With Bibi gone, moderation is restored!

8 Replies to “With Bibi gone, moderation is restored!”

1. But thet haven’t flattened Gaza. This might be because Hamas has enough missiles to do severe damage to Israel.

   Reply

2. Philip – I was thinking about a comment you made on the post “Book review: Israel, a Beachhead”:

   antisemitism has never stood in the way of support for Zionism

   It seems to me that anti-Semitism and Zionism are connected – although in one direction i.e. anti-Semitism doesn’t need Zionism – and long predates it. But Zionism would be floundering without anti-Semitism i.e. it could not make the strident noises and demands it makes without constantly invoking the spectre of anti-Semitism.

   In this light, I was musing on the expression “Holocaust denial”. I think I first heard this expression in the wake of the David Irving trial. Before that, the expression, as far as I was concerned, was unthinkable – not because it was too outrageous or obscene but because I literally never even thought of it. But when it entered media discourse, it seemed to me that it wasn’t so much genuine Holocaust denial that was troubling the guardians of public morality. Indeed – they were happy to, once again, stir up as much belligerence as possible. No, what really scared them was Holocaust indifference i.e. that the Holocaust, like every other event, inevitably fades into the past and the majority of people treat it with the same sense of distance as they would e.g. the massacre of the Native Americans (and I heard that Hitler was a big admirer of the white settlers in America).

   I came to suspect that the matter of “Holocaust denial” was itself highly useful to the Zionists and, indeed played a vital role: in an age when the Holocaust itself was becoming more remote, denial of it was another way of keeping the whole matter fresh.

   Now the constant directive to “never forget” seems reasonable considering the scale of atrocity we are talking about – but at the same time, this “never forget” was always used to weaponize “anti-Semitism”. The idea being that we should not forget – as long as we “remember in the right way”!

   Now when I was at school, I recall being told about the scarcely imaginable economic devastation in Germany before WW2 i.e. the accelerating inflation which plunged the masses into extreme poverty. Knowing about that made a lot of developments a lot more understandable. But curiously, whenever the subject of the Nazis and the Holocaust is brought up now, it doesn’t mention such economic matters and instead refers to psychological theories about “the masses”, “the shadow figure within” etc. This kind of talk seems to me to push us back into a kind of magical thinking where “Evil” appears as some kind of inexplicable demon. And that would be highly beneficial to the ruling class (cf. propaganda of WW1 and pics of Germans bayonetting babies. Why did they bayonet babies? Because they are just plain Evil! Etc.)

   It is precisely such belligerent thinking that the rulers constantly want to invoke. Thus, when they say “Never Forget!”, they also imply “Never Understand Either!”

   Reply

   • Thus, when they say “Never Forget!”, they also imply “Never Understand Either!”

     Nicely put George.

     Reply

     • Another thing occurred to me – although perhaps it’s implied in what I said above:

       In an odd way, the Zionists who are so vocal in their condemnation of Holocaust denial, don’t care themselves about the events they are constantly invoking. It is the instrumentality of the past that concerns them i.e. the way it can be used to further their aims in the present.

       Reply

       • Absolutely. For examp[le here is one holocaust survivor who sees through the whole project:

         https://redice.tv/news/auschwitz-survivor-israel-acts-like-nazis

         Reply

         • PS The rest of this website should be treated with caution.

           Reply

           • Thanks for the alert, Jams. I’ve been taken to task more than once for citing a piece approvingly, my critics not engaging with the specifics but damning me for soiling their minds with verboten sources ranging from Caitlin Johnstone and Stephen Gowans (though both get my broad approval) to the Economist and CIA Factbook (which, oddly enough, do not). People, self included, being more psychological than logical animals, I guess it’s good practice to remind your readers that one may approve an argument without giving carte blanche to the person making it.

             (In a post last November on America’s Christian Right, I wrote: “It’s not every day I quote Mrs Thatcher with approval but …”)

             And without endorsing the source – book, newspaper, website etc – on which that person features.

             Reply

             • Interestingly I attended a Zoom event the other week on the EHRC Report in which at least two contributors made very similar points referencing the Ester Giles incident*

               The point being to highlight the way in which certain vociferous purity spiral mobs who kick the arse out of everything were at certain meetings smearing individuals by association. Arguing that simply by appearing with someone, like Ester Giles, they were automatically guilty of the same evidence free allegation such groups and individuals level at will at anyone who does not enthusiasticly agree with and vigorously promote their subjective based one true faith version of reality.

               And this is what happens when you feed the mob. As certain erstwhile “left” politicians and fellow traveller ‘progressive’ media hacks have done. Providing uncritical support for the concept of allegation being automatic ‘proof’ without the need for evidence. Mere individual accusation being sufficient to warrant demanded sanctions as though no one would ever kick the arse out of something by acting in bad faith or for anything other than noble or honourable intentions.

               It’s why we have due process and testable/verifiable evidence based enquiry. Unfortunately, that’s no longer the zeitgeist. Such a defence is not acceptable to the playground level mob** philosophy which has been adopted.

               * Ester Giles (in a way reminiscent of the ‘he said Jehova’ scene in Pythons ‘Life of Brian’) and this is not made up – deplatformed from an event on free speech for having previously defended the free speech rights of someone the mob did not approve of.

               ** I’m reliably advised, from an apparently impeccable source, that such terms are ‘dog whistle’ terms.

               As I’m obviously too old to understand these things it’s probably best if I just defer to a superior subjective belief system in which an individuals experience only applies to certain self selected special people.***

               *** An interesting dialectic in which certain individuals and groups not only get to define their own experience but also:

               A. Deny anyone else the same rights.

               B. Get to define and determine other people’s experiences, motivations, positions, attitudes and feelings. A bit like having your own personal external hard drive to which you are forced to defer.

               Reply