What is so special about 'Jewish' suffering?

[been-there]

That Jews have suffered is undeniable, but Jewish suffering is claimed to have been so enduring, so intense and so particular that it is to be treated differently from other sufferings.

The issue is complex and cannot be fully debated or decided here but the following points may stimulate thought and discussion.

- During even the most terrible times of Jewish suffering such as the Crusades or the Chmielnitzky massacres of seventeenth century Ukraine, and even more so at other times in history, it has been said that the average peasant would have given his eye-teeth to be a Jew. The meaning is clear: generally speaking, and throughout most of their history, the condition of Jews was often far superior to the mass of the population.

- The above-mentioned Ukrainian massacres took place in the context of a peasant uprising against the oppression of the Ukrainian peasantry by their Polish overlords. As has often been the case, Jews were seen as occupying a traditional position of being in alliance with the ruling class in their oppression of the peasantry. Chmielnitzky, the leader of this popular uprising, is today a Ukrainian national hero, not for his assaults on Jews (there are even references to his having offered poor Jews to join the uprising against their exploitative co-religionists – the Jews declined) but for his championing of the rights of the oppressed Ukrainians. Again, the inference is plain: outbreaks of anti-Semitic violence, though never justified, have often been responses to Jewish behaviour both real and imaginary.

- In the Holocaust three million Polish Jews died, but so did three million non-Jewish Poles. Jews were targeted but so were Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs and Poles. Similarly, the Church burned Jews for their dissenting beliefs but then the church burned everyone for their dissenting beliefs. So again, the question must be asked: what’s so special about Jewish suffering?

The Holocaust, the paradigm for all anti-Semitism and all Jewish suffering, is treated as being beyond examination and scrutiny. Questioning the Holocaust narrative is, at best, socially unacceptable, leading often to social exclusion and discrimination, and, at worst, in some places is illegal and subject to severe penalty. Holocaust revisionist scholars, named Holocaust deniers by their opponents, have challenged this. They do not deny a brutal and extensive assault on Jews by the Nazi regime but they do deny the Holocaust narrative as framed by present day establishments and elites. Specifically, their denial is limited to three main areas. First, they deny that there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or any other part of the Nazi regime systematically and physically to eliminate every Jew in Europe; second, they deny that there ever existed homicidal gas-chambers; third, they claim that the numbers of Jewish victims of the Nazi assault have been greatly exaggerated.

But none of this is the point. Whether those who question the Holocaust narrative are revisionist scholars striving to find the truth and shamelessly persecuted for opposing a powerful faction, or whether they are crazy Jew-haters denying a tragedy and defaming its victims, the fact is that one may question the Armenian genocide, one may freely discuss the Slave Trade, one can say that the murder of millions of Ibos, Kampucheans and Rwandans never took place and that the moon is but a piece of green cheese floating in space, but one may not question the Jewish Holocaust. Why? Because, like the rest of the Jewish history of suffering, the Holocaust underpins the narrative of Jewish innocence which is used to bewilder and befuddle any attempt to see and to comprehend Jewish power and responsibility in Israel/Palestine and elsewhere in the world.
Paul Eisen

[Nessie]

What the author of the piece you quote is saying is that in his mind Jewish suffering is special and he questions why that is. But Jewish suffering is not special. It means more to Jews in the same way Rwandan suffering means more to Rwandans. Nothing wrong or unusual in that. It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust. Some countries have made denial illegal, which is different from study.

[been-there]

What the author of the piece you quote is saying is that in his mind Jewish suffering is special and he questions why that is. But Jewish suffering is not special. It means more to Jews in the same way Rwandan suffering means more to Rwandans. Nothing wrong or unusual in that. It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust. Some countries have made denial illegal, which is different from study.

No. Wrong again. Eisner is NOT EXPRESSING HIS OPINION THAT 'Jewish' suffering is special. He is asking why it is presented to the world as so special.
The article is also NOT discussing why its considered special to 'Jews', but is instead discussing why 'Jews' expect everyone else to regard their suffering as "special".
Perhaps your own identification with an abstract idea of your own 'Jewishness' is blinding you to this. Try reading it again.
Please also consider that in post after post you and Cerdic are demonstrating repeatedly how you are incapable of understanding the intent of articles. This I present to you as a sign to consider.

Lastly, can you name me one person who has studied and questioned the basic premises of the currently accepted 'holocaust' narrative and hasn't suffered some form of retribution and intimidation for that.
If you cannot even name one such person, will you acknowledge that you were wrong and were practicising self-delusory denial when you wrote: "It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust".

[Cerdic]

What's so special about Jews that you must put their name in quotation marks? "Jews", "Jewish" instead of Jews, Jewish?

I don't believe Jews are special. However, the nature of the genocide committed against them was special and the reasons why that is so has been explained before on RODOH.

Anyway - instead of whining about how history is remembered today, how about Rovno?

[Nessie]

.....No. Wrong again. Eisner is NOT EXPRESSING HIS OPINION THAT 'Jewish' suffering is special. He is asking why it is presented to the world as so special.
The article is also NOT discussing why its considered special to 'Jews', but is instead discussing why 'Jews' expect everyone else to regard their suffering as "special".
Perhaps your own identification with an abstract idea of your own 'Jewishness' is blinding you to this. Try reading it again.
Please also consider that in post after post you and Cerdic are demonstrating repeatedly how you are incapable of understanding the intent of articles. This I present to you as a sign to consider.

It is an opinion piece designed to provoke a debate.That you do not understand the motive of the article is something you need to consider.

My reaction to the article is that it is wrong. Where is the evidence Jews expect everyone else to regard their suffering as special?

Lastly, can you name me one person who has studied and questioned the basic premises of the currently accepted 'holocaust' narrative and hasn't suffered some form of retribution and intimidation for that.
If you cannot even name one such person, will you acknowledge that you were wrong and were practicising self-delusory denial when you wrote: "It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust".

By basic premise, I take it you mean to deny it happened. If so, then no one to my knowledge has denied the Holocaust and no suffered. Otherwise it is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust with regards to specifics, like was there a gas chamber at Dachau? How many actually died at Auschwitz? Did the Nazis use human skin to make lampshades?

[Nessie]

What's so special about Jews that you must put their name in quotation marks? "Jews", "Jewish" instead of Jews, Jewish?

I don't believe Jews are special. However, the nature of the genocide committed against them was special and the reasons why that is so has been explained before on RODOH.

Anyway - instead of whining about how history is remembered today, how about Rovno?

I disagree it was special. It was different from other genocides, in as much as each one does differ from others. But that does not make it special.

[Nessie]

Paul Eisen on himself

"I differ from the Holocaust Revisionists. They are scholars – historians and scientists who apply ‘truth and exactitude’ to determine the truth or otherwise of the Holocaust narrative. I’m no scholar. I care nothing for the chemical traces in brickwork or the topological evidence for mass graves. But I’ve read the literature, and it just doesn’t add up."

and on revisionism

"The Holocaust revisionist scholars and researchers are dedicated and skilled students of historical evidence..."

http://pauleisen.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12 ... -paul.html

Someone needs to let Eisen know there are no scholars involved in revisionism.

[Statistical Mechanic]

Lastly, can you name me one person who has studied and questioned the basic premises of the currently accepted 'holocaust' narrative and hasn't suffered some form of retribution and intimidation for that.
If you cannot even name one such person, will you acknowledge that you were wrong and were practicising self-delusory denial when you wrote: "It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust".

Donald Bloxham. Daniel Blatman. Wolf Gruner. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. (There's 4. Although I know for a fact, many people were critical of Bloxham and Chodakwieicz. Which is how it goes.)

[been-there]

.

Lastly, can you name me one person who has studied and questioned the basic premises of the currently accepted 'holocaust' narrative and hasn't suffered some form of retribution and intimidation for that.
If you cannot even name one such person, will you acknowledge that you were wrong and were practicising self-delusory denial when you wrote: "It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust".

By basic premise, I take it you mean to deny it happened. If so, then no one to my knowledge has denied the Holocaust and no suffered. Otherwise it is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust with regards to specifics, like was there a gas chamber at Dachau? How many actually died at Auschwitz? Did the Nazis use human skin to make lampshades?

There are three basic premises of the 'holocaust' mentioned in the article. Try reading it again.

[been-there]

Lastly, can you name me one person who has studied and questioned the basic premises of the currently accepted 'holocaust' narrative and hasn't suffered some form of retribution and intimidation for that.
If you cannot even name one such person, will you acknowledge that you were wrong and were practicising self-delusory denial when you wrote: "It is perfectly possible to study and question the Holocaust".

Donald Bloxham. Daniel Blatman. Wolf Gruner. Marek Jan Chodakiewicz. (There's 4. Although I know for a fact, many people were critical of Bloxham and Chodakwieicz. Which is how it goes.)

What are the basic premises that they questioned?