Israpundit Digest

Support Israpundit


USD

ILS

CAD

Syndication

Blog Traffic

Pages

Pages|Hits |Unique

  • Last 24 hours: 0
  • Last 7 days: 0
  • Last 30 days: 0
  • Online now: 0
Los Angeles SEO
Current Entries

Recent Comments

Sponsors

Sponsor

Dry Bones
Dry Bones

”souvenirs”

Archives

Fair Use

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

LIVE HEADLINE NEWS FEEDS
THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION

Support Israpundit

USD

ILS

CND


  • April 29, 2012

    1948 State Department cables threaten to unleash antisemitism

    BY: Adam Kredo, Free Beacon

    A top official in President Harry Truman’s State Department threatened to stoke anti-Semitism by publicizing documents that would “do great harm to the Jews” as retribution for the establishment of an independent State of Israel, according to newly unearthed diplomatic cables.

    As Jews across the globe celebrate Israeli Independence Day today, the cables reveal that, despite public overtures, the U.S. was highly wary of Israel’s creation. They also provide definitive proof of what experts describe as a profound anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias at the highest levels of the U.S. government.


    Undersecretary of State Robert Lovett made the threat in a meeting with Zionist official Nahum Goldmann on April 22, 1948, according to a diplomatic cable obtained by the Free Beacon.

    In that meeting—which took place in the tense weeks before Jewish leaders declared independence—Lovett threatened to unleash a wave of anti-Semitism that could destroy the fledgling Jewish government’s support base in the U.S. and elsewhere.

    “As the situation is now, we must have a truce [with the Arabs]. If you prevent it, it will become very tough. We will wash our hands of the whole situation and will prevent any help being given to you,” Lovett is quoted as saying in the document. “We will publish a ‘White Paper’, which is already in preparation, giving all the facts and documents.”

    This White Paper, Lovett explained, “will incriminate the Arabs and the British, but not less the Jews. You cannot expect us to be attacked all the time without striking back. We would have published it already if we hadn’t been afraid of grave repercussions in the United States.”

    “Anti-Semitism,” Lovett continued, “is mounting in a profound way in groups and circles which are very influential and were never touched by anti-Semitism. Such a White Paper would do great harm to the Jews in this country, and once it is published, I am not sure that outstanding Jewish leaders who are helping you today would go along with you.”

    “What this document from 1948 shows is the crude threat to foment anti-Semitism unless Zionist leaders would give in to the State Department’s demands,” said Rafael Medoff, the historian who unearthed the documents while researching his newly released book, Herbert Hoover and the Jews: The Origins of the ‘Jewish Vote’ and Bipartisan Support for Israel. “The State Department does have a long record of unfriendliness towards Jews and Israel.”

    Medoff, the director of The David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, said the startling exchange is proof that behind public overtures of support for Israel, many government officials work to undermine the Jewish state.

    “It happens again and again in the history of Israel-American relations that a prominent U.S. official publicly insisted he’s sympathetic to Israel, and then we find out later that in fact was not the case,” Medoff said, referring to, among others, President Jimmy Carter, who has built a lengthy anti-Israel resume since leaving the White House.

    “In 1948, President Truman was insisting he was sympathetic to the Jews, but behind the scenes, his State Department was engaged in these kinds of threats against Jewish leaders and was lobbying fervently to stop the establishment of the State of Israel—it’s yet another example of what we were told at the time being contradicted by the history.”

    Medoff said that there are clear parallels between 1948 and 2012, when, once again, the White House is working to undermine Jewish leaders.

    “In 1948 they’re threatening to leak docs that could incite anti-Semitism. In 2012 they’re making comments and leaking stories to intimidate Jewish and Israeli leaders to not build apartments in Jerusalem or to strike Iranian nuclear sites,” Medoff explained. “It’s a disturbing willingness of some in Washington going back 60 years and going on today of using these tactics to intimidate Jewish leaders.”

    Former Bush administration official Elliott Abrams told the Free Beacon that the documents are “striking” historical proof of the State Department’s anti-Israel prejudice.

    “What is striking to me about this is how far top officials of the State Department were willing to go on their own, because they’re not speaking for Harry Truman here—they’re speaking for themselves,” said Abrams, who served as a senior National Security Council adviser to former President George W. Bush. “What’s dangerous here is that Lovett is not appealing to Goldmann about what is really in the best interest of Israel or the US—what he is doing is threatening Goldmann and to harm the position of American Jews. That, really, I think would be seen as beyond the pale today.”

    On the heels of the U.S. failure to intervene in the Holocaust during World War II, the documents in question are all the more disquieting.

    The diplomatic cable from 1948 also notes that the State Department believed the “Zionist leadership has made many mistakes,” and that senior U.S. leaders were not comfortable with the idea of a Jewish State.

    “The administration had not abandoned partition,” the cable quotes Lovett as saying. “They still believe in it as the only final solution.”

    Lovett pressured the Zionist government to accept an agreement that permits Jews to live in the area without a formal state.

    The document also reveals that Lovett and Goldmann engaged in a political dance of Jewish support for Soviet Russia.

    Goldmann states to Lovett that, in lieu of a brokered peace agreement, Jewish leaders would declare a sovereign Jewish state on May 16, 1948—and turn to the Communist Soviet Union for support.

    If “the Soviet Union may immediately recognize—[and] the USA won’t—then the position of the Jewish state will be exactly the same with regard to the Soviet Union as the position of Transjordan is towards England,” Goldmann explained. “The USA has not recognized Transjordan. … Don’t you realize the danger in case the Jewish state, abandoned by you and Great Britain, will in despair turn to the Soviet Union for help? The Soviets would have exactly the same legal right to come to Palestine as the British have in being in Transjordan.”

    “Well,” Lovett retorted, “if the Jewish people want to commit suicide, nobody can prevent them from doing so.”

    He added: “Do you really think that we didn’t contemplate such a possibility? You have no high opinion of our diplomacy, but we are not as silly as that, to overlook that possibility. It will be suicide for the Jews and don’t think for a moment that we will sit quietly and see the Russians coming into Palestine, directly or indirectly–legally or illegally.”

    “There are certain measures we can take, although it is not this department, but another one which will have to do it,” Lovett declared, referring to the U.S. Department of War.

    Medoff insisted that these cables must be viewed in the context of current U.S. tensions with the Israeli government over Iran’s nuclear intransigence and continued settlement building in disputed areas of Jerusalem and elsewhere.

    “Over the past year several top Obama administration officials have said or implied that if Israel strikes Iranian nuclear facilities, it could lead to the deaths of Americans,” Medoff explained. “These are echoes of what some in Washington tried to do in 1948: It’s an attempt again to intimidate Jewish leaders. They tried it in 1948 and now they’re trying it again.”

  • Posted by Ted Belman @ 4:05 am | 69 Comments »

    69 Comments to 1948 State Department cables threaten to unleash antisemitism

    1. Joe Hamilton says:

      @ BlandOatmeal:>BlandOatmeal:
      BlandOatmeal Said:

      @ Joe Hamilton:
      Joe, you wrote,
      The third sentence should read “The US Army has not EXCEPT being a junior partner in a coalition,defeated a worthy opponent in its’ history.
      In World War II, the US was a “junior partner” to… whom, exactly? After the dust had settled from the war, the US ended up gaining Japan and Korea, and leadership in NATO. The British were devastated, losing India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka — at least 2/3 of their former empire. If Britain were such a “senior” partner, how is it that they ended up with the short end of the stick? At Yalta, Stalin and Roosevelt essentially divided the world up between them; Churchill had onlooker status. Where do you get your history from? Marvel Comics?

      I said the US ARMY .Do you know the difference between the branches of the military? In the Pacific, it was the US NAVY and a branch of the US NAVY ;The US MARINES who were mainly responsible for defeating Japan. You are correct after the Soviet Union killed MILLIONS of German troops (during the war killed almost 85% of all Germans troops killed in action) did the US enter engage the real menace to the world Germany. The Nazi loving Americans such as Lindberg, Kennedy , Rockefeller, and all the major US Corporations who were making millions while the Germans were murdering millions, only failed to prevent the US from participating in the European theatre because Hitler declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. The point being the same US Army which was brought a knife to a gun fight by deploying Sherman tanks against Tiger tanks in Normandy and who Lovett was referring to when he implied the US would defeat the Soviet Union should it come to the aid of Israel has a very exaggerated record in battle. Obviously my comments are a little too complex for someone who reads Marvel Comics. Is that what you are currently reading, Oatmeal for Brains?

    2. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “If you truly believe [that "everything else" is] ‘irrelevant,’ then for you it IS. But you speak ONLY for yourself.”

      “Whether I do or not does not make my position wrong, nor yours right.”

      Quite so.

      We are in 100 percent agreement on that one.

      The truth remains the truth

      — independent of whether anybody believes it

      or everybody believes it

      — or nobody believes it.

    3. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “History 1947-48; 1949-53″

      What you characterize [above] as “History” is at least as much Francisco Gil-White’s malicious polemicism as it is history. (In some of his entries, it’s more.)

      “According to you Truman had to be at least one if not more on the list I provided you.”

      How, “according to [me]“? — I gave you the opportunity to explain your claims, and I’m still waiting for an answer.

      “Blaming everybody but Truman is not only stupid but disingenuous and an insult to the factual record.”

      Who says I gave HST a pass? — You’re fullovit, Yamit — I flatly said he should’ve fired Marshall:

      “Don’t think Truman had it IN him to fire Marshall, though he clearly should have.”

      — How does that amount to “blaming everybody but Truman”?

      “After he reversed his position on UN partition to negative…”

      Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.

      — You are begging the question, Old Boy.

      Truman did not “reverse his position on UN partition to negative.”

      And you obviously did not read what I wrote, above.

      Marshall went behind his back and deliberately misstated the President’s position on partition.

      “That may have been the position of the State Dept and other American institutions but [HST] made the final calls.”

      He made the calls, but Marshall & Cohort intercepted the line

      — those motor-forkers countermanded the orders.

      “Yet you maintain that his awe of Marshal weighed against the lives of some 6-700 thousand Jews…”

      No, I said his awe of Marshall kept him from giving him the boot. Re-read the post, for heaven’s sake; get the story straight.

      Whoever became the new Secty of State would’ve still had to deal with the entrenched State Dept careerist bureaucracy. (Cabinet heads come & cabine heads go, but bureaucracy is f-o-r-e-v-e-r.)

      You still don’t get it, Yamit. There’s a war on — it virtually never makes it into the Six O’Clock News, though it’s been underway for several decades and it’s being conducted entirely within the US Executive Branch. They may not be using physical projectiles & sharp edged implements on each other, but it’s very much a war, all the same.

      You’re gonna have to study a bit about how the Federal govt works, and esp. how the Exec. Branch operates — because it’s evident that there’s a great gap in your understanding of the subject.

      “[HST]… essentially bowed to British objectives.”

      He bowed to STATE DEPT objectives. Foggy Bottom was in accord with British objectives. Its ambition was for US to become the successor to the Brits in the M-E.

      “I don’t contend that America owed us anything… ”

      Well, I certainly DO so contend: The Anglo-American Convention of 1924 is quite clear in the matter.

      It was an international treaty, ratified by the US Senate (thus rendering it internally binding US domestic law) — and it made the US a signatory to the Palestine Mandate (notwithstanding that we hadn’t signed the Treaty of Versailles or joined the League) — and making America, as Mandate signatory, a state guarantor of the obligatory behavior of the assigned Palestine Mandatory [HMG]. And a valiant attempt was made in both houses of Congress to enforce that role during the war in re the 1939 White Paper, but in the end the Legislative Branch caved to State Dept policy.

      It was just as relevant a duty after the War as during it.

      “…but I will not give credit to that which is undeserved and mostly myth.”

      Neither will I. That’s precisely why — unlike yourself — I have no patience with the fanciful malignancies of Professor Gil-White.

    4. dweller says:

      @ CuriousAmerican:

      “The summary of the film said, ‘Six million lives were in the balance’… but at least 25 million other people died in the European theater; so why did the DVD ignore their deaths and only mention 6 million?”

      Depends on what the film itself was about.

      If it was the war generally, and without a specific or partial focus on the Holocaust, then the summary could simply have been a matter of a publicist working on a deadline

      — and who had assigned the writing of the “liner notes” to some flunky, the product of the public sector union-dominated, US school system.

    5. dweller says:

      @ CuriousAmerican:

      “I am NOT diminishing the horror of the Holocaust. It was a primarily Jewish experience; but it was NOT uniquely Jewish. Poles and gypsies were slaughtered.”

      Getting murdered in massive numbers was not a uniquely Jewish experience.

      But the Holocaust WAS uniquely Jewish.

      Certainly lots more Russians died than Jews, probably several multiples of the six million Jews.

      The difference is that nobody other than the Jews was explicitly slated for EXTERMINATION.

      The Russians, the Poles, the Roma — and other ‘inferiors,’ etc — were simply in the way of Hitler’s ambitions.

      They stood between him & what he wanted, so he was prepared to kill as many of them as necessary to accomplish those objectives. And a lot of them indeed died in his pursuit thereof.

      But where the JEWS were concerned, the objective was to wipe them out utterly. They weren’t killed as a by-product of some other goal.

      Eliminating them entirely WAS the goal.

      In that respect, the WWII experience of the Jews was THOROUGHLY unique, sui generis.

    6. yamit82 says:

      @ BlandOatmeal:

      got Yamit’s address there, Curious. Three cheers to you, for being on his sh_t list; and one cheer more, for being on Troll Hamilton’s :-)
      You

      Yes, I know your great great grandfather on your mothers side was a Pollack mongrel

    7. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      Don’t know why you bother to explain to a Jew hater who is probably a descendent of the ones who did the slaughtering? If he really wanted to know the difference he seems proficient, albeit very selective, with a mouse and Google.

      If he really wanted to know the difference it’s only a click or two away.

      Two things or points you left out dweller that those six or seven million Jews was over a third of the Jewish people and no nation lost such a % of their people. The other point is the the Jewish culture in Europe especially in Poland was wiped out after almost a thousand years.

      When tallying the winners and losers of WW2, without a doubt the Jews were the biggest losers.

    8. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      “I am pro Israel and pro Jews.”

      Yes, in your own way.

      Yes of course in my own way as opposed to say your way? Which is Blah Blah Bullshit signifying ZIP?

      As to my American bona fides’: I was never a draft dodger, and have never spent time in Jail. Can you say the same? I was an Eagle Scout in all that entails re: civic duty and responsibilities, and You?

      Neither will I. That’s precisely why — unlike yourself — I have no patience with the fanciful malignancies of Professor Gil-White.

      I have no patience with the fanciful malignancies of dweller.

    9. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “Don’t know why you bother to explain to a Jew hater who is probably a descendent of the ones who did the slaughtering?”

      1. I don’t know that he’s a Jew hater.

      2. Whether or not he’s a descendant of one is immaterial. Go back far enough in anybody’s ancestry & you’ll find plenty to blush over.

      But criminality isn’t encoded in the DNA, so it isn’t genetically inherited.

      3. The specific blogger to whom a post is directly addressed is NEVER the only one to read it. Whenever you post, you speak to lots more people than just s/he.

      “[T]hose six or seven million Jews was over a third of the Jewish people and no nation lost such a % of their people.”

      Actually the Roma lost HALF, though one couldn’t perhaps really call them a ‘nation.’

      But the uniqueness of the Jewish experience is not even in the high proportion of their losses — except insofar as it evidenced the intentions of the Third Reich to exterminate them.

      Unlike the Jews, the Roma — whose percentage of loss was higher even than that of the Jews — the aim was not total liquidation.

      “When tallying the winners and losers of WW2, without a doubt the Jews were the biggest losers.”

      If you’ll go back and read the blockquote in Entry #5 [of these newer postings], you’ll see that the point-of-departure was not any question of superlatives where WW2 losses were concerned

      — but rather, Curio’s assertion that the Holocaust, while “primarily” Jewish, was “not UNIQUELY” Jewish.

      My point was that it WAS indeed unique to the Jews.

    10. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I am pro Israel and pro Jews.”

      “Yes, in your own way.”

      “Yes of course in my own way as opposed to, say, your way?”

      As opposed to virtually ANYBODY else’s way, frankly.

      I don’t recall when I’ve ever encountered anybody whose support for the Jewish state — OR for the Jewish People — was accompanied by as judgmental an attitude (toward other supporters) as yours.

      “As to my American bona fides’: I was never a draft dodger, and have never spent time in Jail. Can you say the same?”

      YES to the first, NO to the second.

      I was never a draft-dodger. Had I been ‘dodging,’ I wouldn’t have been ‘caught.’

      I was a draft-resister, and was quite OPEN about organizing resistance to a very ill-conceived conflict.

      Some people said of us that we were “courting” prison.

      I was eligible for all kinds of deferments — which I wouldn’t take

      — to do so would’ve only opened up grunt space for some other hapless shlimazl who couldn’t qualify for an exemption or deferment.

      In any case, I certainly have done jail and prison time — and proud of it — mostly for such things as refusing induction into the US Armed Forces.

      Also for nonviolently blocking the entrance to a series of buildings at which, for every TWO people going in

      — only ONE ever comes out

      and traumatized for life

      — while the other winds up very, very dead.

      “I was an Eagle Scout in all that entails re: civic duty and responsibilities, and You?”

      “Was”?

      There are no ‘former’ Eagle Scouts.

      I remain the same Eagle Scout I was at 15.

      (Well, the hair is grayer

      — what there is of it

      and I can’t any longer wear the 28-inch belt that I bought at Philmont Scout Ranch in Cimarron, NM, that summer.)

      But I’m still an Eagle Scout. (And so are you, in case in hadn’t occurred to you.)

      I did the above things precisely as an outgrowth of “civic duty & responsibility.”

      But none of this (what you label your “American bona fides”) has anything to do with my earlier point about your kissing-off the USA.

      — I told you, I suspect that that’s not geopolitical — let alone, civic

      so much as personal (maybe familial).

    11. yamit82 says:

      @ dweller:

      I was a draft-resister, and was quite OPEN about organizing resistance to a very ill-conceived conflict.

      Semantics but a distinction without a difference. Boy did we hate the antiwar crud especially when we were losing our buddies and when we were taking fire and trudging through the mud and the rain, the heat the mosquitoes and the vermin. Most of us were not pro-war and I respect some of the antiwar crud who ducked out due to real principles but I would have had them shot as traitors nevertheless because they indirectly caused many good loyal and no less principled poor schmucks to buy the farm needlessly not to mention the hundreds of thousands who are wounded and maimed for life. As difficult as prison might be, it’s relatively safe and in the end you are out and free.

      I can’t speak directly about you re: where to draw the line of a sincere principled stand ideologically and what I suspect were the principled stands of most due to fear of death, injury and pain. I don’t know how much time you did but it wasn’t enough. You are still alive.

      I consider abortion a religious issue and shouldn’t be criminalized or legislated,just regulated like any serious medical procedure. Personally I am against abortion but I would never deem to attempt to inject my values and opinions on anyone else especially through militancy. I consider the whole abortion issue a religious one. Most societal values change every 50 years or so and the pendulum will probably swing back sooner or later against pro choice.

      I learned long ago never make laws you can’t enforce and never make laws against the popular will of the majority or even a large minority. In a pluralistic and democratic society where different religious values conflict legislating values based on religion is a sure way of creating social disharmony. Live and Let Live is a good axiom to follow. (no pun intended)

    12. BlandOatmeal says:

      @ dweller:

      The difference is that nobody other than the Jews was explicitly slated for EXTERMINATION.

      BS, Dweller. Hitler planned to erradicate Slavs as well, and the Gypsies suffered proportionately more than the Jews. The Slovenians were slated to be “Germanized”, expelled or exterminated. I had three cousins in Slovenia. One spoke fluent German, and was sent to forced labor on the Russian front. He escaped to the Russians, who deported him to Siberia. Another was shot by the Nazis, as an example to others, because a German had died near his village. His father was later deported to Auschwitz, and died in the gas chamber. Of three cousins, one survived. What’s this BS about not being “singled out”?

    13. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I was never a draft dodger… Can you say the same?”

      “YES… I was never a draft-dodger. Had I been ‘dodging,’ I wouldn’t have been ‘caught.’ I was a draft-resister, and was quite OPEN about organizing resistance to a very ill-conceived conflict.”

      “Semantics but a distinction without a difference.”

      Nonsense. There’s a WORLD of difference.

      “Draft-dodger” — think about the expression you used. You make it sound like it was an act of evasion — when it was nothing of the sort.

      It was a personal commitment over several years, and while I don’t talk about it very often, I’m damned proud of it; always have been. It was a worthy undertaking that needed doing. And I did good work to accomplish it.

      It involved all kinds of risks which would’ve NEVER come to me at all if I’d just taken my deferments & gone off on my merry way.

      Even without the deferments, there’s no way would I have been drafted if I hadn’t been organizing. My “number” was nowhere near the top of the list. But conscription was used to silence dissent over the war. The “club of induction,” they called it; and, by “club,” they didn’t mean a small circle of friends — they meant a bludgeon.

      “[T]hey indirectly caused many good loyal and no less principled poor schmucks to buy the farm needlessly not to mention the hundreds of thousands who are wounded and maimed for life.”

      I knew lots of guys who faced the brig rather than go on doing what they were forced to do.

      We brought a hideous and wasteful war to an end. We also brought the conscription system to an end.

      Had we not done so, then one helluva lot MORE “poor shmucks,” principled or otherwise, “would’ve bought the farm needlessly.” And a lot more innocent Indochinese would be dead & rotting in the jungle too.

    14. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “…what I suspect were the principled stands of most due to fear of death, injury and pain.”

      I knew lots of guys who went to Nam, never held anything against them for it; always wished them well, was glad to have them come home whole, grieved when they didn’t.

      But when one or another would tell me that he had let himself be sent there, “only because I didn’t want to be a coward,” I invariably replied — straight-up:

      “If you went purely out of fear of being thought a coward

      then you WERE a coward. Because that’s what it MEANS to allow yourself to be ruled by fear in place of any thought to what’s right.”

      And, yes:
      I know there were plenty of guys in the “Anti-War” crowd because they were cowards; no question about it.

      I also know that LOTS of guys let themselves be sent to off that war FOR THE VERY SAME REASON.

      Truth is, most people are cowards; it’s an outlook everybody comes into the world with — nobody gets past it without coming first to understand it.

      “As difficult as prison might be, it’s relatively safe… ”

      A minimum security facility MIGHT be “relatively safe” — if I’d been put in a minimum security prison. I wasn’t.

      Actually, though, I was always quite safe.

      The hacks [guards] always wanted to protect me from the cons [inmates].

      And the cons always wanted to protect me from the hacks.

      And the snitches always wanted to protect me from each other.

      “I don’t know how much time you did but it wasn’t enough. You are still alive.”

      Cheap shot. S.O.P. for you, buster.

      And if I hadn’t been a resister, you’d accuse me of “supporting America’s imperialist wars.” (Come to think of it, you DID do precisely that quite a while back.) LOLROF.

    15. dweller says:

      @ yamit82:

      “I consider abortion a religious issue…”

      You don’t have to be religiously affiliated to know there is something vile and criminally repulsive about it.

      Strictly speaking, it’s a Civil Rights issue — the child’s Civil Rights.

      “Personally I am against abortion… ”

      Really? — why?

      — if there’s nothing wrong with it, then what’s the problem?

      “…but I would never deem to attempt to inject my values and opinions on anyone else especially through militancy.”

      Now THAT’s flat-out cowardice.

      Unless your ‘opposition’ to it is strictly a matter of personal taste or style.

      (‘Personally I prefer my eggs over-easy. Sunny-side-up is so messy & scrambled just leaves ‘em too dry. But I wouldn’t dream of injecting my tastes & opinions on anyone else, especially thru militancy. If you like yours scrambled, no problem, you just go for it. Different strokes for different folks. . . . etc. . . .’)

      What chicken shit.

      The baby is innocent

      — and defenseless. . . .

      irrespective of your ‘values & opinions.’

      If you really DID believe it’s a ‘religious’ issue, then you’d be a lot more willing to speak in terms of absolutes where the child’s life is concerned, just as you would for any innocent born person.

      “I learned long ago never make laws you can’t enforce and never make laws against the popular will of the majority or even a large minority.”

      That’s precisely how we felt about the laws enforcing peacetime conscription

      — and it’s WHY, in the end, those laws were repealed.

      “Live and Let Live is a good axiom to follow.”

      Right. Unless you can’t vote, can’t pay taxes, can’t riot in the streets

      — and can’t even scream in a way that people can hear, because you reside in the womb.

      Then you’re fair game, and “Live & Let Live” doesn’t apply to you.

    16. dweller says:

      @ BlandOatmeal:

      “The difference is that nobody other than the Jews was explicitly slated for EXTERMINATION.”

      “[T]he Gypsies suffered proportionately more than the Jews.”

      I acknowledged that, Bland. (Did you not read what I wrote?) However, there’s no reason to assume that the objective was to exterminate them.

      “Hitler planned to erradicate Slavs as well…”

      I’ll look at the documents that state (or imply) that, if you’ll produce them or point me in their direction.

      Yes, a lot of Slavs died. However, so far as I can see, the Poles — & the Slavs generally — were, in effect, “in the wrong place at the wrong time” when the Nazi juggernaut moved East.

      I’m unaware of any intention to literally & systematically wipe them all out. We are not speaking here of sheer callousness or even of contempt for ‘inferior races,’ Bland.

      An intent to utterly exterminate falls into a different ethos altogether. If you’ve got evidence that the Reich’s intentions for the Slavs or other peoples were programmed into that same pathological abyss, I’ll have a look at it.

    17. yamit82 says:

      @ BlandOatmeal:

      HITLER’S PLANS FOR EASTERN EUROPE

      Generalplan Ost

      As usual you don’t know what you are talking about, What happened to your Nazi relatives?

    18. yamit82 says:

      The term Holocaust is misapplied when it refers to the Jews it was an attempt to inflict Genocide

      Word Origin & History

      genocide
      1944, apparently coined by Polish-born U.S. jurist Raphael Lemkin in his work “Axis Rule in Occupied Europe” [p.19], in reference to Nazi extermination of Jews, lit. “killing a tribe,” from Gk. genos “race, kind” (see genus) + -cide. The proper formation would be *genticide.

      The stupid Jews allowed the term to be all inclusive and not specific to the Jews and thus lost the moral high ground and our claim to uniqueness,. Idiots like Ellie Wiesel are mostly responsible. Holocaust denial is the logical extension and Jew Haters like Oat and CA will try to dig up any group or primitive tribe to reduce or eliminate any Jewish claim of unique victim-hood. What amazes me is the silence of normative Jews, The Jew hater want to rob the Jewish people of our distinct uniqueness, demean our Jewish beliefs and in the end rob us of our special victim-hood. They still resent that the Jews are G-d’s chosen people and for the last 2 millennia have been trying to rob us of that distinction as well.

      What most Jews have not learned is the more they try to be accepted, liked and loved by their Gentile neighbors the more they are resented even hated. Bernard Malamud said. “If a Jew ever forgets who he is a gentile will remind him”

    19. Gábor Fränkl says:

      There is one word which euphemistically says “disquieting” towards the end of the piece. I would have with all honesty expected *DISGUSTING*, ’cause it is what it is. It seems that branding the before-1960s America “half-fascist” seems to be almost an undeserved compliment for them. In fact, they may have been much worse than that! Stomach turning in its/their depravity. Together with the fake “grandfather of the nation” antisemite rotten Rosewelt.

    Site Membership



    Google Site Search

    Editor

      Ted Belman

      tbelman3-at-gmail.com

    Mission

      News and Views on Israel, the Middle East, the war on terror and the clash of civilizations.

    Polls

    Will Israel attack Iran

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    RECOMMENDED BOOKS

    LOVE




    Tolerism2

    Iran islam

    Sharing

    mandate4

    Daily Archives

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  

    Selected Israpundit Articles

    Miscellaneous Info

      All Politic Sites