White Nationalists March in Poland

[lionking]

I'm starting to develop a mild interest in Polish politics. They're currently having a bit of a row with Israel over some laws related to how people are allowed to discuss the Holocaust.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42848842

The Poles have a lot to be ashamed about for their behaviour during the Holocaust. I'm not surprised that this nationalist government wants to ban any talk about this.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Obama was criticized for not supporting Israel as strongly as previous administrations, but I don't recall anyone, certainly not Netenyahu, calling him an anti-Semite over it. I can't tell from reading that paragraph, are you claiming he did?

Let's not be ingenuous. The hard right, including Netanyahu, uses attack dogs for this to keep his image "honorable." Propaganda Methods of the Righteous 101.

Where do you see this happening?

Trump's Charlottesville response and clear embrace of right-wing extremism in general, including his own attack dog, Miller (earlier, Bannon). To be clear:

Nazi flags flew, a woman was murdered, Trump and his GOP blamed the victim.

The Israelis want to name Metro stops and streets after Trump (!!!) ... signalling either the outcome from years of heavy glue sniffing, or the kind of deeply mistaken retreat to madness that fundamentalism engenders. Now that Israel has clearly decided this is a religious war -- and not the struggle of an formerly oppressed people to live in peace and justice, just as others also might do -- Israel, as a friend or ally, is a driving force in the steep ethical decline of its partners.

Yet another stellar trouser drop by yet another bling-obsessed people worshiping might over right. Quite the fashion trend these days. No thanks, and goodbye unworthy Israel, back-stabbing traitor to the very values underlying support for its creation. It has now earned, and must own, the spite of its enemies.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's not be ingenuous. The hard right, including Netanyahu, uses attack dogs for this to keep his image "honorable." Propaganda Methods of the Righteous 101.


Trump's Charlottesville response and clear embrace of right-wing extremism in general, including his own attack dog, Miller (earlier, Bannon). To be clear:

Nazi flags flew, a woman was murdered, Trump and his GOP blamed the victim.

The Israelis want to name Metro stops and streets after Trump (!!!) ... signalling either the outcome from years of heavy glue sniffing, or the kind of deeply mistaken retreat to madness that fundamentalism engenders. Now that Israel has clearly decided this is a religious war -- and not the struggle of an formerly oppressed people to live in peace and justice, just as others also might do -- Israel, as a friend or ally, is a driving force in the steep ethical decline of its partners.

Yet another stellar trouser drop by yet another bling-obsessed people worshiping might over right. Quite the fashion trend these days. No thanks, and goodbye unworthy Israel, back-stabbing traitor to the very values underlying support for its creation. It has now earned, and must own, the spite of its enemies.

That is the magic of trump. He can bring Nazis and Jews together in their hatred of muslims.

 

[Mycroft]

Let's not be ingenuous. The hard right, including Netanyahu, uses attack dogs for this to keep his image "honorable." Propaganda Methods of the Righteous 101.

I'm not being "ingenuous", I'm calling out your BS. I'm doing that because it’s deep and odorous and should be called out.

That guy made his comments about Obama and Kerry before being named as Netenyahu's media advisor and the revelation of those comments let to the controversy behind his leaving that office. This I learned reading the article you linked to and having never heard of the guy before.

So the goalposts start at Netenyahu accuses people of anti-Semitism presumably for political purposes, or whatever DDT meant as he failed to elaborate. You moved the goalposts to people making the accusation for him, but you failed to meet that goal too.

Trump's Charlottesville response and clear embrace of right-wing extremism in general, including his own attack dog, Miller (earlier, Bannon). To be clear:

Nazi flags flew, a woman was murdered, Trump and his GOP blamed the victim.

Which has nothing to do with Netenyahu. All world leaders work with other world leaders on and common goals and issues they agree on. This does not imply agreement in other areas. Trump and only Trump is responsible for his shameful response to Charlottesville.

The Israelis want to name Metro stops and streets after Trump (!!!) ... signalling either the outcome from years of heavy glue sniffing, or the kind of deeply mistaken retreat to madness that fundamentalism engenders. Now that Israel has clearly decided this is a religious war -- and not the struggle of an formerly oppressed people to live in peace and justice, just as others also might do -- Israel, as a friend or ally, is a driving force in the steep ethical decline of its partners.

Israel has not decided this is a religious war, and that kind of hyperbole is at best unhelpful and at worst purposeful disinformation. Fundamentalism certainly is an issue in this conflict, but if you can only see it on the Israeli side then you are not paying attention.

Yet another stellar trouser drop by yet another bling-obsessed people worshiping might over right. Quite the fashion trend these days. No thanks, and goodbye unworthy Israel, back-stabbing traitor to the very values underlying support for its creation. It has now earned, and must own, the spite of its enemies.

It’s hard to parse that into anything of substance. Who are these “bling-obsessed” peoples of which you speak?

 

[Craig B]

The Poles have a lot to be ashamed about for their behaviour during the Holocaust. I'm not surprised that this nationalist government wants to ban any talk about this.

The Jerusalem Post takes a more reasonable view. What is surprising is that Poles could suffer so much at the hands of racists in the past, and still elect such a gang as their present government.

But looking at the mountebank now in the White House, I note that such mystery is not confined to Poland.

 

[lionking]

The Jerusalem Post takes a more reasonable view. What is surprising is that Poles could suffer so much at the hands of racists in the past, and still elect such a gang as their present government.

But looking at the mountebank now in the White House, I note that such mystery is not confined to Poland.

Well I never said that Poland was responsible for the Holocaust nor that there were many heroic, honorable Poles who helped the Jews. But it was a nation that enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis, helped enable some of the worst crimes ever committed.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Well I never said that Poland was responsible for the Holocaust nor that there were many heroic, honorable Poles who helped the Jews. But it was a nation that enthusiastically collaborated with the Nazis, helped enable some of the worst crimes ever committed.

That's simply not true. There was no "Vichy Poland", and the Nazis killed upward two million Poles. There were individual pogroms where Nazis would stoke anti-Jewish sentiment in Polish communities and individual Poles who reported Jews for rewards, but nothing like large-scale widespread collaboration. You have to consider the pressure an occupying force exerts on communities as well. One of the basic strategies in subduing a population is to sow division and mistrust between groups by pressuring and encouraging individuals to betray each other. Any blame-assigning really needs to be carefully considered.

 

[ddt]

Where is that happening?

In this case, by a very slanted and one-sided statement unjustly attacking the attitudes and acts of the Poles during WW2, and using that to paint this proposed law. I have no love lost for the current Polish regime, but from the media reports on the law, it is not meant to stifle discussion or historical research into Polish collaboration during WW2.

 

[Mycroft]

In this case, by a very slanted and one-sided statement unjustly attacking the attitudes and acts of the Poles during WW2, and using that to paint this proposed law. I have no love lost for the current Polish regime, but from the media reports on the law, it is not meant to stifle discussion or historical research into Polish collaboration during WW2.

The only quote from Netenyahu I could find in the article:

"I strongly oppose it. One cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied,"

Is that the statement you're referring to?

 

[ddt]

The only quote from Netenyahu I could find in the article:

"I strongly oppose it. One cannot change history and the Holocaust cannot be denied,"

Is that the statement you're referring to?

See my post #54 for the statement I was referring to, by education minister Naftali Bennett.

But that Netanyahu statement you quote there also qualifies. I don't think this law denies in any way the Holocaust. By casting it as such, in a roundabout way Netanyahu accuses the current Polish government of being antisemitic.

 

[Mycroft]

See my post #54 for the statement I was referring to, by education minister Naftali Bennett.

Naftali Bennett is a "crony" of Netenyahu?

"It is a historic fact that many Poles aided in the murder of Jews, handed them in, abused them, and even killed Jews during and after the Holocaust."

No part of that statement is not objectively true. It's also true that many Polish people of that era resisted the Nazis and helped Jews escape, but the proposed law doesn't forbid talking about that.

But that Netanyahu statement you quote there also qualifies. I don't think this law denies in any way the Holocaust. By casting it as such, in a roundabout way Netanyahu accuses the current Polish government of being antisemitic.

The article describes the law as making it illegal to accuse Polish people of complicity with the Nazis. Since some Polish people were complicit, wouldn't that be denial?

 

[ddt]

Naftali Bennett is a "crony" of Netenyahu?

"It is a historic fact that many Poles aided in the murder of Jews, handed them in, abused them, and even killed Jews during and after the Holocaust."

No part of that statement is not objectively true. It's also true that many Polish people of that era resisted the Nazis and helped Jews escape, but the proposed law doesn't forbid talking about that.

And the same could be said of the French, the Dutch - about any country that was occupied by the Nazis. And in each case, the "many" is only many in absolute terms, not in percentage-wise terms.

In this context, only highlighting one side only serves to frame the Poles as massively anti-semitic.

The article describes the law as making it illegal to accuse Polish people of complicity with the Nazis. Since some Polish people were complicit, wouldn't that be denial?

My understanding is that "Polish people" in this context only refers to the collective, so discussing individual Polish collaborators is not prohibited. There's already a wiki page on the subject which gives an English translation of the law:

1. Who, in public and against facts, ascribes to the Polish People or to the Polish State responsibility or co-responsibility for the Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich [...]
3. There is to offense referred to in para. 1 and 2, if the act was committed as part of artistic or scientific activity.

Specifically in the case of scientific enquiry, it would require an especially corrupt judge to overlook para 3.

And yes, I'm mindful of the odious nature of the current Polish regime; and also of the safeguard of the ECHR.

 

[Mycroft]

And the same could be said of the French, the Dutch - about any country that was occupied by the Nazis.

In this context, only highlighting one side only serves to frame the Poles as massively anti-semitic.

Yes, the same could be said about the French and the Dutch, but it’s not because neither the French nor the Dutch are considering a law making it illegal to talk about French or Dutch complicity with the Nazis. The Polish people are being singled out not to portray them as being especially anti-Semitic, but because it’s their government that is considering this law. That one side is highlighted because that’s what this law would censor, not because they want to be unfair to the Polish people.

My understanding is that "Polish people" in this context only refers to the collective, so discussing individual Polish collaborators is not prohibited.

Speaking about them in the collective shouldn’t be prohibited either. Do you disagree?

There's already a wiki page on the subject which gives an English translation of the law:

Specifically in the case of scientific enquiry, it would require an especially corrupt judge to overlook para 3.

I’m not an attorney, but I don’t see anything on that Wikipedia page that tells me the law is anything other than described in the article. It certainly seems like it could be interpreted to prosecute people who speak the truth about Polish collaboration with the Nazi occupation.

And yes, I'm mindful of the odious nature of the current Polish regime; and also of the safeguard of the ECHR.

Which is why it’s puzzling that you feel it’s Netenyahu who should be singled out for criticism here.

 

[ddt]

Yes, the same could be said about the French and the Dutch, but it’s not because neither the French nor the Dutch are considering a law making it illegal to talk about French or Dutch complicity with the Nazis. The Polish people are being singled out not to portray them as being especially anti-Semitic, but because it’s their government that is considering this law. That one side is highlighted because that’s what this law would censor, not because they want to be unfair to the Polish people.

I disagree, from the wording of the law, that this would censor that.

Speaking about them in the collective shouldn’t be prohibited either. Do you disagree?

I agree with you. But I don't see how this is what it's touted to be. It prohibits claiming the "Polish People" - i.e., the collection of all Poles living at the time - collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust. It doesn't prohibit saying that Lech A. or Stanislaus B., or even the villagers of village X did that.

I’m not an attorney, but I don’t see anything on that Wikipedia page that tells me the law is anything other than described in the article. It certainly seems like it could be interpreted to prosecute people who speak the truth about Polish collaboration with the Nazi occupation.

I don't see that. I refer again to para 3, and I'm confident that the ECHR would strike that down.

Which is why it’s puzzling that you feel it’s Netenyahu who should be singled out for criticism here.

Did you miss my criticism of the Polish government in my first post in this thread? And for one, I don't see an antisemitic motivation in this law, and for two, Netanyahu's own criticism that it would constitute "Holocaust denial" is completely over the top - if you read the law, it frickingly affirms in the first paragraph that the Holocaust took place.

 

[Mycroft]

I disagree, from the wording of the law, that this would censor that.

Do you?

I’ve read the law as described in the article and I’ve read through the Wikipedia page you linked to, and I do not share your confidence.

I agree with you. But I don't see how this is what it's touted to be. It prohibits claiming the "Polish People" - i.e., the collection of all Poles living at the time - collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust. It doesn't prohibit saying that Lech A. or Stanislaus B., or even the villagers of village X did that.

If I went to Poland and wrote some articles pointing out that the Polish people have a history of anti-Semitism, that it existed in Poland long before the Nazis came, that the Nazis encouraged and stoked what already existed, and indeed that Polish anti-Semitism is still pretty strong today even by Eastern European standards and concluded that it would be amazing beyond belief if Polish anti-Semitism didn’t aid the Nazi agenda in some way, it seems like I could get in trouble with this law. Everything I just said is either objectively true or perfectly reasonable conjecture, but because I’m speaking in general terms and not identifying specific people, I could be fined or jailed.

I don't see that. I refer again to para 3, and I'm confident that the ECHR would strike that down.

If you could clarify, ECHR means European Court of Human Rights, correct? Are you saying it would strike down the whole law or just that third paragraph?

Did you miss my criticism of the Polish government in my first post in this thread? And for one, I don't see an antisemitic motivation in this law, and for two, Netanyahu's own criticism that it would constitute "Holocaust denial" is completely over the top - if you read the law, it frickingly affirms in the first paragraph that the Holocaust took place.

I don’t necessarily think anti-Semitism does motivate this law, at least not explicitly, but I also disagree that labeling something “holocaust denial” is axiomatically an accusation of anti-Semitism.

Very little of actual holocaust denial denies the entirety of the Holocaust. It’s almost all about minimization, nit-picking, and blame shifting. This law certainly does meet that criteria, especially by the hyperbolic standards of everyday political speech. If this law in any way deters someone from speaking an uncomfortable truth, then that truth is denied, and it does reach the level of denial regardless of the motivation of it’s author or supporters.