|
« The Tories' homage to cynicism
Main |
December 12, 2003
Oldest hatred, latest chapter
Now even the EU itself has been forced to acknowledge the rising tide of antisemitism it has spawned. When they start putting it together with their own attitude to Israel, then we will really start to make progress. Posted by melanie at December 12, 2003
Comments
The supposition yet again implicit in Melanie's post title is that European peoples are poisoned deep in their very souls by the sin of hating jews. The corollary is that jews are the only sufferering party, the only victims. This is a jewish point of view. It may be the only point of view that is considered respectable. But that's because balance is missing from the debate. Indeed, a debate is missing from the debate. Perhaps we can have one now. Posted by: Drazzle at December 12, 2003 08:29 PMGood post Drazzle Posted by: Didact at December 12, 2003 08:30 PMNormally I would observe that Drazzle's post bears a strong resemblence to an inspecific ad-hominem attack. But in this case, he is quite correct. From the conservative viewpoint, only one perspective on anti-Semitism is accurate, or even creditable, regardless of evidence to the contrary. In fact, if you attempt to provide evidence to the contrary, you are going to be automatically classified as an anti-Semite, for who else would even bother to devote the energy to drawing attention to the Jewish cosmology of perpetual victimhood and its direct links to the validation of the existence of the Israeli state? And that is ad-hominem. Not that the defenders of Zion will care though. Next to shooting Palestinian kids with rubber bullets, deliberate literary fallacy is child's play. Lilith, you might find this article to your taste http://www.zeit.de/2003/51/Antisemitismus Posted by: Didact at December 13, 2003 12:49 PMWow, it must be inmates' night out somewhere. Jewish victimhood? If only the Jews would adopt perpetual victimhood as their defining quality, then the UN would give Israel the same protection they give all the tinpot third-world dictatorships of the world. Fortunately, the Israelis have realized that victimhood only leads to stagnation, and that UN diplomacy will be as effective a defense against the Arab genocide campaign as it was against the Serbs. That's why they're standing up for themselves, against world opinion. And what really grinds the left's gears is that it's WORKING. The TRUTH is that Europe IS indeed, very anti-Semitic and they are couching it in the anti-Israeli issue. But, as I have said before, they are also very anti-Muslim. No one has the guts to admit either. Being anti-Muslim is very different than being anti-radical Islam—which is what the US is. As to the Jews. I say, more power to them! Why would they roll-over again for anyone—least of all the Euros? Not to say what they have done is correct or even smart. But, I can GUARANTEE that should the same sort of Islamofascist attacks happen in Europe or the US or anywhere in the West on a regular basis—we would do exactly the same thing. The is no negotiating with terrorists! NONE!!!! EVER!!!
Didact, I have had that article for ages and posted it. You must have missed it. My German friends get very upset when I refer then to it. They simply don't want to believe it. ;-)
"The is no negotiating with terrorists! NONE!!!! EVER!!!" Does that include the Stern Gang and their fellow Jewish terror groups that bombed English targets in British Palestine? The language of convienence is alive and well I see. Tatterdemalian, what the hell does Israel need the UN for? They have America on the security council to veto every motion passed against them. The UN is of sublime irrelevance to them. Gees, I didn't know there was a Palestine—yet. As far as I am concerned all terrorists including Sharon and Arafat should be arrested, tried and punished, Mr. T. " The UN is of sublime irrelevance to them." Yes, well the UN has made itself irrelevant thanks to some of its most "powerful" members such as Germany and France. That ineffectual agency serves as the biggest anti-Semitic organization on the face of the planet. Good thing that there is the US. Saddam was captured today—no thanks to the EU. Now they can really grovel for their perfidy. Finally! They caught the SOB. What could possibly done to such a monster that justice is served? Lili Why all this lauding of the UN and EU as being able to find a route to peace in the Mid east. The UN is biased against Israel by dint of it's make up of dictatorships and those allied against Israel. When the UN calls all the Islamic states to task for their Human rights violations. As for the EU funding terrorism against another nation state through knowingly and directly funding the security forces who are doing the violence, give me a break. Shelving their own report into antisemitism is the least of the problem, when they are knowingly paying for the indoctrination of the next generation through the schooling materials is to my mind a human rights crime. Though who would procecute the EU I don't know. get real. Posted by: Mike at December 14, 2003 11:45 PMGreat Article from www.wnd.com makes interesting comparisions between arab states WND Exclusive Commentary Capture of Saddam Hussein humiliates Arab world © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Arabs and Muslims are the most oppressed people on earth, and Arab tolerance for tyranny against them by fellow Arabs is something that I find infinitely puzzling. To be sure, the Arabs are a proud, skilled and ferocious people who have demonstrated their capacity to throw off the yoke of enemy occupiers for generations. They will not tolerate being colonized or exploited – that is, unless it's by a fellow Arab, in which case they will suddenly put up with torture, murder and oppression. One little Israeli roadblock – put up to stop suicide bombers – and tens of thousands of Palestinians will be out in the streets throwing rocks. But if it's the House of Saud, Muammar Qaddafi, or Bashar Al-Assad who are beating Arab women and throwing political dissidents in front of a firing squad without trial, then heck, they're family, right? If today's Arabs were to borrow the slogan of the American revolutionaries who fought against the British, they would modify it to read, "Don't tread on me. Unless you're a fellow Arab. Then trample all you want." It beggars belief just how hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims throughout the Middle East and North Africa have allowed themselves to be ruled by brut thugs and tyrants. How ironic that the Arabs, with a gallant history of over a 1,000 years of military conquest and empire-building, should allow themselves in modern times to be bullied by a small group of the most wretched human miscreants, who rob them of their money and deprive them of their rights. In Mahathir Muhammad's infamous speech to the Organization of the Islamic Conference two months ago, he five times mentioned how the Arabs were living in shame and humiliation due to their economic and military subjugation at the hands of the West. But he did not once mention how humiliating it is for any Arab man or women have to live in fear of prostitute-chasing fakers like the House of Saud or megalomaniacal despots like Hosni Mubarak. If I were an Arab man living in Libya, afraid to ever utter a single word of criticism against a degenerate like Muammar Qaddafi, I would feel permanently emasculated. I would find it difficult to live with my shame. How can Libyan men accept being fired upon in soccer stands by Qaddafi's son, Al Saadi, just because they boo his poor play, as the New York Times recently reported? What would the prophet Muhammad – who was a legendary warrior – think today of his ideological disciples as they tolerate the worst human-rights abuses hurled against them by their own leaders with barely a murmur of protest? Even Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last week for her standing up to the terrorist regime in Iran, decided to use her Nobel speech not to criticize her tyrannical government, but to attack the United States! The pioneers who came to these United States braved the hardships of chartering an unknown territory because they held passionately to a doctrine of freedom for worship, and, in time, their convictions about freedom of religious conscience spread to encompass political, economical and social liberty as well. In 1776, the drafters of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive ... it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government ... as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." This ideal has inspired many other nations to fight for their liberty, beginning with the French a mere 13 years after the American Revolution. But when we set the supposed "atrocities" perpetrated by George III alongside those committed by someone like Saddam Hussein, they are not even vaguely comparable. Saddam Hussein makes King George III look like Mother Teresa. Instead of merely encroaching upon his people's financial and political rights, Hussein determined that millions have no right to life whatsoever, massacring hundreds of thousands without the slightest hesitation. As I relish the fact that I am fortunate enough to live within a democratic society, I can not cease to be perplexed by the question of how 20 million Iraqis allowed themselves to be ruled with the iron hand of a barbarous despot, with little effort to topple him. The question of how Arabs can tolerate such abuse is especially magnified in light of their having once been the most advanced people on earth. While the West was slogging its way through half a millennium of severe religious intellectual repression, it was the Muslim world that brilliantly shown with technology and knowledge. I am currently reading Richard Rubenstein's magnificent book, "Aristotle's Children," which chronicles the preservation of the ancient Greek thinkers by Islamic culture after they had been forgotten in the West. Al-Mamun, Caliph of the Abbasid dynasty, established state-funded places of study, focusing on translations of Greek and other works of antiquity, that predated the first European universities by more than 300 years. The Abbasid Muslim Empire had an agricultural revolution in the 8th century that produced technological innovations the likes of which wouldn't been seen in the West until at least 1180. In the area of medical advancement, the 10th century Al-Razi of Baghdad wrote numerous medical books which included groundbreaking health treatments which Western medicine could not match until the 18th century. The Muslim Sultan Akbar was known for laws guaranteeing religious toleration and protection of women and children. But now, more than 200 years since the ideals of liberty and equality have become commonplace in the Christian countries of the West, millions of Arabs today yield to lives stained by deprivation and oppression. In modern times there has not been an Arabic Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson to fuel the fires of discontent against malevolent Arab rule. In their place have risen, instead, Arab leaders who blame all Arab troubles on the existence of the state of Israel which ironically is the only country in the entire Middle East where Arab citizens enjoy the blessings of democracy and exercise their right to vote. Perhaps if King George had managed to convince the colonists that all their troubles could be blamed on the French, we here in New York would still be speaking the Queen's English. But until the Arabs finally rise to the challenge of freeing themselves from tyranny and building their own democracies, then images like those we saw today of Arab tyrants being arrested by American GI's may be the only immediate hope for the liberation of the Arab world. why doesn't the UN go after all the tyrants at least with public humiliation at the UN?? Mike NZ Posted by: Mike NZ at December 15, 2003 09:58 AMMike NZ is out in the left-field ! "The pioneers who came to these United States braved the hardships of chartering an unknown territory because they held passionately to a doctrine of freedom for worship, and, in time, their convictions about freedom of religious conscience spread to encompass political, economical and social liberty as well. In 1776, the drafters of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive ... it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government ... as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." These "Pioneers" were Protestant Dissenters who rejected Bishops, and went on to burn Witches at Salem. They did NOT believe in 'freedom of worship'...they believed in THEIR freedom to worship their way.
"But when we set the supposed "atrocities" perpetrated by George III alongside those committed by someone like Saddam Hussein, they are not even vaguely comparable. Saddam Hussein makes King George III look like Mother Teresa. "
King George III was a Constitutional Monarch answerable to Parliament and hardly did the American Colonists suffer great injury as such....they were merely asked to pay for their own defence instead of freeloading....but chose to ally with France instead.
"Lili Didact, I have had that article for ages and posted it. You must have missed it. My German friends get very upset when I refer then to it. They simply don't want to believe it. ;-) "
“Why all this lauding of the UN and EU as being able to find a route to peace in the Mid east.The UN is biased against Israel by dint of it's make up of dictatorships and those allied against Israel. 70+% of resolutions since 1948 against a nation of 4 million, do you honestly consider them to be an honest broker?” Perhaps you have forgotten the UN’s partition of Palestine in 1947. You seem to like percentages Mike, so here’s some for you. The UN recommended that 55% percent of Palestine--by far the most fertile regions-- should be given to the Jewish settlers who compromised 30% of the population, and owned, between them, 6% of the land. SIX PERCENT Mike. The remaining 45% of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70% of the population, who were mainly Arab. And you can claim that the UN is biased against Israel. “get real.” You first. “Gees, I didn't know there was a Palestine—yet.” British Palestine was the name of the land back then dear. “As far as I am concerned all terrorists including Sharon and Arafat should be arrested, tried and punished, Mr. T.” Amen to that. Actually, Drazzle (and fans) there is absolutely nothing in "Oldest hatred, latest chapter" to indicate that "jews are the only sufferering party, the only victims." In fact, saying "oldest hatred" implies the opposite -- there are other, newer hatreds and other victims. But please don't let your hatred get in the way of basic reading comprehension. Posted by: angua at December 16, 2003 03:27 PM"But please don't let your hatred get in the way of basic reading comprehension." I will endeavour to do so, just as soon as you start to prevent your unconditional, uncritical and unrewarded slavish devotion to Israel not get in the way of you thinking for yourself. (and your own nation's interest) Mike, let me try short wee words, now. I have an opinion on Israel. Yes? Good! You have an opinion on Israel. Yes? Also good! Are we together now on the fact that both of us have opinions on Israel? Great! We disagree in these opinions. This is also marvelous. In my world (not yours, obviously) people are allowed to disagree. Now, please explain to me how the fact that both of us have opinions on Israel affect the meaning of the words "Oldest hatred, latest chapter"? The ONLY way to interpret the words "Oldest hatred" is to assume other, newer hatreds are out there. Otherwise (and please feel free to correct me here) the term would be something like "the only hatred". If the presumption is that other hatreds and other victims are out there, then Drazzle's statement "The corollary is that jews are the only sufferering party, the only victims." is full of sh*t. This is not an evil baby-killing well-poisoning world-controlling Zionist trick, though I've got plenty of those up my sleeve. This is English 101. Posted by: angua at December 17, 2003 07:53 PMI'm very sorry to deflate your marvellously bloated stance Anqua, but I agree with Drazzle on this. It is the goal of many Zionistic Jews and their PAINFULLY apologetic supporters to cloak themselves in a uniquely broad veil of ongoing victimhood. "We have suffered longest" "We have suffered most" "Nobody knows how we have suffered" Etc, etc, etc. It is just the usual post-modernist nonsense that is adopted by most "minorities" that want to have things awfully good, whilst point out just how intensely badly some of their grandparents once had it, long ago. The fact is that the Jews have not universally been vilified or persecuted. Nor have they, in many cases, had it as bad as the populations the dispora lived amongst. If anything, as a "people" or "race" or whatever the hell you call yourselves, you have enjoyed a singularly priviledged position among the "minorities" of the world. That, combined with the Jewish victimhood industry, allowed Jews to get away with carrying out of the largest illegal invasion/migration since the Dark Ages. "That, combined with the Jewish victimhood industry, allowed Jews to get away with carrying out of the largest illegal invasion/migration since the Dark Ages." You're very good at insinuation, Mike. Would you please specify what this "largest illegal invasion since the Dark Ages" is? And compared to what legal authority were other migrations/invasions "illegal"? I didn't realize there was some consistent international court operating since the Dark Ages. "Perhaps you have forgotten the UN’s partition of Palestine in 1947. " You didn't respond to Mike's question, Mike. You just shifted ground and started a new attack. you seem to do that a lot. Along with the snide tone. Posted by: Yehudit at December 18, 2003 10:56 AMDo give books - religious or otherwise - for Christmas. They're never fattening, seldom sinful, and permanently personal. Posted by: Hornick Andrea at January 25, 2004 05:09 PM |
