Ghandi, Tutu, MLK, and Israel
September 25, 2009 3:00 PM Subscribe
"The lesson that Israel must learn from the Holocaust is that it can never get security through fences, walls and guns"
"The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. ... [Hitler] is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. ... If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.
"Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. ... If I were a Jew and were born in Germany ... I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon. ... And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy. ... The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant." -- Gandhi, following Kristallnacht
"The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. ... [Hitler] is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. ... If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province.
"Can the Jews resist this organized and shameless persecution? Is there a way to preserve their self-respect, and not to feel helpless, neglected and forlorn? I submit there is. ... If I were a Jew and were born in Germany ... I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest gentile German may, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon. ... And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy. ... The calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant." -- Gandhi, following Kristallnacht
This post was deleted for the following reason: as these things go, this is not a great way to do this. -- jessamyn
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you Godwin.
posted by gwint at 3:10 PM on September 25, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by gwint at 3:10 PM on September 25, 2009 [4 favorites]
Israel-Palestinedispute.
I like this typo in the article. It's like a word-mashup from Orwell's 1984. Newspeak, Doubleplusungood. Like all one sound, IsraelPalestinedispute, an acknowledgement of all it ever has been and all it ever will be.
posted by telstar at 3:12 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
I like this typo in the article. It's like a word-mashup from Orwell's 1984. Newspeak, Doubleplusungood. Like all one sound, IsraelPalestinedispute, an acknowledgement of all it ever has been and all it ever will be.
posted by telstar at 3:12 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
We don't do I/P threads very often, and this is a particularly weak one. There's no new information, it's just a rant against Ghandi based on stuff he said decades ago, apparently on the occasion of someone else mentioning the holocaust in a completely tangential way while discussing the wall separating Israel from the west bank?
(Desmond Tutu wasn't comparing what the Israelis were doing to the Nazis, he just said the holocaust should teach the lesson that walls won't do any good, although I'm not sure what the two have to do with eachother)
posted by delmoi at 3:18 PM on September 25, 2009
(Desmond Tutu wasn't comparing what the Israelis were doing to the Nazis, he just said the holocaust should teach the lesson that walls won't do any good, although I'm not sure what the two have to do with eachother)
posted by delmoi at 3:18 PM on September 25, 2009
I'm not sure what the point of bringing up Ghandi's opposition to the war against Germany is - his argument against the founding of Israel is valid with or without that point. But I suppose we're on the internet, so ad hominems are go.
And even beyond that, his stance on the war against Germany isn't cruel or anti-semitic in the least. It's the purest expression of pacifism. People may find that to be distasteful, but if you think aggression is always wrong, well, you're going to have to end at positions like these.
Anyways, as delmoi points out, this is a pretty weak essay which is written as if people already agree that Israel is a beautiful flower.
posted by TypographicalError at 3:20 PM on September 25, 2009
And even beyond that, his stance on the war against Germany isn't cruel or anti-semitic in the least. It's the purest expression of pacifism. People may find that to be distasteful, but if you think aggression is always wrong, well, you're going to have to end at positions like these.
Anyways, as delmoi points out, this is a pretty weak essay which is written as if people already agree that Israel is a beautiful flower.
posted by TypographicalError at 3:20 PM on September 25, 2009
Let's not go here.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:21 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 3:21 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's no new information, it's just a rant
I'm not sure. I think there's a greater than insignificant chance that Israel is about to bomb the hell out of certain key locations in Iran. A significant public relations campaign of sorts has lately been waged, attempting to depict Israel as the aggressor against otherwise peace-loving Palestinians. I think the piece anticipates that a strike might further cement the public sentiment that the Middle East might calm down if the US stopped supporting Israel.
posted by jefficator at 3:23 PM on September 25, 2009
I'm not sure. I think there's a greater than insignificant chance that Israel is about to bomb the hell out of certain key locations in Iran. A significant public relations campaign of sorts has lately been waged, attempting to depict Israel as the aggressor against otherwise peace-loving Palestinians. I think the piece anticipates that a strike might further cement the public sentiment that the Middle East might calm down if the US stopped supporting Israel.
posted by jefficator at 3:23 PM on September 25, 2009
In spite of the human suffering and cost I think we can all agree that "Don't Mess with the Zohan" is the real tragedy here.
posted by humanfont at 3:24 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 3:24 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Do we have the current scores on the doors for this conflict? Cold numbers are often good at putting things in perspective.
posted by Damienmce at 3:24 PM on September 25, 2009
posted by Damienmce at 3:24 PM on September 25, 2009
his stance on the war against Germany isn't cruel or anti-semitic in the least. It's the purest expression of pacifism.
You're absolutely correct. As the OP, I assure you I'm not interested in any anti-Semitic dimension. I'm curious what people think about the idea that Israel might have a somewhat unique right to self-defense that other peoples might not.
posted by jefficator at 3:25 PM on September 25, 2009
You're absolutely correct. As the OP, I assure you I'm not interested in any anti-Semitic dimension. I'm curious what people think about the idea that Israel might have a somewhat unique right to self-defense that other peoples might not.
posted by jefficator at 3:25 PM on September 25, 2009
How so? All people have a right to self defense.
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Justinian at 3:29 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I'm not sure this warrants a new thread. Isn't the old and better one still open here?
posted by Think_Long at 3:37 PM on September 25, 2009
posted by Think_Long at 3:37 PM on September 25, 2009
I'm curious what people think about the idea that Israel might have a somewhat unique right to self-defense that other peoples might not.
This is not what an FPP is for.
posted by desjardins at 3:42 PM on September 25, 2009
This is not what an FPP is for.
posted by desjardins at 3:42 PM on September 25, 2009
I'm curious what people think about the idea that Israel might have a somewhat unique right to self-defense that other peoples might not.
Everybody's got an equal right to self defense. The argument always comes from a question of whether Israel has pushed theirs' too far. And it's a long, long argument.
posted by philip-random at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2009
Everybody's got an equal right to self defense. The argument always comes from a question of whether Israel has pushed theirs' too far. And it's a long, long argument.
posted by philip-random at 3:44 PM on September 25, 2009
Do we have the current scores on the doors for this conflict?
Here ye be.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:46 PM on September 25, 2009
Here ye be.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 3:46 PM on September 25, 2009
Doesn't look like anybody's winning.
The bad guys are winning.
posted by philip-random at 3:53 PM on September 25, 2009
The bad guys are winning.
posted by philip-random at 3:53 PM on September 25, 2009
Gandhi's quote up there is a solid reminder of the utter bankruptcy of pacifism in the face of an enemy who doesn't respect it. There is no dignity in victimization; there is no benefit to be gained from nobility and moral superiority in the grave.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:54 PM on September 25, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:54 PM on September 25, 2009
Gandhi's quote up there is a solid reminder of the utter bankruptcy of pacifism in the face of an enemy who doesn't respect it.
See also: Turtledove's The Last Article in which Gandhi applies his passive resistance to an alt-history German occupation after they have displaced the British Raj.
Protip: It doesn't go so well.
posted by Justinian at 3:58 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
See also: Turtledove's The Last Article in which Gandhi applies his passive resistance to an alt-history German occupation after they have displaced the British Raj.
Protip: It doesn't go so well.
posted by Justinian at 3:58 PM on September 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Tariq Ali, The Clash of Fundamentalisms. A good place to start to get some kind of historical perspective on the situation in that part of the world.
posted by metagnathous at 4:00 PM on September 25, 2009
posted by metagnathous at 4:00 PM on September 25, 2009
How so? All people have a right to self defense.
Yea, well except for those Scottish, everyone knows that they make hagis with the blood of freshly killed muslem babies for weird druidic rituals...
What? Totally absurd?
posted by sammyo at 4:13 PM on September 25, 2009
Yea, well except for those Scottish, everyone knows that they make hagis with the blood of freshly killed muslem babies for weird druidic rituals...
What? Totally absurd?
posted by sammyo at 4:13 PM on September 25, 2009
This thread will probably be deleted, but as long as we're here, Gandhi was one of the least deserving recipients of universal homage that I know of.
He was well on the way to achieving self-government for India in 1920-21 with the snowballing success of the Non-cooperation movement (colonies were being offered self-government elsewhere in the Empire, and notably, Michael Collins had just accepted dominion status for Ireland) when he suddenly and capriciously called it off in early 1922 because he was upset about the news of the death of some constables at Chauri Chaura. Mind you, there had been deaths in previous similar riots, but for some reason Gandhi was upset by these, and he went on a fast and ended the movement. Result: many millions of deaths a quarter of a century later.
When the Untouchables were campaigning for separate electorates in 1932 so they could have representation, Gandhi went on a "fast unto death" to keep it from happening. He didn't want any separation, he wanted respect for untouchables within Hinduism. The Untouchable politician B. R. Ambedkar, bullied into moderating his campaign by Gandhi, wrote: "There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards of which they had become possessed."
When a huge earthquake hit Bihar in January 1934, killing an estimated 20,000 people, Gandhi visited the area and told teh destitute and homeless survivors that the earthquake was "a chastisement for your sins."
When WWII started, Gandhi advised the British not to fight: "Let them take possession of your beautiful island... allow yourself, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." And, as mentioned above, he urged the Jews not to resist, telling them to pray for Hitler. Speaking of whom, he wrote in May 1940: "I do not consider Herr Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." He added that the Germans of the future "will honour Herr Hitler as a genius, a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more."
After the war, he told Louis Fisher: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife."
In 1943, when his wife, Kasturba, was near death from pneumonia, Gandhi refused to allow her to have any medicine, even the castor oil she pleaded for. Their son Devadas had penicillin flown in, but Gandhi forbade it. After she died, he said "How God has tested my faith! If I had allowed you to give her penicillin, it could not have saved her. But it would have meant bankruptcy of faith on my part... And she passed away in my lap! Could it be better? I am happy beyond measure."
I could go on, but I'm getting disgusted. Fine, he had his peculiar religious/moral beliefs and was just expressing them in ways that might seem perverse to most people, but why do so many people ignore the bad stuff and focus on his beliefs, especially since most of them don't share them?
posted by languagehat at 4:44 PM on September 25, 2009 [11 favorites]
He was well on the way to achieving self-government for India in 1920-21 with the snowballing success of the Non-cooperation movement (colonies were being offered self-government elsewhere in the Empire, and notably, Michael Collins had just accepted dominion status for Ireland) when he suddenly and capriciously called it off in early 1922 because he was upset about the news of the death of some constables at Chauri Chaura. Mind you, there had been deaths in previous similar riots, but for some reason Gandhi was upset by these, and he went on a fast and ended the movement. Result: many millions of deaths a quarter of a century later.
When the Untouchables were campaigning for separate electorates in 1932 so they could have representation, Gandhi went on a "fast unto death" to keep it from happening. He didn't want any separation, he wanted respect for untouchables within Hinduism. The Untouchable politician B. R. Ambedkar, bullied into moderating his campaign by Gandhi, wrote: "There was nothing noble in the fast. It was a foul and filthy act. The fast was not for the benefit of the untouchables. It was against them and was the worst form of coercion against a helpless people to give up the constitutional safeguards of which they had become possessed."
When a huge earthquake hit Bihar in January 1934, killing an estimated 20,000 people, Gandhi visited the area and told teh destitute and homeless survivors that the earthquake was "a chastisement for your sins."
When WWII started, Gandhi advised the British not to fight: "Let them take possession of your beautiful island... allow yourself, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them." And, as mentioned above, he urged the Jews not to resist, telling them to pray for Hitler. Speaking of whom, he wrote in May 1940: "I do not consider Herr Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing, and he seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed." He added that the Germans of the future "will honour Herr Hitler as a genius, a brave man, a matchless organizer and much more."
After the war, he told Louis Fisher: "Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife."
In 1943, when his wife, Kasturba, was near death from pneumonia, Gandhi refused to allow her to have any medicine, even the castor oil she pleaded for. Their son Devadas had penicillin flown in, but Gandhi forbade it. After she died, he said "How God has tested my faith! If I had allowed you to give her penicillin, it could not have saved her. But it would have meant bankruptcy of faith on my part... And she passed away in my lap! Could it be better? I am happy beyond measure."
I could go on, but I'm getting disgusted. Fine, he had his peculiar religious/moral beliefs and was just expressing them in ways that might seem perverse to most people, but why do so many people ignore the bad stuff and focus on his beliefs, especially since most of them don't share them?
posted by languagehat at 4:44 PM on September 25, 2009 [11 favorites]
This thread will probably be deleted, but as long as we're here, Gandhi was one of the least deserving recipients of universal homage that I know of.
Man, he sounds worse than Michael Moore.
posted by philip-random at 4:49 PM on September 25, 2009
Man, he sounds worse than Michael Moore.
posted by philip-random at 4:49 PM on September 25, 2009
philip-random: "Man, he sounds worse than Michael Moore."
No way. Michael Moore is fat.
posted by Joe Beese at 4:56 PM on September 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
No way. Michael Moore is fat.
posted by Joe Beese at 4:56 PM on September 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
« Older To boost urban cycling, figure out what women want... | The Mr. Olympia Contest Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by jefficator at 3:04 PM on September 25, 2009