>I first thought I would agree with most of what Wengraf said - till
>reading the last paragraph (thanx, Gabor, it nearly escaped my notice).
>Reading this paragraph, however, and in particular the answer of Mr. Roos
>I must say that this debate is going to far. It is a very often used
>practice of antisemits to compare Israel and/or the Jews with the Nazis.
>And this is absolutely unacceptable antisemitism.
It is absolutely unacceptable to refuse to compare the practices of one
power-regime with another. I don't compare "the Jews" with "the Nazis"; I
compare the policy and practice of power of one regime with another. To say
it is "absolutely unacceptable to compare one State power with another
State power" is pathetic evasion.
> In fact, this is not the new antisemtism or better, in Tanguieff's terms
>judéophobie, but old standard antisemitism. Just to reiterate: the Jews
>didn't commit permanently terrorist attacks against the Germans - and were
I agree. If anti-Nazi forces in Germany and in Europe had had the power to
'fight back" against the expanding Nazi regime in the way that the
Allied-supported resistance fought back in the early 1940s using "terror"
(or in the way that some Zionists fought "with terror" against the British
regime after 1945), then perhaps less anti-Nazis (including less Jews)
might have been exterminated.
>The terrorism of the Palestinians was their strategy to avoid a peace
>settlement twice, once under Peres - the terrorism brought Netanjahu as
>Prime minister, the second time under Barak: the terrorist attacks led to
>the landslight victory of Sharon.
Wasn't it the carefully stage-managed propvocation of Sharon that helped
trigger-off the Palestinians?
Note the insistence on talking about "the Jews", "the Germans", "the
Palestinians" when sociologists should be thinking about the complexity of
relations between power-regimes and their populations. Using this way of
thinking, one should think of the "German-Jews" being complicit in the
invasion of Czechoslovakia: if the ruling regime does something then we
talk of "the people" doing that something.
This is irrespective of the merits of that 'peace settlement'. After all,
Zionists fought against the British peace settlement in Israel; British
people fought against the Nazi "peace settlement" in Europe; the Americans
fought against the British "peace settlement" when they had their
revolution in the 18th century. Which Roman said, "they made a desert and
they called it peace"?
>Unlike Nazi-Germany Israel is a democracy; by the way, with Israeli Arab
>deputies in the Knesset. Was that the case in Nazi Germany?
No, it wasn't.
>One can easily condemn the occupation policy of Israel like all
>traditional occupation policies (similar policies were used by the British
>in Palestine in former times)without referring to the Nazi politics.
Yes, but for Zionist Jews committed to the expansion of colonisation, it
might wake them up to realise that a lot of people (including myself, a Jew
whose maternal grandparents and many other relatives died in the camps) DO
see them as practising Nazi-like politics..... and tribal double-think.
> In this respect, and only in this respect, Baruch is wrong: One cannot
>compare the Israeli policy with the Nazi politics in the slavonic areas
>they occupied as they had plans to exterminate the Slavonic nations as
>well. No one can claim that even Sharon intends to exterminate the
Nazis had plans to keep many of the 'inferior races' as hewers of wood and
drawers of water. This has been the consistent policy of the apartheid
regime in South Africa and of the Zionists until very recently. The
anti-arabist sentiments expressed by the Right-Zionist Minister shot a few
months ago referred to the Palestinians in the same race-exterminist way
("vermin") in which the Nazis referred to the Jews (this does NOT mean I
approve of him being shot: I don't).
>Antisemitism, Lasalle noted in the 19th century, is the class struggle of
>the stupid bloke. The new antisemitism is, apparently the anti-imperialism
>of the dull sociologists.
To confuse anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is an idiocy of a very dull
imperialist and colonising sociology
>Roanld J Pohoryles
>The Interdisciplinary Centre for Comparative Research in the
>Social Sciences (IFS-ICCR-CIR)
>Schottenfeldgasse 69/1; A-1070 Vienna
>Tel: +43.1.524 13 93-111
>Fax: +43.1.524 13 93-200
>91, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré; F-75008 Paris
>Tel: +33.1.44 71-3567
>Fax: +33.1.44 71-3568
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>Von: Tom Wengraf [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Februar 2002 22:57
>An: [log in to unmask]
>Betreff: Re: small distinctions?
>> If you
>>don't like Sharon's policy, it doesn't mean that this is not a war and
>>databases aren't and aren't to be utilised as strategic, intelligence
>>and military sources. And in a war everybody must take a position on one
>>of the sides.
>No! There are a whole variety of wars going on, and most of them do not
>require us to take a position "behind" one side or another. Many
>contemporary wars are three-or-more sided, by the way. The whole blackmail
>of the Cold War and of World Bullies is to force everybody to become
>unconditional supporters of one or other -- hopefully the most powerful --
>and then call on them to cease all criticism of that 'strongest side' for
>fear of being called a 'traitor' ('terrorist') and treated as one. Indeed,
>a much more credible (or at least equally credible position) might be that
>in most wars (not all), everyone ought to take a position against the
>continuation of the war.
>>This is a global war and as times go on, neutrality and
>>moralizing looses its place, even in the circles of highly educated
>>sociologists as well.
>Should we all have backed one side or the other in the First World War?
>The need for us to avoid 'crowd fever' and 'choose your sides for total
>liquidationist war' GROWS as war hysteria and psychological warfare for one
>more final solution in what is heralded as "the" global war ("The War to
>End all Wars" is an old slogan) between supposed Totally Good and supposed
>Totally Evil is intensified by the regimes and interests that want such a
>>(3) Dear sociologists, please utilise as many databases as possible but
>>don't think the way you collect and/or utilise them is value free. It is
>>not. And if it is a criterion of morality, democracy and peace to make
>>databases that are accessible to everybody, don't say "it was financed
>>by the European Union". - So what? What about the media databases
>>sponsored by anybody that show and teach young Palestinians how to
>>commit suicide actions? Shouldn't we protest against the Palestinian
>>utilising of welfare-state electronic products and PR skills for such
>>goals? Of course as - let's say - sociologists of communications?
>Is it 'morally' better for Israelis to be taught to commit
>murder-without-personal-risk actions from helicopter gunships or for
>Palestinians to be taught to commit
>murder-with-personal-death-as-invariable-effect in bus queues?
>The kill-rate between the high-technology US-backed Israelis and the
>low-technology US-opposed Palestinians is very clearly to the disadvantage
>of the Palestinians.
>Value-freedom is not possible, but value-reflexivity on the basis of a
>value-commitment to the equal humanity of all humans I think is; and
>'highly educated sociologists' should struggle to avoid 'ethnic-tribal'
>bias especially in times of high-technology state terror against those
>without a state, such as the Nazi State against the Jews, or the Israeli
>State against the Palestinians.
> is where you'll find
> details of my doing-quite-well textbook (Sage 2001)
> 'Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic narrative and
>Content-type: text/x-vcard; name=",Pohoryles, Ronald (E-Mail).vcf"
>Content-disposition: attachment; filename=",Pohoryles, Ronald (E-Mail).vcf"
>Content-description: ,Pohoryles, Ronald (E-Mail).vcf
>Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:,Pohoryles, Ronald (E-Mail).vcf
is where you'll find
details of my doing-quite-well textbook (Sage 2001)
'Qualitative Research Interviewing: biographic narrative and