This is really insanely long, for which I apologise.
@HP
“The trouble is ...perfect security.” (cut for length)
I have heard people say it, not in so many words, but by implication. And yes, they phrase it as just standing up for Israel's right to exist. But when the boundaries of what they consider right and wrong move whenever you suggest Israel might have crossed them; when there is no provocation or risk, however small, that they will allow might be worth putting up with; and when there's no compromise or concession that they don't dismiss as antisemitic to even talk about, then I think that goes beyond defending Israel's right to exist and into defending their right to do harm. I remember hearing a conversation in which one party was called a terrorist sympathizer for suggesting Israel might have a role in the conflict not that it was their fault, just that they played a part. That's the attitude that came to my mind when Warren said “you know perfectly well what we mean.”
Most of the people I've heard take that position are not Jewish: as you say, with a very few exceptions they're conservative evangelical Christians. But as conservative evangelical Christians have a huge voice in North America, I don't think it's inconceivable that a few other people have heard similar things, from people who are sincerely attempting to represent Israel's supporters. Combine a few such representations with the fact that Israel really has crossed a few moral and legal lines, and people can pick up a negative view of Zionism. I'm not saying they're right. I'm saying it's possible that they consider themselves to be being reasonable, and are not trying to attack Israel's very existence. (Or maybe they are; I don't speak for them. But we should at least find out.)
“Then s/he might stop claiming that Jews who do not follow Judaism are not Jewish”
That's fair. My engagement with these boards tends to wax and wane, so while I know most of the screen names, I don't really remember people's individual opinions unless I've had arguments with them on the subject and sometimes not even then. All of which is just to say that I wasn't aware s/he tends to do that, and was basing my judgement primarily on what was said in this thread.
“But the Americans already have them and nobody talks about us in such a matter,”
Somewhat off my original topic, but I think at this point the Cold War is a stronger influence on people's perception of America as a nuclear power than WWII, whereas Japan wasn't really a participant. I would have been less surprised to hear such comments near the beginning of the cold war. But even considering that, you make a good point about there being disproportionate pressure on the victims to “learn from it” as opposed to the perpetrators, which is backwards and unfair.
“That is a) a compliment to the Germans, not an insult, and b) nothing to do with the Greeks as people.”
It doesn't have to be an insult to be an example of what I was talking about: people make connections between a group's current activity, and its history. People discussing Israel's or Germany's actions are more likely to think of the Holocaust than people discussing other countries, not because there's a greater similarity, but because it they're already connected with it in people's minds. Is that reasonable? Or course not, but in my observation it is a trend in how people think. Is it the only factor? That probably depends on the person, and the topic. But I do think it's a factor.
“Gloria, this is why I included the Russians in the same paragraph.”
I understand why you included Russia in that paragraph. I don't understand why you included the Roma and the Tutsis. Russia fit the point I think you were trying to make that there are other victims of genocide who have committed horrible acts, and they don't get compared with the people who tried to wipe them out. If that's not your point, I apologise. If it is, you made it just fine with Russia. Including the Tutsis and the Roma just creates confusion, since they're not such a good fit.
Thanks for the research suggestions regarding Rwanda and the Tutsis - I haven't actually done tons of reading even on the genocide. I've talked to people who know more than I do, but what little (very little) systematic research I have done is on the court system and reconciliation efforts in the aftermath. When I get around to reading more, which I do intent to do, I'm sure the context will help.
“The difference between what you say and others have said is that you don't drag up arguments designed to cause pain to people who are Jewish. I hope you can see that.”
I do try not to hurt people unnecessarily. Honestly, the more I read about this, the more convicted I get that everyone involved, however remotely, has enough pain to deal with without me piling on. So I try to be fair to people, and to be careful about what I say to be sure that my intent comes across. But I'm sure I screw that up sometimes. In fact I'm completely sure, because people have told me.
I guess what I'm getting at is, I *have* hurt people, on this and other subjects, not out of intent, or because they over-reacted, but because I didn't know any better and said something I shouldn't have. And I don't know Warren (see what I said above about not keeping track of opinions) so maybe he is an unrecoverable bigot. But if instead he's labouring under a misconception like the one I described way back in my first paragraph, then from where he's standing, he just got called a bigot for thinking that Israel shouldn't persecute racial minorities, and so the misunderstanding spirals a little further. And since he doesn't seem to have noticed, or possibly cared, about what I posted on the first page, I came at it from your side instead.
Anyway, if you're still reading, I honestly didn't expect it to get quite so long. Sorry if I've been a source of stress or anything like that - it wasn't my intent.
