The Gazan conflict is no Holocaust

Paul B

Nailed, except hes (the writer) is being to polite. These people who are comparing Israels actions to Hitlers final solution are being (to use their word, which they bandy around only to willingly) racist. They are racist scum, hoisted by their own petards.

Voodoo Idol

So, you're saying Gaza isn't one big concentration camp? If so, you would be wrong.

Exotic Electron

Collective punishment is anti human. Stop mincing words.

Olaf Rye

Some very good points have been made in this article. Why not make comparisons with the persecution of Jews in the pogroms, or in the Middle Ages ? Indeed, why not cite the brutal oppression of minorities in the USSR or China ? It is an attempt to be gratuitously offensive, to invoke the fallacy of logic known as 'tu quoque'. The most singular thing, though, is that the self-professed intelligentsia are the main proponents of this facile argument. To borrow a rather derisive comment directed at the Archbishop of Canterbury last year: 'these people are educated beyond their natural intelligence'.

George Laird

Dear Peter

It seems that some people are upset because the Israelis are being compared to Nazis.

Lots of Palestinians don’t have the luxury to be upset because they have been murdered by Israelis.

“And if the critics wish to make the argument that Jews are oppressing others as they were once oppressed, they need not make reference to the Nazis”.

Why not?

It one thinks back to the USP that has been rammed down the throats of western people, it is the Holocaust.

The Holocaust is the standard fall back position which Israel turns to justify their actions.

“There are plenty of other examples of Jews being oppressed”.

Is this an excuse?

Does it excuse systematic murder?

So as to the picture on Daniel’s piece, it is of the kindly Israeli praying to God to invoke an image of a man of peace. But what is this? Full Combat Dress, why no picture of him firing weapons?

Is it to create a PR image to the world?

Does anyone remember the Nazis did the same thing with the media to lie to the west?

Adolf Hitler had his people produce a documentary called, “Hitler has built the Jews a city”. Reference is made to it in the series, The World at War.

The reason I suspect that Israelis don’t like compared to Nazis is that it restricts military and political options.

Finally, perhaps the Israelis should try using ultimate weapon, peace.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Max Kaye

The opposition to Israel's operations in Gaza is driven more from hatred of Israel than from any sympathy for the Palestinians.

And it has always been thus.

Olaf Rye

I am puzzled by the comment of 'systematic murder'. This is scarcely a tenable assertion: the military operations are systemically killing enemy combatants, and killing civilians accidentally. This is a consequence of Hamas situating their munitions and communications in civilian facilities. Indeed, it seems that the leaders are in a bunker beneath the main hospital.

In short, there is no systematic murder. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, it would be simple enough for them to have already achieved this. The comparison with the National Socialists in Germany is superficial and inflammatory, intended to gratuitously offend and somehow intimate that the Israelis have become the monsters that had once victimised Jews. The human rights campaigners might have a more compelling argument, and be less likely to appear as hypocrites that despise Israel, if they would turn some of their outrage to Hamas as well and exhort them to withdraw their munitions and communications from the civilian districts of Gaza.

Augustus

"Finally, perhaps the Israelis should try using ultimate weapon, peace."

And perhaps Hamas should stop using universal weapon, hate, as also used by the Nazi party -
both 'democratically' elected.
Remember?

Marin

Dear George, I believe you are utterly confused or, perhaps, blinded by your own eloquence. With the greatest goodwill in the world, how can you honestly say the Israelis are guilty of systematic murder? What examples can you provide of military actions that have not resulted in civilian casualties? Or are you opposed to all types of military action, even those in self defence? If so I suppose you'd have negotiated happily with Hitler, for the sake of peace of course.

Nick Leaton

So what are the parallels.

1. Lebensraum. Israel is after more land.

2. Colonisation. Sudetenland West bank etc.

3. Historical reasons for invading.

4. Ghettos. Gaza versus Warsaw. I see no difference.

5. Using modern weapons against a inferior force.

6. Breaking of international law.

7. Theft of property and land. If its acceptable for people to get their property back from the 1930s and 1940s, something Israel has pushed for, its perfectly acceptable for Palistians to get their forefathers and property back.

8. Ethnic cleansing.

9. Rights dependent on race/religion.

...

There may be no move to genocide, but so many of the Nazi's behaviour are exhibited by Israel towards a party that wasn't responsible in anyway for the Holocaust.

Remember, if its acceptable for the other countries to give away parts of another country to Israel, its acceptable for the same to be done to Israel. If Israel keeps land captured in war, then its acceptable for the occupants to use war to get it back. Just like the Falklands.

Far too often the Holocaust is used the other way round, to justify the unjustifyable when it comes to Israel.

Herbert Thornton

The naivety and lack of realism of some comment in this discussion is very disturbing. It concentrates on non-essentials and completely ignores the fundamental problem, which is a great deal bigger than the matter of how Hamas has been conducting its war against Israel for many years, and how Israel is (at last) responding to the constant and increasing hail of rockets aimed at its civilians.

The fundamental problem is the permanent, universal, and recently rejuvenated ambition of Islam to expand its grip on the world's population, to vent its hatred of infidels and of Jews in particular, and to do both by means (for now) of terrorism, and (soon unless prevented) by means of nuclear weapons.

Compared with the slaughter and destruction that will result in a nuclear war that looks increasingly likely, the Israel/Gaza conflict is, in terms of both human life and material, quite a minor one: but if we consider the wider effect of Israel failing to subdue Hamas it is of global importance.

The defeat of Hamas will not of course completely stop the advance of the Islamists in their bloodthirsty tracks, but it will demonstrate to them and to Iran and Pakistan that the Infidel world is determined to defend itself - and may result in them acting, for a time, less provocatively and recklessly.

On the other hand, if Israel fails to subdue Hamas, it will guarantee that Islamic extremists will be provided with, and will use nuclear weapons against Infidel countries - and sooner rather than later.

The choice for the infidel world as a whole is stark - should it act in the interests of preserving its own civilisations, or should it supinely fail to do so and meekly surrender to its most deadly and implacable enemy? Israel should be supported - no matter what the cost.

Owen Morgan

George Laird says: "The Holocaust is the standard fall back position which Israel turns to justify their actions."

No, it isn't. Israel rightly maintains the right of its CURRENT citizens to self-defence. Hamas has bombarded Israel with rockets; Israel has responded. The IDF's actions bear no resemblance to the Holocaust, in any case.

By the way, it may be time for somebody at Glasgow University to establish a Campaign for Coherent English. A Campaign for History wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

Craig Strachan

Godwin's law: "Whoever uses the term Nazi first, loses the argument."

Otherwise known as "reductio ad Hitlerum".

CCTV

Go read Die Welt. The article there shows Neo-Nazis making common cause with Muslim extremists. The aim is to diminish the Holocaust and relativise it...that is the object and that is why those spouting such slogans can be unmasked for what they are.

Ian W

re George Laird, I think you will find he is a one-man campaign for George Laird's rights. Not part of, but in dispute with, the University of Glasgow.

Seymour Goldfarb, Jr, heir to the Goldfarb Girdles empire

@Nick Leaton: A collection of such loose interpretation that they could be fitted to almost any inter-state conflict.

1. Pretty much any action by a mainland European power in the C17-19th. NB Calling it 'Lebensraum' is, like the larger picture, a descent into the usual boo-word manipulation of socialist debate. (See 'exploitation', 'capitalism', 'progressive' etc.)

2. Ditto.

3. Ditto.

Indeed points 1-3 work equally well for the Arab motivation for their repeated failed attempts to destroy Israel. Generally, parties to a conflict that have been so comprehensively and repeatedly beaten militarily would accept the consequences of their failed gambles. Funny that the Arab states seem implicitly to accept this, yet manipulate the Palestinians to maintain the pressure on their vanquishers.

4. If you cannot tell the difference between the Warsaw ghetto and Gaza, you have lost all sense, as well as ignoring all the points both Mr Finkelstein and Peter made.

5. A peculiar point, and, as it is dependent upon your definition of 'superior', hardly conclusive. A Qassam might not be as expensive or as accurate as a Hellfire, but its purpose is terrorising the civilian population of Israel, and it is admirably fit for that purpose. Come to that, the Argentines in the Falklands used technically 'superior' weapons against a numerically inferior opponent, and they lost.

6. Name a country of consequence that does not break international law. The UK? France? Germany? Russia?? China??

7. And the restitution process is long, complex and not always successful - and that is when it is pursued in western courts, where provenance and ownership is often more clear-cut. How many Palestinians alive today have verifiable claims on Israeli territory? You might as well call for land to be returned to the Red Indians (sic). Admirable in spirit, historically illiterate, and wholly impractical.

8. Nowadays a carpet-bag term, abused by every vested interest so that it is effectively meaningless. Besides, if Israel is 'ethnically cleansing', it's doing a pretty bad job, given that 20% of Israeli citizens are Arabs of one sort or another. The pre-existent Palestinians, living alongside the Jewish tenants in the area that had been there at least since buying land in the C19th, were told to leave the land on which they worked in 1948 by the Arab military coalition attempting to destroy Israel at its birth. The Palestinians threw their lot in with what they thought would be the winning team, and lost. And, as Mr Finkelstein points out elsewhwere, there are millions of people all over the world who have similar complaints, but you don't have Annie Lennox and Brian Eno backing the Polish communities in Central Asia displaced during Stalin's campaign of Russification.

9. Tedious to repeat it, but Israeli Arabs have far higher levels of freedom and political representation than Jews in almost any Arab or Muslim country.

So, a spirited, if slightly GCSE, attempt. Still: it's nice to be able to rehearse your moral superiority, isn't it?

Henry Rogers

What price George Laird's finer feelings in a world ruled by the likes of Hamas? And there must be plenty of Muslims worried by equivalent thoughts.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Olaf Rye

"If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, it would be simple enough for them to have already achieved this."

Actually, despite the industrial scale of the German extermination machinery, the Germans were finding it very difficult indeed to achieve this. As any decent historian will confirm, in crude industrial terms they simply couldn't get the throughput.

Now what makes you believe that the Israelis would be any better at the job? Have they found new techniques for mass murder?

chris gilmour

At a rate of fifty deaths a day, it's going to take them a while to kill off the whole population of Gaza. A hundred years of this?

Ian C

Herbert Thornton

I am glad someone can summarise accurately and well what this is all about among so many idiot blogs above. The comparisons with Warsaw ghettos and Nazis are outrageous and ridiculous.

Israel is the canary-in-the-mine. If it dies, we are all in mortal danger. It is amazing how unseen this crucial fact is.

Donna Edmunds

As a Jew living in England, I've never given my safety any more thought than the average British person (not least because I think of myself primarily as British but of Jewish ancestry, just as some of my friends are of Spanish, Irish, Polish ancestry)... until today.

My mother's side of the family is Russian; they left in the 60s in part because they were subject to anti-semitic abuse. After a few years in Israel they settled in England. Therefore stories of anti-semitic descrimination are a part of my family's history. I have never for a moment thought that they might be a part of our family's experience in Britain, and, to date, they have not been, but posts such as those from Nick Leaton and George Laird make me wonder if they are a possibility after all. I don't live in a predominantly Jewish area, but my grandmother is in Golder's Green where I hear two young men were attacked recently. Should I now be worried for her?

Ian C and Herbert Thornton are absolutely right: Israel IS 'the canary in the mine'. If we allow ourselves to be seduced by a way of thinking that condemns Israel for conducting a war in which there are victims, but blind ourselves to the truth behind WHY those civilians ARE victims, we draw ever closer to becoming victims of Islamist fundamentalism ourselves.

In the 30s there was anti-semitic muttering on the streets of Britain, as the people wondered whether the Germans shouldn't be allowed to find their own solution to 'the Jewish Problem'. Today those muttering are being echoed, on the streets, and throughout cyberspace.

The holocaust is mentioned so often precisely because we must never forget what happened; precisely because we must keep our eyes and ears open to ensure it never happens again - to any ethnic peoples. It seems this lesson is not being learned.
I find that deeply shocking.

George Laird

Dear Henry Rogers

“What price George Laird's finer feelings in a world ruled by the likes of Hamas? And there must be plenty of Muslims worried by equivalent thoughts”.
What Price Henry Rogers finer feelings in a world ruled by the USA and Britain?
If you look at the stats on a pound for pound basis then America easily outweighs Hamas in the killing stakes.
I am not a Hamas supporter and certainly not an Israeli supporter either but this concept that the west is better, what is it based on?
A romantic dream!
Do the people of Central America who lived through American sponsored death squads think the west is wonderful?
What about those who have had family killed in Iraq?
In attempting to paint me as a Hamas supporter is it to give me a label? Once you have given me my label, I am then to be paint as anti-semitic?
Poor Henry should go and talk to the relatives of man beaten to death in British Army custody in Iraq; it may help his finer feelings.
Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George Laird

Dear Ian W

“re George Laird, I think you will find he is a one-man campaign for George Laird's rights. Not part of, but in dispute with, the University of Glasgow”.

Yes, I do campaign for my rights.

I see you spectacularly failed to mention me campaigning about Richard Yuill.

Richard Yuill wrote a PhD which attempted to normalise Paedophilia, you can google him on the web.

I also raise publicly the issue of the Senior Arts Lecturer who allegedly touch up a little girl who fell asleep in a university room.

You failed to mention that too.

Nice attempt to rubbish me but really try and be more topical. People expect a certain standard on here.

Finally, as the first recorded person to be banned from University of Glasgow for giving advice to an asian et al I think that I am on higher moral ground that you.

Happy to give you a copy of the signed University letter to prove my veracity!

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George Laird

Dear Donna Edmunds

I make a distinction between Israelis and jewish people.

I also find your snide sideways implications that I am anti-semitic as offensive.

When I was doing charity work in my youth for free, I never asked the religion of anyone I was teaching.

Last year I was in a bus crash, people were injured, one seriously, my first thought was to get help. It would not cross my mind to wander over and ask if he was jew before I phoned for the emergency services.

Finally, more people are starting to talk openly about Israeli war crimes, perhaps you should too.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George Laird

Dear All

I read this on the Scotsman;

"Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish.

Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi] Livni and (Ehud] Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."

I look forward to the same level of abuse thrown at him which was directed at me.

Henry, Ian and Donna, off you go, I am waiting.

Who was to say that Kaufman is anti-semitic first?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Donna Edmunds

Dear George,

you may draw a distinction between Israelis and Jews, but plenty of others don't. And when anti-Israeli talk flairs up, so do incidents of anti-semitic voilence. Coincidence? I hardly think so.

I fully accept that mistakes have been made on both sides. War is war, it's never pleasant, and after the event it's very easy to sit back and point out where mistakes have been made. But to put the full force of blame squarely at Israel's feet when they are a lone Jewish state fighting for survival is contemptable at best - to say nothing of as close minded as you are accusing me of being.

Augustus

There are many aspects to this conflict which have nothing to do with race. It is really about beliefs and convictions. Not even about good or bad. what the Israelis think is good, the Palestinians consider to be bad. and what Jews see as bad ideas are worshipped by the Arabs. Who you consider to be right depends how you look at it. It's a clash of civilizations. the important question is not who is right or wrong, but which culture do you prefer. Must a Jewish and westernised country make way for an Islamist fundamentalist state, which would be the result of an Arab majority? If the answer to that is 'no', then the measures which Israel is taking to preserve itself are justified. If Muslims don't agree with that it is understandable, but how is it that they receive so much support for their point of view from the West?

Some people think that Jews who do not agree with what Israel does suffer from a kind of Jewish self-hate. But people like Gerald Kaufman have become so assimilated that they have reached a point where we can't talk about them as Jews any more. Their opinions are extremely popular in the same left-wing circles which they frequent. These people are often anti-American as well. They appear to be ashamed of western capitalism, and are great believers in a multicultural society. What they wish for Israel is simply a warning to anyone who places any value on capitalism and individual freedom. That's got nothing to do with anti-Semitism, or Jewishness, only the old socialist dogma.

George Laird

Dear Donna

"And when anti-Israeli talk flairs up, so do incidents of anti-semitic voilence".

Yes, they do, but these people are just looking for an excuse to justify their actions.

On the subject of self defence which is nub of Israeli claims.

In order to invoke such a claim the response must be proportionate.

40% of the Gaza killings are women and children.

Can the Israelis explain that?

Surely, it cannot be all just bad luck?

These are war crimes and if Israel is looking for a sympathy vote they have lost it.

Israelis spokespeople say Israel doen't deal with terrorists, have they forgotten the foundation on Israel was based on it?

If I was Israeli, I would be asking what do these people want to secure peace.

There is a deal to be done, all it needs is someone with guts to thrash out the details.

Hamas has stood for elections so they are looking for a way to improve people's lives.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Henry Rogers

George Laird wrote:

"In attempting to paint me as a Hamas supporter is it to give me a label? Once you have given me my label, I am then to be paint as anti-semitic?"

George, old boy, I didn't paint you as a Hamas supporter or as anti-semitic. I do, however, think you are naive. I also think that your arguments, not all of which are nonsense, would be more effective you wrote more briefly and left out the histrionics.

George Laird

Dear Henry

When I say something generally I add in an example, hardly histrionics.

I tend to deal in facts, you however feel more comfortable with trying to paint subjective opinion as fact.

Pot and Kettle springs to mind.

Finally, no abuse at Gerald Kaufman for saying the same thing as me.

Bottle crashed?

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Sharon

I wonder how many people, among those who make those comments, actually know what the concentration camps were....But hey- on the line between Anti Israel and Antisemitism it's all, let's say, Kosher.

Henry Rogers

George,

Do you want to persuade people to your point of view, or do you want to sound off and feel better?

My original post was 26 words and my second 44, apart from quoting you. Try brevity!

George Laird

Dear Henry

Politics is not about brevity.

Except as a soundbyte on tv.

I see that Gerald Kaufman has went further in his attacks.

He is comparing IDF to Nazis.

He also said in passing;

"The Israeli Government was ruthlessly and cynically expoliting the guilt over the Holocaust as justification for the assault on Gaza.

To remind you, the Israelis have attacked a UN compound destroying humanitarian supplies using illegal white phosphorous.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Henry Rogers

George,

I'm not sure exactly what Kaufman's point, which is not in itself undisputed, has to do with my original post here. Have you? Try reading what I actually wrote and then actually think about why I wrote it.

If you want to join the ME warriors, why not post something in Melanie's blog? I think they probably eat well meaning students for breakfast over there!

Matthew J

Dear George,

Pretty much every single paragraph and phrase you write annoys and upsets me with your predisposition to develop one-sided and illogical perspectives.

I will analyse just one of these phrases, let me know if you can listen at all. If you can listen and would like a full break down of analysis of all the language I think you could be recycling into useful text, please email me.

This is one of your "worst offendors"

'The Holocaust is the standard fall back position which Israel turns to justify their actions.'

Is it? Is it really? Grrr. For Heaven's sake: when the Israelis did what they did in Lebanon two summers ago, or Gaza last winter, it wasn't because of the Germans or the Nazis or the Pogroms or anti-semitism in Europe or the Holocaust or the lack of justice after the Holocaust or even because of Arab and Palestinian collusion with the Nazi Generals in World War 2, it was purely and simply because of border disputes, self-defense, ongoing conflict and exercising the rights for self determination.

Now if you want a separate discussion on proportionate retaliation, Israeli politics, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, modern urban warfare, the living conditions of Arabs in Israel, the flight of jews from Arab lands, the history of anti-semitism, the Holocaust or any other topic, then we can debate separately.

BUT, I defy you to find in the discourse of the Israeli leaders or generals, talk of the Holocaust, within the context of "defending their actions" in these recent conflicts. The recent Gaza conflict ended in 2009, thats 64 years after the Holocaust.

It HONESTLY seems to me that the ONLY people who keep mentioning the Holocaust now are NOT the Jews, but ... get ready for this:

People who deny the Holocaust, wish to revise the Holocaust, make crass comparisons with the Holocaust, or finally and most pertinently, accuse the Israelis of using the Holocaust to justify their actions today.

It doesn't wash, and its boring to listen to and it continues to be the kind of divisive argumentation that prolongs conflict.

Suffice to say, every one of your 15-or-so word sentences could merit this sort of response from me. Its painful to think that "people like you" will never listen, as clearly and logically as I try to put it, but I can almost guarantee to you and anyone reading this that this little stab at your perspective will fall on deaf ears and probably only rile you further!

I for one hate the fact that over 1300 people died in the recent Gaza conflict. Its upsetting and criminal. I happen to think that if you wanted to attribute blame for the deaths of all these people, you would have to search through the following: Israel, Hamas, UN, US, UK, France, Russia, Iran, Syria. Maybe you dont agree with that. Thats fine. Thats what debates for, but lets be clear when its opinion and when its fact.

But please try to internalise the fact that demonizing one side of the debate will only nurture conflict further. Ruling out any possibility of there being fault on BOTH sides also rules out the possibility of lasting peace.

This debate topic looks 3 months old so I dont know if anyone will ever read this:)

Matt