No, the Jews are the “nazis” and the American Fundiban are the “jews” who are trying to stop being sent to the death-panel gas chambers of Herr Obama and the Jews.  Because having basic medical care provided is exactly the same thing as being executed.  Well, and the Jews are the inhabitants of the Kevant, so they are the “philistines” and “canaanites”; and the Fundiban are the “jews”, so under Rush “Joshua” Limbaugh, they are justified (by faith, dontcha know *wink*) in executing anyone standing on “their” land.

Amanda already posted this a bit down the page.

That is silly. What makes him a nazi is that ethnic cleansing is one of his country’s founding principles.

the woman is obviously gunnin’ for a fight with the guy cuz’ he’s pro-reform, BUT, i suspect she thought his accent was German at first, hence the “heil, Hitler!”

Godlessmaniac, that was my thought too.  Not a lot of Americans recognize an Israeli accent.

Granted, it doesn’t make her any less of an asshat and douchehat.

In the future, everyone is Hitler for 15 minutes.  And a Jew for ten or twelve.  And famous for something stupid for at least half an hour.  And so on, et cetera, ad infinitum moranus.

See? They’re not really “pro-Israel”, they’re “pro-killing Ay-rabs”.

Tribalism. (No, not the jews, the crazy wingnuts.) Cutting yourself off from reality is how you prove your loyalty to the cause. Because then you can’t go back.

Like a jackboot—your own jackboot—stomping on a human face—your own face—forever . . . Wolverines.

To quote the immortal Ted S. Preston, Esq.: “Strange things are afoot at the Circle K”.

Godwin’s applies double in real life. And I’m pretty sure this summer has reached historic an epic levels of crazy that will take decades to calm down.

In the future, everyone is Hitler for 15 minutes.  And a Jew for ten or twelve.

If my minutes coincide, should I beat myself up over it?

You are searching for consistency among the mad?  Silly boy.

That is silly. What makes him a nazi is that ethnic cleansing is one of his country’s founding principles.

Not at all like the United States.

Not at all like the United States.

Or Canada. Or Australia. Or New Zealand. Or Brazil. Or Argentina. Or….yeah.

Ahem.  We tried ethnic cleansing, but the Maori beat us up. 

My country’s founding principle is de jure “you jokers let us have the government and keep the French away, and we’ll let you keep your lands and treasures” and de facto “let’s steal the land while we think they’re not looking”.

See this for more details.

Did anyone else notice that she’s wearing an ISRAELI ARMY TSHIRT?

In typical wingnut style she got really brave after she was able to hide behind those two other piles of human garbage. I was kind of hoping the thing would end like the old, richly satisfying clip of John Stossel getting slapped to the ground like a rag doll. I think this might make me a little bit of a bad person, but I can live with that.

Ouch… It looks like Gawker has identified the woman in the video.  And listed her home address, home phone number, and Facebook page.

Methinks this antisemitic troglodyte is probably having serious regrets about screaming “Heil Hitler” at an Israeli Jew in front of a local news crew’s video cameras.  I imagine she’s getting quite a few (hundred) interesting phone calls right about now.

Looks like old Barney Frank has decided to throw the usual Congressional diplomatic BS out the door in handling his BirthDeathBagger constituents throwing out the Nazi garbage…

When one of these trolls started comparing Obama to Hitler, he gave her a very appropriate response, the sort of reply these folks deserve from our elected leaders:

“Ma’am, having a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table!”

Bravo, Rep. Frank.  Now THAT’S how you talk to these fucktards.

he way I read that occurrence, “Heil Hitler” was meant as a threat. Maybe I underestimate stupidity, but there ARE neo-Nazis on the right wing, and just about any numbskull can put together Isreali—>Jewish—> intimidated by reference to the Holocaust.
Stupidity would be less ugly, though.

just about any numbskull can put together Isreali—>Jewish—> intimidated by reference to the Holocaust. - Holocaust

So why do some on the left also make these sorts of comparisons (for other, perhaps at least better thought out, reasons) and wonder why we Jews, even those of us not particularly ideologically inclined toward Zionism, somethings think the anti-Zionist left is anti-Semitic?

Indeed, stupidity would be less ugly.

I wonder, though, if this health care debate will cause Fundie Christians to be less “supportive” of Israel.  Isn’t it odd how they support a nation that is full of not-believing-in-Jesus, largely secular, gay friendly followers of an ideology that is quasi-socialist at its roots?

I wonder similarly whether my fellow Jews will pick up on this seething anti-Semitism on the right (some Jews are too busy being paranoid about left wing anti-Semitism to notice the Heil Hitler shouting righty-tighties) and start to question whether their political allies are really all that “friendly” to Jewish interests.  Maybe they’ll also realize that some of Israel’s policies are not in the long term interests of the Jewish people? 

Nah ... not only is stupidity less ugly, there is also plenty of it to go around ...

Ahem.  We tried ethnic cleansing, but the Maori beat us up.
...
Comment #15: Phoenician in a time of Romans on 08/18 at 07:11 PM

By Mars!

The Maori appear, from the Wikpedia article you cite anyway, to be military geniuses. Raise the walls of the palisades up “a few centimeters” so they could fire out from below—has anyone else ever even thought of doing something like that? Put apparent weak spots/gaps in the walls that lead to traps—OK I bet that’s standard cleverness.

But the point is, they adapted and fast to understanding British strengths and weaknesses relative to their own tactics and resources, whereas it seems the British never really got around to understanding the Maori until sometime after WWI. (Perhaps because British soldiers were serving in trenches alongside Maori who showed them a trick or two that led to tactical victories here or there—note in a WWI Western Front context, mere survival of a handful of a unit counts as a great victory indeed!)

Part of it was that the two (or actually four, says the Wiki) sides in the conflicts defined “victory” very differently so everyone left standing got to believe they were the “winners,” which no doubt kept the rancor down.

Then again, it seems the British finally got the upper hand mainly by practicing actual ethnic cleansing—attacking the tribes as a whole to disrupt the economic base of Maori resistance.

But still, the Maori are still there, as a distinct people with special legal standing and on a much stronger apparent basis that the native peoples of Australia or North America. I’m not saying Native Americans or Australians aren’t “still there;” they are—but the status of the Maori and their distinct communities is, I gather, much higher.

Well, the Argentinians have as all “beat” re: ethnic cleansing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_the_Desert

But still, the Maori are still there, as a distinct people with special legal standing and on a much stronger apparent basis that the native peoples of Australia or North America.

I guess they’re more in the same kind of situation as Hawaiian Natives than mainland Native Americans?

The problem is, most people have no idea what “Zionism” means. Including those who call themselves “anti-Zionism”. Zionism just means you believe that Jews should be able to live in Palestine. It says nothing about what political form that should take.

Dan,

According to my wife (although she puts it in a nicer manner) I know fuck-all about Israel (having never been there, e.g.).  I say it’s my right as an American to pontificate on matters about which I have insufficient knowledge   At least I can find Israel (and Iraq, for that matter) on a map.  Anyway, I agree with you as far who has the more defensible arguments are concerned ...

*

Ben D.—I think you have Zionism slightly wrong.  Zionism doesn’t just mean (theoretically) that Jews should be able to live in Palestine.  It means there should be a Jewish state (in Palestine) in the same way there is an Anglican-British State in Britain, there is a French State in France, etc.  Of course this begs the question (both in the proper sense of that phrase as well as how the phrase is actually used) of whether the very idea of a nation state—especially when having such a state to which people can return to their ancestral homeland on which their fellows have lived for thousands of years means the displacement of peoples who have lived on said lands for hundreds of years—is ideologically appropriate.  Still, to single out one nation-state for actions that have been necessary in consolidating all nation states does raise questions, even if there are also defensible arguments for singling out one particular nation-state.

Of course, de facto, at this point, do we really think that if Israel should cease to exist, Jews could really live freely in Palestine?  Heck, how many Jews were able to access Jewish holy sites in East Jerusalem until after the 1967 war?

DAS:

Sorry I’m late to this thread. Yes, the right wing fundies hate Jews. BUT please understand that Israel (specifically Jerusalem) is where Jesus plans to return to for his 1,000 year reign before the end of the world. Therefore the fundies want to insure that those horrible brown people don’t ruin the place before he gets there. And if that means they have to cooperate with Jews to make it happen - so be it. That is just how crazy they are. They hate you but they hate people of color more.

Hah, an appreciable number of people who call themselves Zionists don’t know what it means either, more’s the pity! I’m regularly tarred with the labels “anti-Zionist” and “traitor” for suggesting that territorial expnasionism and violent occupation may not quite be included in the definition of the term.

And DAS, I’m not sure which definition of Zionism you’re working from, but I don’t think “A Jewish National Home” and “A Jewish State” are the same thing. The latter implies sole political sovereignty that is not technically necessary in order for the former to exist.

Of course, de facto, at this point, do we really think that if Israel should cease to exist, Jews could really live freely in Palestine?

That’s the problem, there’s too much hatred (much of it understandable) on both ends. IMHO both the Jews and Arabs blew it in the 1948-1967 period. A two-state solution would have been much easier back then.

Also in that period both the Zionist and Palestinian nationalist movements were very secular and leftist, the plague of religious fundamentalism didn’t infect them until post-1967.

And DAS, I’m not sure which definition of Zionism you’re working from, but I don’t think “A Jewish National Home” and “A Jewish State” are the same thing. The latter implies sole political sovereignty that is not technically necessary in order for the former to exist. - TheLady

I guess you are right.  But a “Jewish National Home” is not the same thing as “Jews can live in Palestine”.  The latter means whomever controls Palestine has to let some Jews stick around.  A Jewish National Home means a land of refuge for Jews, etc.

It’s at least conceivable that, e.g., a Palestinian Arab state would let a few Jews stick around and live there.  At the risk of sounding like Vizzini, it’s inconceivable that, at least at this point, for a Jewish National Homeland to exist without some form of Jewish political control (perhaps in a shared, binational state, but we all know how stable, outside of Switzerland and Belgium and maybe, maybe Canada, those are).  And the way that this generally would happen is in a Jewish State.

In short, Zionism without a Jewish State as a goal is theoretically possible, but hardly a realizable form of Zionism.

*

DC Fem—I understand this, although it’s kind of odd to view (not saying you have this view, but many on both the right and left seem to have this view) us Jews as being monolithically white (e.g. European colonists, etc).  What I find odd is that too many Jews feel comfortable ignoring how hateful the right is simply because “well, they support Israel and we need all the support we can get”.  Is it really a good deal to get “support” from people who want to see you killed at Armageddon? The response is, of course, “we don’t believe in that”.  But they believe it, so their support is predicated on Israel acting a certain way which does have a pernicious influence on Israeli policy.

At the risk of sounding like Vizzini, it’s inconceivable that, at least at this point, for a Jewish National Homeland to exist without some form of Jewish political control (perhaps in a shared, binational state, but we all know how stable, outside of Switzerland and Belgium and maybe, maybe Canada, those are).

Something like that could be possible 100 years from now (assuming two states exist side-by-side in peace for that long) once old hatreds have died, but in the near future impossible. Today, a bi-national state would look like Yugoslavia or Iraq, not Canada or Switzerland. I.e., either civil war or dictatorship.

UT please understand that Israel (specifically Jerusalem) is where Jesus plans to return to for his 1,000 year reign before the end of the world. Therefore the fundies want to insure that those horrible brown people don’t ruin the place before he gets there. And if that means they have to cooperate with Jews to make it happen - so be it. That is just how crazy they are. They hate you but they hate people of color more.

Yeah. And all the Jews will convert en masse or burn in hell forever. If they don’t quite hate us more than the brown people, I still don’t want to be on the receiving end of their non-hate. All these evangelicals talk about how much they just love the Jews. They want to love us to death.

And don’t think we don’t realize this. We do.

Yeah. And all the Jews will convert en masse or burn in hell forever.

Al Franklen said that wingnut evangelicals are “pro-Jew” the same way a fisherman is “pro-nightcrawler”.

Clearly wingnuts don’t know what “Nazi” actually means.

What I find odd is that too many Jews feel comfortable ignoring how hateful the right is simply because “well, they support Israel and we need all the support we can get”.

I’m not really sure how much credence we should give to the idea that “many” Jews are right-wing. Jews voted in higher numbers for Barack “Bad for the Jews” Obama than they did for Kerry. That left-wing Jews tend to not be in lock step with other liberals on Israel isn’t really a sign of rampant fascism among Jews.

Ben, a two state solution is exactly what was voted into existence by the UN. But the Palestinians didn’t want their state, because they wouldn’t accept anything other than sovereignty over 100% of what was then the British Mandate over Palestine, and essentially they still don’t. There was never really a window of time during which a two-state solution was an uncontroversial proposal, and that is why there was so much outrage and radicalisation growing out of the Oslo agreements on the Palestinian side. It’s fashionable to cite the occupation as the sole driver of violence inside Palestinian society, but the sense of betrayal occasioned by Fath’s recognition of Israel should not be downplayed.

The real culprits here, as usual, are the Brits; their divide-and-rule policy precluded the realisation of the original Zionist ideal of co-existing with the Arabs in Palestine, in something that in today’s terminology would be called a bi-national state. And for all that I know that a bi-national state is completely non-feasible from the point of view of political will and public opinion, I’m still adamant that it is the only solution to the conflict, and the only acceptable long term position for the survival of the Jewsih people. For which, traitor and antisemite, like I said.

Also, what chingona said: liberalism is not Scientology, you can disagree on some of its more cherished precepts and still call yourself a liberal. (although, saying that, I wish that was something I could get any left wing person in the UK to agree on!)

But the Palestinians didn’t want their state, because they wouldn’t accept anything other than sovereignty over 100% of what was then the British Mandate over Palestine, and essentially they still don’t.

I’m not remotely an expert on this period, but I’ve seen arguments and evidence by people who seem pretty knowledgeable that the Zionists in what would become the state of Israel played their own role in provoking a war in 1948. The UN proposal created a series of unworkable Bantustans for both sides, and the Israelis wanted a contiguous state. Not a terrible goal, but they were more than ready to use violence to achieve it. Some significant portion of the earliest settlers were interested in peaceful co-existence, but by the time of independence, relations between Arabs and Jews had been full of tension and violence and atrocities on both sides for at least a generation.

I don’t disagree, chingona. There was a significant radical element within the Yeshuv, the Jewish Mandate era settlement. But I am firmly of the belief - and I may be being a bit naive, I’m no revisionist historian - that the large factions that were non-militarised (the Orthodox, the urbanised European Jews of the coastal towns, and the Communist/Socialist bloc of the Kibbutzim, specifically) would have prevailed in the abcense of an outright invasion. Like I said, I don’t think the partition plan would have provided stability and peace, partition plans never do; but the essentially local scuffles between two populations that were poor in resources, thin in density, and preoccupied with state building would have been of a different order of magnitude if the Palestinian leadership had accepted their half of the land and the Arab states not intervened.

There’s a fundamental dilemma around whether any plan for a permanenet Jewsih state - partitioned or otherwise - ought to have ever been considered. I think today, the prevailing feeling among Palestinians is that no solution that led to a Jewsih state could ever have been legitimate, in any form, at any time. But again, I’m no historian - I don’t know how they felt about it at the time, and how they would have reacted to the reality of forced but largely peaceful coexistence as citizens of a fully empowered and equal nation-state.

What’s certain is that today, there are two unhealthy addictions fuelling the conflict, ones that were not present in 1948: the Israeli addiction to military success, and the Palestinian addiction to victimhood. If we re-ran the tape again with new parameters, maybe today we’d find ourselves in the same mess, but maybe, just maybe, a Belgium- or Canada-like model of fractious federalisation would have emerged.

Fundamentally, this is about responsibility. Each side claims ownership for all of the land while throwing the responsibility for the war and suffering on the other. In a bi-national state, this dinamic can’t thrive (though the simmering resentment might take hundreds of years to clear completely, as in Belgium), because the equal sharing of power drops the moral posturing floor from under the politician’s feet. They have to cooperate or lose power.

I can foresee what this woman’s response would be to the outcry: that saying “Heil Hitler!” was a legitimate criticism of Israel, which is clear from the fact that she was responding to positive statements made about Israel, and that the man’s response is typical of the cry-baby Jews who trot out the “antisemitism card” any time someone says something they don’t like about Israel.  Sound familiar?  Left-wing commentators have been doing this for a while now, so I don’t see how similar behavior by the wingnut right would be a big deal.  Fact is, over the past decade or so, antisemitism has entered the mainstream: it has become acceptable to use classic antisemitic rhetoric or imagery in reference to Israel, or at least in a way that makes it ambiguous whether the speaker is referring to Israelis or to Jews.  And so, the whole outcry over how this behavior is supposedly characteristic of the right strikes me as a bit, well, disingenuous.

IMHO, of course.

I can foresee what this woman’s response would be to the outcry: that saying “Heil Hitler!” was a legitimate criticism of Israel,

Very possibly the case when we’re talking abiut grabbing land and shelling towns.  Not so much the case when we’re talking about providing a health care service to citizens.

The Maori appear, from the Wikpedia article you cite anyway, to be military geniuses. Raise the walls of the palisades up “a few centimeters” so they could fire out from below—has anyone else ever even thought of doing something like that? Put apparent weak spots/gaps in the walls that lead to traps—OK I bet that’s standard cleverness.

This has been noted.  I recall an article showing how the pa warfare of the NZ Wars of 1843-1972 might have had lessons for the British in WWI trench warfare if only they’d paid attention.

<i<But the point is, they adapted and fast to understanding British strengths and weaknesses relative to their own tactics and resources, whereas it seems the British never really got around to understanding the Maori until sometime after WWI.</i>

Again, I recommend the Belich book I referenced before (it’s a damned good read).  The Maori deliberately set out to exploit Europeans and European technology right from the start, including a policy of marrying out to entangle Europeans with particular tribes.  The first tribes to get potatoes and muskets proceeded to, um, demonstrate to other tribes forcibly the strategic benefits of both…

Then again, it seems the British finally got the upper hand mainly by practicing actual ethnic cleansing—attacking the tribes as a whole to disrupt the economic base of Maori resistance.

No.  There’s a case that the Maori were never actually conquered in the King Country.  The Maori’s major mistake was agreeing to colonisation without realising just how many Europeans were going to show up - they got swamped by numbers rather than subjugated.

But still, the Maori are still there, as a distinct people with special legal standing and on a much stronger apparent basis that the native peoples of Australia or North America. I’m not saying Native Americans or Australians aren’t “still there;” they are—but the status of the Maori and their distinct communities is, I gather, much higher.

The de jure status - they have some problems with second class economic status, and the associated woes of poverty as a whole, but their special status is embedded in the cultural.  However, the distinct Maori communities are pretty small and far rural - the majority of Maori are urban and within Pakeha society.

I work with them, I have relations who are Maori, I have to deal with the language and the culture on a daily basis in my job.  I’m a Pakeha, not a European; as Michael King pointed out, they’re not the same thing - we are defined in part by the Maori, just as a straight person might be defined, in part, by the opposite gender.

I can foresee what this woman’s response would be to the outcry: that saying “Heil Hitler!” was a legitimate criticism of Israel, which is clear from the fact that she was responding to positive statements made about Israel, and that the man’s response is typical of the cry-baby Jews who trot out the “antisemitism card” any time someone says something they don’t like about Israel.  Sound familiar?  Left-wing commentators have been doing this for a while now, so I don’t see how similar behavior by the wingnut right would be a big deal.  Fact is, over the past decade or so, antisemitism has entered the mainstream: it has become acceptable to use classic antisemitic rhetoric or imagery in reference to Israel, or at least in a way that makes it ambiguous whether the speaker is referring to Israelis or to Jews.  And so, the whole outcry over how this behavior is supposedly characteristic of the right strikes me as a bit, well, disingenuous.

IMHO, of course.

She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.

Should I elaborate?

She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.
She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.
She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.
She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.
She is wearing a fucking IDF t-shirt.

Very possibly the case when we’re talking abiut grabbing land and shelling towns.  Not so much the case when we’re talking about providing a health care service to citizens.

Okay, but three comments in we have pablo apparently agreeing that it’s wrong to call an Israeli a Nazi for praising his country’s health care system but laudable to call him a Nazi for ... being Israeli (something that, whatever his political views, he can hardly help).

And nobody says anything about it. Kind of fucked up.

Not so much the case when we’re talking about providing a health care service to citizens

I was in this argument once, about whther it’s better to send your kids to private or state schools. I said something about how in Israel there are not private schools, and my interlocutor* interrupted me with “you don’t have a right to an opinion because your whole system is based on oppressing the Palestinians”.

Just sayin’.

asdf, not trying to be dense, but do please elaborate; I’m lost as to where yo’re going with that statement…

* A civil right lawyer, the first black man to make Partner in an Oxford immigration rights legal-aid practice. You know, a stupid wingnut. Not.