Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid stepped over the line today and fury ensued. His offense? He voiced sympathy for “an old woman on all fours looking for her medicine in the rubble of her home” and noted that it made him think about his grandmother during the Holocaust.
The problem with this act of empathy stems from the fact that the old woman is Palestinian and her house was reduced to rubble by Israeli tanks. But there’s no gray area here for his critics
Many Israelis have relatives who perished in the Nazi genocide, and using the issue in political debate, however heated, is considered taboo. Any comparisons between the Holocaust and other acts are seen as cheapening the memory of the 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis.
“Can he make such an analogy just because he is a Holocaust survivor?” Health Minister Danny Naveh told Army Radio. “The comparison, maybe hinted or even unintentional, between the systematic murder of the Jews by the Germans and the army’s operations in Gaza … is not a legitimate analogy.”
Personally, I feel that having lived through the Holocaust and lost his father, grandmother and other relatives, Lapid should have earned some entitlement to this comparison, but in the all-consuming propaganda war that is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, there’s apparently no tolerance for sympathy.
In the radio interview, Lapid also revealed that the army is considering demolishing some 2,000 homes in Rafah to expand a patrol road between the camp and the border with Egypt. Military officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed for the first time that they are exploring plans involving the demolition of 700 to 2,000 homes.
“We look like monsters in the eyes of the world,” Lapid told Israel Radio. “This makes me sick.”
Note to Sharon & Co: In the battle for hearts and minds, it’s important not to lose your own. Don’t beat the humanity out of your people in order to protect them.
Israel has said it is destroying these Rafa houses to eliminate underground tunnels that link the Gaza strip to Egypt’s border.
I haven’t seen any reporting (except your post above: “to expand a patrol road between the camp and the border with Egypt”) that suggests a more substantial motive.
It looks to me if Israel is going to assert that they are sovereign on a strip between the Gaza camps and the Egyptian border – a further enlargment of their claims to Palestinian land.
Gaza has never been part of historic Israel back to biblical times.
This really is aggression, and should be called what it is.
Couple points, with zero analysis:
1) No tunnels have yet been found
2) Lapid and Shinui, generally speaking, exist to denounce the far right
3) It appears that there were Paestinian miltants sing the crowd as human shields.
Once America overplayed the ‘Terrorism’ card to attack Iraq, all Israel had to do was play the same card to justify their actions.
As Americans lose their taste for the “Monster House” style rehab proposal for the Mid East they will probably also their support for the Likkud party’s plans.
Uh oh. What happens then?
Didn’t Seymour Hersh write a book about Israel’s ‘final solution’?
The part of this I wish to mention is the one I’m tired of having to repeat. Just because you criticize Israel does not mean diddly squat about anti-Semetism. 30-35% of Israeli’s disapprove of Sharon’s policies and are Israeli Jews but when I agree with them I am anti-Semetic, and nothing could be further from the truth. It’s the same thing here in the US, if you disagree with the War (in Iraq, not Afghanistan)and Bushco, you are painted Anti-American and not supportive of the soldiers which is balderdash. Enough! And may I add yet again, when are we going to focus on Al Qaeda and Afghanistan and defeat the forces that bombed my neighborhood? Where are my countrymen in calling for the head of Bin Laden instead of supporting an complete waste of time hunting down a despot that didn’t threaten me when the man who did and his co-horts go free?
Well, obviously, it is not an apt comparison to the Holocaust.
As everyone very well knows, the Holocaust was brought about by a regime that considered its enemies to be foul and beneath contempt. Enemies not to be treated in its own hospitals. It was brought about by a regime that yearned for total domination of its regional landmass. Not by one which wishes to be left alone. The Holocaust was facilitated by the military successes of a great country that was humiliated by its neighbours in a recent war. Again, not by a nation that has enjoyed recent victories over her, assuredly, belligerent neighbours.
And, the Holocausr most definitely involved the cowardly murder of millions of individuals, not the mostly incidental killings or mere de-housings of thousands.
So… no. The current and recent Israeli actions have absolutely no comparison to the Holocaust.
Unless, of course, this man is a conservative and choosed to emphasize the mindless cruelty that is part of human nature. Somehow, I doubt that this is what occurred.
Perhaps, Edward, you will recall my dislike of hyperbole. Before it was against statements that, to me, risked devaluation of the murder of homosexuals. Now, it is against those who would unintentionally devalue the murder of Jews, and the attempt to erase them as a group. Both attempts, mind you, simply because of the existence of the victimized parties.
So, in short, I think that this fellow is likely misguided. He sees tragedy around him and simply wants a way out. Unfortunately, I think that his way out would lead to more death.
Or, perhaps, the abovementioned event simply made him think of the Holocaust. It did not cause him to equalize it to present events. Perhaps, this is all a misunderstanding.
Before it was against statements that, to me, risked devaluation of the murder of homosexuals.
That reminds me, Nathan – I don’t think you ever did explain exactly what it was about the new Virginia law against same-sex couples that you thought was good. (You claimed it was hyperbole to say it was “pure evil”, so presumably you found some goodness in some part of it, though as far as I remember, you never explained where.)
Or, perhaps, the abovementioned event simply made him think of the Holocaust. It did not cause him to equalize it to present events. Perhaps, this is all a misunderstanding.
Since Yosef Lapid is remembers the Holocaust as part of his personal experience, I would guess that he simply meant what he said he meant: “I’m not referring to the Germans. I’m not referring to the Holocaust,” Lapid said. “When you see the harm done and you see a helpless old woman, you think of your grandmother.” (cite from Ha’aretz, via Body and Soul.)
For the vast majority of people in the world today, and indeed in Israel, the Holocaust is an icon of evil, it’s Godwin’s Law, it’s films, it’s history books, it’s pictures – and reference to it is often pure hyperbole. It’s worth remembering that there are still people living in the world for whom it was a thing they lived through: it’s their own personal history, to which they have a right to refer, and not be silenced because they are not using their personal history in a way which is considered to be politically correct.
I do not know that there is a good part of that legislation, although I do not have the inclination to study it. I simply do not agree that something must have identifiable good elements to avoid being pure evil.
I suppose that it might halt the advance of gay marriage, although it could just as likely have the opposite effect.
Additionally, I had argued from a position that labelling it as pure evil left one with little rhetorical ammunition against worse offenses to homosexuals.
I simply do not agree that something must have identifiable good elements to avoid being pure evil.
Well, in that case, you’re using “pure” with some other definition than that of the dictionary. The primary meaning of “pure” is: “unmixed with any other matter”. I cannot find any definition which matches your apparent use of the word – if you’d care to outline it, feel free. If you are claiming that the Virginia bill is not “pure evil”, you must find some identifiable good that moderates its evil. I couldn’t find any: it is intentionally a means of depriving gay people of their civil rights, and has no other purpose.
(For those who missed the original post, here’s an outline of the law we’re arguing about, and the text of the bill itself, and the stated justification for it.
I had argued from a position that labelling it as pure evil left one with little rhetorical ammunition against worse offenses to homosexuals.
Yet the effect of your argument was that you appeared to be claiming that gay people had no right to complain about being legally discriminated against so long as they weren’t actually being murdered – just as you appear to be arguing here that no one should feel human compassion for the Palestinian victims of the Israel occupation because they are not suffering as badly as the Jews did under Hitler.
If this is truly not your intention, perhaps you would consider modifying your rhetoric.