F16 being a poor recon platform.....i assume that your still researching in an attempt to prove your statements?

or perhaps the statements cant be proven?.....in which case one does wonder why they were stated and subsequently repeated?....perhaps they are erroneous?

"Blah blah blah blah blah" means: I am unable to respond to you in a human language. I am incabable of marshaling a logical answer. I don't care what the truth is. Your arguments, facts and reasoning are irrefutable. But I will never admit this and I detest you all the more for putting me in this position. My emotions and fatasies are what matters, not your logic, not your truth. . Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.

i was quite confused.....never got a "blah blah" before as a response.

They knew how to die, without fighting back, praising their God.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(who along with my mother had numbers tattooed on his wrist) once told me: "In Treblinka some of the Rabbis admitted that the age-old Jewish 'tactic' of non-violence, and acceptance of martyrdom had proven to be a horrible mistake. Perhaps, the rabbis went on, God abhors meekly accepting death and degradation even while sanctifying the Name. Perhaps, could it be possible, the Zealots of Masada-- and Bar Kochba-- were right" So went the conversations under the fires of Treblinka.

for 2,000 years. The Jews SURVIVED for 2,000 years which is an entirely different matter. Even a cursory glance at Jewish history will show an unbroken record, every century, practically every decade, of violence and degradation against Jews in the Diaspora. (Under both Christianity and Islam) Their "best" times in the Diaspora (e.g. Islamic Spain) was still a period of enforced legal, religious and cultural discrimantion with innumerable recorded incidents of deliberate degradation. If you are interested in an accurate historical record I could point you towards many many manuscripts and histories confirming this. The idea that the Jews somehow "thrived" (prior to Western European emancipations of the 19th century) is so contrary to fact that I feel like saying blah blah blah, as you do. (But, unlike you, I will not succumb to the temptation.) Of course, you can find the occasional community and 50 year period, here and there, in which no overt violent incidents against Jews have been recorded. But, at the best of times, Jewish daily life, throughout the Diaspora, was characterized by (justified) horrible fear of the majority populations surrounding them. All Jews knew that pogroms and violence agianst them could break out practically anywhere and anytime. It was in the Diaspora that Rabbis commanded that Jews dying in the moment of martyrdom must die 'al kiddush hashem' (sanctifying the Name.)

By the way, I am an atheist. But that doesn't change the history

Many others are not. In other contexts, people here will point out how amazing it is that it has survived all that time. With regard to your fathers sentiments in the other post, while I can understand his feelings, his doubts, in those circumstances, I believe he was wrong. Had the Jews followed the path of belligerent folly, they would now be gone like the many other peoples that did choose that path. You are quite correct about the horrid treatment of the Jews in many times and places, but the essential fact is that they lacked arms, the means to resist, as did many others, most states during most of those times being essentially military/religious dictatorships of one form or another, and thus they had no choice but to die well or die ill, as did many non-Jews under similar compulsion. The history of the species as a whole is one long bloody mess, it is not something unique in the treatment of the Jews, nor does one belittle the millions of non-Jews slaughtered in various ways, resisting when they thought they might, choosing submission when they thought not.

Again, I point out, they do not deserve to be belittled in this way.

to tell someone who is and who is explaining their culture to you that you understand it better than they do and that they're "belittling" it?

It couldn't be clearer that Spinoza knows a great deal more about Jewish culture and history than you do. And I doubt very much whether too many Jews would subscribe to what you've been saying. I'm certain they'd take a dim view or your attempt to impress your view of said history and culture on a Jew.

I must say though that it certainly is audacious to tell Spinoza or any other people here who identify as a Jew and disagree with you, that they're belittling their own heritage.

Accusing me of "Orientalism" with respect to the Jews? How can you imply what is being implied about them and not be belittling them? This is the same bilge that Slobo served up for the Serbs: "No one should dare to beat you!"

No, it isn't cultural imperialism. It is nothing of the sort. As well say de Toqueville cannot comment on the USA, and perhaps say something that Americans would find telling. You may well not like what I have to say, and that is your right, but I will still defend the diaspora Jews, as is mine.

job explaining how the Jews were being belittled by posters on this thread. I didn't see it. I don't see anyone else pointing it out. And it has nothing to do with the Serbs. You were corrected by Spinoza about the survival of Jewish culture. His take is indeed the mainstream historical view. Yours is just, well, muddled.

As far as irony goes, it's hysterical that you couldn't see it when it smacked you right in between the eyes.

Say, of course, anything you wish to say. You're absolutely correct that it is your right, and I don't dislike what you're saying; I'm mightily amused by it. Rave on, bemildred, rave on.

I'll ignore you or respond to you depending upon whether I feel like doing one or the other.

He claims Jewish culture didn't thrive. I've just been reading Yehuda Bauer*, who does point out that Jewish culture did thrive and the reason it thrived was as a coping mechanism for the persecution aimed at the Jews. A rich culture and the emphasis on study wasn't an attempt to 'fight back' - it happened because it made what was generally the miserable and poverty stricken situations Jews were in a bit more tolerable. No offense to Spinoza, but I tend to take Yehuda Bauer (about as mainstream a historian as you can find) as being much more credible than any random DUer who claims they're an authority....

Violet...

the sabre mystique isnt a mystique....we actually do shoot back, win wars, dont take the past BS yes an even provide the world with intellectual thought.....

Thats rich. I like Yehuda Bauer and I am not aware of any major disagreements I have with any of his views.

I think the problem is in the word "thrived". I would never deny-- I am an admirer of-- the RICHNESS of much Jewish Diaspora culture over the ages. But, in Aisia and Europe, until the emancipations of the 19th century in Western and Middle Europe, Diaspora Jewish life was characterized, above all, by FEAR. Massacre, Degradation,(e.g.the 'Kissing of the Sow'), Forced Exile, Forced Conversion, the Kidnapping and Conversion of Jewish Children, the Yellow Badge, The Ghetto. (Do I need go on? I could. For paragraphs. For pages.)

From Will Durant's 'The Age of Faith', chapter XVI "Judaic Civilization":
".....the days of peace were made anxious by the ever-present danger of pogroms; and every Jew had to learn by heart the prayer to be recited in the momemt of martyrdom. The pursuit of wealth was made more feverish by the harassed insecurity of its gains; the gibes of gamins in the street were ever ready to greet the wearers of the yellow badge; the ingnominy of a helpless and secluded minority burned into the soul, broke down individual pride and interracial amity, and left in the eyes of the northern Jew that somer 'Judenschmertz'--the sorrow of the Jews--which recalls a thousand insults and injuries. For that one death on the cross how many crucifixions!"

Had the Jews followed the path of belligerent folly,

defending yourself from being killed/tortured is not beilligerence (unless your jewish)......bowing your head so the slaughters can get a better chop at your neck is just plain suicidal.

guess us new jews dont really like the previous version....and guess some of the non jews dont like the new version......

and my relatives who survived the camps couldnt be more prouder of their brethren in israel....the ones who fight back.

or are they somehow different from the jews-that they shouldnt be "belligerent"..they shouldnt try to "annoy the israelis".....as you said:

There is nothing laudable about picking a fight you know you're going to lose, and everything to praise in getting along with ones neighbors, especially when the outnumber you by one or two orders of magnitude

and they should try harder to "get along with the israelis".....seems to me what worked for the jews (and what you seem to think is a good philosophy) should work for the palesteniains?.....any problem with that?

__________________________

or on the otherside of the discussion, your suggestion is:

in the interest of a "strong jewish culture" i'll should be happy to put down my gun, let me and my family be slaughtered (this is the recommended course of action correct?.....as it is what Hamas and iran would like to do)...please clarify if I misunderstood something from your previous posts......



or is this one of those "blah blah" reaction times?

But since you never let anything penetrate that contradicts your rich fantasy life, you have no way to know that.
This is definitely one of those "Blah blah blah" reaction times.

passivity is a nice philosophy...dont annoy the romans and they wont kick you out of your country...dont annoy the english, spaniards...and they'll let you stay....well not really......dont annoy the Egyptians and maybe they'll let you have citizenship...nah....just kidding....and please dont annoy the nazis...maybe they'll make the wait to the gas chambers a bit shorter...

yes sir thats a great philosophy, its done wonders for the jewish past generations.......true a bit slow those jews are....took them 2,000 years of anti semetic laws to finally figure it out: no matter what they do, they're always the outsider, never on solid ground.......

passivity is great...provided that everyone believes it....but they dont (ask irans pres his opinion about it..or hamas. But dont let little things like that get in the way of a good opinion, why bother with facts and historical record?

Jews or Diaspora culture. The tactic of Jewish Diaspora non-violence may well have saved many lives on many occasions. On many other occasions it resulted in communities being wiped out. (Which might well have happened anyway but at least they would have gone out fighting back.) However, the key point, as it relates to Israel and this post, is that the millenium old HABIT of non-violence among the Jewish communities of the Diaspora BENEFITED the Nazi (and other Anti-Semitic) killers of the Holocaust, made their 'job' easier to perform, and effectively delivered the lambs to the slaughter. (I don't use the word 'lambs' in a perjorative sense--God forbid--but it is descriptive of what--with a few heroic exceptions--actually took place.)

Yes, the Jews of the Diaspora lacked arms, but they also lacked the WILL towards ANY resistance and this attitude helped the killers. I am not criticizing or censoring the Jews of the Diaspora--talk about the blaming the victim--but I am stating, as the rabbis in Treblinka came to understand standing under smoke stacks spewing human ash--that the Jewish Diaspora belief in non-violence had led to a dead end, to extermination. A new way had to be found.

So I will respond, but then I have done with this subject. There are three particular points that you may consider or not, as you like:

1.) The notion that "they" lacked the WILL to resist is an opinion, not a fact, and it is a pejorative stereotype. At a minimum it deserves to be supported by more than anecdotal evidence of particular persons' perfectly understandable despair and disillusion; for example evidence that other targeted groups behaved differently or had better success in resistance to their fate, and preferably both.

2.) The Nazi's were at great pains to keep the people sent to the camps ignorant of what was up for the very good reason that they knew perfectly well they would not go quietly otherwise, and they were also at some pains to keep the German people at large ignorant, from a similar fear of resistance or disobedience.

3.) It is my impression that, when the situation became clear, or the means were present, the Jews often did resist. It is true they failed to take the day, but it was a day that it took the combined might of several major powers to take.

---

WRT belittling, while I sympathize, I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways, the core of this myth is that the diaspora Jews were deficient, however you wish to characterize that, and that the Israeli is the correction in some form of that deficiency. This is balderdash in my opinion.

---

I agree completely with your characterization of the situation in your first paragraph, but I think the conclusions you draw from it are not supported by reason or by the facts. You admit yourself that the "habit" of non-violence may have served them well for millenia, and I have yet to see a coherent explanation of how they should have done differently in WWII in the situation that confronted them, and with the burden of uncertainty under which they were forced to choose a course of action. It is not enough to just say they ought to have "fought back", like its some sort of magic formula. And it is, in a way, a "blame the victim" sort of idea, that they should be thought somehow at fault for failing "properly" to resist the Nazi evil.

---

I apologize for saying your were full of it, and the other deleted one, which was "too direct"; as you might guess this subject tends to annoy me.

fallacious, but I agree we can end this discussion. Very quickly.

1) The Jewish habit of non-violence and non-resistance is not an opinion. From the 5th century A.D. to the late 19th century I challenge you to give me a SINGLE example, throughout the entire continent of Europe, where there is ANY recorded COLLECTIVE Jewish resistance to violence and humiliation. For Gods sakes, beginning in the 13th century, until the early 19th century--FOR MORE THAN 600 YEARS-- in Italy, Portugal, Spain (until the forced expulsion of 1492)Germany, Austria, Benelux, France--and large areas in Eastern Europe, the Jews were forced to live in Ghettos and bear the Yellow Star. . These were not today's 'ghetto' but near-prisons with walls, locked gates, armed guards and strict curfews. Again, this went on for 600 years with no recorded instances of insurrection.

2)Regarding the knowlege of the Jews concerning what was happening in the camps, you are correct up until mid 1944. For the last year of the killings much was known and, at that point, some rebellions (including Auschwitz) did break out among the Sonderkommando in the camps.) Certainly, the last large new batch of Jews-- from Hungary in late 1944-- did know though many refused to believe it. (There are reports from surviving Sonderkommando of Hungarian Jews, as they undressed and marched into the 'showers', reciting the Shema and the Profession of Faith. ('I believe, in perfect faith, in the comming of the Messiah') They knew. (In this regard, for much of my knowlege I don't have to rely on books. I have first-hand reports from my mother and father and many of their friends, including Jews from Germany, Austria, Poland, France, and Hungary.)

3) I agree that there is nothing the Jews of the Holocaust could have done to prevent much (but not all) of the killings. But the attitude of so many Jews: 'This will pass. It's always passed before and we survived. The best thing to do is cooperate as much as possible and not make waves'. (Again, this is based on direct, first-hand reports given me)only helped the killers complete their terrible and bloody work.

I don't suppose Dreyfus (self-satisfied French soldier) or Trotsky (commander of the Bolshevik armies) or any of the many other Jewish soldiers and socialist rabble-rousers will do the job for you? It has to be a little band made up entirely of religious Jews from the shtetl marching somewhere with hoes in their hands in defense of Jewish nationalism, or something like that? In other words they should have been Zionists before the Zionists. In spite of the fact that they were not allowed armies and were a small minority population, they ought to have had an army anyway and somehow kicked the medieval bigots' asses for them.

I give you a quoted excerpt from "The Evolution of the Medieval World" by David Nicholas, p, 264, on the First Crusade:

Count Emicho, a nobleman, a very mighty man in this region, was awaiting, with a large number of Teutons, the arrival of the pilgrims who were coming there from diverse lands by the King's highway ... Emicho and the rest of his band held a council, and, after sunrise, attacked the Jews in the hall with arrows and lances. Breaking the bolts and doors, they killed the Jews, about seven hundred in number, who in vain resisted the attack and force of so many thousands. They killed the women also, and with their swords pierced tender children of whatever age or sex. The Jews, seeing that their Christian enemies were attacking them and their children, and that they were sparing no age, likewise fell upon one another, brothers, children, wives, and sisters, and thus they perished at each others hands. Horrible to say mothers cut the throats of nursing children with knives and stabbed others, preferring them to perish thus by their own hands rather than to be killed by the weapons of the uncircumcised.

This is from about 1190 (he says) and part of the massacres in the Rhineland pursuant to the First Crusade.
Tell me in what they did wrong?

they commited suicide as opposed to killing those who were killing them... The idea that resistance is "vain" is false. It ignores what how future generations will look upon ones acts...Bar Kochba may have failed but he inspired many jews to fight back. The Warsaw ghetto may have been known from the start that they would lose, but it inspired many others to fight and win.

1948 should have been a massacre..a continuation of the holocaust..but it wasnt, and not because the jews were outnumbered but becuase they fought better, so too was 67 and 73

giving up simply because the odds are against you is hardly the attitude that anybody can be proud of.


oh yea..and your example?....as written above, there are a few isolated incidents.....and your example above ends in massive suicide...got any more? (stil waiting for the list why the F-16 is a poor recon platform......)

and Dreyfus....he was famous precisly because he was an isolated incident...and yes the question in the air is the jews rebelling as jews, since they were isolated as jews, killed as jews,. Those that "left the culture" attempted to leave their judiaism as well, thats what being a communist was all about.

so to confirm...the jews, persecuted as jews, walled in as jews....bascially almost never fought back...until 1948.

Your example is not fighting as a people, such as occurred--for example--in the Warsaw Ghetto rebellion in January, 1943. (I don't think these were, primarily, Jews from a "shetl". Your contempt is obvious.) Of course in the tens of thousands of individual violent events that occured against Jews in the Diaspora there are instances of some INDIVIDUALS resisting. There are instances of Jews serving as successful soldiers; there are violent and aggressive Jews. What does that have to do with anything? Individual self-defense (whether futile or not) does not qualify as a people fighting against oppression. Your mention of Dreyfus and Trotsky is ridiculous and has nothing at all to do with my point

Boy, you sure sigh alot. Life must be pretty tough.

No more free history lessons.

Jewish history and basically you are right. While there were small isolated armed "fights" in the 3rd and 4th century A.D. in the Near and Middle East, essentially the Jews as a people never fought from The Bar Kochba rebellion of the 2nd Century to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising in January, 1943.(There were many rumors of war-like Jewish "tribes' on the Steppe in the middle ages, but none have been verified. The Ha Shomer (Watchmen) established in 1909 in Palestine and the Haganah established in 1921 and greatly expanded following the 1929 Arab anti-Jewish riots, were essentially armed guards for farmers and Kibbutzim prior to WWII.

The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising raised and fought under the flag of the Star of David (and the flag of Poland), the first time such an event occurred since Bar Kochba, nearly 1800 years earlier.

Jewish display of force.

By no means would I consider Sharon to be a paragon of virtue, but he was a breath of fresh air nonetheless.