Re: Columnist Calls for Boycott of German Cars

Personally, I think the whole thing is to prevent Jews in America from owning diesel automobiles. No self-respecting Jew on Lawnguyland is going to be seen in something so gauche as a Dodge Ram 2500 diesel.

--TW Don't ask, don't tell. No need to know, anyway.

And how about all those Freightliner rigs? No more F-line

Wonder how Mr. Peters feels about vehicles from Japanese companies?

Allan (onetime owner of 3 Audis, a Passat, and 2 Bugs)

Not to mention that this would hurt the American auto workers who make X5s and M-classes.

-- Mike Smith

Well, I can't speak for Jews, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a TDI under my hood - if the powers that be would finally get around to mandating Euro-spec diesel fuel, so we could have the *really* good TDIs instead of the anemic crappy ones we get now.

-- Mike Smith

Heh, for this you'd have to boycott American goods too! :)

Randolph, your attempt at a reductio ad absurdam argument against boycotting is pretty childish. Boycotts are short-term tactical efforts, not categorical moral statements. Boycotts are undertaken only when not unduly self-punishing, when superior to other remedies under the specific circumstances, and when likely to exert salutary pressure on the boycott's target. Boycotts of British imports played an important role in preparing the American revolution; so too in India in fomenting independence from Britain. Boycotts are also conducted within the U.S. to apply commercial or political pressure against specific corporations or organizations.

Under the leadership of the present French and German governments, Europe is being steadily moved in the direction of permanent alliance with Africa and the Near East's nastiest dictators and toward active hostility and covert belligerency against the United States.

That certainly merits the imposing of costs on French and German nationals. A voluntary boycott of new purchases of German cars would send a modest but salutary message to the appropriate letter box.

What I understood from the article you posted is that the author wants to boycott German cars not for the policies of the German government, but rather for the sentiments of the German populous. If Peters' assertions that tens of millions of Germans harbor anti-Jewish sentiments is right, then I believe a boycott of German cars would be counterproductive. If he is wrong, as I think he is, the boycott is nothing more than an expression of one misguided writer's biases.

It is true that the French and German governments are critical of Israel's acti>

To the contrary, imposing considerable cost for the maintenance of such attitudes would be a useful first step towards compelling debate within Germany.

There's a wealth of evidence that anti-Semitism is indeed what is going on in France and Germany. Certainly this is the case with the attacks on Jews emanating from the large Moslem populations there. But there's also evidence of similar traditional anti-Semitic attitudes among French and German governing elites. Recall that Major Ralph Peters op ed was a response to just such an elite manifestation of anti-Semitism (a German general writing to a neo-Nazi-leaning member of the Bundestag). Recall also how two years ago there was a notorious incident at a London high society dinner when France's ambassador to the Court of St. James described Israel as "that s***ty little nation":

To the contrary, imposing considerable cost for the maintenance of such attitudes would be a useful first step towards compelling debate within Germany.

There's a wealth of evidence that anti-Semitism is indeed what is going on in France and Germany. Certainly this is the case with the attacks on Jews emanating from the large Moslem populations there. But there's also evidence of similar traditional anti-Semitic attitudes among French and German governing elites. Recall that Major Ralph Peters op ed was a response to just such an elite manifestation of anti-Semitism (a German general writing to a neo-Nazi-leaning member of the Bundestag). Recall also how two years ago there was a notorious incident at a London high society dinner when France's ambassador to the Court of St. James described Israel as "that s***ty little nation":

Examples of policies of "separation" implemented by those in power at the time:

c.1870-c.1960 United States

Are you saying that they made "common sense"?

Common sense amongst bigots.

Richard Schulman:

Timothy J. Lee:

You have made a very simple-minded confusion of (1) nominal separation without actual political separation, in order for one party to continue dominating the other; vs. (2) geographic and political separation, in order to let each party pursue its own destiny independently.

In the first two cases you cite, segregation in the U.S. South and apartheid in the Union of South Africa, there was no political separation or even rule of law for the subordinated party.

The Yugoslavian example is badly chosen on your part. In fact it is a textbook case of where and why separation of hopelessly antagonistic peoples is desirable. Slovenia has become a successful democratic republic. Croatia and Serbia are moving in that direction. By contrast, the bloodshed and continued antagonism is in those areas where there was incomplete separation, e.g., Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the U.N. and Clinton administration pursued a utopian scheme of trying to make lambs and wolves live happily together.

The fence being established by Israel on its eastern boundary is a necessary first step toward geographic and political separation, i.e., Palestinian independence.