How much longer can the Israelis use the Holocaust card to get people to listen? - Page 2

That's a good and debatable point. Invariably, whenever I'm discussing Iran with some right-wing, internet douche-bag, they always bring up the fact that they threatened Israel as an obvious casus belli for war. Should we be so partisan and beholden to a state? Shouldn't we be more neutral in that patch of the world? Israel's hand's aren't clean either.

As Mr. Rush points out in THE GREATEST FUCKING MOVIE OF ALL TIME IN THE HISTORY OF CELLULOID MUNICH, how do you think they got the country? By acting nice.

Can we stop with all the Munich bashing? Seriously, that movie is awesome. Amirite guys?

As I said above, playing innocent really isn't going to help you here. You've spent an entire thread sounding like a dick. Acting as if you had no idea that you were doing it just makes you seem kind of wee-brained.

The title of this thread is "How much longer can the Israelis use the Holocaust card to get people to listen?" This title implies a few different things - first, and most importantly, that the Holocaust has no real meaning or value to the people of Israel beyond its use as a political tool. That's both crass and absolutely incorrect.

Second, because you used the word "card," it suggests that you think of issues of geopolitical and historical importance in terms of a game. I'm aware that "playing the ____ card" is a commonly used expression, but I think it's a degrading one, used to imply that the group the speaker is referring to is engaging in manipulation with questionable grounding. It never fails to be condescending.

Finally, the title of this thread implies that you think there will be a point when what happened during the Holocaust should cease to be important, when we get to ignore great human suffering because it happened too long ago. Granted, this point may come a couple of centuries from now, but it's not going to happen in our lifetime. So get used to it.

Can I have my five dollars now?

Only if you denounce Munich.

Damn...my reply would've made a bit more sense if it was right after Miss Zooey's.

Zooey, I don't think you're gonna get your $5.

Wouldn't it be cool if Zooey turned into the kid from Better Off Dead? You know, popping in threads where The Closer is posting and chanting "Five dollars" in a weird, zombie-like tone?

What a weird strawman you've constructed. No one here has argued that Munich is the "the greatest fucking movie of all time in the history of celluloid," but it's generally held to be a pretty great movie, despite a few missteps, like the sex scene/murder juxtoposition (I'd argue that the last scene, despite being on-the-nose, works perfectly and, if anything, shows that the issue addressed isn't just whether Israel has clean or dirty hands). Just because the generally good reviews got your panties all in a bunch doesn't mean that it's overrated - just that you hold a contrary opinion.

The tone of your initial post suggests that the holocaust is no more to the Israelis than a handy all-purpose rationale to pull out when it comes to any sort of international diplomacy. That is belittling it. The holocaust is not simply some bullshit currency the Israelis lay out whenever they feel it expedient. The reality of anti-semitism and what it can accomplish when manipulated in a political manner is an absolutely genuine and understandable concern of the Israelis. The holocaust was only about half a century ago. Considering how long the Jewish people have existed as an identifiable group, that's a fucking speck; and it doesn't even take into consideration the anti-semitism that lasted for far longer before that. Of course, there are legitimate lingering concerns.

EDIT - Beaten by about a half dozen posts. Anyway, my wordy response stands.

You know Dave, I was kidding and referring to all the turmoil I started by daring to have a contrary opinion about a movie. I believe it's not a great movie -- not bad -- but not great. And yet, that simple statement got everyone up in arms, and it became a suitable illustration of people holding subject matter above rational discussion. Second, the quote by Rush was to put a rhetorical spin on another troubling aspect of US/Israeli relations: that by failing to call Israel out on anything, we cannot be an honest broker in the Middle-East, and therefore we lose credibility. That's a problem, and it should be discussed. Rationally.

...and thus, the Rubicon was crossed.

I don't want to get in the way of this spectacular bloodbath, but:

This kind of statement was what Zooey was talking about when she said you were being condescending or somehow devaluing the Holocaust. Your suggestion here is that you'd seem like less of a dick if you framed it that way, but that's not really the point. The point is that you are placing some sort of a quantitative value on different tragic instances, as if it is a measure of our human worth if we sympathize more with some than others. Tragedy is tragedy, and your comments (not your intent, cuz I don't know or judge that from your not so well put posts) make it seem like you devalue the Holocaust. Who wouldn't call that dick?

Also, if someone were collectivizing farms and offering up 5-year plans, we might play the "Stalin's millions of dead peasant farmers" card.

Why are you worried about the money MissZooey, are you a Jew or something?

I love matzah ball soup...My ex's mom made great soup. But after I decided Munich was overrated, it burned my mouth like holy water does vampires.

Listen, if you don't have the five dollars, I understand. We can draw up an IOU...

No, sounding like a dick as in being overly reductive about a complex problem. Sounding like a dick as in being cavalier about a horrible moment in human history. Somewhere under there, if we could lose all of the snark, there are certainly many legitimate questions. You. didn't. ask. any. of. them.

All depends what question that would be... but, really, there's no good way to ponder when a large group of people are no longer entitled to their collective suffering. Nice red herring, though.

Your total lack of tact means the debate ends? Wow, someone should call the good people at the peace talks! Some guy on the internet doesn't know how to intelligently debate things! Go back to bombing each other, fellas!

Oh, thank you.

You're speaking as if there's some sort of eternal, objective question to which you're feebly pointing. Your question really isn't valid and I think several of us have explained why. The question of how involved the United States should be with Israel is a valid one. If that's what you wanted to discuss, that's what you should have asked, instead of puzzling over why those darn Jews get to bring up that silly Holocaust.

Convention is a lousy excuse. I didn't ask a question and I don't care if it's a commonly used phrase. Its connotation is insulting.

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss such things, but, good lord, it could have been framed a far sight better. Moreover, behaving as if the Holocaust is the only thing driving our relationship to the Middle East is just silly, silly, silly.

Right. You're telling it like it is, and the rest of us are under the thumb of our Zionist overlords. Keep telling yourself that.

I did. Twice now. Perhaps that means you owe me ten dollars?

But no one here was up in arms. By posting your extreme reaction to the extreme reaction of your ex-fiancee (your opinion can't possibly loaded on the subject, I'm sure) in this thread, you seem to be suggesting that the praise here was equally hyperbolic. It wasn't, so your insistance that the subject is all that relevant to the conversation at hand is bizarre. Bad movies about the holocaust and Israel get criticized all of the time. Munich wasn't given a pass on the basis of its politics, but on the basis that it's one of Spielberg's best serious dramas.

Sure. I think it's rational to point out that the Israelis have legitimate reasons to bring up the recent past when it comes to their country's security and anti-semitism, in general. I also think it's rational for African-Americans to bring up the even-less-recent past when discussing the class disparity based on race in the U.S. You can't discount the holocaust when you talk about current Israeli politics, and you can't discount slavery when you talk about poverty in black communities. It would be irrational - insane, really - to say that the present exists in a vaccuum and that current policy just came into being. How can a Jew talk about widespread anti-semitism without defaulting to the obvious precedent?

See, I disagree that it wasn't given a pass due to its politics. But that's fine, reasonable minds can differ.

I see your point, and it's vaild. I think my reaction was colored by some negative rep I got for my original post. It sounds silly, sure, but perhaps it clouded my judgment.

You're right, but there is a tendency amongst groups to throw certain events (like the Holocaust, like Hitler, etc) as a Talisman to end debate. I've read several op-ed columns that have come out and said that any objection to Israeli domestic policy is simply engaging in Israel bashing and have no legitimate point. Yes, the state of Israel exists due to a lot of factors, the holocaust being one of them. But to bring it up when discussing 3rd rate despots (like the President of Iran) is absurd and devalues the event. Not every objection to Israeli politics is anti-semtic, just like not every objection to african-american culture is racist. Sure, those assholes exists, but saying you object to misogyny is some hip-hop, or that you think the wall in Israel is a bad idea does not make you Mel Gibson.

I must add, however, that I hear most of the holocaust stuff from right-wing gasbags like Krauthammer, Podhoretz, and other neo-con filth, and not from any Israelis I know.

They didn't do this. They're criticizing the U.S. for the (perceived) creation of intelligence reports for political reasons. The Holocaust is only brought up as a means of illustrating a similar situation.

Yes, it reflects upon Iran, but the criticism is directed at us.

I didn't go to the link. I was more intrigued by The Closer's rhetorical question and the reaction it got here.

Meh. It's really all you want to hear so you can maintain the private illusion of being unfairly maligned. I'd prefer if my next sentence -

wasn't disregarded.

Jan Travolta is nicer than me. Well said, sir.

Unfortunately, we aren't generous. The government of the United States only hands out about one half of one percent of the nation's income to foreign aid. This is literally a fraction of a fraction of what all the other wealthy Western governments give.

Or, you know, you could ask why we don't allocate more funds to educating our youth, supporting our arts, providing healthcare for our people, and providing aid to our worse off neighbors and less to the military-industrial-complex/energy industry.

I think both are excellent questions.