Cycloptichorn wrote:Sure it does. You see, to non-bigots, it's not a stupid question.
It's an easy one to answer.
But you're bigoted against the Palestinians and have displayed it at each and every opportunity you are given. I just gave you another opportunity to do so and you took it again, as usual.
Repudiate your former position; declare that all lives are equal despite people's ethnic background.
Cyclotichorn
I have a feeling that the above statement (all lives are equal despite people's ethnic background) is adding apples and oranges, in context of the prior posts. I say this because the thread previously seemed to be focussing on nationalities, not ethnic backgrounds?
Perhaps, the answer to the question is within the "thought experiment" of wondering if one feels the same
remorse for all ethnic groups, if some natural disaster struck that ethnic group? Or, replace ethnic group with nationality to be more precise, based on this thread's posts?
Personally, I believe few people feel equal remorse for all nationalities, or ethnic groups. I believe, most people feel remorse for their own nationality or ethnic group with greater commiseration.
The problem as an American is that the rest of the world, I believe, tends to equate ethnic group with nationality; however, Americans might just see nationality separate from ethnic group, since there are many ethnic groups within America. For American soldiers fighting in combat, they treated their fellow soldiers as fellow Americans; ethnicity, I believe, was usually a minimal focus. Civilian Americans may not always be as generous to other American ethnic groups, I believe?
Anyway, if one can truthfully say they would feel equal remorse for all other ethnic groups/nationalities, that is admirable, I believe, but I find it hard to believe that that is the general rule in humanity.
Getting back to the Israelis and Palestinians, how might they have remorse for the victims of violence on the opposite side? Perhaps, mothers understand better what a grieving mother feels, but for the men, I'm not so sure either side has great commiseration for the other side. Naturally, I'm generalizing, and individuals think for themselves.
By the way, while posters focus on the Holocaust as the tragedy that led to Israel, and might in some way, in the minds of posters, explain what might appear as an intransigent position by Israel, let's not forget that over half of Israel is composed of Middle Eastern Jews whose ancestors were second class citizens in the Middle Eastern countries that they had lived in prior to 1957. I think it fair to say that both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews in Israel have a very bitter history with the world of their ancestors.
Also, that whole discussion on atoning means what? Penance like in Catholicism? Reparations? The Rememberance shtick? I think atoning is for the benefit of the nation whose prior generation did something not nice. But don't ask the victims, or the descendants of victims (who now have fewer relatives; do the math) to give absolution/forgiveness. Only Priests can give absolution. Not victims, or descendants of victims. If a victim, or descendant of a victim, wants to forget the history, that's an individual's choice, but absolution/forgiveness is really incorrectly applied if one says they are "forgiving" (one can forgive someone for forgetting to send a birthday card, but forgive a nation for carrying out a Final Solution? The scope of the deed is too great for any forgiveness; only time can heal such a departure from humanity). My point is, Germany and its citizens are dealing with their history however they choose, which as an observer is much better than other countries in Europe. But, only time passing will heal. I don't believe forgiveness is an appropriate thought. And, not forgiving does not mean one harbors a grudge. It's just a mindset, like the Passover story. No forgiving the Egyptian Pharoh; no harboring a grudge either.
