Israel PM Netanyahu rebukes deputy military chief over Holocaust speech

[Jingthing]

Yeah, there was never a BDS movement against China over anything including Tibet. More people are realizing the core goal of BDS directed at Israel is that Israel should never have existed, and should no longer exist.

[Morch]

Major-General Yair Golan was quoted as saying "If there's something that frightens me about Holocaust rememberance it's the recognition of the nauseating processes that occurred in Europe in general, and particularly in Germany, back then, 70, 80 and 90 years ago- and finding signs of them here among us today in 2016."

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu took exception to that and "slammed" him for suggesting that the country was showing signs of "Nazi-esque behavior."

Golan's warning - coming from a senior official - is an encouraging sign that the radical Zionists and hard-line Likudniks have some growing opposition within Israel as well as worldwide.

Golan's warning - coming from a senior official - is an encouraging sign that the radical Zionists and hard-line Likudniks have some growing opposition within Israel as well as worldwide.

Golan is a Zionist. Although, perhaps not the kind designated above as "radical". Wouldn't know what "hard-line" is referred to, exactly - when it comes to security issues, he is very much a hard-liner.

Kinda funny to talk about "growing opposition" when headlines in Israel are rife with rumors about the head of the largest opposition party mulling splitting ranks by joining the Netanyahu government. Some posters seem to hold continuous demonization strengthens opposition to Netanyahu & Co. Well, it doesn't. Not so long as it is generalized everything Israeli, and/or ignores issues on the Palestinian side.

[Jingthing]

Morch is on to a core truth here.

There can't be credible discussions about the Israel-Palestinian conflict without open acknowledgment of faults on BOTH sides.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Read General Golan's quote.

It is concise, factual, and to the point.

He compares current trends in Israel to what was taking place in Europe and Nazi Germany in the years before WWII.

No amount of propaganda or damage control can change what he said. It is an opinion that is shared by an overwhelming majority of people all over the world.

The spinmeisters have been working overtime on this one.

[Morch]

Read General Golan's quote.

It is concise, factual, and to the point.

He compares current trends in Israel to what was taking place in Europe and Nazi Germany in the years before WWII.

No amount of propaganda or damage control can change what he said. It is an opinion that is shared by an overwhelming majority of people all over the world.

The spinmeisters have been working overtime on this one.

Talk about spins while cherry picking bits of the speech.

[ilostmypassword]

Let's take another case of a Muslim people rebelling against an occupying power: the Uighurs in Xanjing, Western China. There the Chinese government is sending in huge numbers of Han Chinese to settle the area. The Han are given all sorts of preferential treatment. In effect, it's colonization. The Uighurs are treated as 3rd class citizens. The Uighurs have responded by committing horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians in other parts of China. Oddly enough, outside of China, you don't hear many people making the argument that the Uighurs and the Chinese government have an equal claim to being on the side of justice.. Most people recognize that the onus lies with the Chinese. While desperate people will engage in desperate and evil acts, ultimately it's a reaction, not an initiative.

Throughout history, this is a common pattern of how indigenous people react to colonization all over the world. What makes the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians special?

Comparisons are often of value not because cases are identical, but because they highlight both similarities and differences.

One does not see much by way of global public opinion being harnessed to support the Uighurs. At least nothing on par with the demonization campaigns related to the Palestinian struggle. Do the Chinese relate widely recognized cultural, historical or religious connections to support their claim? Were the Uighurs and the Chinese locked in a violent struggle for decades? And was there, at any point, any real danger posed to the PRC? Have the Uighurs, at any point, raised territorial counter claims with regard to the rest of China?

Ponder these points and it might answer your question.

If the post above was just the usual re-hash of "colonization" and "indigenous people" - those were discussed many a time on these topics. Allow me to fast forward to the part where Israel's right to exist is denied, and where we part ways. With reference to the OP, may wish to note that Golan actually asserts Israel's historical and moral rights. Not quite the cherry picked script presented.

I expect this kind of reply from someone else here. From you, I expect better. I have not demonized Israel or Israelis. I have never called for the abolltion of Israel or even for turning it into a non-Jewish state. For what it's worth, I've met a fair number of Israelis, and generally I like them. Even the ones that conform to the stereotypes of Israeli behavior. I have just pointed out that Israel is colonizing the West Bank. There were already people there. They were not treated fairly by the Israelis. This kind of violence is an inevitable reaction to this kind of treatment. What's more, colonization is damaging not only the the colonzied but to the colonizers. I do wonder what would have been the outcome had the Israelis treated the Palestinians decently. Traditionally, the Palestinians provided a disproportionate share of intellectuals and professionals to the Arab world. They were also very entrepenurial. Imagine what things might be like now if Israel had fostered their development instead of following the current path.

[DaddyWarbucks]

Let's take another case of a Muslim people rebelling against an occupying power: the Uighurs in Xanjing, Western China. There the Chinese government is sending in huge numbers of Han Chinese to settle the area. The Han are given all sorts of preferential treatment. In effect, it's colonization. The Uighurs are treated as 3rd class citizens. The Uighurs have responded by committing horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians in other parts of China. Oddly enough, outside of China, you don't hear many people making the argument that the Uighurs and the Chinese government have an equal claim to being on the side of justice.. Most people recognize that the onus lies with the Chinese. While desperate people will engage in desperate and evil acts, ultimately it's a reaction, not an initiative.

Throughout history, this is a common pattern of how indigenous people react to colonization all over the world. What makes the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians special?

Comparisons are often of value not because cases are identical, but because they highlight both similarities and differences.

One does not see much by way of global public opinion being harnessed to support the Uighurs. At least nothing on par with the demonization campaigns related to the Palestinian struggle. Do the Chinese relate widely recognized cultural, historical or religious connections to support their claim? Were the Uighurs and the Chinese locked in a violent struggle for decades? And was there, at any point, any real danger posed to the PRC? Have the Uighurs, at any point, raised territorial counter claims with regard to the rest of China?

Ponder these points and it might answer your question.

If the post above was just the usual re-hash of "colonization" and "indigenous people" - those were discussed many a time on these topics. Allow me to fast forward to the part where Israel's right to exist is denied, and where we part ways. With reference to the OP, may wish to note that Golan actually asserts Israel's historical and moral rights. Not quite the cherry picked script presented.

I expect this kind of reply from someone else here. From you, I expect better. I have not demonized Israel or Israelis. I have never called for the abolltion of Israel or even for turning it into a non-Jewish state. For what it's worth, I've met a fair number of Israelis, and generally I like them. Even the ones that conform to the stereotypes of Israeli behavior. I have just pointed out that Israel is colonizing the West Bank. There were already people there. They were not treated fairly by the Israelis. This kind of violence is an inevitable reaction to this kind of treatment. What's more, colonization is damaging not only the the colonzied but to the colonizers. I do wonder what would have been the outcome had the Israelis treated the Palestinians decently. Traditionally, the Palestinians provided a disproportionate share of intellectuals and professionals to the Arab world. They were also very entrepenurial. Imagine what things might be like now if Israel had fostered their development instead of following the current path.

It's not colonization, it's the Zionist dream of Eretz Israel.

​The attempted realization of that fantasy is what causes the conflict with the Palestinians.

[bobbin]

While I realize the obsessive Israel demonization agenda will take his statement out of context and use it as "Jew washing" (it's a thing, look it up) to support continued demonization of Israel. So in that sense, perhaps he shouldn't have given such ammunition to people who obviously hate Israel ... but the context really was INTERNAL.

I think this article explains that very well but you really need to read the entire article to get the context, which also explains the INTERNAL context of the general's statement:

Why are Israel’s generals being so noisy? Quite simple. In their near-unanimous professional estimation, stretching from a proven hawk like Yair Golan across the spectrum to the 200 ex-generals of Commanders for Israel’s Security, they see Israel facing an opportunity now, given the current Palestinian leadership, the weakness of the neighboring Arab states and the openness of the Saudi-led Arab League, to make deals that can secure Israel’s future. Instead they see a political leadership that’s letting the opportunities slip by for ideological reasons.

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

I see all the usual suspects have lined up to like this. The General simply states the obvious. No amount of obfuscation will talk that statement away. Why do you think Bibi was so furious? Note the very serious and solemn occasion which was chosen to deliver this statement...

[Jingthing]

While I realize the obsessive Israel demonization agenda will take his statement out of context and use it as "Jew washing" (it's a thing, look it up) to support continued demonization of Israel. So in that sense, perhaps he shouldn't have given such ammunition to people who obviously hate Israel ... but the context really was INTERNAL.

I think this article explains that very well but you really need to read the entire article to get the context, which also explains the INTERNAL context of the general's statement:

Why are Israel’s generals being so noisy? Quite simple. In their near-unanimous professional estimation, stretching from a proven hawk like Yair Golan across the spectrum to the 200 ex-generals of Commanders for Israel’s Security, they see Israel facing an opportunity now, given the current Palestinian leadership, the weakness of the neighboring Arab states and the openness of the Saudi-led Arab League, to make deals that can secure Israel’s future. Instead they see a political leadership that’s letting the opportunities slip by for ideological reasons.

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

I see all the usual suspects have lined up to like this. The General simply states the obvious. No amount of obfuscation will talk that statement away. Why do you think Bibi was so furious? Note the very serious and solemn occasion which was chosen to deliver this statement...

I see. So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well ...

[ilostmypassword]

Let's take another case of a Muslim people rebelling against an occupying power: the Uighurs in Xanjing, Western China. There the Chinese government is sending in huge numbers of Han Chinese to settle the area. The Han are given all sorts of preferential treatment. In effect, it's colonization. The Uighurs are treated as 3rd class citizens. The Uighurs have responded by committing horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians in other parts of China. Oddly enough, outside of China, you don't hear many people making the argument that the Uighurs and the Chinese government have an equal claim to being on the side of justice.. Most people recognize that the onus lies with the Chinese. While desperate people will engage in desperate and evil acts, ultimately it's a reaction, not an initiative.

Throughout history, this is a common pattern of how indigenous people react to colonization all over the world. What makes the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians special?

Comparisons are often of value not because cases are identical, but because they highlight both similarities and differences.

One does not see much by way of global public opinion being harnessed to support the Uighurs. At least nothing on par with the demonization campaigns related to the Palestinian struggle. Do the Chinese relate widely recognized cultural, historical or religious connections to support their claim? Were the Uighurs and the Chinese locked in a violent struggle for decades? And was there, at any point, any real danger posed to the PRC? Have the Uighurs, at any point, raised territorial counter claims with regard to the rest of China?

Ponder these points and it might answer your question.

If the post above was just the usual re-hash of "colonization" and "indigenous people" - those were discussed many a time on these topics. Allow me to fast forward to the part where Israel's right to exist is denied, and where we part ways. With reference to the OP, may wish to note that Golan actually asserts Israel's historical and moral rights. Not quite the cherry picked script presented.

I expect this kind of reply from someone else here. From you, I expect better. I have not demonized Israel or Israelis. I have never called for the abolltion of Israel or even for turning it into a non-Jewish state. For what it's worth, I've met a fair number of Israelis, and generally I like them. Even the ones that conform to the stereotypes of Israeli behavior. I have just pointed out that Israel is colonizing the West Bank. There were already people there. They were not treated fairly by the Israelis. This kind of violence is an inevitable reaction to this kind of treatment. What's more, colonization is damaging not only the the colonzied but to the colonizers. I do wonder what would have been the outcome had the Israelis treated the Palestinians decently. Traditionally, the Palestinians provided a disproportionate share of intellectuals and professionals to the Arab world. They were also very entrepenurial. Imagine what things might be like now if Israel had fostered their development instead of following the current path.

It's not colonization, it's the Zionist dream of Eretz Israel.

​The attempted realization of that fantasy is what causes the conflict with the Palestinians.

This is the kind of statement that gives criticism of Israel's actions a bad name. So you maintain that there is something especially wrong with a Zionist agenda, some special quality of evil that is lacking in.say, the U.S. doctrine of Manifest Destiny, or the belief in Empire by the British, or whatever current ideologies are used to support colonization? That does smack, or rather, stink, of anti-semitism.

[JingerBen]

Let's take another case of a Muslim people rebelling against an occupying power: the Uighurs in Xanjing, Western China. There the Chinese government is sending in huge numbers of Han Chinese to settle the area. The Han are given all sorts of preferential treatment. In effect, it's colonization. The Uighurs are treated as 3rd class citizens. The Uighurs have responded by committing horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians in other parts of China. Oddly enough, outside of China, you don't hear many people making the argument that the Uighurs and the Chinese government have an equal claim to being on the side of justice.. Most people recognize that the onus lies with the Chinese. While desperate people will engage in desperate and evil acts, ultimately it's a reaction, not an initiative.

Throughout history, this is a common pattern of how indigenous people react to colonization all over the world. What makes the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians special?

Comparisons are often of value not because cases are identical, but because they highlight both similarities and differences.

One does not see much by way of global public opinion being harnessed to support the Uighurs. At least nothing on par with the demonization campaigns related to the Palestinian struggle. Do the Chinese relate widely recognized cultural, historical or religious connections to support their claim? Were the Uighurs and the Chinese locked in a violent struggle for decades? And was there, at any point, any real danger posed to the PRC? Have the Uighurs, at any point, raised territorial counter claims with regard to the rest of China?

Ponder these points and it might answer your question.

If the post above was just the usual re-hash of "colonization" and "indigenous people" - those were discussed many a time on these topics. Allow me to fast forward to the part where Israel's right to exist is denied, and where we part ways. With reference to the OP, may wish to note that Golan actually asserts Israel's historical and moral rights. Not quite the cherry picked script presented.

I expect this kind of reply from someone else here. From you, I expect better. I have not demonized Israel or Israelis. I have never called for the abolltion of Israel or even for turning it into a non-Jewish state. For what it's worth, I've met a fair number of Israelis, and generally I like them. Even the ones that conform to the stereotypes of Israeli behavior. I have just pointed out that Israel is colonizing the West Bank. There were already people there. They were not treated fairly by the Israelis. This kind of violence is an inevitable reaction to this kind of treatment. What's more, colonization is damaging not only the the colonzied but to the colonizers. I do wonder what would have been the outcome had the Israelis treated the Palestinians decently. Traditionally, the Palestinians provided a disproportionate share of intellectuals and professionals to the Arab world. They were also very entrepenurial. Imagine what things might be like now if Israel had fostered their development instead of following the current path.

Slander and personal attacks are all part of the bitter and disingenuous opposition to all criticism of Israel.

General Golan is immune to that - that's why his comments have caused such a firestorm of frustrated rage.

[dexterm]

While I realize the obsessive Israel demonization agenda will take his statement out of context and use it as "Jew washing" (it's a thing, look it up) to support continued demonization of Israel. So in that sense, perhaps he shouldn't have given such ammunition to people who obviously hate Israel ... but the context really was INTERNAL.

I think this article explains that very well but you really need to read the entire article to get the context, which also explains the INTERNAL context of the general's statement:

Why are Israel’s generals being so noisy? Quite simple. In their near-unanimous professional estimation, stretching from a proven hawk like Yair Golan across the spectrum to the 200 ex-generals of Commanders for Israel’s Security, they see Israel facing an opportunity now, given the current Palestinian leadership, the weakness of the neighboring Arab states and the openness of the Saudi-led Arab League, to make deals that can secure Israel’s future. Instead they see a political leadership that’s letting the opportunities slip by for ideological reasons.

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

I see all the usual suspects have lined up to like this. The General simply states the obvious. No amount of obfuscation will talk that statement away. Why do you think Bibi was so furious? Note the very serious and solemn occasion which was chosen to deliver this statement...

I see. So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well ...

Please quote the parts of Maj Gen Golan's speech in which he expresses strong pro Zionism. That's a genuine request...I can't find his full speech verbatim anywhere...certainly not in the OP. Or are you making it up?

Edited May 13, 2016 by dexterm

[dexterm]

While I realize the obsessive Israel demonization agenda will take his statement out of context and use it as "Jew washing" (it's a thing, look it up) to support continued demonization of Israel. So in that sense, perhaps he shouldn't have given such ammunition to people who obviously hate Israel ... but the context really was INTERNAL.

I think this article explains that very well but you really need to read the entire article to get the context, which also explains the INTERNAL context of the general's statement:

Why are Israel’s generals being so noisy? Quite simple. In their near-unanimous professional estimation, stretching from a proven hawk like Yair Golan across the spectrum to the 200 ex-generals of Commanders for Israel’s Security, they see Israel facing an opportunity now, given the current Palestinian leadership, the weakness of the neighboring Arab states and the openness of the Saudi-led Arab League, to make deals that can secure Israel’s future. Instead they see a political leadership that’s letting the opportunities slip by for ideological reasons.

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

I see all the usual suspects have lined up to like this. The General simply states the obvious. No amount of obfuscation will talk that statement away. Why do you think Bibi was so furious? Note the very serious and solemn occasion which was chosen to deliver this statement...

I see. So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well ...

I did find this from Maj Gen Golan's speech. Still looking for full text.

"On Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we remember the six million of our people who were slaughtered in Europe, it is incumbent upon us to remember the 6.5 million, those living now, and to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our return to our land, what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," the officer said.

"Most of all, we should ask how it is that we are to realize our purpose as a light unto the nations and a model society," he said. "Only this kind of remembrance can serve as a living and breathing monument for our people – a worthy monument, a monument of truth."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/IDF-general-in-bombshell-speech-Israel-today-shows-signs-of-1930s-Germany-453142

That doesn't sound to me like a full blown endorsement of a Jewish majority and Jewish dominant state at all costs , which is of course what Zionism is. Sounds like the Maj Gen has misgivings.

Edited May 13, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

Let's take another case of a Muslim people rebelling against an occupying power: the Uighurs in Xanjing, Western China. There the Chinese government is sending in huge numbers of Han Chinese to settle the area. The Han are given all sorts of preferential treatment. In effect, it's colonization. The Uighurs are treated as 3rd class citizens. The Uighurs have responded by committing horrifying acts of violence against innocent civilians in other parts of China. Oddly enough, outside of China, you don't hear many people making the argument that the Uighurs and the Chinese government have an equal claim to being on the side of justice.. Most people recognize that the onus lies with the Chinese. While desperate people will engage in desperate and evil acts, ultimately it's a reaction, not an initiative.

Throughout history, this is a common pattern of how indigenous people react to colonization all over the world. What makes the case of Israelis vs. Palestinians special?

Comparisons are often of value not because cases are identical, but because they highlight both similarities and differences.

One does not see much by way of global public opinion being harnessed to support the Uighurs. At least nothing on par with the demonization campaigns related to the Palestinian struggle. Do the Chinese relate widely recognized cultural, historical or religious connections to support their claim? Were the Uighurs and the Chinese locked in a violent struggle for decades? And was there, at any point, any real danger posed to the PRC? Have the Uighurs, at any point, raised territorial counter claims with regard to the rest of China?

Ponder these points and it might answer your question.

If the post above was just the usual re-hash of "colonization" and "indigenous people" - those were discussed many a time on these topics. Allow me to fast forward to the part where Israel's right to exist is denied, and where we part ways. With reference to the OP, may wish to note that Golan actually asserts Israel's historical and moral rights. Not quite the cherry picked script presented.

I expect this kind of reply from someone else here. From you, I expect better. I have not demonized Israel or Israelis. I have never called for the abolltion of Israel or even for turning it into a non-Jewish state. For what it's worth, I've met a fair number of Israelis, and generally I like them. Even the ones that conform to the stereotypes of Israeli behavior. I have just pointed out that Israel is colonizing the West Bank. There were already people there. They were not treated fairly by the Israelis. This kind of violence is an inevitable reaction to this kind of treatment. What's more, colonization is damaging not only the the colonzied but to the colonizers. I do wonder what would have been the outcome had the Israelis treated the Palestinians decently. Traditionally, the Palestinians provided a disproportionate share of intellectuals and professionals to the Arab world. They were also very entrepenurial. Imagine what things might be like now if Israel had fostered their development instead of following the current path.

I have no idea what your expectations are based upon. Can't really recall you taking part in these topics, sorry.

The Colonialism tag is just a tool for casting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a framework that's easy to reference and morally categorize. Its main objective is to delegitimize Israel, as everyone knows Colonialism is bad. This in turn serves to support a totally one-sided interpretation of the conflict, in which there are clear distinctions between good and evil. The fairy tale rendering of the conflict is aimed at demonizing Israel.

There were three cases presented as similar. It was demonstrated that they are not. And yet, the claim remains that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simply another instance of colonialism and reactions to it. This is not an argument, but just re-hashing the original premise without support. Limit yourself to the situation at hand, without attempting to force a conceptual framework derived from political stand - and I'd be willing to engage.

Notably, you do not ask what would have happened if the Palestinians had taken a different path or made different choices back when. It is all about Israel. The Palestinians are cast as an innocent, passive and peaceful lot, wronged by Israel. Simplistic as it is inaccurate. As for the "Traditionally..." bit - how far back does this so-called entrepreneurial and intellectual tradition go? To keep it real, Palestinian were not even defining themselves as Palestinians for all that long, and in most Arab countries, they do not generally enjoy full civil rights nor good social status.

[Morch]

Slander and personal attacks are all part of the bitter and disingenuous opposition to all criticism of Israel.

General Golan is immune to that - that's why his comments have caused such a firestorm of frustrated rage.

Yeah....even that is totally one sided, same as the conflict itself. Right.

As for Golan being immune...the OP is but the tip of iceberg with regard to the "slander and personal attacks" directed at Golan by Israeli politicians and the general public. Golan was so "immune" to the backlash that he issued a clarification and partial retraction shortly afterwards.

[DeaconJohn]

Slander and personal attacks are all part of the bitter and disingenuous opposition to all criticism of Israel.

General Golan is immune to that - that's why his comments have caused such a firestorm of frustrated rage.

Yeah....even that is totally one sided, same as the conflict itself. Right.

As for Golan being immune...the OP is but the tip of iceberg with regard to the "slander and personal attacks" directed at Golan by Israeli politicians and the general public. Golan was so "immune" to the backlash that he issued a clarification and partial retraction shortly afterwards.

It would be interesting to read Golan's clarification and partial retraction.

Can you link to it?

[Jingthing]

Slander and personal attacks are all part of the bitter and disingenuous opposition to all criticism of Israel.

General Golan is immune to that - that's why his comments have caused such a firestorm of frustrated rage.

Yeah....even that is totally one sided, same as the conflict itself. Right.

As for Golan being immune...the OP is but the tip of iceberg with regard to the "slander and personal attacks" directed at Golan by Israeli politicians and the general public. Golan was so "immune" to the backlash that he issued a clarification and partial retraction shortly afterwards.

It would be interesting to read Golan's clarification and partial retraction.

Can you link to it?

Posted here already earlier:

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

On one hand, we could say that the general, deputy chief of staff Yair Golan, didn’t actually say that, or that he expressed himself poorly or wasn’t thinking clearly or was taken out of context, or that his timing was wrong.

That’s the tone taken by the army’s General Staff in a statement put out the next morning, after cabinet ministers, politicians and others accused Golan of aiding Israel’s enemies by labeling Israeli soldiers as Nazis: The general “had no intention to compare IDF and the State of Israel to processes that took place in Germany 70 years ago. The comparison is absurd and has no basis, and I had no intention to create such parallels or criticize the political leadership. The IDF is a moral army that protects the purity of arms and human dignity.”

http://forward.com/opinion/340173/was-this-top-israeli-general-right-to-denounce-jewish-extremism-on-holocaus/?attribution=home-hero-item-text-1

[Morch]

Please quote the parts of Maj Gen Golan's speech in which he expresses strong pro Zionism. That's a genuine request...I can't find his full speech verbatim anywhere...certainly not in the OP. Or are you making it up?

I did find this from Maj Gen Golan's speech. Still looking for full text.

"On Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we remember the six million of our people who were slaughtered in Europe, it is incumbent upon us to remember the 6.5 million, those living now, and to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our return to our land, what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," the officer said.

"Most of all, we should ask how it is that we are to realize our purpose as a light unto the nations and a model society," he said. "Only this kind of remembrance can serve as a living and breathing monument for our people – a worthy monument, a monument of truth."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/IDF-general-in-bombshell-speech-Israel-today-shows-signs-of-1930s-Germany-453142

That doesn't sound to me like a full blown endorsement of a Jewish majority and Jewish dominant state at all costs , which is of course what Zionism is. Sounds like the Maj Gen has misgivings.

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Morch

[Jingthing]

That's the thing. To the Israel demonization agenda, Zionism only means one thing. It's seen in the most hateful light as racist and colonialist. That agenda doesn't see the historical rationale behind the establishment of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people in Israel in the first place. It's an agenda that seeks the end of Israel, either explicitly or in thinly veiled rhetoric. That's why I find no value at all in "debate" with a POV that can't meet half way ... FULLY accepting the right of Israel to exist, to defend itself, to continue to promise the right of return of diaspora Jews, and to continue to value being the only Jewish demographic majority nation on the planet.

However, I do appreciate people that do make the effort to respond to that destructive and dangerous agenda.

General Golan, most definitely NOT on board with the Israel demonization agenda. But, as discussed, yes his words have predictably given than agenda more ammunition.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Jingthing

[dexterm]

That's the thing. To the Israel demonization agenda, Zionism only means one thing. It's seen in the most hateful light as racist and colonialist. That agenda doesn't see the historical rationale behind the establishment of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people in Israel in the first place. It's an agenda that seeks the end of Israel, either explicitly or in thinly veiled rhetoric. That's why I find no value at all in "debate" with a POV that can't meet half way ... FULLY accepting the right of Israel to exist, to defend itself, to continue to promise the right of return of diaspora Jews, and to continue to value being the only Jewish demographic majority nation on the planet.

However, I do appreciate people that do make the effort to respond to that destructive and dangerous agenda.

General Golan, most definitely NOT on board with the Israel demonization agenda. But, as discussed, yes his words have predictably given than agenda more ammunition.

The problem for Israel is that to maintain "the only Jewish majority demographic nation on the planet" it has of necessity to exclude the majority of the population who are of course Palestinians or make them in some way a minority. Simple math.

That is why Zionism whose basic tenet is a Jewish majority state and a Jews only immigration system is racist and colonialist.

[dexterm]

Please quote the parts of Maj Gen Golan's speech in which he expresses strong pro Zionism. That's a genuine request...I can't find his full speech verbatim anywhere...certainly not in the OP. Or are you making it up?

I did find this from Maj Gen Golan's speech. Still looking for full text.

"On Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we remember the six million of our people who were slaughtered in Europe, it is incumbent upon us to remember the 6.5 million, those living now, and to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our return to our land, what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," the officer said.

"Most of all, we should ask how it is that we are to realize our purpose as a light unto the nations and a model society," he said. "Only this kind of remembrance can serve as a living and breathing monument for our people – a worthy monument, a monument of truth."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/IDF-general-in-bombshell-speech-Israel-today-shows-signs-of-1930s-Germany-453142

That doesn't sound to me like a full blown endorsement of a Jewish majority and Jewish dominant state at all costs , which is of course what Zionism is. Sounds like the Maj Gen has misgivings.

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Thank you for the link to Maj Gen Golan's full speech.

I was querying JT's assertion: "So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well"

There is not a single mention of Palestinians in his speech, so he was clearly making that bit up.

I don't doubt for one minute that the Maj Gen is a Zionist and believes in a Jewish state, but from his words, comparing nauseating processes in his own land with those in Nazi Germany, and "what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," it is far from the "strong pro Zionism" at any price that perhaps you refer to as radical Zionism, that JT claims he adhered to.

[DeaconJohn]

Please quote the parts of Maj Gen Golan's speech in which he expresses strong pro Zionism. That's a genuine request...I can't find his full speech verbatim anywhere...certainly not in the OP. Or are you making it up?

I did find this from Maj Gen Golan's speech. Still looking for full text.

"On Holocaust Remembrance Day, as we remember the six million of our people who were slaughtered in Europe, it is incumbent upon us to remember the 6.5 million, those living now, and to ask ourselves what is the purpose of our return to our land, what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," the officer said.

"Most of all, we should ask how it is that we are to realize our purpose as a light unto the nations and a model society," he said. "Only this kind of remembrance can serve as a living and breathing monument for our people – a worthy monument, a monument of truth."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/IDF-general-in-bombshell-speech-Israel-today-shows-signs-of-1930s-Germany-453142

That doesn't sound to me like a full blown endorsement of a Jewish majority and Jewish dominant state at all costs , which is of course what Zionism is. Sounds like the Maj Gen has misgivings.

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Thank you for the link to Maj Gen Golan's full speech.

I was querying JT's assertion: "So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well"

There is not a single mention of Palestinians in his speech, so he was clearly making that bit up.

I don't doubt for one minute that the Maj Gen is a Zionist and believes in a Jewish state, but from his words, comparing nauseating processes in his own land with those in Nazi Germany, and "what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," it is far from the "strong pro Zionism" at any price that perhaps you refer to as radical Zionism, that JT claims he adhered to.

That Maj Gen Golan has qualified his remarks is not surprising.

The Nazis' killed and displaced far more people during their time in power than the Israelis' have since the creation of their state in 1948.

Golan was criticizing trends and nauseating processes by Israel, and not the scale and scope of the devastation.

However, there are comparisons that can be made. For instance, the destruction of Guernica by Colonel Wolfram von Richthofen's Condor Legion in 1937, when three hours of coordinated airstrikes leveled the city and killed an estimated 1500 people. That crime should be remembered along with Israel's 2014 assault on Gaza where over 2200 Palestinians, including over 500 children were killed - many taking refuge in UN shelters.

[Morch]

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Thank you for the link to Maj Gen Golan's full speech.

I was querying JT's assertion: "So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well"

There is not a single mention of Palestinians in his speech, so he was clearly making that bit up.

I don't doubt for one minute that the Maj Gen is a Zionist and believes in a Jewish state, but from his words, comparing nauseating processes in his own land with those in Nazi Germany, and "what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," it is far from the "strong pro Zionism" at any price that perhaps you refer to as radical Zionism, that JT claims he adhered to.

Guess that would depend on how "strong" is interpreted. No doubt "nitpicking" when pointed out by others, but perfectly legitimate when applied by yourself. What you call "radical" (or "strong") covers pretty much all shades within Zionist thinking. This serves no purpose but wholesale rejection of Zionism, and by extension - Israel itself.

I have no doubts (and it is pretty much evident from the speech) that Golan subscribes to much of what JT alluded to. His message of warning relates more to the danger of things getting perverted, rather than a rejection of core ideas. To further quote from Golan's words: "We strongly believe in the justness of our path - but not everything we do is just". This must be confusing for those bent on seeing the world in terms of black and white.

[Morch]

That Maj Gen Golan has qualified his remarks is not surprising.

The Nazis' killed and displaced far more people during their time in power than the Israelis' have since the creation of their state in 1948.

Golan was criticizing trends and nauseating processes by Israel, and not the scale and scope of the devastation.

However, there are comparisons that can be made. For instance, the destruction of Guernica by Colonel Wolfram von Richthofen's Condor Legion in 1937, when three hours of coordinated airstrikes leveled the city and killed an estimated 1500 people. That crime should be remembered along with Israel's 2014 assault on Gaza where over 2200 Palestinians, including over 500 children were killed - many taking refuge in UN shelters.

Less of a relevant comparison, more a failed trolling attempt.

Here's one major difference - "Prior to the Condor Legion raid, the town had not been directly involved in the fighting" as opposed to Hamas operating against Israel while embedded within the civilian population of Gaza.

And here's one major similarity - "Until the 1980s it had been generally accepted that the number of deaths had been over 1,700, but these numbers are now known to have been exaggerated.Historians now agree that the number of deaths were under 300". In much the same way all Palestinian casualties are treated as civilians.

Both quotes can be found here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica (along with links to primary sources). An earlier quote of Golan related to the above - "“I am not convinced that the fact that we gave Hamas and other organizations a number of years to fire at the residents living near the Israeli border with Gaza is a great reason for pride.” (http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.718193).

This insistence on using Golan's words for full blown negative comparisons, is similar to the rejection of any views which do not wholly reject anything to do with Israel and/or Zionism.

[dexterm]

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Thank you for the link to Maj Gen Golan's full speech.

I was querying JT's assertion: "So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well"

There is not a single mention of Palestinians in his speech, so he was clearly making that bit up.

I don't doubt for one minute that the Maj Gen is a Zionist and believes in a Jewish state, but from his words, comparing nauseating processes in his own land with those in Nazi Germany, and "what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," it is far from the "strong pro Zionism" at any price that perhaps you refer to as radical Zionism, that JT claims he adhered to.

Guess that would depend on how "strong" is interpreted. No doubt "nitpicking" when pointed out by others, but perfectly legitimate when applied by yourself. What you call "radical" (or "strong") covers pretty much all shades within Zionist thinking. This serves no purpose but wholesale rejection of Zionism, and by extension - Israel itself.

I have no doubts (and it is pretty much evident from the speech) that Golan subscribes to much of what JT alluded to. His message of warning relates more to the danger of things getting perverted, rather than a rejection of core ideas. To further quote from Golan's words: "We strongly believe in the justness of our path - but not everything we do is just". This must be confusing for those bent on seeing the world in terms of black and white.

Absolutely spot on. I wholeheartedly and wholesalely reject the racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism, and by extension the exclusively Jewish State of Israel. I have nothing against the secular state of Israel where all citizens have equal rights without regard to religion or race.

[Morch]

I don't know that there's an official full transcription in English. The following translation is not full but at least not cut down to soundbites - https://peacenow.org/entry.php?id=18048 (I assume it is based on the Hebrew version linked in Haaretz).

You may wish to read the final bit of the speech. Consider the earlier phrases of "our land", "our role as a light unto the nations and as a model-society", and the staunch assertions of the IDF's moral character. You might then reflect on Golan serving his country for many years, often at the very front of the things your regularly denounce. It takes quite an imagination to portray Golan as anything but a Zionist. It would probably be correct to assume he is not what some here call radical Zionist. It does not imply neither adhering to your formulation of Zionism nor adopting your own views. There's quite a range of possible opinion between these extremes.

Thank you for the link to Maj Gen Golan's full speech.

I was querying JT's assertion: "So I'll take it that you agree with the General's strong pro-Zionism and criticism of the Palestinian side as well"

There is not a single mention of Palestinians in his speech, so he was clearly making that bit up.

I don't doubt for one minute that the Maj Gen is a Zionist and believes in a Jewish state, but from his words, comparing nauseating processes in his own land with those in Nazi Germany, and "what is appropriate to sanctify and what is not, what is proper to praise and what is not," it is far from the "strong pro Zionism" at any price that perhaps you refer to as radical Zionism, that JT claims he adhered to.

Guess that would depend on how "strong" is interpreted. No doubt "nitpicking" when pointed out by others, but perfectly legitimate when applied by yourself. What you call "radical" (or "strong") covers pretty much all shades within Zionist thinking. This serves no purpose but wholesale rejection of Zionism, and by extension - Israel itself.

I have no doubts (and it is pretty much evident from the speech) that Golan subscribes to much of what JT alluded to. His message of warning relates more to the danger of things getting perverted, rather than a rejection of core ideas. To further quote from Golan's words: "We strongly believe in the justness of our path - but not everything we do is just". This must be confusing for those bent on seeing the world in terms of black and white.

Absolutely spot on. I wholeheartedly and wholesalely reject the racist/religionist supremacist ideology of Zionism, and by extension the exclusively Jewish State of Israel. I have nothing against the secular state of Israel where all citizens have equal rights without regard to religion or race.

Your views. Golan's views. Not the same.

It's the Biden's speech topic all over again.

[Jingthing]

Yeah ... it's an endless loop. As if Israel is supposed to set it's policies to please the POV of an agenda dedicated to it's nonexistence. Good luck with that.

[dexterm]

Yeah ... it's an endless loop. As if Israel is supposed to set it's policies to please the POV of an agenda dedicated to it's nonexistence. Good luck with that.

Not non existent. Simply non existent as a racist supremacist Jewish State. It will become just like every other modern European democracy. Just as S Africa, N Ireland and the southern segregated states had to change. It's called progress.

Edited May 14, 2016 by dexterm

[JingerBen]

Yeah ... it's an endless loop. As if Israel is supposed to set it's policies to please the POV of an agenda dedicated to it's nonexistence. Good luck with that.

Not non existent. Simply non existent as a racist supremacist Jewish State. It will become just like every other modern European democracy. Just as S Africa, N Ireland and the southern segregated states had to change. It's called progress.

Amen to that, bro.

It will be a comprehensive economic, academic, and cultural boycott of Israel that will achieve that goal... just as it did in apartheid South Africa.

The alternative is an endless cycle of mindless violence.