Chile Forum

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:Sky...Just curious, why the n space azi thing in your post? n azis isn't a banned word, I don't think.

I assumed it was she didn't want to be associated personally with the word and thus sought to reduce the chances of anyone googling "Nazi" (there! I've said it!) to find even her on-screen alias.

Of course, if one wanted to avoid using the word "Nazi", he could simply write the full name of the political party, "the National Socialist German Workers' Party". I'll stick with "Nazi".

MikieO wrote:. . . . my daughter is subject to a school field trip to a Holocaust Memorial Museum ....

This surprises me. I've heard of such things before, but I continue to be surprised. American schoolchildren know little enough about their own country's history or their own native tongue or its literature, but in some public school districts they receive detailled instruction about an event that occurred halfway around the globe and -- save for the deaths of American men and women to stop and the immigration afterward of millions who'd survived it -- really has nothing to do with the United States. Amazing.

Largely OT: My first year at university was toward the end of American involvement in the Vietnamese War and before Richard Nixon had been able to push his initiative to end the draft through Congress: hence, a year of riots and demonstrations at American universities. One of my professors had been a block fire warden in Berlin at the end of the Second World War and, thus, a National Socialist (a mass-based party, so nearly impossible to hold any governmental position without party membership), though she clearly regretted her involvement with that regime. During class one fine spring morning, we heard shouts and screams of "Strike, strike!" drawing nearer and nearer. The professor and we few students looked out the second-floor windows of the ancient brick building to see scores of students marching with banners and pumping clenched fists heavenward. The professor remarked quietly, "I've seen that before", and resumed teaching.

Vicki and Greg Lansen wrote:Sky...Just curious, why the n space azi thing in your post? n azis isn't a banned word, I don't think.

I know Charles likes to keep some words from getting picked up by google. Also, as a German, I don't like to be associated with n azis in any way. I usually would not even make a post about them, because I don't want to be branded as one.

Not only Jews were tortured & killed by the nazi's. My grandpa spent 2 years in a nazi POW camp. When he decided I was old enough, he told me about it. I could tell that the horrors he saw took something away from his soul and that it affected him for the rest of his life. I hope they catch this guy and if he's guilty, I hope they hang the SOB.

coolerthanmoney wrote:Not only Jews were tortured & killed by the nazi's. . . .

Very true. Distant cousins of mine, living in northern Germany, suffered under National Socialism simply because they were born into a former regnant house and were not socialists: they weren't really rich, had no political power beyond that allocated to ordinary citizens, and were as "Aryan" as they come, but they represented a convenient target just because who they were (and, perhaps, because of quiet opposition to the regime). Other groups were on the hit list, too. Collectivist politics really can kill.

RWS wrote:

MikieO wrote:The bombing of a hotel in Jerusalem and the mass murder of an entire village of men, women, children, and even dogs

What was the mass-murder event? I'm not familiar with that.

The King David Hotel bombing is controversial. It is reported that the Jews warned of the bombing. This is plausible because they had a history of warning of such activities. And, it's believable that if the British dropped the ball by ignoring the warning, they'd claim there was none.

Comparing a political movement (however brutal) with genocide seems like a bad comparison to me. Especially when the international community (League of Nations, later to be the United Nations) backed a two-state solution all the way back to 1918. In May 1948, the Jews were left with little choice when, after 30 years and the absence of a willing partner, the "British Mandates" were set to expire. It's kind of a cruel joke to bring a lot of people to a land under international agreement, and then say "sorry, our mandate is over."

IMO, the whole mideast thing is messy because political boundaries and power were arbitrarily assigned in the 1920 timeframe. For 400 years the area was known as the Arab Territories under Turk-Ottoman rule. When it was liberated the French and British received mandates (from the League of Nations) to govern the areas. Nations and ruling families that exist until today were arbitrarily created.

For example, King Faisal was given what is known today as Saudi Arabia. He was kicked out by the House of Saud even though he'd invested heavily in the war against Turkey (and allied with the British). The House of Saud had done virtually nothing. He was later popularly elected to a position over Syria. The French disapproved and kicked him out. His son marched to his defense, but was stopped. His son was given Trans Jordan. An administration which included much of Palestine. King Faisal moved to England for a time, and was later appointed to preside over Iraq.

There was so much arbitrary political stuff that occurred, that it makes the two-state solution look tame. Saddam had legitimate complaint that Kuwait was a state of Iraq. It was carved out as a political favor too.

Regarding Faisal. He supported the Balfour Declaration in 1919 (the precursor to the League of Nations', and subsequently the UN's endorsement of a two-state Palestine). He later denounced it (probably because he didn't get all the booty he expected, being kicked out of Arabia, Syria, etc.). His son, Abdullah, never considered statehood for the Palestinians under his jurisdiction. Even Jordanians were denied self-determination by the appointment of Abdullah as a political favor.

IMO, the whole place is a mess. The Israel thing is but a speck.

Mark

"Comparing a political movement (however brutal) with genocide seems like a bad comparison to me"
Tell that to the Palestinians.

MikieO wrote:"Comparing a political movement (however brutal) with genocide seems like a bad comparison to me"
Tell that to the Palestinians.

What we're really talking about is suppression of self-determination. Not an attempt to extinguish a race. The political aspects of self-determination were set in 1918 with the Balfour Declaration. There were *a lot* of losers under the British and French Mandates. Syria (who elected King Faisal). Iraq, who was appointed King Faisal. Jordanians, who were appointed Faisal's son. Even Faisal, who got shafted over Arabia.

To me, the real issue is that Jews were drawn to the area by international agreement to a two-state Palestine. And then, in May 1948, were told "sorry, it didn't work out. We're leaving. You're on your own." What do you do then?

Mark

The political aspects of self-determination were set in 1918 with the Balfour Declaration
Text appears below: (Bold by me)
Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

Now, tel it to the Palestinians

MikieO wrote:The political aspects of self-determination were set in 1918 with the Balfour Declaration
Text appears below: (Bold by me) it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,

It sounds like political speech. Clearly someone would be a winner and loser in proposing a two-state solution. There's no way around that. How could anyone propose a Jewish state in Palestine and there not be losers? In the same way, how could someone propose Prince Abdullah be King of Transjordan and there wouldn't be losers? Or, King Faisal president of Iraq and no losers? Or, an appointed ruling famly over Kuwait and no losers?

That was the nature of the game back then. What tends to be forgotten is that the Balfour Declaration was accepted by the League of Nations, and later the UN. Jews were encouraged to emigrate to Palestine for 30 years. And then told, "sorry, our mandate expires tomorrow, you're on your own." And, for the next 60 years, told they are denying statehood to a people who rejected it for 90 years (and exercised a martial option instead).

Mark