'Proud Hungarians must prepare for war against the Jews'

[IndianaGreen]

'Proud Hungarians must prepare for war against the Jews'

By Yehuda Lahav

"Given our current situation, anti-Semitism is not just our right, but it is the duty of every Hungarian homeland lover, and we must prepare for armed battle against the Jews."

This quote appeared in a newsletter published by an organization calling itself "The trade union of Hungarian police officers prepared for action".

Hungarian law allows police officers to organize in trade unions of their own. The union - by its own definition - aims to protect the professional interests of those unionized, and not to partake in political activity. However, the law does not prevent the union from distributing a newsletter, the content of which is at the discretion of its editor, and its editor alone.

The editor of the "prepared for action" union, Judit Szima (who also serves as the secretary-general of the union) didn't see anything wrong with the content of the article quoted above. It is little wonder, given the fact that the union has signed a cooperation agreement with the radical right wing Hungarian party "Jobbik" (Movement for better Hungary) which backs and operates the extremist paramilitary movement "Hungarian Guard" and warns against the "gypsy crime" - in effect trying to terrorize Hungary's gypsy community, as well as its Jewish community or anyone else they don't like.

Szima is the Jobbik candidate in the upcoming election for the European Union parliament, to be held June 7.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1089550.html

[cali]

1. ugh, but this is not about I/P

even if it is from Ha'aretz.

[IndianaGreen]

2. It is things like these that ultimately led to the creation of the State of Israel

There are currently 49,700 Jews in Hungary. The I/P connection is that if Hungarian Jews were to flee for their lives, they would most likely find themselves living in a settlement in Judea or Samaria (West Bank).

You bet it is I/P related.

[Sezu]

3. Not if Obama et al get their way. There is no room

at the settlement expansion inn in case you haven't heard.

Hungarian Jews, bus; bus, Hungarian Jews.

[azurnoir]

4. So you are claiming which

that Obama supports antisemitism or the expulsion of Jews from Hungary or that Israel proper does not have room to absorb Hungarian Jews? or both

[Sezu]

10. Read what I replied to please. n/t

[azurnoir]

11. I did thats why I asked n/t

[Ken Burch]

13. The implication of what you wrote is that the only place Hungarian Jewish refugees could possibly go

would be the Territories.

The truth is, there's plenty of room for them in pre-1967 Israel(the legitimate part of Israel) and a lot of us would be lobbying to have them allowed into the U.S. as well(as Ben-Gurion never did in the 1930's or even after World War II).

They haven't sent victims of recent antisemitic persecution to the settlements. The people who've gone there were either religious crazies(mostly from the U.S., a country where they were never in danger of persecution)or people who were willing to risk living in a combat zone to get free rent(Israel being the only country in the world where the government deliberately endangers its citizens by trying to financially induce them into moving to a war zone). It's totally bogus to imply that the world is obligated to back the Occupation just to protect victims of antisemitism.

[Shaktimaan]

16. Excuse me...

my comment has nothing to do with the territories or this disgusting OP but is merely a rebuttal to something you wrote above.

The truth is, there's plenty of room for them in pre-1967 Israel(the legitimate part of Israel) and a lot of us would be lobbying to have them allowed into the U.S. as well(as Ben-Gurion never did in the 1930's or even after World War II).

Your statement makes it seem as though since Ben-Gurion did not repeatedly beg the US to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate that somehow it made a significant difference in the outcome of the situation. Apparently you believe that it was Ben-Gurion's duty to try and find a place for these refugees in the US before working towards bringing them to Palestine, I imagine because you think that they had no right to immigrate to Palestine. I'd remind you first that Ben Gurion's job was primarily to establish a sovereign Jewish state under the belief that such a state would be able to admit any and all of the Jewish refugees without constantly relying on the good graces of other states which had proven themselves to be consistently unreliable, to put it nicely.

The Evian conference in 1938 and the Bermuda Conference in 1943 were both held to try and find an answer to the Jewish refugee problems. The result of both conferences made the world's concern (including America's) for the problems faced by Jewish refugees extremely clear. Very few states were willing to take any Jews at all. None were willing to take anything remotely approaching a significant number. I don't believe that the US agreed to allow any to immigrate beyond the pre-existing low quotas.

Do you honestly believe that a request by Ben-Gurion would have made any sort of difference in this matter? Ben-Gurion's actions eventually saved countless numbers of Jewish refugees and long after his death the existence of Israel has taken the lead in bringing (and sometimes actively rescuing) Jewish refugees to a free and safe state. I find your expectation, that it was somehow Ben-Gurion's responsibility to plead with an uncaring world instead of proactively pursuing the Zionist dream of self-determination, repugnant. Especially since we now have the benefit of hindsight and can see the true extent that Israel proved itself to be the only country available for so many Jewish refugees whose fate would have otherwise been tragic.

The people who've gone there were either religious crazies(mostly from the U.S., a country where they were never in danger of persecution)or people who were willing to risk living in a combat zone to get free rent(Israel being the only country in the world where the government deliberately endangers its citizens by trying to financially induce them into moving to a war zone).

OK, one comment about the territories. What you wrote is untrue. Many recent immigrants to Israel were placed by the government in settlements. Not to mention that most settlements are not combat zones. They hug the green line. In fact, the vast majority of settlers are not the variety that you see making headlines in Hebron and are not ideologically rabid expansionists.

It's totally bogus to imply that the world is obligated to back the Occupation just to protect victims of antisemitism.

Well, this is true, but it has nothing to do with anything else that you wrote, which is for the most part absurd propaganda.

[Ken Burch]

18. Ben-Gurion should have placed saving Jews from Hitler first, before the fixation with establishing

A "Jewish state".

(BTW, since Hitler would simply have carpet bombed such a state if it had existed during World War II, and since we can assume that no one at all would have stopped him from doing so, such a state could never have protected Jews from Nazism.)

And working to get Jewish refugees to safety in the U.S. and Canada(where they could easily have been absorbed)would not have either harmed the Zionist cause nor interfered with the ability of those Jewish people who wished to settle in what became Israel if they wished to do so. And after the war, a lot of Jewish refugees were essentially forced to become Israelis, whether they had actually wanted to be or not. Having narrowly survived one war, they were forced to take up arms in another, whether or not they had even supported Zionism or not.

And the U.S. should and could have been pressed to relent and take those refugees in. It was not impossible to have changed the U.S. position. Ben-Gurion, however, was far more interested in forcing the European Jewish community to be partisans of the Zionist cause, whether they wished to be or not. There were good people within the Diaspora who backed Zionism and equally good people who
opposed it.

And the fact that the Israeli government has chosen to put recent immigrants into those settlements does not mean that was the only place in Israel they could have been sent to live. There was and is plenty of room in Israel proper.

The settlements serve no truly positive or necessary purpose. They are there for one reason: to make it impossible for Palestinians to form a viable state. And continuing to expand those settlements in the Nineties sabotaged the peace process, making it impossible for Palestinians to trust the Israeli government or to have any confidence that they'd actually get self-determination. And as the events of the post-1967 era have shown, Palestinians have no hope of a decent life unless they get a state.

[Shaktimaan]

21. Oh goody. More absurdities.

Ben-Gurion should have placed saving Jews from Hitler first, before the fixation with establishing A "Jewish state".

The Yishuv set as many ships as they were able to the task of rescuing Jews trapped in Europe. The two goals were far from mutually exclusive. Following WWII when Jews were still being massacred in places like Poland it was Israel alone that offered these refugees a safe haven. No other state came close to accepting as many refugees.

(BTW, since Hitler would simply have carpet bombed such a state if it had existed during World War II, and since we can assume that no one at all would have stopped him from doing so, such a state could never have protected Jews from Nazism.)

I see you know as little about WWII as you do about the IP conflict. Obviously you didn't bother learning much about Rommel before posting your opinion.

And the U.S. should and could have been pressed to relent and take those refugees in. It was not impossible to have changed the U.S. position.

Uh-huh. By whom exactly? If it was not impossible then why didn't it happen? Do you honestly believe that the US would have opened up its doors to all of the refugees that it blatantly denied entry to, even after attending two international conferences for that exact purpose, if Ben-Gurion asked them to?

Ben-Gurion, however, was far more interested in forcing the European Jewish community to be partisans of the Zionist cause, whether they wished to be or not.

No one was forced to board a ship to Palestine. Your assertion that Israel essentially forced the refugees of Europe to support Zionism by attempting to rescue them when the rest of the world had collectively ignored their plight is as fine an example of twisting the historical facts as I've ever seen.

And the fact that the Israeli government has chosen to put recent immigrants into those settlements does not mean that was the only place in Israel they could have been sent to live. There was and is plenty of room in Israel proper.

Well, of course. No one is arguing about that.

The settlements serve no truly positive or necessary purpose. They are there for one reason: to make it impossible for Palestinians to form a viable state.

I may dislike the settlements, but that doesn't mean that I won't correct those who make incorrect statements about them. This one is relatively easy to disprove. The decision to start the settlements had nothing at all to do with the viability of a Palestinian state. Settlements began in 1968-9. At the time there was no movement to form a Palestinian state in either the west bank or gaza. The west bank was claimed by Jordan and the Palestinians living there were all Jordanian citizens. Jordan had no plans whatsoever to allow a Palestinian state on what it saw as its land. And the Palestinians went out of their way to assure Jordan that they had no such designs as you are suggesting. Do you really think that Jews began settling in areas like the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem or Hebron (where Jews had lived for thousands of years until they were ethnically cleansed a few decades earlier) because of some kind of long term conspiracy to screw the Palestinians? (You might I guess.)

And continuing to expand those settlements in the Nineties sabotaged the peace process, making it impossible for Palestinians to trust the Israeli government or to have any confidence that they'd actually get self-determination.

Actually, during the first six months of Oslo when all settlement expansion was frozen completely the Palestinians began ramping up terrorist attacks within Israel. And the cause of the Al Aqsa intifada, the Mitchell Report later concluded, was caused by anger due to the breakdown of negotiations at Camp David and not because of settlement expansion. Sure, the settlement expansion played a big role in destroying any faith the Palestinians had in the Oslo Accords. But it was hardly the reason for the breakdown of the peace process. That was primarily because of Hamas and IJ and the other groups who were actively breaking it down with violence, regardless of whether the settlement construction was frozen or at full steam.

And as the events of the post-1967 era have shown, Palestinians have no hope of a decent life unless they get a state.

No argument here, but I'm surprised to hear you saying that. I would have thought that you believe Arafat should have been pushing the US to allow Palestinian refugees to immigrate to America instead of forcing them to live in squalid camps in countries that oppressed them to further his fixation of creating a Palestinian state. Why don't you think that Arafat should have been trying to get the US to accept these refugees instead of forcing them to get slaughtered fighting against the Lebanese and the Jordanians in the name of his obsession? I mean, the US could have easily absorbed these people. Shouldn't Arafat have been fighting to get them admitted to another country instead of fighting for self-determination?

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Ken's right with his statement about the settlements...

What Ken said was this: 'The settlements serve no truly positive or necessary purpose. They are there for one reason: to make it impossible for Palestinians to form a viable state.'

There is nothing incorrect at all in what he said, and if he'd said 'the reason they were started all those years ago was to make it impossible for Palestinians to form a viable state', he would have been wrong, but he didn't say that. And you appear to be making out that the reasons the settlements began was some nice, innocent one when it wasn't at all. It was the fucked up belief that the West Bank is part of a Greater Israel that drove the settlers back then, but now that a two-state solution is accepted by all but extremists as the only fair and just solution to the conflict, making it impossible for Palestininans to form a viable state is sure as hell one big driving motivation for the wackos...

[Shaktimaan]

25. You make a good point.

I'll agree with you here. Amongst Zionist extremists, keeping the Palestinians from attaining a viable state is undoubtedly a major factor in their expansion of settlements. BUT, I still disagree with Ken's statement which said that the settlements EXIST for ONE reason. And that's just not true, for the reasons I pointed out. Settlements exist for the reasons that they were started, all those years ago.

My point is that the settlers weren't concerned with the Palestinians so much as they were about their own desires, namely reclaiming land they saw as their own. Whether it was because it was land that Jews originally inhabited, bought and settled or even if they just believed that God had promised it to them, their primary motivation was about "reclaiming" the land for themselves. And for the most part, that is the reason that most settlements still exist. Screwing with Palestinian plans is undoubtedly a bonus, but it is hardly the ONE, (or even the primary) reason that settlements exist.

Why do settlements exist? The same reason that they were built originally.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. I think those two reasons are hand-in-hand ones at present...

I mean, the settlers (not the economic ones as they probably don't care less about anything but cheaper housing) can't do their reclaiming land thing if there's a Palestinian state, so I think it's a case of there being more than one reason for the settlements existing.

[Shaktimaan]

31. No argument here.

My issue with Ken's post was that he seems to think about everyone's motives in very one dimensional terms. He sees this whole conflict in very black and white terms and appears to have difficulty attributing anything other than very basic goals and motivations to groups according to his own simplistic ideas about how things fit together. These ideas rarely seem to have any basis in historical reality either.

[Vegasaurus]

32. We agree that the Palestinians have no hope of a decent life unless they get a state

Too bad they have ruined every possible opportunity to get one that has been handed to them, with billions of dollars of aid attached.

The Arab countries want to perpetuate this conflict as long as possible.

It is in their best interest to keep the Palestinians living in misery.

Israel has no motive to make peace with terrorists or governments who have expressed the goal of annihilating it.

Therefore, the Palestinians are probably not going to have a decent life for a while.

It's a pity for the innocent people.

[shaayecanaan]

15. Your mask is slipping (nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

24. It's been slipping for a long time now n/t

[shaayecanaan]

37. I imagine if Obama keeps on track we'll see quite a few masks slipping (nt)

[Ken Burch]

39. How, exactly, did "maks-slipping" become the official metaphor of the I/P forum?

It's probably an insult to innocent mask-wearing people who don't have strong feelings about the I/P issue.

[cali]

6. you mean Hungarian Jews couldn't immigrate to Israli territory

that isn't a settlement? They couldn't immigrate to the U.S., or other countries?

The Settlements are the major impediment to a two state solution. Anyone who supports the settlements is an enemy of peace.

[Ken Burch]

14. You've put it concisely and effectively, cali. well done.

:thumbsup: :applause:

[LeftishBrit]

26. I fully agree...

Just because the Israeli government finds it convenient to put immigrants into settlements doesn't mean that they can't go anywhere else in Israel. Most Israelis do NOT live in settlements.

And this insistence on settlement expansion is just an obstruction to peace.

[Sezu]

34. There were NO settlements prior to 1967 and whooops......

NO PEACE. When the settlements moved out of Gaza....whoooops!!!!!! NO PEACE. But you just keep on with your fools' mantra. And keep your white cane close to the ground. Enemies to peace are more likely to be those who don't have a grasp on the facts on the ground like yourself and the usual suspects who parrot the postmodern line.

YES, the settlements are an obstacle to peace as are about a thousand other fucking things if you listen to the Palestinians and friends of Palestine. Israel has made it clear that some of the settlements WILL remain as part of Israel and the Palestinians have made it clear they are not gonna give an inch; Abbas revealed as much when he revealed his rejection of Olmert's offer.

NO Israeli gov't is ever gonna displace a half a million Israelis. No Israeli gov't is going to tell Israelis to stop having marriages and children unless they move somewhere else. The best that can happen is that the Israelis will agree to no more settlements and removal of those deemed illegal by their lights and removal of those NEGOTIATED fairly in any negotiations. These are facts of life in the region so to continue arguing that something so obviously moot to both sides is the major or greatest obstacle to peace is asinine. Israel is at least willing to make some concessions as outlined but the other side isn't and one part of the other side wants ALL of Israel gone. That should tell you what the fucking REAL obstacle to peace is; one side will make NO concessions. NONE. NADA.

Join the relaity based on this Cali and stop embarrassing yourself.

[The Second Stone]

12. So there is no more room in the 1967 borders Israel?

I'm all for revoking recognition of Israel if it does not withdraw to its 1967 borders. Why are the Israelis always stealing the land, water and lives of others?

[Shaktimaan]

19. Good Lord, this comment is infuriating.

Revoking recognition from where? The US? The UN? I have to ask, out of all of the states and for all of the possible reasons, you really think that THIS is the situation that we should make a point of ostracizing a close ally over? Forgive me for saying so, but that is just so... dumb. As it is, Israel is the sole member of the UN that lacks permanent membership to a regional group, preventing it from even applying to sit on the Security Council or participating in any of the committees that draw up international treaties and legislation. But no, it should have its recognition revoked, while states like China continue their occupations while enjoying permanent SC seats. Because China is surely less oppressive than Israel.

Why are the Israelis always stealing the land, water and lives of others?

Um... as compared to whom? Is there a state out there that you're aware of that is not comprised of land that used to belong to someone else? Or have not engaged in wars that resulted in the deaths of many people, (often for vague or flimsy reasons compared to Israel's?)

Perhaps none of this would have happened in the first place had the Palestinians not stolen the land and lives of the Palestinian Jews to begin with. Did you consider that?

[cali]

5. What makes you think they'd all go to Israel, if they left?

[IndianaGreen]

7. When push comes to shove, Israel is the only place where Jews can be safe

Even in America, it is possible that the crazy Christian fundies will follow their idiotic doomsday holy books and proceed to murder all those that refuse to convert, including the very Jews they profess to "love."

[varelse]

8. I beg to differ

if Jews cannot be safe everywhere (which SHOULD be included in the goals of any global human rights movement) then they really aren't safe anywhere. Isolation isn't security.

If anything, this and other developments like it point to a trend that all civilised nations should be working to reverse. No people in any ethnic or religious group should be living in fear simply because of who they are, where they are, or where they were born.

[IndianaGreen]

9. There is rising ultra-nationalism across Europe

and we might see its strength in the upcoming European Parliament elections. Take the UK, for example:

Watch out for BNP success at European elections

Low turnout, disgust with main parties, and use of local activity to distract from extremist views could translate into votes for far right

When the results of the European elections on 4 June are announced, much of the focus will be on Labour's share of the vote and the impact this has upon Gordon Brown's leadership. However, the performance of the main parties will have to compete for attention with the number of votes picked up by one extremist party in the UK.

Support for far right parties such as the British National party (BNP) is still smaller in the UK than in other parts of Europe, but following its success in winning a seat on the London assembly last year, the party has strong hopes of winning seats in the European parliament in June.

The Institute of Community Cohesion, iCoCo, has made a study of voting patterns for far right parties, finding that in the 2008 local elections, one in 30 UK voters chose the BNP, making it the fourth largest party in the country. Not a fair comparison, but an interesting one all the same: in 2008 the Labour candidates attracted an average of around 500 votes, while BNP candidates attracted almost 400. A more proportional voting system would have seen the party win 140 seats.

The BNP has gone through something of a reinvention in recent years. Despite internal disputes and factionalism, the party has seen ongoing growth in support. Fundamental to this makeover has been a focus on grassroots activities, with the BNP becoming increasingly active at neighbourhood level, contesting local elections on a wide range of "bread and butter" issues.

BNP activists are often most visible at a local level, offering themselves as the solution to the un-emptied bin or anti-social behaviour. In this respect, Hazel Blears was absolutely right when she said new media was "no substitute for knocking on doors or setting up a stall in the town centre".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/may/14/bnp-european-elections

[Shaktimaan]

17. Are you serious?

I think that America has shown itself to be more than safe for the Jews of the 21st century. Crazy Christian fundies do not run America and there is no indication that the Jews of the US face extermination at their hands any time in the forseeable future.

[LeftishBrit]

29. Agreed, and the same for Britain

My Hungarian Jewish friends' parents mostly immigrated to Britain in the 50s, when Israel already existed so they could have gone there. I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist as a safe haven for Jews; but it's not the ONLY place where Jews can live safely, and there's no certainly that all 49000 Hungarian Jews would go there and nowhere else.

In any case: this piece of news is worrying, especially given Hungary's past history of antisemitism; BUT it refers to a far-right political party that obtained just over 2% of the vote in the last election - not to a general national policy. Especially given the pressures that go with being part of the EU, I think Hungary is still a long way from a reversion to fascism or Stalinism.

[Violet_Crumble]

30. I want to know where America's atheists can feel safe....

Clearly the US isn't safe for anyone but Crazy Christian Fundies. This whole impending extermination thing has got me very rattled and before I rush round DU urging all non-Christian Fundy conversion folk to flee, I want to suggest hiding places to people in this thread who are in grave danger of CCF extermination. Whatever you don't do, don't hide anywhere near a Planned Parenthood clinic, or anywhere where there's porn available. CCF's just love to bomb clinics, and they're always looking for porn to 'research' so they can type outraged letters of complaint to the local newspaper. No, if you want to avoid being genocided, I'd suggest sitting in a classroom where kids are being taught about things that CCF always remove their children from class over, like sex ed and homosexuality. Just make sure all CCF kids have already been removed in protest before hiding there, though...

[Ken Burch]

20. You're confusing me now, Indiana

At some points, you've almost sounded like you were anti-Zionist, and now here you're suddenly almost sounding like a Likudnik.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Just go with the flow. Indy does this transformation once a year or so n/t

[cali]

33. weird n/t

[Sezu]

35. The world is not black and white. Get used to it. n/t

[Ken Burch]

36. I never thought it was.

And the true answer, the deepest answer, the only choice that can work in the end, is not to give unquestioning support to one particular nationalist movement, but to build an international struggle to wipe out exploitation, the germ culture in which antisemitism, as well as all other forms of hate(all of which are just as evil as antisemitism)grow and multiply.

A world in which people don't have to struggle to survive and don't have to fear doing so in the future is a world in which hatred will die out.

It's about backing Rosa Luxemburg, not the Irgun.

[Sezu]

42. Who here backs Irgun? And your utopia is nice.

Share it with those who need to hear it the most....terrorists. They are the ones with the most catching up to do.

[Ken Burch]

44. Your posts always reflect an Irgun mindset...the view that Palestinians and other Arabs

are nothing but "terrorists" and are incapable of living in peace with anyone or even living as civilized human beings.

[Ken Burch]

49. What you call my "utopia" is necessary, not "nice".

The only way to stop hate is to stop the root social causes. Endless demands that one group or another just "stop" are pointless and can't lead to getting whatever you want stopped stopped at all.

It's been the rise in poverty and inequality in that fueled the rise of the far right and the hate groups there. If the "social democrats" in Europe had preserved social welfare and full-employment economies rather than surrendering to the neoliberal globalists, these groups wouldn't be growing. You never saw any serious increase in racist or antisemitic feeling in Europe between 1945 and 1979. It was Thatcher and Reagan, with their acolytes Blair and Clinton, that let the haters make a comeback.

[Shaktimaan]

50. Um, what?

You never saw any serious increase in racist or antisemitic feeling in Europe between 1945 and 1979.

You can't possibly believe this.

[Ken Burch]

51. That was when such feelings were at an all-time low.

You didn't have any real support for racist parties in Europe in those years.

Racism only grew when the social wage was attacked and unions were weakened.

[Shaktimaan]

53. I think there are lots of reasons for a resurgence of racism in Europe.

I don't think you can attribute a renewal of racist-nationalism to any single thing. Besides, if racism spikes whenever economic strife appears (and I don't doubt that it does) isn't that just another way of saying that the underlying causes were never addressed to begin with?

That said, are you aware of how Holocaust survivors returning to their European homes were received? Say, in Poland for example? There's a reason no Jews remained in Europe past the 40's. I mean, it's a little weird to say that anti-semitism was at an all time low during this time period considering how there weren't really any Jews left to discriminate against.

[Ken Burch]

55. It was there, but at a much lower level than now.

There was some residual antisemitism(and this, of course, was disgusting)but it was a minority feeling in most countries. A feeling that was clearly in the process of dying out.

What the article in the OP teaches us is that, under austerity capitalism, antisemitism and other forms of hatred are now much more widespread than in the post World War II era when Europe still had social welfare and strong unions.

In those years, you didn't have neo-Nazi parties winning sizable shares of the popular vote. And in the UK, in the days when the labour movement was at peak strength and social welfare was still fully in place, you'd never have had the electoral breakthroughs of a hard-right group that the British National Party(BNP) has scored in recent years. In fact, in 1958, at the height of union power in the UK, Oswald Mosley, the leader of the prewar British fascist movement, attempted to return to Parliament in a by-election and went down to a humiliating defeat. Today, he'd have a good chance of WINNING that by-election.

And it's the underlying causes of the spread of antisemitism and all other forms of racism that I'm talking about here. It was economic chaos in Germany that brought Hitler to power, not some mysterious brain fever that suddenly overtook the German people. If you act as if poverty and fear of poverty had nothing to do with the rise of Naziism, you are totally not getting it. There's no way that the economic situation in Germany in those years WOULDN'T have led to something terrible like that happening. That's why Brecht wrote the line "food is the first thing:morals follow".

But it was the triumph in the Eighties of right-wing market economics that brought the European far-right(and antisemitism as a mass movement) back to life. If you create inequality and fear of poverty, you give the haters material to work with. That's why the Germans(even though there postwar government was led by the CIA-invented Christian Democratic party rather than by social democrats) established a strong social welfare state. And in the 1990's, when the social democratic parties in Europe all abandoned the unions and stopped defending the welfare state, they gave those far rightists something else to build on: those parties(even though they clearly didn't mean it)presented themselves as the only defenders of workers' rights and social welfare. This is why, if you're working against hate groups, you also have to work against greed, inequality, and the weakening of unions.

You can't get rid of bigotry in isolation. It doesn't work to just say "it's wrong to hate Jews" "it's wrong to hate Roma" "It's wrong to hate LGBT people". Yes, it is wrong to hate all these groups, but you can't get people who are struggling to survive to listen to lectures on that.

Keep people feeling secure and you keep hate at bay. You also create the conditions to reduce existing hate. An egalitarian world where social provision and the rights of workers are secure is a world in which prejudice is not going to grow. You don't see hate groups among the Indians of Bolivia, among workers in Venezuela, and you didn't see them in Sandinista Nicaragua. Or in Sweden at the height of its social democratic period(they only grew as the political right gained strength and the social democrats stopped being social democrats).

Look at how much worse this country got on racism when the social wage and the power of the labor unions went under concerted and successful corporate attack in the mid 1970's.

The way to defeat antisemitism and all other forms of hatred is to end exploitation and inequality. A bourgeois world can't be free of bigotry. The system needs it to survive. Capitalism won't allow prejudice to die out.

Create a world free of exploitation, free of the fear of joblessness, free of the fear of simply being cast off by the machine, and you will create a world where neither Jews nor anyone else will live in fear. A world of democracy, equality, peace and hope will be a world without Hitlers.

And the best part is, there's nothing to lose in trying. There's nothing in the status quo that is better than creating a world like that.

[Shaktimaan]

58. I aprreciate your thoughtful answer...

But I happen to largely disagree.

It was there, but at a much lower level than now. There was some residual antisemitism(and this, of course, was disgusting)but it was a minority feeling in most countries. A feeling that was clearly in the process of dying out.

Firstly, while this is a commonly held belief it is untrue. I understand why it is comforting to believe that postwar anti-semitism was largely a holdover from the Holocaust but the history doesn't bear this out. For a good explanation of postwar anti-semitic attitudes in Poland I'd like to refer you to a book called "Fear" by Jan T. Gross which does an excellent job of analyzing the causes and effects of it during the time period we're discussing.

Gross argues that the anti-Semitism displayed in Poland in the war's aftermath cannot be understood simply as a continuation of prewar attitudes. Rather it developed in the context of the Holocaust and the Communist takeover: Anti-Semitism eventually became a common currency between the Communist regime and a sociesty in which many had joined in the Nazi campaign of plunder and murder—and for whom the Jewish survivors were a standing reproach. Jews did not bring Communism to Poland, as some believe; in fact they were finally driven out of Poland under the Communist regime as a matter of political expediency. Poland's Communist rulers fulfilled the dream of Polish nationalism by bringing into existence an ethnically pure state.

I quoted that part of the book jacket on purpose, because you seem to be trying to draw a direct link between racism and Capitalism, which I find strange. Racism can be found in all cultures going back as far as history will take us. No social or political experiment has thus far managed to free us from the yoke of bigotry. To a large extent I feel that xenophobia is an ingrained part of human nature.

Create a world free of exploitation, free of the fear of joblessness, free of the fear of simply being cast off by the machine, and you will create a world where neither Jews nor anyone else will live in fear. A world of democracy, equality, peace and hope will be a world without Hitlers.

Well, you are essentially describing a utopian existence here, the likes of which have never been seen. It is possible that we would have a much easier time expunging bigotry from our midst if we didn't have to worry about joblessness, poverty, inequality, war, exploitation and so on. Unfortunately though, that is not the world we live in yet. I don't think that you've made the case that a line can be drawn between the rejection of Capitalism and this utopian vision that you see as the solution to racism. But to a large extent I actually think that's besides the point.

You're essentially making the case that racism thrives in environments that are already troubled. I have no argument there, I think it's obviously true. I just think the answer is going to be a lot more complex than embracing Socialism and empowering unions. At this point in time we lack the ability to bring about social, economic and political change on the scale that you're suggesting. And to be honest, when it has been tried in the past the result was not anyone's idea of utopia. In fact it did as much to reinforce poverty, inequality and yes, bigotry, as Capitalism ever has.

Basically, if we were able to create a society where all of these essential problems were solved then it would not surprise me if we were also able to put racism behind us as well. But advocating for utopia is not a realistic solution. And if racism and anti-semitism spikes whenever any given society is stressed economically then I'd argue that the problem was never truly dealt with at all. There is no simple answer to racism.

The fact is that problems like racism, inequality and so on far pre-date economic theories like Capitalism and despite what you may think, have existed in every society regardless of their political or economic persuasion. Hate is a complex thing. Ultimately it has to do with power, either the perceived lack of it or desire for more of it. And as long as issues like race are able to provide people with the leverage necessary to achieve their own personal goals then it will continue to exist as a problem.

The lesson I take from Nazi Germany is not that poverty breeds hatred. (Though it is undoubtedly a factor.) It is that what happened there should not be considered a fluke. Germany was at the technological and cultural forefront of its day. If the Holocaust could happen there, then it could happen anywhere.

One last thought about the validity of equality under socialism. I was engaged to a kibbutznik for several years. Carmel was kibbutz "royalty." Her grandparents on both sides were original founders. One was a personal acquaintance of Rabin, another captained ships ferrying Jews out of wartime Europe to Palestine. Her parents were both born and grew up on the kibbutz. They raised their own family there. Now the kibbutz was possibly the purest form of local, effective socialism; and was one of the most enduring and successful experiments in applied socialism. And one thing I learned from Carmel, herself a third generation kibbutznik, was that their society was as vulnerable to hate as any other. If kibbutzim rarely fronted their own hate groups it was only because they tended to be small and homogenous. But now that the kibbutzim and moshavim are ceasing to exist as socialist success stories and are increasingly turning to capitalism we'll see what happens. If real hate groups begin sprouting up in their midst then I'll admit that you may have a point.

[Ken Burch]

59. Eastern European Stalinism is nothing whatsoever like what I was calling for

For one thing, the Communist movement lost the right to call itself anti-Nazi when it defended the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop Pact.

For another, the quote you offered from the book itself illustrated a connection between the Nazi era and the feelings in postwar Poland.

Part of what happened in the Warsaw Pact states, states that were based not on socialism in any recognizable sense but merely on the defense of the Soviet Union and, initially, the personal power of Stalin above all other objectives, was that those states never went through a "denazification" process of the sort West Germany went through. And Stalinist leaders in those states found it opportunistic to invoke antisemitism for the same reason capitalists had invoked it; because it misdirected the people's rage away from those who actually deserved it. This probably had a lot to do with how reactionary Eastern Europeans were on all sorts of human equality issues after the collapse of Stalinism of '89. ). Please don't ever again imply that I'm a supporter of Soviet Communism. And that situation was Eastern Europe while the examples I spoke of were in Western Europe. Although, it must also be said, as this story illustrates, that there does seem to be at least a correlation between the harsh austerity programs imposed in Eastern Europe and Russia and the rise in antisemitism and anti-Roma feeling(and anti-Roma feeling is just as deep and wounding as antisemitism)in those places.

Besides, the main things I spoke of, a strong social welfare state strong unions, and full-employment economies, are not "utopian" at all. They were the basis of the post-World War II economic boom in Western Europe AND the United States, and were embraced by even center-right governments in those years. You didn't see parties like the Republikaner in Germany or the BNP in Britain or the worst of the hate crazies in the U.S. before Reagan and Thatcher came in and before the assault on workers' rights and the social wage was underway. I can't believe you don't see the pattern and the causation.

And if what I'm saying sounds "utopian", actually it's deeply pragmatic. The economic model we've had wrapped around our necks since the rise of Thatcher and Reagan is now collapsing(although, weirdly enough, this seems likely to result in Thatcher's home country in the removal of her one-time opponents, the Labour Party, from power, because of the fact that they've tied themselves to an unquestioning defense of her model) and we face the urgent need to create a new economic system, one that's neither capitalist nor Stalinist. It's not about dreaming...it's about awakening to reality. Radicalism is the new common sense. "Market Values" have failed us and at this stage cannot be redeemed. Why even bother defending them.

There needs to be continuing work to counterract hatred no matter what system we live under. But it's not going to work to go to people who are hurting and suffering and say to them "don't hate THIS group", without being willing to provide alternatives that address the things that drive those people to hate. Just saying "hate is wrong" is noble, but it's not going to stick in those conditions.

And I think it's pretty obvious that, if post-World War I Germany had had the full-employment economy and strong social benefits that post-World War II West Germany had, there'd have been no traction for Hitler there at all. If that wasn't the case, why would the victorious side in World War II have made sure that those things were in place? To me, this says that they learned from history.

And as to hate rising in Israel as the country moves right, I refer you to Avigdor Lieberman, Arutz Sheva, and those IDF t-shirts. That's what "market values" have brought to the Land of Milk and Honey. As Arlo Guthrie once put it "Children of Abraham, this ain't glory".

[LeftishBrit]

27. Awful. More of the old, old story.

Several of my friends are Jews of Hungarian origin; and let's just say that their families didn't come to Britain because they thought the landscape was prettier here.

Jobbik (the far-right) got only 2.2 per cent of the vote in the last election in 2006 so let's hope they can stay marginalized; but it's still very worrying that *police officers* would get involved with such a movement. Police + Fascist parties generally = Bad News. I assume that this union only represents a minority of Hungarian police; but still it's not good at all.

[Ken Burch]

38. Obviously, those people are insane and progressives need to stand against them

I hope none of my other responses in this thread hid the fact that I and the overwhelming majority of progressives get that.

[breadandwine]

40. Arabs are allowed to live in Tel Aviv but all 500,000 Jews in the West Bank must be expelled.

Just like Saudi Arabia. They allow no Jews there at all. Why? Because, as the Saudis know, "Jews are the sons of pigs and monkeys."

So uproot all 500,000 Jews.

For peace.

Wreck their businesses, their stores, their factories and farms. Smash their synagogues just like the Palestinians did when the Jews left Gaza. Dig up the Jewish graves.

It's all for peace, didn't you know?

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are buried in the Biblically-mentioned Cave of Machpela in Hebron on the West Bank, which is today visited annually by 300,000 people. Samuel the Prophet and Zachariah the Prophet are buried on the West Bank and their graves are places of pilgrimage to this day. Rachel, wife of Jacob, is buried on the West Bank, the grave of Joshua is on the West Bank and Joseph, son of Jacob is buried in Nablus (Biblical city of Shechem) and all these grave sites are visited by thousands. Nearly all the Jewish holy sites are on the West Bank. Sarah, Rebecca, Leah and other Jewish Biblical matriarchs are also buried in the Cave of Machpela.

Jews have lived on the West Bank for thousands of years, long before there was an Islam. There would still be lots of Jews living in Nablus if not for massacres/pogroms there that drove the Jews out. Lots of Jews would still be in Hebron on the West Bank if not for the Hebron Massacre of 1929, long before the State of Israel was recreated, long before the territories were "occupied" in 1967, the "cause" of all the hatred toward the Jews. Jews lived in Gaza for thousands of years till they were driven out by massacres and violence.

So let's get this straight. Jews were slaughtered in the Hebron Massacre of 1929 because:

Israel occupied Hebron in 1967.

It's obviously all the Jews' fault.

But pay no attention to any Zionist argument. There's a simple morality here. Shoot the Jews, get rid of them and the land becomes yours. Bang, bang, bingo, instant sovereignty. The Jews are all Johnny-come-latelys who arrived five minutes ago. Throw them out.

When Hitler attacked Eastern Europe there were those who said Hitler was surely only against the "Eastern" European Jews with their "funny clothes." Surely he doesn't mean the modern, Western Jews!

Then Hitler killed them too.

Getting the settlers is the first step toward getting ALL the Jews.

It's simple. Drive the Jews out. Say you're only against the "ultra" Jews. Ultra religious, ultra nationalist, ultra Zionist, ultra proud, ultra, ultra, ultra. We're not against ALL Jews, just the ULTRA Jews!

Heh, heh, heh.

So drive the Jews out. Get RID of them.

Some people at first thought Hitler was an innocent socialist.

Today everyone knows that the Mullahs and the Sheiks, all the Islamic clerics with their screaming that "The Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys" are all really:

Liberals.

Didn't you know??????

As the Germans said, "Juden raus!" --- "Jews out!"

Pay no attention to the fact that the 10,000 Jews evicted from Jewish Gaza are still living in cardboard huts or with relatives and have no homes or jobs.

500,000 West Bank Jews: No problem. Just shove them into the glove compartment.

And while you're at it, let Iran get the bomb. After all, Ahmadinejad and the mullahs are all pragmatic socialists just like the Soviet Union, didn't you know? They wouldn't use it! Hitler said he was going to exterminate the Jews but he didn't really mean it!

Neither does Ahmadinejad.

Neither does Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad.

They're all just funnin' with ya.

They're kidding!

Give them everything and they will turn over a new leaf.

Here's a question:

Why did the Israeli Jew have to bash his what's-it-doing-there ugly face into the innocent minding-his-own-business clenched fist with the bloody rock in it?

Because:

The Israeli Jew is:

A racist.

[Vegasaurus]

41. Congratulations on a well written post

that gets to the meat of the problems completely.

It will be ignored or alerted by the Israel haters, of course, who think this conflict is about "occupation" and that all the problems in the middle east will miraculously disappear if Israel uproots 500,000 people and moves them (to cardboard boxes) within the "green line".

Never have they acknowledged that there was Arab terrorism long before an occupation.

Terrorism long before checkpoints or walls.

They "progressives" pretend to know more than Hamas or Hezbollah or Iran, and think that the threats to annihilate Israel are just talk.

The repressive, regressive, oppressive Arab regimes are EXCUSED, and Israel is maligned.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Thanks for stating the points so clearly.

Be prepared for your post to be removed though. No need for the truth here.

[Ken Burch]

43. In Hebron in 1929, the total Jewish population was only 720

That's hardly "lots". What was done to that community in 1929 was wrong, but Nablus was always overwhelmingly non-Jewish.

[breadandwine]

45. You haven't a clue. The massacre of 1929 was in Hebron. Not Nablus.

But since when do we need facts to get rid of the Jews?

Mark Twain visited the area. He remarked that the whole region was empty.

So obviously, the Jews were oppressing the legions of Arabs who hadn't arrived yet, BEING as how the Jews need to be sent packing, driven out, and marched into the sea... Get rid of them. That will solve everything. THAT'S the solution. The FINAL solution.

The only people who have been in the land of Israel continuously for thousands of years are the Jews BEING AS HOW THEY ALL ARRIVED THERE FIVE MINUTES AGO TO OPPRESS THE PALESTINIANS SO MUCH.

[Ken Burch]

46. OK, Hebron, not Nablus, I corrected that.

My statement was correct as regards Nablus.

And Mark Twain was not talking about the area Dershowitz and the now-discredited Joan Peters said he was. Peters inserted the word "Jezreel" in an ellipse in Twain's quote. In another section of the book, Twain talked about EXTENSIVE Palestinian land cultivation.

Joan Peters lied. Don't repeat an untruth.

And the Palestinian Arab population is ancient. They had as deep a connection to that land as anyone else, and the 20th Century arrivals had no right to push them out.

[IndianaGreen]

47. In addition to the excess hyperbole in your post

your account of history is somewhat distorted.

PS: Did you write all of that by yourself, or did you pasted it here from some other site?

The Arabs in Tel Aviv are Israeli Arabs. The 300,000 Jews on the West Bank are squatters. Their presence there is in violation of international law that forbids an army of occupation from dislocating the local population with settlers.

Read the history of Germany's invasion of Russia. There were German farmers following the army to settle in Russia.

[breadandwine]

48. Yeah, I couldn't possibly be right, since who ever heard of Jewish scholarship?

In fact, who ever heard of Jewish history? And who ever heard of Jews? Jews originated in Teaneck, New Jersey in 1987. Before that there were no Jews.

[Ken Burch]

56. Get over yourself. Nobody said anything remotely like that.

The most anyone here has said was that the "Land of Israel"(or Palestine)was not either a)continually a place with a Jewish majority or b)an uncultivated land that was left completely untended because no one lived there(the "land without a people" lie).

No one was negating Jewish history or the contributions Jews have made to civilization.

[Ken Burch]

52. That sounds more like you, Indiana.

And you're right in all that.

[IndianaGreen]

54. This is also true...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=276309#276359

[proteus_lives]

57. Sniff, Sniff. It smells like 1933!

What a bunch of fuckers. That's one union I wouldn't mind smashing.