I do think non-violent resistance can work, even with Nazis. You can’t kill everyone.

You might want to invest in a tinfoil helmet.

I hear its fake, but accurate. Whats one more work of fiction compared to the weighty volumes of “news stories” produced by the NYT’s et.al. over the last 40+ years?

“Can’t kill everyone”? Well, re: the Jews, the Nazis gave it a very good shot, and with a little more time would likely have succeeded. Fortunately their time was cut short, by the violent resistance of the Allies. Fortunately as well, the Jews are not impressed with the spurious claims of “non-violent resistance” against the likes of Nazis, and no longer likely to go passively to their doom.

They could have. They didn’t.

With regard to Israel and actual states that threaten it, e.g., Iran, I am not really sure how a state would practice non-violence against another state. On the other hand, if Israel wants to bomb Iran (Sally has long advocated that Iran be bombed), then, go ahead.

The non-violent resistance, while trendy and popular among civil rights pacifists is generally practiced only by people who arent threatened with extinction.

That’s a remarkable reduction of what satyagraha is all about.

Zeno - “Germany’s Willing Executioners” is by Daniel Goldhagen, though in the intervening years since it was published, his thesis that (broadly stated) all Germans bear blood guilt for the Holocaust because all participated in one way or another, has been attacked as flawed, and may not be quite the damning indictment he intended.

I’ll link to those oppositional points when I can dig them out from under the rubble of my desk. . .

oh, btw, Larry, next time pull a Hillary and just step outside to scream “goddamn Jew bastards!” It’ll achieve the same effect as your BDS screed without wasting precious webspace here.

No, I’m talking about threats to Jews as such — or to any other people or groups threatened by a Nazi-like entity that looks upon genocide as a positive policy option. Interestingly, though — and I’m sure quite inadvertently — Steve provides a good illustration of just why a state like Israel is needed to protect its people and their culture.

As for the pretentiously named “satyagraha” (which neo’s covered at great length in earlier posts), it’s a philosophy tailor-made for three kinds of people: the smugly self-righteous, who enjoy imagining themselves martyrs without ever having to face anything like real Nazis; the pathologically other-wordly, who can continue to exist only within the protections offered by those who do resist violence with violence; and, of course, the genocidal brutes, whose job is simply made easier.

Well, then give me an example outside of Israel where Jews are threatened as such.

As for the pretentiously named “satyagraha”

Okay, you think Sanskrit is pretentious.

the pathologically other-wordly, who can continue to exist only within the protections offered by those who do resist violence with violence

I’m a vet. What branch of the service were you in?

Here’s a beginning critique of Goldhagen’s book:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9608/articles/review_essay.html

And you can probably go from there.

The entire Arab world, the entire Middle East, the entire Islamic world, increasingly in France and throughout Europe. Not to mention the increasing level of anti-semitism throughout the left and the paleo-right, where it usually goes under the guise of anti-zionism.

Okay, you think Sanskrit is pretentious.

No, I think people who like to drop Sanskrit terms into a discussion are pretentious.

I’m a vet.

Good for you. And that has to do with what?

(2) The book gives many examples of how ordinary Germans went far beyond their orders and were not threatened if they didn’t want to torture and massacre the Jews. They enjoyed doing it and they were proud of doing it. They took photos of their work, which they sent home to their families. They also followed orders long after they could have stopped. The end of the book describes the “forced marches” that went nowhere and were meaningless. Goldenhagen also shows how much of the so-called “work” in the camps was meaningless–just meant to make the Jews miserable.

I haven’t read the critiques of Goldenhagen’s book, but I’ll bet much of the criticism is based on nitpicking.

Goldenhagen is the only I’ve read who gives a reasonable explanation for the “immiseration” of Jews (a new word for me). They didn’t just “kill” them, they also humiliated and tortured them first. Read about the “forced marches” for example.

For me, the most important aspects of Goldenhagen’s book is that it somewhat explains how the so-called civilized Germans became crazy sadistic killers.