(Original post by Suetonius)
You have misunderstood me, especially given that I clearly acknowledged Israel's "roots...in the genocide". I would go further and make the observation that pre-WWII Jewish migrations to Palestine during the late 19th and early 20th centuries - which culminated in Israel's creation - were largely driven by various other persecutions. But that's not what I'm talking about. You're failing to make the distinction between the motivations of the original Zionist movement and the motivations of the current Israeli government. "Jewish history" and "the need for a sovereign and secure Jewish state", as shocking and contradictory as it may seem, isn't really a concern for jingoistic Israelis. After all, illegally occupying another people's land against their will is hardly a guarantee of security. Quite the opposite in fact. Of the 6 million Jews living in the U.S., the 6 million Jews living in Europe, and the 6 million Jews living in Israel, the latter group can be considered the least
safe. This is something that would change with a permanent Arab-Israeli peace, but attitudes like yours aren't going to achieve that.
unreasonable to assume that Gentiles are somehow culturally and determinedly predisposed to murder Jews, yes. "Jewish sovereignty" is a vulgar idea, as is any notion of sovereignty being determined by ethnicity. Partition is testament to that. Collective gratuity is just as irrational as collective punishment. No state should be run on the precept that one group within it is on the verge of being slaughtered by the rest of the world. There's a word to describe the protestation "we don't trust non-Jews to keep us safe". It's called racism. As it happens, though, this isn't the real issue. Israel can be whatever sort of state it wants to be as long as it abides by international law. At the moment, it's not doing so.
You say you "don't think many people say things" like "we killed 10 Palestinians today because we suffered in the Holocaust." Of course you don't. It's not something that's overtly admitted; it pays off to be far more subtle. What does
happen is that these policies are carried out under the pretense of keeping Israel - and Jews - "safe". We all know the propagandistic function the Holocaust can serve when it comes to retrospectively justifying an aggressive action that was apparently undertaken in "defense" of Jews. Netanyahu, who isn't even the most extreme element in his Coalition, is addicted to using the Holocaust as a ploy for an aggressive and jingoistic foreign policy. Right now it's about a potential war with Iran, but there are many other examples. When the Sinai and the Gaza Strip - occupied Egyptian and Palestinian territory - were evacuated in 1982 and 2005 respectively, there were routine condemnations from the right-wing about this being "another Holocaust". Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister during the Six-Day War, referred to the pre-1967 borders as the "Auschwitz lines", which has been latched on to by the Israeli right ever since. These are not negligible extremists who no-one takes seriously, but are in fact at the core of the Israeli state. Do you condemn this?
Of course, your response doesn't succeed in even noticing my acknowledgement that Holocaust victims predominantly consisted of non-Jews (depending on what definition you use).
That's not a qualitative difference. It's an institutional difference. You'll see that, important as they are, I'm not talking about general motivation or the systems in which soldiers operate. I'm not talking about events as a whole. You seem to have forgotten that I agree
that they can't be compared as events. Only an idiot (i.e. 'unclej') would call cumulative
Israeli actions more severe than Nazi actions, and I stated that from the off. They're incomparable with regard to scale, and the Nazis were obviously guilty of committing far more grotesque crimes than any Israeli will ever think of doing. It would be insincere and obscene to mention Israeli policy in the same breath as gas chambers, slave labour or so-called "medical" experiments. What I said was that Israeli hawks use the Holocaust to excuse and, in most cases, ignore the behaviour of those few within the IDF who act like a Nazi and deliberately murder civilians. Your assessment of my claim is inaccurate. I didn't imply that said IDF soldier is "acting against his orders". He was following orders alright, but managed to overstep
them. It's a crucial difference. To Israeli chauvinists, acting "against" orders, i.e. draft-dodging, is considered a far more severe crime than overstepping orders, i.e. ruthlessly slaughtering innocent civilians. I said that the Einsatzgruppen
"actions were more
institutionalized. I didn't say that violence and killing are not institutionalized in the IDF. They're integral to any country's military, regardless of the degree to which it is wielded.
The number of IDF who commit war crimes and go unpunished is significant. Furthermore, they are
largely ordered to act aggressively by IDF commanders. To quote just one example, Amnesty International's 2012 annual report
maintains that: "Up to 35 people were reportedly killed and hundreds injured when Israeli soldiers fired at thousands of Palestinian refugees and others who protested on 15 May and 5 June  at the Lebanese border with Israel and the Syrian border with the Israeli-occupied Golan. Some protesters threw stones and some crossed the border in the Golan Heights, but demonstrators did not have firearms and did not appear to pose a direct threat to the soldiers’ lives. Israel disputed the numbers killed and the circumstances."
. These were not cases of bad apples acting against orders. The fact that Israel disputes it proves the extent to which governments will go in order to preserve their country's reputation at the expense of serious investigation into human rights abuses carried out by their own soldiers.
Amnesty also detailed
several examples of close-range shootings (i.e. deliberate executions) during the attack on Gaza: "The evidence indicates that none could have reasonably been perceived as a threat to the soldiers who shot them, and that there was no fighting going on in their vicinity when they were shot"
. First, "In the afternoon of 4 January 2009, members of the Abu Halima family were shot by Israeli soldiers as they were taking to hospital relatives who had been injured in a devastating white phosphorus attack on their home in the Sayafa area, in the north-west of Gaza. Matar Abu Halima, 27, and his cousin Muhammad-Hikmat Abu Halima, 19, were both killed."
. Second, that also "a 47-year-old woman, Rawhiya al-Najjar, was shot in the head as she walked ahead of a group of women carrying a white flag near her home in the village of Khuza’a, near Khan Yunis, in the south of Gaza...Yasmine al-Najjar, aged 23, told Amnesty International that she was standing next to Rawhiya when she was shot and had seen an Israeli soldier in a nearby house. She was also herself shot in her right leg, as she tried to rescue Rawhiya. She had fled her home that morning at about 6.30am, when Israeli army bulldozers started to demolish it, and had joined other women near Rawhiya’s house."
. And, third, that "On 7 January 2009 three little girls and their grandmother were shot outside their home in the ‘Izbet Abed Rabbo area, east of Jabalia, northern Gaza."
: "Two soldiers stood outside the tank in our garden, eating chips and chocolate and ignored us. We stood still for several minutes. Then suddenly a soldier emerged from the middle of the tank. He was out of the tank from the waist up, and he took aim at us and shot many bullets. My daughter Amal had nine bullets in the chest area. She was holding a teddy bear against her chest and it got ripped by the bullets, my daughter Souad got some 11 or 12 bullets also in the chest area, and my daughter Samar got several bullets in the chest and tummy, and my mother was shot in the arm and buttock."
Do you condemn this? Would the mother of those children in northern Gaza not "wish with all their hearts" that they had survived the Nazi genocide? Of course they would. This is why it's grotesque to compare the consequences
of different atrocities. I repeat, the consequences
of different atrocities; not the motivation behind, or scale of the events themselves. Israel revoltingly uses the 6 million Jewish victims of Nazi persecution in order to implicitly diminish the significance of murders like the ones contained in this report. As long as it's in "defense" of Jews, then we don't have to care about what we do. That's tribalism, and that's what you get when Jews "don't trust non-Jews to keep [them] safe". It's what you get when you pull up the drawbridge and turn your country into a bunker. Tell me, putting aside the fact that they're Jewish, do you believe these IDF war criminals would be out of place in the Einsatzgruppen
? Shooting children and groups of women in cold blood? These occurrences need to be taken very seriously, but the propagandistic functions of the Israeli government, the repeated usage of "Jewish persecution" and "Jewish history", blind many to them. It should be noted once more that these soldiers were not "acting against orders". Even though they overstepped
them, they were licensed to attack Gaza in such a wanton manner and to my knowledge were not reprimanded for their actions.