Holocaust denial

[Martinus]

The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.

Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.

I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.

I disagree about America I think we would have supported Israel anyway both because of our native Jews and the conservative Christian elements for their own rather odd reasons.

There were certainly some "positives" that came out of the holocaust for Israel but I think it was overall a net negative.  You just cannot replace six million warm bodies when numbers count for so much in the game.

I have to take your word for America about this; Holocaust made antisemitism pretty much politically toxic in the West, so if your position is true, there was no significant antisemitism in the US pre-WW2. I find it hard to believe but sure let's assume that the US would still overwhelmingly support Israel was it not for the Holocaust.

The situation would have been much different in Europe, though. I'd say was it not for the Holocaust, most Europeans would regard Israel as a rogue/unfair state, that was formed from the land taken from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. I don't think Israel would have survived (or in fact, came to life) if Europeans believed it should be destroyed, notwithstanding American lunatic belief in Armageddon.

[Martinus]

Russia condemns Iran's Holocaust denier
Published: Sept. 20, 2009 at 2:37 AM

Russia has denounced as "completely inadmissible" Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest Holocaust denial.

"Similar statements, no matter where they come from, violate the truth and are completely inadmissible," said Andrei Nesterenko, a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman.

Nesterenko's condemnation came after Ahmadinejad once again called the Holocaust "a lie" in a televised address Friday.

Ahmadinejad said the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews died, was "a false pretext to create Israel" and urged Muslims to confront the "Zionist regime (as) a national and religious duty."

"Attempts to rewrite history, especially as the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II is being marked this year, are an offense to the memory of all victims and all those who fought fascism," Nesterenko said.

He also warned that Ahmadinejad's denial "does not contribute to creating an international atmosphere that would foster a fruitful dialogue on issues concerning Iran."

Anyone else finds Russians condemning attempts to rewrite history pretty ironic? 

This is the same ministry that few weeks ago published papers claiming that the Katyn massacre was carried out by Germans, and that Stalin didn't have a secret pact with Hitler, unlike Poland which planned to invade the Soviets. 

[The Brain]

When will the Jews reach the Holocaust acceptance stage?

[Josquius]

Anyone else finds Russians condemning attempts to rewrite history pretty ironic? 

This is the same ministry that few weeks ago published papers claiming that the Katyn massacre was carried out by Germans, and that Stalin didn't have a secret pact with Hitler, unlike Poland which planned to invade the Soviets. 

Thats a remarkably bright Russian, he recognises the start of WW2 in '39 rather than the usual 'Nooooo the Soviets were invited into Poland, there was cake and fun was had by all till the Germans invaded us and started WW2'

[Malthus]

The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.

Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.

I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.

I disagree about America I think we would have supported Israel anyway both because of our native Jews and the conservative Christian elements for their own rather odd reasons.

There were certainly some "positives" that came out of the holocaust for Israel but I think it was overall a net negative.  You just cannot replace six million warm bodies when numbers count for so much in the game.

I have to take your word for America about this; Holocaust made antisemitism pretty much politically toxic in the West, so if your position is true, there was no significant antisemitism in the US pre-WW2. I find it hard to believe but sure let's assume that the US would still overwhelmingly support Israel was it not for the Holocaust.

The situation would have been much different in Europe, though. I'd say was it not for the Holocaust, most Europeans would regard Israel as a rogue/unfair state, that was formed from the land taken from its rightful owners, the Palestinians. I don't think Israel would have survived (or in fact, came to life) if Europeans believed it should be destroyed, notwithstanding American lunatic belief in Armageddon.

European support or lack thereof was almost completely irrelevant to the creation and survival of Israel. When Israel was formed, most of Europe was still in charred ruins, occupied by "lunatic" Americans and Russians. The only European nation of any import in the region was Britian, which was at that time mostly hostile to the whole Zionist project in spite of the holocaust.

[Malthus]

I don't know there were about two hundred thousand Jews in Palestine in 1939 I don't know if it would have been too immoral a statement later on that the area should be partitioned when the British left.  Especially as there would be six million more living Jews to support them and generally the only significant real support Israel gets is from the Jewish Diaspora and their allies.  I have not really noticed massive moral support for Israel because of the Holocaust at all really, but then this is now and things were probably different in 1948 in that regard.

I generally disagree very strongly that somehow the Holocaust created Israel since the project was already 50 years along at that point.

The original UN partition plan heavily favored the Jews. It's not a stretch to argue that Holocaust pity played a part in that.

Germany payed (still does?) significant guilt money to Israel.

I think Holocaust pity is the bedrock of American support for Israel.

At no time in history has holocaust pity been the "bedrock" of support for Israel in America.

During the time of Israel's founding, the holocaust was by no means as big a public deal as it is now; nor was US support for Israel exactly overwhelming. In fact, America played small part in the formation of the state.

During the '50s anf early 60s, Israel had much closer ties with the UK and France (they conspired together in '56 to attack Egypt, a plan which America squashed).

It was only with the seemingly-miraculous '67 war that the US stepped up as Israel's main partner. The primary gounds of sympathy, I contend, is the exact mirror-image of why the Europeans do not sympathize - Americans by and large love a plucky winner against great odds, who seems culturally similar to themselves; Europeans in contrast tend to sympathize with the underdog who easily fits the role of the 'colonial oppressed'.

America sees Israel in the role of hard-working Pilgrims or Cowboys in a mid-east populated with savage "Indians". Europeans see Israel as a bunch of European colonialist overlords of the sort they have been taught to dispise. The holocaust simply throws another element into this mix - on the American side it adds marginally to the sympathy; on the European side, it adds guilt and resentment resentment (as in "why are you still blaming us for this?") and an understandable desire to paint the Israelis as "just as bad" as the Europeans used to be.

On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.   

[Barrister]

On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.

This is the kind of thing that's hard to prove, but I think you have it wrong.

The "bedrock" of American support for Israel is the powerful jewish lobby/voting interest in key states, combined with the vague religious sentiment.

There are plenty of other 'plucky' states that the US may think fondly of, but the US does little to support.  And US support for Israel goes back much further than '67 - it was the US that supported increased jewish immigration to Palestine that led to the eventual founding of Israel.

[Malthus]

On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.

This is the kind of thing that's hard to prove, but I think you have it wrong.

The "bedrock" of American support for Israel is the powerful jewish lobby/voting interest in key states, combined with the vague religious sentiment.

There are plenty of other 'plucky' states that the US may think fondly of, but the US does little to support.  And US support for Israel goes back much further than '67 - it was the US that supported increased jewish immigration to Palestine that led to the eventual founding of Israel.

It was?

I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.

Certainly, American Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to America prior to WW2, let alone Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.

[Admiral Yi]

At no time in history has holocaust pity been the "bedrock" of support for Israel in America.

During the time of Israel's founding, the holocaust was by no means as big a public deal as it is now; nor was US support for Israel exactly overwhelming. In fact, America played small part in the formation of the state.

During the '50s anf early 60s, Israel had much closer ties with the UK and France (they conspired together in '56 to attack Egypt, a plan which America squashed).

It was only with the seemingly-miraculous '67 war that the US stepped up as Israel's main partner. The primary gounds of sympathy, I contend, is the exact mirror-image of why the Europeans do not sympathize - Americans by and large love a plucky winner against great odds, who seems culturally similar to themselves; Europeans in contrast tend to sympathize with the underdog who easily fits the role of the 'colonial oppressed'.

America sees Israel in the role of hard-working Pilgrims or Cowboys in a mid-east populated with savage "Indians". Europeans see Israel as a bunch of European colonialist overlords of the sort they have been taught to dispise. The holocaust simply throws another element into this mix - on the American side it adds marginally to the sympathy; on the European side, it adds guilt and resentment resentment (as in "why are you still blaming us for this?") and an understandable desire to paint the Israelis as "just as bad" as the Europeans used to be.

On the American side there is also oddball religious sentiment and a large and influential Jewish lobby. But the "bedrock" of sympathy is cultural - Americans tend to love clever and ruthless who succeed in spite of every barrier - sort of an armed Horatio Alger myth writ large. Europeans in contrast tend to hate people (and nations) like that.

Your plucky underdog thesis (which I think has *some* merit) has a lot of trouble squaring with the historical facts.  As you yourself pointed out US support for Israel was the lowest when they were at their pluckiest and their underdoggiest, and only picked up steam when they had demonstrated their military dominance.

[Malthus]

Your plucky underdog thesis (which I think has *some* merit) has a lot of trouble squaring with the historical facts.  As you yourself pointed out US support for Israel was the lowest when they were at their pluckiest and their underdoggiest, and only picked up steam when they had demonstrated their military dominance.

Not at all.

Americans like "plucky underdogs" who have demonstrated outstanding success. It is exactly their demonstration of miltary dominance which grounds the sympathy. Winning the war of Independance got them *some* kudos in America, but what really did the trick was the seemingly miraculous victories of '67.

The world is filled with would-be "plucky underdogs" who get ground beneath the heel of the oppressor. Americans by and large have pity on, but do not admire or particularly sympathize, with suchlike (in Europe as I've said the equation is very different).

[Barrister]

It was?

I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.

Certainly, American Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to America prior to WW2, let alone Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.

You're missing the point.  It was precisely because they did not support increased immigration of Jews to America that they supported Jewish immigration to Palestine.  It played very well to Jewish voters, and the US didn't actually have to do much other than pressure Britain.

[Barrister]

I have better sources in some books on hand, but this is a very brief wiki summary:

Following the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that 100,000 Jews be immediately granted entry to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on immigration. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several terrorist attacks and bombings against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.
Following the bombing, the British Government began interning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus.
The negative publicity resulting from the situation in Palestine meant the mandate was widely unpopular in Britain, and caused the United States Congress to delay granting the British vital loans for reconstruction. At the same time, many European Jews were finding their way to the United States. An increasing growing influence in American politics, many Zionist backers won over sympathizers in the American and other Western governments. The Labour party had promised before its election to allow mass Jewish migration into Palestine. Additionally the situation required maintenance of 100,000 British troops in the country. In response to these pressures the British announced their desire to terminate the mandate and withdraw by May 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#The_Holocaust.2C_illegal_immigration_and_the_Jewish_Revolt

[Malthus]

It was?

I think you have it quite wrong. The US had very little to do with immigration to Palestine/Israel.

Certainly, American Jews funded such immigration, but it was of very little interest to America as a country. Indeed, America did not support immigration of Jews to America prior to WW2, let alone Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

Jewish support in key states plus the religious wackjob constituency is simply insufficient to explain why the vast majority of Americans appear to support Israel.

You're missing the point.  It was precisely because they did not support increased immigration of Jews to America that they supported Jewish immigration to Palestine.  It played very well to Jewish voters, and the US didn't actually have to do much other than pressure Britain.

I believe it is you who is missing the point. There is no doubt that stunts like the "Exodus" raised the pressure in America to prevent stuff like the British interning escaped DPs on Cyprus. However, it was not US pressure which ended the British Mandate, but the obvious fact that the British were facing a situation spiralling out of control in Palestine and, war-weary after WW2, the Brits had enough of such troubles.

This isn't the same and has very little to do with heavy US support for Israel, which came later. It was more along the lines of the occasional US proddings of China over Tibet - an easy (and cheap) expression of outrage at absurdly bad treatment of the downtrodden DPs. To extrapolate from this a military and social alliance lasting more than 40 years, which happened after 1967 (20 years after foundation of the state), is going too far.

[Malthus]

I have better sources in some books on hand, but this is a very brief wiki summary:

Following the war, 250,000 Jewish refugees were stranded in displaced persons (DP) camps in Europe. Despite the pressure of world opinion, in particular the repeated requests of US President Harry S. Truman and the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that 100,000 Jews be immediately granted entry to Palestine, the British maintained the ban on immigration. The Jewish underground forces then united and carried out several terrorist attacks and bombings against the British. In 1946, the Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of the British administration, killing 92 people.
Following the bombing, the British Government began interning illegal Jewish immigrants in Cyprus.
The negative publicity resulting from the situation in Palestine meant the mandate was widely unpopular in Britain, and caused the United States Congress to delay granting the British vital loans for reconstruction. At the same time, many European Jews were finding their way to the United States. An increasing growing influence in American politics, many Zionist backers won over sympathizers in the American and other Western governments. The Labour party had promised before its election to allow mass Jewish migration into Palestine. Additionally the situation required maintenance of 100,000 British troops in the country. In response to these pressures the British announced their desire to terminate the mandate and withdraw by May 1948.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine#The_Holocaust.2C_illegal_immigration_and_the_Jewish_Revolt

Your own link makes it clear that there were numerous pressures on Britian to end the Mandate, of which US opinion concerning DPs was merely one, and that fully in line with "world opinion". Note the mention of Zionist backers gaining support in the US and "... other Western governments". Such support was limited - to agitation over the Brits internment of refugees. It was not the "basis for the formation of the state" as you have alleged; that lies elsewhere.

It is not a very good explaination of US exceptionalism in its approach to Israel.

[Admiral Yi]

Not at all.

Americans like "plucky underdogs" who have demonstrated outstanding success. It is exactly their demonstration of miltary dominance which grounds the sympathy. Winning the war of Independance got them *some* kudos in America, but what really did the trick was the seemingly miraculous victories of '67.

The world is filled with would-be "plucky underdogs" who get ground beneath the heel of the oppressor. Americans by and large have pity on, but do not admire or particularly sympathize, with suchlike (in Europe as I've said the equation is very different).

You're creating a tendency out of one data point.  Where's the American admiration for the plucky Eritreans?  The plucky white Rhodesians?