You and Sue Blackwell can do whatever you want. No one’s stopping you.

what’s the problem with comparing Israel (or anything else for that matter) to to Nazi Germany? This is just silly.

When you’re right, you’re right. (/Sarcasm/) After all, Hitler was a vegetarian!

You’ll never understand – no big deal. I know you’ve seen it explained a hundred times before, and you clearly don’t buy the reasoning – so no real point in me trying again.

Anyway – off too a Memorial Day bbq. See you around. Keep up the hard work.

If Albert Einstein could compare the philosophy of what later became known as ‘Likud’ with Nazism in 1948, why should it be taboo for Sue Blackwell or anyone else in 2005?

To begin with, few of the Nazi comparisons I’ve noticed lately (and certainly not this one) are specifically directed at Likud.

Second, the Herut of 1948 and the Likud of today are two different parties. Describing Herut as “what later became known as ‘Likud’” is a bit like calling the Republicans “the party of Lincoln.” Herut was one of the parties that joined together to form the Likud, but the modern party’s electoral success was built on Mizrahi social grievances rather than Revisionist principles. Today, the old-guard Herutniks are a relatively minor presence within the Likud, with most of the leadership being made up of Mizrahim, Druze and “princes” (sons of former party leaders). Some of the “princes,” like Olmert, have moved toward the center; the Mizrahim and Druze tend to be right-wing but not Revisionist. Not to mention that the party’s platforms and practical policies are different from those of the classic Herut (which, if I recall correctly, wanted to expel all Arab citizens and annex the entire Transjordan).

Describing the Likud of 2005 as a Revisionist party is no more accurate than describing Avoda as a Labor Zionist party. The last real Labor Zionist party was Am Ehad, which has merged with Avoda but seems likely to fail in its bid to take over the party from within. Likewise, the hard-core Revisionist faction of the Likud – Moshe Feiglin’s Manhigut Yehudit (“Jewish Leadership”) movement – has had very little success in winning seats in the Knesset or in party institutions. If you want to find “real” Revisionist parties in Israel, the place to look is the National Union or Michael Kleiner’s modern Herut. Those parties, which I would not hesitate to describe as fascist, are the analogues to the Herut of 1948; the modern Likud isn’t.

Third, the analogy between Revisionism and Nazism exists mainly in a philosophical sense, in that both were outgrowths of Volkist thought in the late 19th-century German-speaking world. (The roots of Zionism as such are as much in Habsburg liberal nationalism as in Volkism, but I’d certainly agree that Revisionism is Volkist.) One could argue in the same sense, however, that Maoism and social democracy are both outgrowths of Marxist thought, and I think it’s fairly obvious that the excesses of the one have little bearing on the merits of the other.

And besides, the term “Nazi” today is rarely used in a philosophical sense; instead, it is used to describe a certain type of official policy. If “Nazi” were shorthand for Volkist nationalism, it would be applied to a great many countries that are governed by such ideology. In practice, however, it has been applied to genocidal regimes, some of which were not ethnonationalist and therefore not remotely “Nazi” in philosophical terms. Given that “Nazi” has acquired these connotations, use of the term in connection with Israel will be taken as an accusation of genocide whether or not it was meant as such. Moreover, given that “Nazi” has also become a shorthand (whether rightly or wrongly) for the ultimate in human evil, I wouldn’t make Nazi analogies lightly with respect to any country.

Noah:

Clearly you see MORE merit in the Israeli side of things or you wouldn’t spend so much time and effort defending Isreal on various blogs.

Sure. I’m a self-declared Zionist (declared on CT among other places), I have a self-declared ideological and emotional identification with Israel, and I don’t like seeing it unfairly maligned. (I suppose arguing that Israel isn’t Nazi Germany is “defending” it in a sense.)

At the same time, I oppose many policies of the Israeli state, including the occupation, and I have sympathy for Palestinian nationhood. None of these things make me “neutral” either in the sense of indifference or ideological balance, and when I say so, I’m saying what I mean rather than “writing neutrally” or trying to present a front of “neutrality.” Not to mention that my comments in this thread re the Palestinians were a specific response to Abb1’s comment on empathy rather than a gratuitous remark.

BTW, you’ll find that on some forums, including comment threads on my own site, I’ve spent a fair amount of energy opposing certain Israeli policies and their defenders. That doesn’t make me “neutral” either – just somewhere on the pro-Israeli side of a very wide middle.

Because they were referring to a right wing splinter group at the time that was excoriated and disacowed by the democratic government of Israel and the Zionist establishment both within Israel and without. Indeed if you recall Ben Gurion ordered Rabin to fire on and sink the Altalena to ensure the extremists did not succeed. It took another 25 years in the wilderness before they did a Sinn Fein and then ironically Begin conceded far more to the Arab world than any Left Wing Mapai walla ever did!!

what’s the problem with comparing Israel (or anything else for that matter) to to Nazi Germany? This is just silly. Read this, for example: Revisionist Zionism, from Wikipedia:

Comparing Revisionist Zionism to “Nazi and fascist parties”, the letter, signed by individuals including Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt and Sidney Hook began:

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “Freedom Party” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organization in Palestine.

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections… (source: NY Times, December 4, 1948).

If Albert Einstein could compare the philosophy of what later became known as ‘Likud’ with Nazism in 1948, why should it be taboo for Sue Blackwell or anyone else in 2005?

Tell your doctor to lower your Hatium dosage from 100mg to just 50mg a day. The foaming at the mouth will still be nice and visible.

Well this is exactly what I mean. Clearly you see MORE merit in the Israeli side of things or you wouldn’t spend so much time and effort defending Isreal on various blogs. Still you write neutrally, “Seeing some merit in both causes isn’t the same thing.”

Jonathon, respectfully, please don’t present yourself as being neutral, re. the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You are an advocate for Israel.

Agreed. But again, “cutting some slack” doesn’t mean unconditional support for the goals and tactics of the first group, or unconditional rejection for those of the second. It’s possible to sympathize with the Palestinians and oppose the boycott, or to sympathize with Israel and condemn the occupation. I do both.

I know, there are many good sophisms in circulation to blur this distinction, but for less sophisticated souls (like this Sue Blackwell person) they just don’t do much, I am afraid. Well, I take it back: they do do something: they annoy and inflame.

As opposed to calling Israel an “illegitimate state,” comparing it to Nazi Germany and complaining about the Jewish lobby, which I suppose are merely intended to educate and inform.