Archief - Straffeloosheid Israël

denkimi zei:

als er hele wijken plat gebombardeerd worden omdat er een raket een gat ter grootte van een vuist in het asfalt geslagen heeft, dan ben je heel geloofwaardig als slachtoffer.

het is als iemand vermoorden omdat hij uw venster heeft ingegooid, totaal buiten proportie.

Klik om te vergroten...

[SMURF]Lolsmurf;12649740 zei:

Zever in een pakske,


Daarom ben ik verontwaardigd dat sommigen hier als gek reageren als je iets slecht of iets fouts zou insinueren over de Joden, het gebeurt fucking met miljoenen anderen mensen op de dag van vandaag en daar wordt met geen woord over gerept...

Klik om te vergroten...

mac-bc zei:

Israël is zeker geen heilig boontje. Maar bekijk alles eens in z'n context. De meeste zaken die je daar vernoemd hebt zijn gebeurd nadat Israël gezegd heeft de wapens neer te leggen en tot 3 maal toe aangedrongen heeft aan de Palestijnen om hetzelfde te doen terwijl Israël een heel machtig leger heeft.

Als je op zo'n moment Israël blijft bestoken met raketten en daarna komt wenen bij de internationale gemeenschap hoe slecht Israël wel niet is als ze terugslaan, hoe geloofwaardig ben je dan?

Dus ja, Israël maakt fouten (die ik veroordeel en die de Westerse wereld veroordeelt) maar er heerst op de meeste plaatsen (zowel in de pers als op dit forum) een enorm gebrek aan nuance. En dat is de reden van mijn betogen.

Klik om te vergroten...

CHOMSKY: In Philadelphia. And the anti-Semitism was very real. There were certain paths I could take to walk to the store without getting beaten up. It was the late 1930s and the area was openly pro-Nazi. I remember beer parties when Paris fell and things like that. It's not like living under Hitler, but it's a very unpleasant thing. There was a really rabid anti-Semitism in that neighborhood where I grew up as a kid and it continued. By the time I got to Harvard in the early 1950s there was still very detectable anti-Semitism. It wasn't that they beat you up on the way to school or something, but other ways, kind of WASP-ish anti-Semitism. There were very few Jewish professors on the faculty at that time. There was beginning to be a scattering of them, but still very few. This was the tail end of a long time of WASP-ish anti-Semitism at the elite institutions. Over the last thirty years that's changed very radically. Anti-Semitism undoubtedly exists, but it's now on a par, in my view, with other kinds of prejudice of all sorts. I don't think it's more than anti-Italianism or anti-Irishism, and that's been a very significant change in the last generation, one that I've experienced myself in my own life, and it's very visible throughout the society.

QUESTION: How would you account for that?

CHOMSKY: How would I account for it? I think partly that the Holocaust did have an effect. It brought out the horrifying consequences of anti-Semitism in a way that certainly is striking. I presume, I can't prove this, but there must be, at least I hope there is, a kind of guilt feeling involved, because the role of the United States during the Holocaust was awful, before and during. They didn't act to save Jews, and they could have in many respects. The role of the Zionist organization is not very pretty either. In the late 1940s there were plenty of displaced persons in the Jewish DP camps. Some survived. It remained awful, they stayed in the DP camps, in fact, for a while they were dying at almost the same rate they were under the Nazis. Many of those people, if they had been given a chance, surely would have wanted to come to the United States. There are debates about how many, but it's just unimaginable that if they'd been given a chance they wouldn't have wanted to come here. They didn't. A tiny scattering came. There was an immigration bill, the Stratton bill, which I think admitted about 400,000 people, if I remember, to the United States, very few Jews among them. Plenty of Nazis, incidentally, straight out of their SS uniforms. The reason that bill passed, I think it was 1947, was that it was the beginning of the Cold War and priority was being given to basically the Nazis, because we were resurrecting them all over the world, a lot of them were brought in, a lot of Nazi war criminals, and others, but very few Jews. That's not a very pretty sight. You say, during the war you could have given some argument, not an acceptable argument, but you could have given at least a not ridiculous argument that you had to fight the war and not worry about the people being sent to the gas chambers, but after the war you couldn't give any argu- ment. It was a matter of saving the survivors, and we didn't do it. I should say the Zionist organization didn't support it either, they didn't even lobby for the bill. The only Jewish organizations that lobbied for the admission of Jewish refugees to the United States were the non-Zionist or the anti-Zionist organizations. The reason was that they wanted to send them off to Palestine. Whether they wanted to go there or not is another story, the same matter being relived today, incidentally, with the Russian emigres. The Zionist organization wants to force them to go to Israel. Most of them, especially from the European parts of Russia, want to come to the United States, and all sorts of pressures are being brought to bear to prevent that. It's kind of a reenactment at a less hideous level of the same story. I suppose there's some element of guilt, certainly over the Holocaust and maybe over the post-war matter.

Besides that, the Jewish community has changed socially and economically. It's now become substantial, not huge in numbers, but given its numbers it's a substantial part of the dominant privileged elite groups in every part of the society -- professional, economic, political, etc. It's not like the anti-Semitic stereotype, they don't own the corporations, but relative to the numbers they're very influential, particularly in the ideological system, lots of writers, editors, etc. and that has an effect.

Furthermore, I think it's changed because of what's happened since 1967. In 1967 Israel won a dramatic military victory, demonstrated its military power, in fact, smashed up the entire Arab world, and that won great respect. A lot of Americans, especially privileged Americans, love violence and want to be on the side of the guy with the gun, and here was a powerful, violent state that smashed up its enemies and demonstrated that it was the dominant military power in the Middle East, put those Third World upstarts in their place. This was particularly dramatic because that was 1967, a time when the United States was having only minimal success in carrying out its invasion of by then all of Indochina, and it's well worth remembering that elite opinion, including liberal opinion, overwhelmingly supported the war in Vietnam and was quite disturbed by the incapacity of the United States to win it, at least at the level they wanted. Israel came along and showed them how to do it, and that had a symbolic effect. Since then it has been presenting itself, with some justice, as the Sparta of the Middle East, a militarily advanced, technologically compe- tent, powerful society. That's the kind of thing we like. It also became a strategic asset of the United States; one of the reasons why the United States maintains the military confrontation is to assure that it's a dependable, reliable ally that will do what we want, like, say, support genocide in Guatemala or whatever, and that also increases the respect for Israel and with it tends to diminish anti-Semitism. I suppose that's a factor.

QUESTION: But you've pointed out that as long as U.S. state interests are being served and preserved, Israel will be favored, but the moment that those interests...

CHOMSKY: That's right, it'll be finished, in fact, anti-Semitism will shoot up. Apart from the moral level, it's a very fragile alliance on tactical grounds.

QUESTION: So what happens to the moral commitment, the concern for justice in the Jewish state and all that -- out the window?

CHOMSKY: On the part of whom?

QUESTION: The United States.

CHOMSKY: There's no concern for justice and there never was. States don't have a concern for justice. States don't act on moral grounds.

QUESTION: Except on a rhetorical level.

CHOMSKY: On a rhetorical level, they all do, even Nazi Germany. On the actual level, they never do. They are instruments of power and violence, that's true of all states; they act in the interests of the groups that dominate them, they spout the nice rhetorical line, but these are just givens of the international system.

Klik om te vergroten...

Epyon zei:

Wij overtreden wat? Het is niet omdat ook Joden de Verklaring hebben ondertekend dat het een 'Joods' document is. Dat is goedkoop argument van cultuurrelativisten etc, maar raakt kant noch wal. De geest van de Verklaring is heden ten dage veel meer Europees en tot nader order dropt Europa nog altijd geen fosforbommen op de Gazastrook. Wij overtreden niks, Israël daarentegen.

Daarnaast is er ook nog het feit dat Israël een soevereine staat is met een weluitgebouwd staatsapparaat. Je kan een soevereine moeilijk publiek verordenen, al kan je natuurlijk wel je economie als wapen inzetten.

Klik om te vergroten...

themummy123 zei:

Het Westen plaats daar zomaar een staatje tussen de Arabieren en dan zeg jij "Wij Westen overtreden niks". hahaha

Klik om te vergroten...

themummy123 zei:

Het Westen plaats daar zomaar een staatje tussen de Arabieren en dan zeg jij "Wij Westen overtreden niks". hahaha

Klik om te vergroten...

Silmarunya zei:

maar zeggen dat ze Israël hebben gecreeërd is een brug te ver.

Klik om te vergroten...

zwerver zei:

B'Tselem - 27 Dec. '09: One and a Half Million People Imprisoned

Klik om te vergroten...

rizla + zei:

Voor mij zegt heel dat mid east zaakje dat joden uiteindelijk ook niet beter zijn dan hamas of nazi's en er in elke bevolkingsgroep extremisten zitten die het kunnen vergallen voor de eigen bevolking en anderen. Ook bij Joden. En voor Israelis komt daar voor mij nog het gevoel bij te denken dat ze zich vooral of enkel omwille hun geschiedenis van mening lijken zichzelf alles te mogen permiteren, zoals bvb het provocerend blijven innemen van Palestijnse gebieden. Het lijkt alsof ze zichzelf bevoorrecht zien op anderen..
Doen, ze gaan daardoor vast meer geliefd worden in de rest van de wereld ^^

Klik om te vergroten...