Ray, it seems to me the new generation will once again make its own interpretation of events and the significance they want in their lives of their ancestors, as each generation must do. I look at the crises in the Middle East in very historical terms. Witness the internal disagreement of some younger Israelis about the wisdom, not just the cost, of these repeated occupations of refugee townships. Of course, as I've said elsewhere, if the US continues to subsidize the Israeli economy as it has in the past and present, we would be better off to make it a full-fledged state and have some jurisdiction over what my non-political brother-in-law called "the US' overseas National Guard protecting our oil interests".
When the British sponsored the idea of a Jewish homeland after WWII, the UN and allied forces assisted in getting as many European Jews as they could to go there. This is quite understandable, an important historical fact part of the whole story of the post-Holocaust that has created the current environment. The new nation was not populated by a wandering tribe of people who had safely maneuvered centuries of Diaspora, but a nexus of angry and determined, even fanatic, core of survivors who may have felt surviving the gas chambers of Hitler was justification alone for them to take what others were occupying. In contrast, the American colonials were mostly economic opportunists and religious victims, and though there may have been some killing on the way, their persecution does not compare to what diasporic Jews experienced. Nevertheless, America's history is heavily indebted to a mass of land the Israelis do not have. Let's not forget the importance of water in this region, also. The further we get in time away from the Holocaust the more variations we will see in sense of nationhood for Israelis. Elders will pass along what they can and there may be new cataclysmic events that recharge the same sense of nationalism, but unless today's crises is another Holocaust for the next in line generation, the torch passed will be different. I would suspect that younger Brits don't have the same perspective of the British Empire that their grandparents did and before 9/11 most young people had no interest in patriotism and serving country. All nations will struggle, as the EU currently does, with the concept of nationalism as their economies and governments are more intricately entwined. Above all else, cultural traditions and language define one tribe from another. In early America, we succeeded in forcing the natives to English, after it became the language of commerce and government along the 13 colonies. Perhaps of more interest to the FW discussion about national characteristics and what makes them so: In today's news, the Bush administration reversed the last-minute Clinton administration ruling of sovereignty for the Chinook tribe in Washington state, arguing that the Chinooks had not maintained a sense of separateness over the centuries, to distinguish them as a "state" in relation to the US government-to-government. Excerpt: "The Chinooks did not show they have maintained political influence over members since historical times, that a predominant portion of their members comprise a distinct social community, or that they have been identified historically as an Indian entity by outside observers, McCaleb said. " (http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story .ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?o0008_BC_ChinookRecognition&&news&newsflash- oregon) Regards, Karen -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Evans Harrell Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 12:56 AM To: Karen Watters Cole; Christoph Reuss; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Horrific traditions Well, cousin. It has been sixty years and Jews still have no secure country even though places that both Christians and Moslems find sacred are thus only because the Jews made them so. Not only that but the intellectual capital that created both of those stories came from this little group of 14 million world wide. I've often wondered where the size of the Jewish people made it fit in the great religions of the world. There are a couple of billion Christians and over a billion Moslems. Frankly it seems to me that the children are doing what children always do. Diss the parents. How could the "respect your Mother and Father" not extend to the parent religion of the two. For a long time the Christians called them the "Killers of Jesus" but this doesn't make sense considering that he had to die according to the story, in order to complete the process. This seems to me that the Jews were used for a necessity to finish the story. Do you really believe they could have said "no" according to the story. One could even say that they were protecting their country and culture from the BC version of terrorists. There are lots of situations like that in traditional stories all over the world but the instrument is rarely treated so badly for 2,000 years. Especially when the despised one is the parent people. I don't recall anyone treating the soldier badly who murdered his daughter because he had promised to sacrifice the first person who he met at his house if he won the battle. He did and the daughter was sacrificed. On the other hand the Moslems claim that the Jews are not the original inhabitants of that religion which doesn't seem to make the history of their religion make any sense at all. I still say that the owners of the intellectual capital should be the keepers of the sites that they developed and that represent their place in the Creator's scheme of things (history.) What would happen if we worked out such things according to the plans of capitalism that states that all such property must be owned. Those fundamentalists who are both capitalists and have been since Calvin and supporters of Israel may not be as much a matter of prophecy so much as the fact that the Jews (although socialists) are the original owners and developers and the fundamentalists support that wherever they find it. We have the same problems here when arrogant young white folks break into Indian ceremonials and presume that they have a right to be there. Everyone is fighting to be the Indians in the Middle East. But the fact is that the Jews are the only ones who give the sites significance. Any other significance is second to that according to their own stories. The world must always respect the owners and find a way to deal with the fact that they are the owners. Otherwise we might do what Solomon suggested, just destroy all of the sites in all three religions in which case anyplace can be Jerusalem, Mecca/Medina, Bethlehem, Rome, Ada or whatever. Cut the baby in half and give half of nothing to each. Cousin REH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:58 PM Subject: RE: Horrific traditions > Forgive me for NOT adding the link to verify this information, but the > American group Jews for Justice, in some of its counterarguments to current > Israeli land aggression, documents that there was a Zionist push to detour > European Jews after the Holocaust to the new Israeli state, even working to > keep migrants from Canada and the US, where many European Jews were eager to > go. > > Karen Watters Cole > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 5:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Horrific traditions > > Oh well, more clichés from a NYT reader... > > Brad McCormick wrote: > > I seem to have read that Switzerland did indeed preserve > > its @#$%neutrality*&^%$ by saying Yes to all, including > > sheltering Nazi gold and stolen art. This is not exactly > > "neutrality", but rather middle-man opportunism. > > Mistakes of individuals happened under the immense pressure > of food and coal scarcity, stuck between the two Axis powers. > (Also note the difference between private banks and a gov't.) > But compare this to the actions of other neutral countries > like Sweden (not between the two Axis powers) who supplied > the _steel_ of which Nazi Germany built its tanks, warplanes, > submarines, gunships etc., and violated international law > by allowing Nazi _armed_forces_ to transit their "neutral" > country (to occupy Norway). Everything is relative! > How many people were killed by the armaments from Swedish > steel, and how many people were killed by the stolen art? > > > > I also seem to have heard that Switzerland's > > border was not as "porous" for jews wishing to flee > > THe Reich as the jews had hoped for. > > Oh really? In fact, the Jewish community in Zurich asked > the Swiss authorities to take up _less_ Jewish refugees. > (They preferred that they go directly to Palestine -- > Zionism and all that, you know.) Anyway, Switzerland > took up tens of thousands of them (with an own population > of 4 million), despite extreme scarcity of food and other > basic necessities, not to mention that this really > pissed off Berlin, increasing the likelihood of > German incursions into the flat areas of Switzerland. > > Compare that to the rest of Europe where the persecution > and deportation of local Jews was either tolerated or > actively participated in by the local population. > Or compare it to America which rejected Jewish refugees > by the shipload, despite having lots of resources and space > and no imminent danger at all. > > I know it's really easy to pass judgement on the 1940s' > Switzerland from your NY armchair in 2002, but please > at least try to see the whole picture... > > Chris > >
