"Our Destiny is to Rule Over the Inferior Races!!!"

[unwise]

No, not a quote from Hitler or Goëring; it is Menachem Begin:

[guest_of_logic]

It would seem very unwise for an Israeli prime minister to say something like that publicly, even if he thought it privately. The onus is therefore on you to prove that the quotation comes from a valid source. I've done a bit of hunting around on the internet, and I haven't been able to find one - in fact it seems likely to me that the quote is a fabrication.

A couple of people on the Wikiquote talk page for Menachem Begin came to the same conclusion. So did a guy on a slate forum thread.

I did manage to finally find a claimed source for the quotation on the hitlerresearch.org site: 'quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” New Statesman, June 25, 1982'.

But then, I found a couple of sites debunking another supposed quotation that Kapeliouk attributed to Menachem, and the debunked quotation was far less extreme than the one that you provided - surely they would have dealt with that one too if it had actually been in the article? Here those two sites are: this nationmaster.com encyclopedia article for Amnon Kapeliouk mentions the "beasts walking on two legs" attribution, but not the "master race" one; camera.org's Exposing False Zionist Quotes II (Quote Busters II) comments on the "beasts walking on two legs" attribution under the heading "Investigation--Example 2", but it doesn't mention the "master race" attribution which supposedly occurred in the same article by Amnon, which surely would deserve a mention if it actually had been made in Kapeliouk's article.

You claim that this quotation comes from a speech to the Knesset, which is even more unbelievable. So... can you provide a transcript of this speech from a reliable source?

Or, if you can dredge up the June 25, 1982 copy of New Statesman, and scan in Kapeliouk's article, and post a link to that scanned image, then you will at least have proof that Kapeliouk claimed that Menachem said it (but where? In the Knesset?).

Here's a post on the abovetopsecret.com forum by a guy who claims that there were Arab members of the Knesset at the supposed time of the supposed quote, and even those Arabs didn't mention hearing anything so racist. I don't know whether or not this is true, but if it is, then it's not looking too good for your case...

Ball's in your court mate.

[arek4321]

how can one race be "better" than another? this is preposterous, all human beings function the same way, the only differences are aesthetic ones. That is like saying, black bears are better than polar bears. Or that white tigers and better than orange ones. Lately, i feel as if Israel has the curse of "manifest destiny" imprinted in their minds and are trying to be the America of the Middle East, which has already started with the expansion into Palestine. I understand they think they are the best because they are the only Middle Eastern country (save Turkey here and there), but that is only because they are sucking on Uncle Sam's teet which is supplying them with state of the art American weaponry that the arab world just cannot afford. Some people are ridiculous, how ironic that Israel's prime minister is walking the same path as Israel's worst enemy, Hitler. I guess history does repeat itself huh?

[Leyla Shen]

It would seem very unwise for an Israeli prime minister to say something like that publicly, even if he thought it privately.

What about a political scientist at the Hebrew University?

The Logic of Occupation (Chomsky)

The consequences are revealed in a different though complementary way in the pages of the Jerusalem Post, where Mordechai Nisan, a political scientist at the Hebrew University who has elsewhere expressed his approval for Jewish terrorism, writes the following lines,3 which are treated with respect and proudly exhibited to the international audience of “supporters of Israel”:

At the very dawn of Jewish history, contact with the Land of Israel established the principle that the presence of non-Jews in the country is morally and politically irrelevant to the national right of the Jews to settle and possess the Land… The Bible states the Jewish right regardless of non-Jewish presence. Much later, the Rabbinic sages expounded on the patriarchal promise and articulated the following principle:… Dwelling in the Land is the Jewish priority and it is in no way restricted, let alone nullified, by a non-Jewish majority population in any given part of the Land. This principle was later codified by Maimonides in his legal work, thus lending his outstanding halachic [religious legal] authority to this Abrahamic national imperative... [The view that rejects the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria] is a direct denunciation of Abraham, the first Jew, the Father of the Jewish people [who] set the precedent and model for settling there in spite of the fact that “the Canaanite was then in the Land.” The Jewish presence in the Land has always had to contend with, and at least partially overcome, an indigenous non-Jewish element in the Land.

As we read in the genocidal texts of the Bible, an implicit reference that his Israeli leaders will understand. He continues:

In the democratic age we live in, it is a difficult task to openly adopt what seems like a non-democratic position. But it is nowhere provided that non-Jews will enjoy full equal rights as a national community. After all, the Land is the eternal possession of the Jewish people alone… The tasks of politics, often involving the use of violence, can at times only be achieved by sacrificing the purity of the soul. It is this reality which Zionism raised to the plane of modern Jewish historical experience in the State of Israel, and it is clear that some people have yet to understand this, or have yet to accept it. Yet, this inexorable reality will move on and impress itself more deeply on the Israeli consciousness. This would become a smoother process if people realized that pouring Western liberal ideas into Jewish vessels, and serving them up as Jewish, is dishonest and dangerous. It is not my contention that such people err in their humanity, but rather in their claim that their personal views are an authentic reflection of Tora teaching, Jewish morality and Israeli interests. Even our era of intellectual and ethical relativism cannot sanction this forgery.

Western Enlightenment is, in effect, a heresy that should be put aside in favor of “Tora teaching.”* The sense that the age of the Enlightenment is over and that it was based on fundamental misconceptions of human nature and needs has significant roots in Zionist thinking, even among liberal Zionists. One of the most noted of these, long a spokesman for a liberal humanist perspective, wrote in 1934, in Berlin, that the coming to power of the Nazis (the “German revolution”) signifies the end of the liberal era: “The development from the unity of man of the Enlightenment to the unity of nation of the present contains within itself the principle of the development from the concept of mankind to the concept of the nation,” a development that he appears to regard as a desirable and progressive one, and that places the “Jewish question” in a new light. Assimilation was natural in an era of liberalism and under the impact of the mistaken ideals of the Enlightenment. But for the present era, what is needed is the principle of “recognition of the Jewish nation and the Jewish race.” As for the Nazi State, “A state which is built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can have esteem and respect for the Jews only when they identify themselves in the same manner,” as people “of one nation and one race,” abandoning Enlightenment errors.4

I guess that’s not quite as unwise as a politician . . .

The onus is therefore on you to prove that the quotation comes from a valid source. I've done a bit of hunting around on the internet, and I haven't been able to find one - in fact it seems likely to me that the quote is a fabrication.

You appear pettier with each sentence uttered. You would have done better to have ignored this post, rather than use it to show up your own indolence and ineptitude.

[Unidian]

I'm no Israel-lover, but that quote sounds fishier than an episode of Most Haunted.

Authenticate the quote, please. I think it's made up.

[Tomas]

.


-arek4321-
how can one race be "better" than another?

tomas-
Read the Talmud. It didn't start with Menachem Begin, he merely enshrined (breathed life) into the corpse.

[Leyla Shen]

how can one race be "better" than another?

[cue thunder and lightning]

Well, it all started some time after the failure that was the Great Flood when all of mankind were united and decided to build a fucking tower that reached to the heavens. What hubris! The gods, of course (and particularly Yahweh, the instigator of wrath—although, God only knows which god it really was – one really can only assume), didn’t like this. So, the "Royal We"s descended upon mankind like a whore upon a throbbing cock, apparently with Yahweh as their head rep, and confounded the peoples’ language, creating all the nations and scattering them upon the Earth. And the story goes on . . .

See? All the answers you need are in the Holy Books!

[guest_of_logic]

Replying just before this thread slips off page 2 of the forum index...

It would seem very unwise for an Israeli prime minister to say something like that publicly, even if he thought it privately.

What about a political scientist at the Hebrew University?

[quotes snipped]

I guess that’s not quite as unwise as a politician . . .

Yeah - poor diplomacy by a politician, especially a prime minister, seems to usually have a lot more potential for damaging consequences than poor diplomacy by an academic.

The academic's words that you quoted, though disagreeable, weren't nearly as provocative and extreme as the quote that I was questioning, which asserted Jews to be a "Master Race" of "divine gods", whom the "inferior races" ("human excrement") would "lick [the] feet [of]" and "serve ... as ... slaves".

The onus is therefore on you to prove that the quotation comes from a valid source. I've done a bit of hunting around on the internet, and I haven't been able to find one - in fact it seems likely to me that the quote is a fabrication.

You appear pettier with each sentence uttered. You would have done better to have ignored this post, rather than use it to show up your own indolence and ineptitude.

Challenging the attribution of the quote was the purpose of my post, but you didn't even comment on that. Your criticism seems to stem from a perception of political bias on my part - my post, though, was apolitical and I would have equally challenged a dubious-seeming quote attributed to a prominent Palestinian. Do you have an opinion on whether the quote was attributed correctly or not? If so, can you substantiate that opinion?

I came across another quote recently, attributed to Thomas Paine:

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."

Liberty might include freedom from being lied about, and oppression might include being lied about, but even if not, the same principle applies. You seem to consider Zionists to be your enemies, or that they at the very least deserve strong opposition, but if you tacitly accept ("[y]ou would have done better to have ignored this post") lies being spread about them, then you set a precedent for the acceptability of lies being spread about yourself and about those whom you support.