Badtux the Snarky Penguin

In a time of chimpanzees, I was a penguin.

Religious fundamentalists are motivated by the sneaking suspicion that someone, somewhere, is having fun -- and that this must be stopped.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Israel as a concentration camp for Jews

I was doing some reading of the works of the New Historians, Jewish scholars in Israel who are using Israeli government documents to document the reality as vs. the common myths about the founding of the state of Israel and the beginning of the "Palestinian Problem", and came across an interesting concept by a Jewish professor currently living in Boston: The notion that Israel exists, in essence, as a concentration camp for Jews.

This Jewish professor notes that Israel serves no strategic purpose for the United states. We don't base troops or aircraft there. The IDF has never gone to war alongside the U.S. Army. Why, then, the consistent bipartisan support for Israel? To quote this Jewish professor: What then has Israel done for the U.S.? The only concrete benefit that the State of Israel has provided to the United States is the absorption of millions of Jewish refugees from Europe, Arab countries, the former Soviet Union, and miscellaneous states such as Ethiopia. Most of these Jews would have preferred to live in the United States and in fact applied for admission to the U.S. We were able to turn down their applications for immigration in good conscience. As long as the State of Israel exists, which grants automatic citizenship to any Jew who shows up, we can turn Jews away from our borders without risk of an embarrassing mass killing.

He points out that the Holocaust happened in part because when Eichmann made a tour of European and American capitals in 1937 looking for a country to which he could expel Germany's Jews, not a single one of them would take Germany's Jews. The Nazis killed the Jews because nobody else wanted them -- not the Arabs, not the British, not the Americans. Quote: Nazi Germany's "Final Solution" was a solution to the problem of "there are no countries that are willing to accept Europe's Jews", not to the problem of "we really enjoy killing Jews and how can we kill as many as possible?". As hundreds of thousands of German Jews pleaded for visas at the U.S. Embassies in Europe as they tried to escape the fate of those sent to the concentration camps to die, America's reaction was... [crickets].

After the war, hundreds of thousands of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust were interned in "Displaced Person Camps" in Europe little different from the concentration camps the Germans had placed them in. Indeed, in some cases they were the exact same concentration camps from which the Jews had been "liberated" in the first place. Once again, no nation wanted them. Not Britain, not France, not Poland or any of the other nations of Europe, and definitely not America, which did not want any unseemly "kikes" to clutter up their national conscience.

In desperation, the Jewish people turned to the Irgun and other Jewish groups attempting to establish a Jewish state in ancient Israel. Zionism previously had been a little-supported movement amongst the Jewish people, but events had apparently made it the only way out. This was met with a harsh reaction by the British, who boarded hundreds of cargo vessels full of Jewish refugees that were bound for Palestine, turned them around, and interned the Jews attempting to get to Palestine in new concentration camps on Cyprus.

As knowledge of the Holocaust became more known, keeping Jews in concentration camps became less and less palatable to the American people (it was fine with the Europeans though). But accepting those "filthy kikes" into America was even less palatable to the American people. What to do? Well, President Truman had a solution: A new concentration camp for the Jews. A bigger one. One that didn't look much like a concentration camp. Throw all the Jews over there into that new concentration camp, toss a bunch of WWII weapons over the fence, and tell'em that this land was theirs, all they had to do to keep and hold it was toss off the previous inhabitants (who had been living there for over 1500 years, but hey, what's a few hundred years amongst friends?). Lacking any better alternative, that's exactly what they did.

What is the future for Israel? This professor doesn't hold out much hope. The Arab war on Israel is now in its 53rd year and the fact that the Israelis have hung on for so long is primarily a testament to spectacular Arab incompetence. Relying on an opponent's military incompetence is not a viable long-term strategy. He points out that in 1948, the Arab armies were made up of illiterate tribesmen who barely knew how to shoot their weapons and certainly had no understanding of modern tactics and technology, but that Arab armies in every war since have shown better and better capabilities. He points out, for example, that Egypt's army in 1973 succeeded in destroying hundreds of Israeli tanks and aircraft and was defeated only by the brave actions of Israeli commando teams swimming the Suez Canal and sneaking behind Egyptian lines to launch a surprise attack against Egypt's SAM batteries, which had previously been keeping Israel's air force from joining the fray. Once the IAF had air superiority, that was the end of the Egyptian invasion... but one alert Egyptian watchguard could have squashed the whole plan. In other words, Israel won in 1973 due to good luck, which, he implies, is not a long-term strategy for survival. And he points out that Egypt today is even more modern and powerful than it was in 1973.

So why haven't the Arabs launched a new attack since 1973, he asks? Well, that one is simple. At Tel Nof there is a fighter squadron. This squadron is called "The Black Squadron" and consists of F-15 fighter jets modified to carry nuclear bombs. Until they have nuclear weapons of their own, he states, the Arab states will not start any war against Israel. Which is why Iran's weapons program is driving Israel and its supporters to distraction...

So why does the United States continue to support Israel? Simple. Just look at the published plans of Hamas etc.: seems worth considering what would transpire if the Muslims were to win. The published post-victory plans of the Arabs call for deporting all the Jews who weren't in Israel prior to 1947 back to where they came from. Now, somehow I doubt the 500,000 descendents of German and Polish Jews are going to flock back to Berlin, even if the Germans or Poles would let them back in (hint: they won't). Similarly, the 800,000 descendents of Arab Jews who fled to Israel in 1948 are not going to go back to Arab countries which are now on record as hating Jews, and the 1,200,000 Israeli immigrants from Russia... do you think they want to go back to Russia? Do you think the Russians would let them back in? HAH! Reality is that if we (the United States) would not accept these Jews, then the Arabs would implement a "final solution" upon them. And the American people would like that even less than they'd like accepting all these "dirty kikes" into America.

In short: American support of Israel is a BRIBE, to keep all those unwashed dirty filthy Jews off of our shores, according to this Jewish scholar. The hilarious thing about U.S. support for Israel, he states, is that it is motivated at its most base by anti-Semiticism. Certainly it is true that the Jewish lobby is quite effective in the United States. But there are only 5.2 million Jews in the United States. This is hardly a large enough constituency to explain the bipartisan support that Israel has in Congress.

But if you consider the notion that these 5.2 million Jews are aligning with 150 million Jew-haters who want Israel and its 5 million Jews to remain where they are because otherwise Fort Lauderdale becomes New Israel... well, then it becomes clearer.

Now you may have an inkling of why the United States consistently supports dictators in the Middle East, and is quick to support the destruction of the few democracies in the Middle East (Lebanon and Iran being the only two such examples at the moment). Dictators are prone to pilfering the wealth of their nation and hauling it off to numbered bank accounts elsewhere. Dictators don't spend a lot on educating their populance or building infrastructure inside their country. A democracy, on the other hand, tends to spend considerable money on the infrastructure of civilization -- schools, roads, factories, etc. Which would result in a growth in the power and wealth of the Arab states as they modernized.

In short, Arab nations must be kept backwards under repressive dictatorships so that Americans aren't forced to confront their own anti-semitism.

Hopefully this should enlighten you as to why the government of the United States has absolutely no problem with the State of Israel making 1,000,000 Lebanese homeless, destabilizing the Lebanese government, and killing thousands of Lebanese civilians. It has nothing to do with Washington D.C. being "Israeli Occupied Territory", no more than in 1973 when Richard Nixon was caught on tape referring to the Israelis as "kikes". It's all about anti-semiticism, in the end -- a prosperous Lebanon serving as model for the Middle East threatens to produce a prosperous and democratic Middle East with the economic and military ability to fulfill their plan of ejecting the Jews, thereby creating an immigration crisis where the United States has to accept 5,000,000 "filthy kikes" that would buy up all the best land in Fort Lauderdale. Ironic, hmm? Sure makes a lot more sense than calling Washington D.C. "Israeli occupied territory", anyhow...

- Badtux the Investigating Penguin

Posted by: BadTux / 8/11/2006 01:25:00 PM  


# posted by BBC : 11/8/06 3:45 PM  

Seems a bit of a stretch to me. It certainly doesn't explain why many of the neo-cons who are Jewish are among the staunchest supporters of the current actions in the ME. Are they the "snobby" Jews who want to keep the "filthy" Jews out? Are they Jewish anti-Semites?

In this day and age, I suppose anything is possible. Nonetheless, I do find it interesting that the Republican Party and its neo-con leadership seems to - on the surface, anyway - embrace Israel and its Jews. When I was a kid, the white, monied, Republican enclaves around the U.S. wouldn't be caught dead letting a Jew in. Even in current blue states such as Minnesota.

Interesting times we live in. Good luck trying to figure it all out!
# posted by DrewL : 12/8/06 11:49 AM  

This is a fascinating theory. Because I'm basically a lazy swine I thought I'd ask you if you looked into this at all. Does it have any academeic support at all within the community, or is this guy all by himself with this postulation?
# posted by Lurch : 12/8/06 6:53 PM  

Interesting theory.
Seems to fit.
# posted by Progressive Traditionalist : 12/8/06 9:19 PM  

Very interesting theory indeed. Not sure if I buy it or not, but as an alternative theory it's quite intriguing. DOn't go showing that around though, you'll probably get "Freeped".
# posted by Bulldog : 13/8/06 12:06 AM  

The general facts mentioned above are correct. Nobody wanted the European Jews either before or after WWII, and after WWII they were often held in "displaced person camps" that were the exact same concentration camps that the Nazis had held them in, until the founding of the state of Israel gave them a place to go.

The notion of Israel as a giant concentration camp for unwanted Jews thus may be somewhat overdramatic, but appears essentially correct. Which is why the author of the paper I was quoting emigrated to the United States. In his words, "we all know what happens to Jews in concentration camps in the end."

The idea that this anti-semitism explains the knee-jerk support for Israel on the part of the U.S. government, despite the fact that Jews represent less than 3% of the U.S. electorate and Israel has no strategic value to the United States... well, that one is a stretch. I'm not sure I buy it myself. But it certainly is a provocative theory.

# posted by BadTux : 13/8/06 1:12 AM  

I'm impressed with the theory and I don't doubt that there is a lot of truth in it, re the State of Israel. I'm not well up on history, but I believe Lebanon used to be in French hands, that couldn't be another reason for the 'stance' taken by the USA?
# posted by Minou : 16/8/06 3:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 My Photo
Name: BadTux
Location: Some iceberg, South Pacific, Antarctica

I am a black and white and yellow multicolored penguin making his way as best he can in a world of monochromic monkeys.

April 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 /

Bill Richardson: Because what America needs is a competent fat man with bad hair as President (haven't we had enough incompetent pretty faces?)

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
Terror Alert Level
Honor Roll
Technorati embed?
Liberated Iraqis

"Keep fighting for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce." -- Molly Ivins, 1944-2007 "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."

-- Plato

Are you a spammer? Then send mail to my spamtrack mailbox to get permenantly banned! Remember, that's (hehehhe!).

More blogs about bad tux the snarky penguin.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?