Germany back than, vs Isreal now

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by jumpy

I have to admit, I only viewed the link and discounted the rest of the site and it's other probable bias - putting my thoughts on the matter coherently was meandering enough already. Anyway, I stated in passing as such to mark the sometime response to issues like this one. Worth mentioning only for the sake of giving the OP some benefit of the doubt as to motivations in the discussion, and not particularly as a dig at any individual or anything like that; but it is a thing that seems sometimes so intimately connected with the subject of israel that it is often hard to avoid. The same can be said of the opposing palestinian viewpoint.

. . .

Taking the images at their face value, as alluded to in this thread already, would seem to be the most direct way to see through the diametric arguments.
In which case there is a strong similarity to the image comparison. Verisimilitude is a better word for it. And that's where I looked at the motivation to both interpretations (pro/anti israel/palestinian), either way of looking at it passes over the very real suffering shown in both, to the end that I found each to be misleading as a statement of an agenda. At least from my own perspective, such as it is.
The comparison is divisive from either end of the spectrum and therefore almost impossible to see on its own. I think this is the intent of the originator of the link; invidious it certainly is. But that was what I was trying to avoid.

As a direct response to you JSLTIGER, I see no reason why you should 'admit' to being jewish - I did find that an odd way to put it if I'm honest. I'm not criticising, it struck me more that you see it very differently, or with more weight than I. But there's no cause to 'admit' - the term for me carries some implication of guilt, where I certainly see none that is relevant here in this matter or anywhere else. I'm not sure I expressed that right or that I took it in the manner you intended.

I'm going to work backwards here and start with a quick response to what you wrote last, first. The reason I used the word "admit" was not because I feel guilty in the slightest, but rather merely intended to convey an understanding of my own biases in my writings and viewpoint, especially in regards to this topic, where I find myself to be very close to the subject matter.

I understand how you can see similarities in the two sets of photos, because that is precisely the point that the site was attempting to get across. What I was trying to point out, however, is that I think that it is negligent to ignore the context in which these photos were taken and the motivations behind the selections of photos used for the comparison. There is an agenda behind the selection of each of the photos used for the comparison, and to ignore that seems a bit disingenuous to me. Additionally, the fact that several of these photos (the modern ones anyway) could clearly be the result of optical illusions on film should also be taken into account.

I suppose what I am saying is really that it is all about context, context, context. The problem with this site and the photographic comparison is that there is no context provided, and consequently imagery that looks similar likely has been distorted from very different realities.