La memoria vale solo per gli ebrei o anche per gli altri?

[Liquid Sky]

La mia personale giornata della memoria, in un giorno qualunque, per tutte le vittime innocenti. Ebrei compresi.

[bsiviglia]

volessi banalizzare ti potrei dire che la memoria vale solo per gli ebrei semplicemente perchè, considerandosi la razza eletta, hanno il diritto di fare quello che ritengono più opportuno (compreso occupare le terre altrui, anche con la violenza). cosa che non solo non possono fare le "razze inferiori" ma a quest'ultime è ASSOLUTAMENTE VIETATO criticare e/o contestare comportamenti che non siano OSSEQUIOSI nei loro riguardi, si diventa automaticamente antisemiti...

Potresti per favore dirmi dove hai trovato queste stupefacenti notizie? Sono molto curiosa.

[testadiprazzo]

Le lobby sioniste americane si oppongono anche al risarcimento dei neri americani per lo schivismo patito in USA. Molti pensano che le Lobby ebraiche orientino il voto degli ebrei. Questo è vero solo in piccola parte la maggior parte degli ebrei americano non chiede certo alle lobby per chi votare. Le lobby sono sempre state di estrema destra in USA. Durante la caccia alle streghe fornivano a Mc Carty le liste degli ebrei comunisti da perseguitare. Le lobby in realtà agiscono di concerto con le lobby degli armamenti dato che il loro scopo è di fare avere armi ad Israele. Tantè che quando Rabin voleva fare la pace con i Palestinesi minaccio di creare una lobby ebraica pacifista in USA. Gli ebrei americani in generale sono progressisti e anti-Bush anche se meno di un tempo. Comunque tuttora ci sono Clubs, Banche ecc che non accettano ebrei tra i loro clienti. Questo sembra non infastidire le lobby americane che hanno inventato le famose persecuzioni comuniste contro gli ebrei. Naturalmente a chi ricorda che molti dei dirigenti dell'est europa e dell'URSS erano ebrei semplicemente dicono che antisionismo e antisemitismo sono la stessa cosa. Quindi quegli ebrei erano antisemiti. Bernard Lewis lo studioso ufficiale delle lobby ha così creato questa singolare figura l'ebreo comunista antisemita. Recentemente una associzione di studenti conservatori ha proposto l'espulsione di tre professori ebrei dall'Università di Los Angeles. La loro colpa antisemitismo...criticavano Israele. Persino i professori neocon di quella Università gli hanno dato dei deficenti!!!

Bè..che esistano ebrei brave persone..non lo metto in dubbio..ma come in tutte le cose..la pubblicità viene fatta dagli elementi più rappresentativi e potenti..L'Italia è conosciuta per la mafia..che ha potere di gestire l'economia reale al sud..e gli ebrei sono conosciuti per la forza delle lobby americane che hanno il potere di sovrapporsi anche a quegli ebrei che vorrebbero vivere tranquilli..alle volte penso che certi registi..tipo Polansky vengano addirittura minacciati per fare qualche ennesimo film sull'Olocausto..Spielberg è più furbo ..con la Guerra dei Mondi..ha preparato il terreno al nemico disumano che ci minaccia..cioè l'islamico..Dispiace in un regista che ha fatto E.T..film nobile ed umano..Sembra che ormai da qualche parte sia già stata decisa la
Guerra Dei Mondi...prossima ventura..

[testadiprazzo]

Potresti per favore dirmi dove hai trovato queste stupefacenti notizie? Sono molto curiosa.

Una volta ..per un breve ed innocente scherzo..dissi alle 2 o 3 ragazze a cui venni presentato..che ero ebreo..
Ti assicuro che sui loro volti si spanse un sorriso di compiacimento non mascherabile..si vedeva che credevano di trovarsi di fronte all'uomo di Potere.. ..esattamente come succede agli Occidentali nel terzo mondo..
e questo successe perchè per le donne più che la bellezza..o l'intelligenza..conta il Potere..un afrodisiaco a cui poche resistono..
Quando poi dissi che non lo ero..si rilassarono..come la fanciulla dopo l'esame...
Meditate..gente..meditate...

[testadiprazzo]

Tu glielo detto ma era lei che se ne doveva accorgere, al momento giusto

.La storia..non valeva la candela..
Era solo un breve scherzo innocente..non la possibile sceneggiatura di un film con De Sica e Boldi...

[Red Shadow]

Potresti per favore dirmi dove hai trovato queste stupefacenti notizie? Sono molto curiosa.

Comunque il problema è questo. Gli ebrei, parlo in generale ma è ovvio che non mi riferisco a tutti, hanno assolutizzato la memoria dell'Olocausto tanto da rifiutare questo termine che hanno sostituito con Shoa proprio per sottolinearne la singolarità assoluta. Ebbene loro che investono tutto sulla memoria non riescono a concepire che anche altri possano avere MEMORIA. I Palestinesi non possono avre MEMORIA del fatto di esere stati cacciati dalle loro terre, loro non hanno nessun diritto al ritorno.I P?alestinesi chiamano NAKBA, la catastrofe, quella che fu una delle più odiose pulizie etniche che la storia ricordi. Loro, che conservano ancora gelosamente le chiavi delle loro case ad Haifa, a Gerusalemme, devono DIMENTICARE.
A te pare giusto?

[Ibrahim]

Potresti per favore dirmi dove hai trovato queste stupefacenti notizie? Sono molto curiosa.

la curiosità è solitamente indice di intelligenza.
le notizie che ho dato non sono in nessun rapporto segreto ma le puoi trovare facilmente (visto che sei curiosa non ti sarà difficile) sia nel percorso storico della Palestina sia nel Talmud (libro sacro per gli ebrei) e comunque non serve essere un grande ricercatore. basta fermarsi e leggere, con spirito critico (visto l'omogeinazzione dei mass-media quasi tutti filosionisti), i quotidiani e i rapporti che ogni giorno i corrispondenti fanno sulla situazione nei territori occupati.
comunque a meno che non si vogliano accettare passivamente le informazioni che ci vengono propinate ogni santo giorno non è difficile avvicinarsi alla realtà dei fatti.

[arba2]

.......... Indeed if memory helps us to survive, forgetting allows us to go on living. How could we go on with our daily lives, if we remained constantly aware of the dangers and ghosts surrounding us? The Talmud tells us that without the ability to forget, man would soon cease to learn. Without the ability to forget, man would live in a permanent, paralyzing fear of death. Only God and God alone can and must remember everything.

How are we to reconcile our supreme duty towards memory with the need to forget that is essential to life? No generation has had to confront this paradox with such urgency. The survivors wanted to communicate everything to the living: the victim's solitude and sorrow, the tears of mothers driven to madness, the prayers of the doomed beneath a fiery sky.

They needed to tell the child who, in hiding with his mother, asked softly, very softly: "Can I cry now?" They needed to tell of the sick beggar who, in a sealed cattle-car, began to sing as an offering to his companions. And of the little girl who, hugging her grandmother, whispered: "Don't be afraid, don't be sorry to die... I'm not". She was seven, that little girl who went to her death without fear, without regret.

Each one of us felt compelled to record every story, every encounter. Each one of us felt compelled to bear witness, Such were the wishes of the dying, the testament of the dead. Since the so-called civilized world had no use for their lives, then let it be inhabited by their deaths.

The great historian Shimon Dubnov served as our guide and inspiration. Until the moment of his death he said over and over again to his companions in the Riga ghetto: "Yidden, shreibt un fershreibt" (Jews, write it all down). His words were heeded. Overnight, countless victims become chroniclers and historians in the ghettos, even in the death camps. Even members of the Sonderkommandos, those inmates forced to burn their fellow inmates' corpses before being burned in turn, left behind extraordinary documents. To testify became an obsession. They left us poems and letters, diaries and fragments of novels, some known throughout the world, others still unpublished.

After the war we reassured ourselves that it would be enough to relate a single night in Treblinka, to tell of the cruelty, the senselessness of murder, and the outrage born of indifference: it would be enough to find the right word and the propitious moment to say it, to shake humanity out of its indifference and keep the torturer from torturing ever again. We thought it would be enough to read the world a poem written by a child in the Theresienstadt ghetto to ensure that no child anywhere would ever again have to endure hunger or fear. It would be enough to describe a death-camp "Selection", to prevent the human right to dignity from ever being violated again.

We thought it would be enough to tell of the tidal wave of hatred which broke over the Jewish people for men everywhere to decide once and for all to put an end to hatred of anyone who is "different" - whether black or white, Jew or Arab, Christian or Moslem - anyone whose orientation differs politically, philosophically, sexually. A naive undertaking? Of course. But not without a certain logic.

We tried. It was not easy. At first, because of the language; language failed us. We would have to invent a new vocabulary, for our own words were inadequate, anemic.

And then too, the people around us refused to listen; and even those who listened refused to believe; and even those who believed could not comprehend. Of course they could not. Nobody could. The experience of the camps defies comprehension.

Have we failed? I often think we have.

If someone had told us in 1945 that in our lifetime religious wars would rage on virtually every continent, that thousands of children would once again be dying of starvation, we would not have believed it. Or that racism and fanaticism would flourish once again, we would not have believed it.

Eli Wiesel

[Ibrahim]

Telling It Like It Isn't
by Robert Fisk

I first realized the enormous pressures on American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."

Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing as it had ever been.

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" — or even, in some cases, "outposts."

Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into "disputed" Palestinian land — just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as "disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all — so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall.

The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.

If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly "neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless terrorist act.

And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" — words that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a private housing complex.

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi insurgency — referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or "terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently — and grotesquely — by American journalists.

American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in which the horrors of conflict — the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs — are kept off the screen. Editors in New York and London make sure that viewers'
"sensitivities" don't suffer, that we don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or "dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.

Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.

Back in the old days, we used to believe — did we not? — that journalists should "tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K.
Smiths and Alan Moorheads didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different version.

So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.


Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author, most recently, of "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East," published last month by Knopf.


per la traduzione dell'articolo in italiano clicca QUI

[Ibrahim]

Potresti per favore dirmi dove hai trovato queste stupefacenti notizie? Sono molto curiosa.

....puoi trovare qualcosa di interessante QUI o anche QUI e possiamo continuare con uno scritto di Larry Derfner (ebreo americano) che puoi trovare QUI...poi avendo voglia e volontà di può trovare anche molto di più