Hey Jewish guys of Poly...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


What about Jewish German citizens? Should they pay reparations too?

.

The german STATE should pay reperation. Those Jews who have chose to live in Germany, as German citizens, should pay their share of taxes for that, as for ALL German state debts.

Similarly, should the US ever decide to pay reparations to African Americans, the funds would come out of the federal treasury, including taxes paid by african americans.


Look -If I own shares in say, Microsoft, and M$ does something illegal, and im damaged by it, and i sue, MS pays, and that comes (ultimately) out of the wealth of ALL stockholders, myself included. Why is this so hard to understand?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


And who is saying that? How far are those comments self-serving, when we talk say about some lobby groups?

Those radical zionist groups have turned "antisemitic" to mean "critical of Israel".

What a "radical zionist"? I have been a supporter of the Israeli Labor party for a long time, I supported the Oslo process, and I thought Barak was right to make his offer to Arafat at Taba. I have argued vociferously against people who want to transfer the Pals out of the territories, who think the Pals have no rights to the territories, and who claimed Abbas was not a genuine moderate. I do not as a general rule agree with Sharon, and think he is making many mistakes.

However I also think he has been surprising restrained since taking office, given the provocations. I do think 80% at least of what Israel has done in the last 3 years has been justified. I do not think is Israel is without some moral and legal rights in the territories, though I would sacrifice those rights for the sake of peace.

As far as i can tell most Jewish organizations in Europe and Israel are not more right wing than those positions, including those organizations that have focused on European antisemitism.

I also do not think that every Likud supporter is a "radical Zionist" - while I dont agree with their positions, they have some quite reasonable things to say.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

What a "radical zionist"? I have been a supporter of the Israeli Labor party for a long time, I supported the Oslo process, and I thought Barak was right to make his offer to Arafat at Taba.

I'm taking some freedom here to return a little of the flavour of the generous use of "anti-semitic". Can't help it.

But what do you make of the groups who talk all about Israel defending itself against terror, never mentioning Israeli state terrrorism, the settlements, the humiliation and discrimination of the palestinians?

"I have argued vociferously against people who want to transfer the Pals out of the territories"

Well those are not radical zionists, those are outright fascists.

"As far as i can tell most Jewish organizations in Europe and Israel are not more right wing than those positions"

You can be a radical zionist or having a gross pro-Israel bias even as a leftist. Just like anti-Israeli biasses cut from left across right.

[Japher]

The same form of bigotry that recognizes the few as the many also recognizes the many as the few.

[Ben Kenobi]

That kind of thing. It shows youre govt borrowed money, at some point, to build some loony highway through the spruce forests or whatever.

I fail to see the leap from this example to restitutions. The government signed a contract, and should uphold their contract.

The same is with the debt. I (or rather the estate), of my father will be held responsible for any debts incurred.

These restitutions lack a contract made between the government and these parties.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler


I'm taking some freedom here to return a little of the flavour of the generous use of "anti-semitic". Can't help it.

But what do you make of the groups who talk all about Israel defending itself against terror, never mentioning Israeli state terrrorism, the settlements, the humiliation and discrimination of the palestinians?

".

I suppose they beleive that Israel is not guilty of state terrorism, and that the humiliation associated with occupation is not Israels fault, given their view of the history of the negotiations. Now I can understand that you disagree - but I cant understand that you choose to disregard their valid concerns about antisemitism on such grounds. Are the only people who are entitled to discuss antisemitism those who share your views of the situation in the middle east? That seems to me a way to shut down debate, not to expand it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I fail to see the leap from this example to restitutions. The government signed a contract, and should uphold their contract.

The same is with the debt. I (or rather the estate), of my father will be held responsible for any debts incurred.

These restitutions lack a contract made between the government and these parties.

OK good. So we start with a debt.

Now suppose your grandfather was driving recklessly and hit somebody with his car. In the common law (do y'all still got it up there ) the guys whos hit would be entitled to damages from your father. This is called a tort, IIUC. If your grandfather dies before the guy is paid, hes entitled to damages from your grandfathers estate. It is a debt on the estate, same as if there was a contract.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The german STATE should pay reperation. Those Jews who have chose to live in Germany, as German citizens, should pay their share of taxes for that, as for ALL German state debts.

Similarly, should the US ever decide to pay reparations to African Americans, the funds would come out of the federal treasury, including taxes paid by african americans.

Look -If I own shares in say, Microsoft, and M$ does something illegal, and im damaged by it, and i sue, MS pays, and that comes (ultimately) out of the wealth of ALL stockholders, myself included. Why is this so hard to understand?

Ok, at least you're being consistent. Although I disagree with the idea of national guilt completely. It's like punishing the murder weapon as well as the murderer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


Ok, at least you're being consistent. Although I disagree with the idea of national guilt completely. It's like punishing the murder weapon as well as the murderer.

But do you agree with the idea of a state debt?


How about this - before Germany makes the case that they should not be liable for further reparations related to the holocaust, they forgive all Iraqi debts incrurred by the previous regime. Why should Iraqi victims of Saddam hussein have to pay for loans taken by Saddam Hussein to oppress them, and have to repay them to the very nations that supported Saddam?

[Whaleboy]

If your cousin is implying that what the Israeli troops are doing in the territories is what the Germans did in Europe, he is not only morally incorrect, he is woefully ill-informed.

She. And is talking in general... attacking civilians, treating as second class citizens etc. I personally think a more appropriate analogy is that of apartheid, but unlike her I think it is unacceptable, notwithstanding the holocaust.

But do you agree with the idea of a state debt?

Yep, a solid, financial concept involving bank accounts and quantifiable factors. Not an abstract, emotional response that relies on the flawed notion of generations, nations, and races. Note the word "individual", which is where guilt lies, and that was resolved at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Case closed as far as I'm concerned, now we gotta look back and regard this as a terrible phase of history, not using it as a justification for some sort of vendetta, for want of a better word. The kind of vigilante justice on the ethnocentric level is something I find abhorrent, and is a dishonour to all Jews who have peaceful intent. To those Jews who still want to use the holocaust to govern their actions now, perhaps even use as a justification, I say "get over it". Its been and done. It was terrible, but lets move on.

[Sandman]

How about this - before Germany makes the case that they should not be liable for further reparations related to the holocaust, they forgive all Iraqi debts incrurred by the previous regime. Why should Iraqi victims of Saddam hussein have to pay for loans taken by Saddam Hussein to oppress them, and have to repay them to the very nations that supported Saddam?

Well, exactly. The loans taken out by Saddam should be waived. It would be nice if the West applied this policy consistently, with the debts of Zaire accumulated under Mobutu being waived since he was was overthrown.

[Ben Kenobi]

Now suppose your grandfather was driving recklessly and hit somebody with his car. In the common law (do y'all still got it up there ) the guys whos hit would be entitled to damages from your father. This is called a tort,

We have a statute of limitations of around 7 years IIRC. Therefore, if my grandfather got charged, and died before the case came to trial, his estate if he were found guilty would be charged.

Now, if you waited 7 years to file charges, he would not be held responsible even if he were guilty.

The same applies to these charges for restitution.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


We have a statute of limitations of around 7 years IIRC. Therefore, if my grandfather got charged, and died before the case came to trial, his estate if he were found guilty would be charged.

Now, if you waited 7 years to file charges, he would not be held responsible even if he were guilty.

The same applies to these charges for restitution.

we're talking civil damages, not criminal charges. I doubt theres a time limit.

[Whaleboy]

I doubt that your analogy is valid

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


She. And is talking in general... attacking civilians, treating as second class citizens etc. I personally think a more appropriate analogy is that of apartheid, but unlike her I think it is unacceptable, notwithstanding the holocaust.



Yep, a solid, financial concept involving bank accounts and quantifiable factors. Not an abstract, emotional response that relies on the flawed notion of generations, nations, and races. Note the word "individual", which is where guilt lies, and that was resolved at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Case closed as far as I'm concerned, now we gotta look back and regard this as a terrible phase of history, not using it as a justification for some sort of vendetta, for want of a better word. The kind of vigilante justice on the ethnocentric level is something I find abhorrent, and is a dishonour to all Jews who have peaceful intent. To those Jews who still want to use the holocaust to govern their actions now, perhaps even use as a justification, I say "get over it". Its been and done. It was terrible, but lets move on.

can we please look at the post that started this thread?

"On Sunday Mr Hohmann was thrown off a parliamentary commission looking at compensation for Nazi-era forced labourers. "

We're NOT talking about racial guilt. We're NOT talking about a vendetta against Germans. and Jesus Christ and General Jackson, we're NOT talking about the Middle East. This is ABOUT a commission, that the Germans, a very decent people who take history quite seriously, have established to look into the issue of compensation claims by people who were slave laborers under the Nazis. People who quite often were NOT jewish, by the way. The claim is made, IIUC, that the German state should pay for this labor and associated damages - payment that has not been made in certain cases even now.

The MP in question has raised the red herring (if you will)of racial guilt. The German state used slave laborers (NOT ALL JEWS, by any means). M any of those slave laborers are still alive. They seek not mercy, but compensation for the damages done to them.

I fail to see why this is such a matter of controversy, or what it has to do with the crimes of the Communists, or the situation in the Gaza strip, or some sermonizing about mercy. Somebody commited a tort against someone - so damages are owed - end of story - maybe my simple common law influenced Anglo-saxon (!!!!) mind cant fathom all the paths you folks are taking.

And i dont think a state of limitations is particularly appropriate here, depending on the history of proceedings since the war. Which i presume the commision is looking at.

You break it, you pay for it. A company breaks it, the company pays for it, even if the stockholders are different now. A state breaks it, the state pays for it, even if the citizens are different. Works for me.