I'm sick of people remembering ...

Originally posted by scherzo
This is the undoubtedly controversial follow-up to Scriabin's piece of crap "I Shall Remember." It is about the misuse of the Nazi genocide to suit commercial and moral needs.

In his book "The Holocaust Industry," Norman Finkelstein (a Jew, by the way, so don't bother with calling him anti-Semitic) says that "'the Holocaust' is an ideological representati ...[text shortened]... inning, The Holocaust."

And on that note, the topic is opened for discussion.

In his book "The Holocaust Industry," Norman Finkelstein ... says that "'the Holocaust' is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality.

The Holocaust does not bear a "tenuous" connection with reality. That may be your perspective, but that perspective is in error. The only tragedy of the Holocaust is that the Jews made it their own when in fact other groups were also persecuted and killed.

Through its deployment, one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a 'victim' state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status.

I do not see the role of the USA as being one of a victim, but rather an enabler of Israel.

Both the USA and Israel have lost whatever moral high ground they may have had in the past. There is no excuse for thuggery but these two powers don't behave as if they understand that.

Originally posted by scherzo
[b]And the Israelis came from where? If memory serves, the Jewish people were in the land long before the Palastinian people.

And the British people were in the US long before the American people.[/b]

The British? By and large, when talking about Europeans, it's the same thing.

However, the Indigenous Americans, the American Indians, were here in North America first.

The argument of "We were here first" is hollow on both sides. The middle east (present day Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula) has had many rulers of many ethnicities and cultures. It has always been a volitile region. There is no "We were here first" and that will never be a suitable moral basis for either side; it will get as nowhere as it has for over 60 years.

Both sides are engaged in wrongdoing, for whatever reasons. As long as the argument continues as it is the bigger bully or the one with greater stamina or the luckier one shall prevail - but it will not make them right.

Originally posted by Badwater
[b]In his book "The Holocaust Industry," Norman Finkelstein ... says that "'the Holocaust' is an ideological representation of the Nazi holocaust. Like most ideologies, it bears a connection, if tenuous, with reality.

The Holocaust does not bear a "tenuous" connection with reality. That may be your perspective, but that perspective is in error. The [ ...[text shortened]... no excuse for thuggery but these two powers don't behave as if they understand that.[/b]

The Holocaust does not bear a "tenuous" connection with reality. That may be your perspective, but that perspective is in error. The [b]only tragedy of the Holocaust is that the Jews made it their own when in fact other groups were also persecuted and killed.[/b]

These words are not mine; they are Norman Finkelstein's. He's making the point that the Zionist leaders have made a completely normal genocide into something ridiculously abstract.

I do not see the role of the USA as being one of a victim, but rather an enabler of Israel.

You're misunderstanding. Israel constantly casts itself as the victim, and the US plays along.

Both the USA and Israel have lost whatever moral high ground they may have had in the past. There is no excuse for thuggery but these two powers don't behave as if they understand that.

I agree. I don't think you quite understand what Finkelstein (and myself) are saying.

Originally posted by Badwater
The British? By and large, when talking about Europeans, it's the same thing.

However, the Indigenous Americans, the American Indians, were here in North America first.

The argument of "We were here first" is hollow on both sides. The middle east (present day Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula) has had many rulers ...[text shortened]... ne with greater stamina or the luckier one shall prevail - but it will not make them right.

The argument of "We were here first" is hollow on both sides. The middle east (present day Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula) has had many rulers of many ethnicities and cultures. It has always been a volitile region. There is no "We were here first" and that will never be a suitable moral basis for either side; it will get as nowhere as it has for over 60 years.

We're referring to the immediate past. We were living in Palestine when the Zionists evicted us.

By the way, most definitions of the Middle East also include North Africa (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Comoros, and Somalia). Not all of these people are ethnically "Arab" (and neither are the Iranians that you put in your definition) but they speak Arabic and are technically members of the 22-country Arab League.

Originally posted by scherzo
Both the USA and Israel have lost whatever moral high ground they may have had in the past. There is no excuse for thuggery but these two powers don't behave as if they understand that.

I agree. I don't think you quite understand what Finkelstein (and myself) are saying.

I do think I understand, and I'm not in agreement with parts of it.

Originally posted by scherzo
The argument of "We were here first" is hollow on both sides. The middle east (present day Jordan, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula) has had many rulers of many ethnicities and cultures. It has always been a volitile region. There is no "We were here first" and that will never be a suitable moral basis for either side; it wi inition) but they speak Arabic and are technically members of the 22-country Arab League.

I was not referring to the immediate past. The distant past informs the immediate past, whether you want it to or not.

I am aware of what constitutes the Arab world; however, I was referring specifically to those areas within a closer proximity to Israel/Palestine and that have engaged historically for control of that area (excluding Greek, Egyptian, and Roman conquests, which I think you would agree have no bearing on the subject in the context of our conversation).

Originally posted by Badwater
I was not referring to the immediate past. The distant past informs the immediate past, whether you want it to or not.

I am aware of what constitutes the Arab world; however, I was referring specifically to those areas within a closer proximity to Israel/Palestine and that have engaged historically for control of that area (excluding Greek, Egyptian, and ...[text shortened]... hich I think you would agree have no bearing on the subject in the context of our conversation).

Egyptian conquests are very relevant; the Egyptians took Gaza in 1949.

Originally posted by Badwater
I do think I understand, and I'm not in agreement with parts of it.

No, because Finkelstein apparently agrees with what you were saying.

Originally posted by scherzo
Egyptian conquests are very relevant; the Egyptians took Gaza in 1949.

I'm referring to the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans - those who (among others) were largely in power at the time the Hebrews were in Palestine. I'm saying that one can pick as far back as they want to say "We were here first", be it 70 years ago, 600 years ago, 1800 years ago, 3000 years ago, etc. and be correct. Palestinians, Jews, various nomadic tribes, conquerers...none of it will be conducive in solving today's problems in that part of the Middle East.

Of course, there are always elements on both sides that are only interested in whatever serves their perspective and ideology and they are slaves to it. Nothing will be accomplished, the killing and pain on both sides will continue, but at least they didn't give in. If that's going to be the case then the status quo will be the case, where no one is happy and no one 'wins'.

I personally have no investment in who prevails or not, there is evil and wrongdoing on both sides. I will say this, however: The Western powers had no business setting up a religious state (Israel) and usurping the Palestinians in the process. It was a huge mistake, but I was not alive and there's a lot of things that have happened that no one asked me about. There's still stupid things going on that no one asked me about. I guess I've accepted the fact that I'm quite insignificant and what I say or do has no bearing on what happens in the world theater.

Originally posted by Badwater
I'm referring to the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans - those who (among others) were largely in power at the time the Hebrews were in Palestine. I'm saying that one can pick as far back as they want to say "We were here first", be it 70 years ago, 600 years ago, 1800 years ago, 3000 years ago, etc. and be correct. Palestinians, Jews, various nomadic t ...[text shortened]... gnificant and what I say or do has no bearing on what happens in the world theater.

Of course, there are always elements on both sides that are only interested in whatever serves their perspective and ideology and they are slaves to it. Nothing will be accomplished, the killing and pain on both sides will continue, but at least they didn't give in. If that's going to be the case then the status quo will be the case, where no one is happy and no one 'wins'.

The struggle will go on until one of the two groups is expelled. Hard truth.

Originally posted by Scriabin
I don't believe spirituality issues started it at all.

Issues related to spirituality or religion are usually cover for political and economic motives -- the will to power.

Just another reason to distrust organized, established religions. They talk about the spirit, but they inhabit the flesh in the here and now and act accordingly.

From how I see the world we are involved in spiritual warfare. Now as to organized religion, it is involved in the mix and can turn out to be on the good or bad side depending on the players involved.

Originally posted by whodey
From how I see the world we are involved in spiritual warfare. Now as to organized religion, it is involved in the mix and can turn out to be on the good or bad side depending on the players involved.

With the holocaust? That's not spiritual, that's money-driven.

Originally posted by Badwater
I was not referring to the immediate past.

So "first" is only "first" if it fits with when you decide the "immediate past" begins. 🙄

Originally posted by divegeester
So "first" is only "first" if it fits with when you decide the "immediate past" begins. 🙄

No, there's some consensus on when "immediate past" begins in given regions.

Originally posted by scherzo
No, there's some consensus on when "immediate past" begins in given regions.

Within the membership of your religion there may be consensus, of course! But you are trying to convince other people aren't you? You cannot claim originality based on your own warped concept of the begining of the situation.