The crimes of Nazi Germany were appalling beyond our worst nightmares. The suffering of the Jewish people goes on today. The contemporary crimes of the Israeli State are appalling and should be condemned but they are not the product of Nazism. They are the typical product of liberal democracies throughout history as they rationalise the defence of their supposed liberties against the demands of those whose lands they have stolen, dehumanise them and, over time, massively escalate their punishment of them if they fight back.
We’ve seen it in the ethnic cleansing of the Gaels and the Irish but, far worse, the near-genocidal clearance of the First Nation Americans and Australians. Those so-Christian Victorians, seeing the starving Indians as somehow lazy or feckless, used their marvellous railways to take the rice away from them and sell it for higher prices in areas where the locals could afford to pay. Going back in time, those proto-democrats, the Athenians with their fora and the Vikings with their tings (assemblies) built their wealth on people trafficking.
In more recent times, the liberal democracies have shown what they will do to Nazis in the firebombing of their cities and the massacre of hundreds of thousands of civilians. On an even greater scale, that ‘defender of the free world’, the USA, was prepared to murder millions, coldly from the air, its conscience eased by the victims becoming portrayed as Asiatic, fanatical and somehow less human.
Israel is a brutal state. It’s probably an apartheid state too but it’s not a fascist or Nazi state because it’s quite clearly democratic. In many ways that makes its abuses, like those of all the other democracies especially ‘ours’, harder to bear.
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
John
While I agree with the import of your article, your headline jarred with me.
For myself – and for the vast majority of the population – the word “nazi” conjures up Hitler and the atrocity of the persecution and attempted extermination of Jews, slaughtered in vast numbers accused of being a threat to the ‘purity’ of the Arian race and an economic threat to the state. In common parlance, the term “nazi” evokes overarching superiority and ruthlessness and blind adherence to dogma/dictatorial pronouncement. These are necessarily broad brushstrokes and most people are oblivious to the nuances of “National Socialism” – or even the fact that that is where the term takes its origin.
Many people, myself included, believe that the state of Israel, in the manner in which it has treated Palestinians, has many parallels with the way in which Jews were treated in Nazi Germany. The racist ‘othering’ of Palestinians, making them second class citizens within Israel, the ‘kettling’ and walling in of Palestinians in ghettoes like Gaza, the many deliberate killings and indiscriminate shelling of populated areas resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, the confiscation of land and property and the destruction of livelihoods, economic blockades and enforced impoverishment – all are an assault on the Palestinians by what is essentially an apartheid state.
In the outrage that rises when fresh atrocities occur in Israel, it is not unreasonable to point to such parallels, particularly when the origins of the state of Israel stem so clearly from the atrocities committed against the Jewish people themselves. Israel is doing to the Palestinians many of the things inflicted on Jewish people in Nazi Germany and it is reasonable to question the morality of such behaviour in the context of universal condemnation of the previous treatment historically meted out to the Jewish people.
A shorthand for this outrage is comparing the State of Israel to the “Nazi” state. Perhaps it is crude and simplistic. You don’t have to be technically masturbating to warrant the term “wanker” but the overall import is generally pretty clear. Sometimes strong (and perhaps offensive) terms are very useful in making a point.
I fail to see how using the term is “stupid and insensitive”. Stupid,perhaps, only in an environment where antisemitism has been weaponised and politicised and faux outrage is bound to follow. To whom is it insensitive? The Jewish people? There are many Jewish people utterly appalled at what is going on in Israel, some of whom have drawn the parallels themselves. Offensive to those who support the policies of the State of Israel? Good. Israel needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms and if this sort of accusation makes clear to people just what double standards are being applied, then that the is all grist to the mill. Israel and its supporters have been very efficient at closing down criticism and the addition of a number of “examples” to the IHRA definition (against the advice of its author) is indicative of the degree of their success.
Further, it seems to me that the notion of the “abused child becoming an adult abuser” has some relevance. A population with a history of persecution in its psyche may well adopt a conscious strategy that “it is not going to happen to us again” but when that defensive position is taken to the extent of overt aggression and deliberate oppression of others, then it is simply a repetition of an unfortunate history with a different cast.
I do not consider myself to be antisemitic. Neither do I consider those recently accused of this for similar reasons to be so. If such remarks make supporters of the policies of the state of Israel uncomfortable, then I make no apology whatsoever.
LikeLike
Thanks for your thought on this. I agree with what you say on the behaviour of the state of Israel. It seemed an insensitive thing to say because it would hurt the feelings of those Jewish people in Israel and perhaps here who also deplore that behaviour. It seemed stupid because the person who said it must have realised it would lead to their suspension in these times. It seemed unnecessary because, as I argue, it would be sufficient, clearer, to describe Israel’s behaviour in more informative language such as apartheid or racist or ethnic cleansing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John
Thank you for your response.
The issue I have is the SNP’s wholesale and uncritical adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism, together with all the “instances” which have been added to the core text – and which have been criticised by the very author of the said core text. Some of these “instances” are highly political in nature and are designed to prevent what many regard as justified criticism of the state of Israel’s expansionist and ethnic cleansing policies. One of these problematic “instances” is the comparison of the State of Israel to the Nazi state.
I do not believe that this was introduced to protect the feelings of Jewish people here or in Israel whether they are critical of its policies or not. I think that the charges were becoming too numerous and too near the bone and the introduction of this instance was purely to deflect criticism that was becoming too uncomfortable.
It may well hurt some people’s feelings – but again, the charge has also come from Jewish groups and people. Hurt feelings are not sufficient cause to stifle debate and opinion. As I said above, it is a powerful charge, stark and resonant – and obviously effective on the world stage of opinion – given the trouble taken by Israel and its friends to prevent it. There may be hurt feelings – the truth sometimes does hurt.
Of course you are right to suggest that in an ideal world there are other less controversial ways of making the point. However, the fact that it is controversial is in part its strength. But the adoption of the IHRA in its entirety has led to internal attempts to dredge up instances of strong anti- Israel feeling in order to bring spurious charges of antisemitism against people who are quite obviously not guilty of hating the Jewish people. And the instances in general precede the SNP adoption of the IHRA definition.
Thank you for all your continuing good work in underlining the many positive achievements of the Scottish Government. It is much needed.
LikeLike