Hello Mike
Couple of comments...
>The reality of the Holocaust as a well documented historical event, and
>the criticism of Zionism are two different things.
Indeed they are, but when it comes to the use colonial Zionism makes
of the Holocaust as a cover and a weapon they're two sides of the
same coin.
Since that's what's being discussed here there's no need to try to
separate them.
> there was systematic mass murder of
>European Jewry by the Nazis. I do not believe it is an elaborate hoax,
>that it did not happen, or that it was a few random instances.
Nobody here has said that it is a hoax, that it didn't happen or that
it was a few random instances.
>I think
>the discussion of whether it was six million, four million or five and
>half million is pointless. The key metric is million.
I'm sorry to see that you've reverted to the Holocaust ratings game,
we've been through all that already.
>... some genocides just aren't fashionable.
>Holocausts are two a penny these days, we haven't even mentioned
>most of them yet. If we're talking of millions killed for no good
>reason, Iraq is a holocaust, Vietnam was another one, US military
>adventurism has claimed at least 8 million lives since WW2...
>
>We're living amid an ongoing global holocaust. It's not just an
>accident, an unfortunate side-effect or something. Life is cheap.
>But life is not cheap - as Fritz said, even one is too many. Life is
>sacred, all life is sacred.
James Petras says genocides are "repeated, common practices,"
impunity for committing them is the norm, and no effective
international order is in place to stop them.
Million is not a key metric, it's the norm for genocides, and
genocides are just business-as-usual.
Nobody has a sole franchise on being genocided, no genocide is any
more important than any other, NOR ANY LESS IMPORTANT either.
>Israel better or safer. In short, I do not condone Israeli acts of
>violence against Palestinians.
>
>But I don't condone Palestinians acts of violence either. I think the
>PA is easily one of the most corrupt and inefficient governmental bodies
>on earth. Not only do Palestinians have to deal with a malevolent
>Israeli government, they have to deal with their own clueless, inept and
>sticky-fingered administration. Recently, I couldn't have imagined any
>two people less-suited to working out any sort of peaceful accord than
>Arafat and Sharon. When they were both off the stage, I had hoped that
>perhaps there may have been a chance for something better. Throw in
>Bush's inability to see beyond his own extremely narrow world interests,
>and the possibility dims even further.
>
>I see no black and white/right or wrong answer. I don't see either
>party doing much constructive. The tit for tat has been going on for as
>long as I can remember, and has done nothing positive as far as I can tell.
I second Chris's response to you on this:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg71308.html
Especially this bit:
> > I see no black and white/right or wrong answer.
>
>i do. israel is illegally occupying and colonizing large areas of
>non-israeli land. they are engaging in genocidal practices against
>the rightful occupants of that land. pretty black and white to me.
People used to say similar things about the puppet black leaders of
the Bantustans in South Africa 30 years ago and use it as an excuse
for condoning the racist regime they said they didn't condone.
Anyway, Hamas won the elections, despite constant harrassment of
every kind by Israel, including assassinating their leaders, and
Israel rejected the election result, so did the US.
However corrupt and inefficient the PA is at least they could hold a
free election, which seems to be more than the US can do. But what's
the point when the rulers back the losers?
Oh, but Hamas are "terrorists"? But not "our" terrorists, eh?
Best
Keith
>Bob, Salaam, Shalom und Guten Tag.
>
>Thank you for your concise and well-constructed message; it is certainly
>better articulated than the piece by Santomauro, which I personally
>think is
>poorly reasoned, poorly argued, and full of pointless rambling. I found
>most of the analogies bizarre.
>
>At the risk of making assumptions, I'm betting the gist is contained here:
>"In brief: the Holocaust and criticism of Zionism are conflated into a
>single issue so that the emotions generated by
>the one serve to cover the crimes of the other."
>
>I don't deny that this has happened, and that it will no doubt continue
>to happen. However, I have never advanced this argument, and have not
>made any statements supporting it. With regards to the above, it is my
>belief that the following is relevant.
>The reality of the Holocaust as a well documented historical event, and
>the criticism of Zionism are two different things. With regards to the
>first:
>I do believe, based on a fair amount of my own research, and discussions
>with several WWII veterans, that
