How it is that historical association can be ignored, with all the insensitive consequence of doing so, for the sake of using the most severe and recognizable labels is beyond me. There might be a more complicated argument behind it, but absent that being revealed to me in simple enough terms, the label of Zi0nist Nazi is definitely one of the more peculiar I recall hearing. It doesn't even seem to matter if the labels are independently proved as a matter of intent, for correlations seem to do just fine. It's odd how I don't often hear, or maybe I just don't notice, anyone that killed or ordered the killing of millions being so labelled, but if a person is not wholly loyal, or loyal to the litmus tenets of the day in someone's world, he then becomes a Zionist Nazi, or Nazi Zionist, or ZioNazi, or some such things in that person's world.
Are so called Zionist Nazis related to the also so called self hating Jews?
I know Nazis killed more than Jews, and that there is a belief that Israel wants to cleanse the region round it, or at least within its current borders, but the killing of Jews association with the ideology has the strongest historical association. I don't think that's overriden if a case can be made for comparitive genocide between historical Naziism and whatever it's being compared to.
You do not even have to be a Zionist to be called a Nazi, and vice versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment