14 May 07
Opinion among the orthodox Jewish community in mandatory Palestine was divided--"
On the one hand, its press described the European Jewish masses as going like "sheep to the slaughter" and voiced admiring identification with the ghetto uprising. On the other, the majority of the movement leaders and its affiliated rabbis refrained from making public statements. Some members of the Hapoel Hamizrachi even expressed reservations concerning the emphasis on physical rebellion as opposed to the "sanctification of life." http://hgs.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/213
Ghandi advocated satyagraha (non violent resistance). Might he have changed his mind had he lived in Warsaw? Which approach do you prefer?
14 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI prefer the non-violent head bashing. Each situation is individual and no one technique is right for every situation.
Opinion among the orthodox Jewish community in mandatory Palestine was divided--"
On the one hand, its press described the European Jewish masses as going like "sheep to the slaughter" and voiced admiring identification with the ghetto uprising. On the other, the majority of the movement leaders and its affiliated rabbis refrained from making public ...[text shortened]... ance). Might he have changed his mind had he lived in Warsaw? Which approach do you prefer?
14 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageIn the Warsaw Ghetto there was only ever one goal. The complete eradication of its inhabitants. Non-violent resistance would have achieved absolutely nothing.
Opinion among the orthodox Jewish community in mandatory Palestine was divided--"
On the one hand, its press described the European Jewish masses as going like "sheep to the slaughter" and voiced admiring identification with the ghetto uprising. On the other, the majority of the movement leaders and its affiliated rabbis refrained from making public ...[text shortened]... ance). Might he have changed his mind had he lived in Warsaw? Which approach do you prefer?
In India, the British had no desire to eradicate anyone. Non-violent resistance only makes sense if your oppressors need you in some way, as was the case in India.
In fact, I believe one of the reasons Israel is taking such a proactive stance in its defence nowadays is to never again be victims.
14 May 07
Originally posted by knightwestHear hear.
In the Warsaw Ghetto there was only ever one goal. The complete eradication of its inhabitants. Non-violent resistance would have achieved absolutely nothing.
In India, the British had no desire to eradicate anyone. Non-violent resistance only makes sense if your oppressors need you in some way, as was the case in India.
In fact, I believe one of th ...[text shortened]... s Israel is taking such a proactive stance in its defence nowadays is to never again be victims.
14 May 07
Originally posted by knightwestAn Irish writer, I forget who, once wrote: "Persecution doesn't lead to humanity, it just leads to more persecution."
In the Warsaw Ghetto there was only ever one goal. The complete eradication of its inhabitants. Non-violent resistance would have achieved absolutely nothing.
In India, the British had no desire to eradicate anyone. Non-violent resistance only makes sense if your oppressors need you in some way, as was the case in India.
In fact, I believe one of th ...[text shortened]... s Israel is taking such a proactive stance in its defence nowadays is to never again be victims.
Insightful, explaining and profetic.
14 May 07
Originally posted by knightwestThats right such a proactive stance that its Israels leaders encouraged ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
In the Warsaw Ghetto there was only ever one goal. The complete eradication of its inhabitants. Non-violent resistance would have achieved absolutely nothing.
In India, the British had no desire to eradicate anyone. Non-violent resistance only makes sense if your oppressors need you in some way, as was the case in India.
In fact, I believe one of th ...[text shortened]... s Israel is taking such a proactive stance in its defence nowadays is to never again be victims.
So the Palestinians have to fight back by desparate means.
The nazis failed to kill the jews but they helped them create a nazi state. Maybe with the US help Israel might live for 1000 years.
14 May 07
Originally posted by petrosianpupilwhat the hell are you on dude?
Thats right such a proactive stance that its Israels leaders encouraged ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
So the Palestinians have to fight back by desparate means.
The nazis failed to kill the jews but they helped them create a nazi state. Maybe with the US help Israel might live for 1000 years.
not sure what to say.
14 May 07
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI have often played games of "what if" concerning various endings to WWII. One scenario that is of interest it to consider what would have happened to India had the Germans won and taken charge of the British Empire as then comprised.
Ghandi advocated satyagraha (non violent resistance). Might he have changed his mind had he lived in Warsaw? Which approach do you prefer?
It might have gone something like this:
The Reich is pleased to announce that several thousand roudy sub-humans were killed tuesday last when an unknown Jew lover named Ghandi tried to lead a rebellion against the Reich by persuading the railroad workers to "demonstrate peacefully" by not showing up for work. He was executed in the square where he was instigating this sedition. There were several thousand rail-road workers who did not show up for work that following wednesday, and as we speak, squads of SS have been sent to take prisoners and execute various family members of these "protestors". We are pleased to announce that initial results seem to assure that no such "protests" will continue to be a problem. Heil Hitler!
It is obvious, but bears restating. Any Peaceful resistance movement must be facing a benevolent opponent if it is to win.