Footer Pages

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans.

Our Muslim Brothers

The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by the Romans.

EVERYBODY KNOWS by now why we are stuck in Palestine.
When God instructed Moses to plead with Pharaoh to let his people go, Moses told him that he was unfit for the job because “I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue” (Exodus 4:10).

Actually, in the Hebrew original, Moses told God that he was “heavy of the mouth and heavy of the tongue”. He should have told Him that he was also heavy of the ears. So when God told him to take his people to Canada, he took his people to Canaan, spending the prescribed 40 years – just long enough to reach Vancouver – wandering hither and thither in the Sinai desert.

So here we are, in Canaan, surrounded by Muslims.

FOR DECADES, my friends and I have warned that if we dither in making peace, the nature of the conflict will change. I myself have written dozens of times that if our conflict is transformed from a national to a religious struggle, everything will change for the worse.

The Zionist-Arab struggle started as a clash between two great national movements, which were born more or less at the same time as offshoots of the new European nationalism.

Almost all the early Zionists were convinced atheists, inspired (and pushed out) by the European nationalist movements. They used religious symbols quite cynically – to mobilize the Jews and as a propaganda tool for the others.

The Arab resistance to the Zionist settlement was basically secular and nationalist, too. It was a part of the rising wave of nationalism throughout the Arab world. True, the leader of the Palestinian resistance was Hadj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but he was both a national and a religious leader, using religious motives to reinforce the national ones.

National leaders are supposed to be rational. They make war and they make peace. When it suits them, they compromise. They talk to each other.

Religious conflicts are quite different. When God is inserted into the matter, everything becomes more extreme. God may be compassionate and loving, but His adherents are generally not. God and compromise don’t go well together. Especially not in the holy land of Canaan.

THE RELIGIONALIZATION (if a Hebrew-speaking Israeli be allowed to coin an English word) of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict started on both sides.

Years ago, the historian Karen Armstrong, a former nun, wrote a thought-provoking book (“The Battle for God”) about religious fundamentalism. She put her finger on an astonishing fact: Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalist     movements were very much alike.

Delving into the history of fundamentalist movements in the US, Israel, Egypt and Iran, she discovered that they were born at the same time and underwent the same stages. Since there is very little similarity between the four countries     and the four societies, not to mention the three religions, this is a remarkable fact.

The inevitable conclusion is that there is something in the Zeitgeist of our time which encourages such ideas, something not anchored in the remote past, which is glorified by the fundamentalists, but in the present.

IN ISRAEL, it started on the morrow of the 1967 war, when the Army Chief Rabbi, Shlomo Goren, went to the newly “liberated” Western Wall and blew his Shofar (religious ram’s horn). Yeshayahu Leibowitz called him “the Clown with the shofar”, but throughout the country it evoked a resounding echo.

Before the Six Days, the religious wing of Zionism was the stepchild of the movement. For many of us, religion was a tolerated superstition, looked down upon, used by politicians for reasons of expediency.

The overwhelming victory of the Israeli army in that war looked like divine intervention, and the religious youth sprang into life. It was like the fulfillment of Psalm 118 (22): “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner.” The pent-up energies of the religious sector, nursed for years in their separate ultra-nationalist schools, burst out.

The result was the settlers’ movement. They raced to occupy every hilltop in the occupied territories. True, many settlers went there to build their dream villas on stolen Arab land and enjoy the ultimate “quality of life”. But at the core of the enterprise are the fundamentalist fanatics, who are ready to live harsh and dangerous lives, because (as the Crusaders used to shout) “God Wills It!”.

The whole raison d’être of the settlements is to drive the Arabs out of the country and turn the whole land of Canaan into a Jewish state. In the meantime their shock troops carry out pogroms against their Arab “neighbors” and burn their mosques.

These fundamentalists now have a huge influence on our government’s policy, and their impact is growing. For example: for months now, the country has been ablaze after the Supreme Court decreed that 5 (five!) houses in Bet El settlement must be demolished, because they were built on private Arab land. In a desperate effort to prevent riots, Binyamin Netanyahu has promised to build in their stead 850 (eight hundred and fifty!) new houses in the occupied territories. Such things happen all the time.

But let there be no mistake: after the cleansing of the country of non-Jews, the next step would be to turn Israel into a “halakha state” – a country governed by religious law, with the abolition of all democratically enacted secular laws that do not conform to the word of God and His rabbis.

SUBSTITUTE THE word “shariah” for “halakha” – both mean religious law – and you have the dream of Muslim fundamentalists. Both laws, by the way, are remarkably similar. And both cover all spheres of life, individual and collective.

Since the start of the Arab Spring, the fledgling Arab democracy has brought Muslim fundamentalists to the fore. Actually, that started even before, when Hamas (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) won the democratic, internationally monitored elections in Palestine. However, the resulting Palestinian government was destroyed by the Israeli leadership and its subservient US and European subcontractors.

Last week’s apparent victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Egyptian presidential elections was a landmark. After similar victories in Tunisia and the events in Libya, Yemen and Syria, it is clear that Arab citizens everywhere favor the Muslim Brotherhood and similar parties.

The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is an old established party which has earned much respect with its steadfastness in the face of recurrent persecution, torture, mass arrests and occasional executions. Its leaders are untainted by the prevalent corruption, and admired for their commitment to social work.

The West is haunted by medieval ideas about the horrible Saracens. The Muslim Brotherhood inspires terror. It is conceived as a fearsome, murderous,     secret sect, out to destroy Israel and the West. Of course, practically no one has taken the trouble to study the history of this movement in Egypt and elsewhere. Actually, it could not be further removed from this parody.

The Brotherhood has always been a moderate party, though they almost always had a more extreme wing. Whenever possible, they tried to accommodate the successive Egyptian dictators – Abd-al-Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak – though all of these tried to eradicate them.

The Brotherhood is first and foremost an Arab and Egyptian party, deeply embedded in Egyptian history. Though they would probably deny it, I would say – judging from their history – that they are more Arab and more Egyptian than fundamentalist. They certainly have never been fanatical.

During their 84 years, they have seen many ups and downs. But mostly, their outstanding quality has been pragmatism, coupled with adherence to the principles of their religion. It is this pragmatism that also characterizes their behavior during the last year and a half, which – so its seems – caused quite a number of voters who are not particularly religious to prefer them to the secular candidate who is tainted by his connection with the corrupt and repressive former regime.

This also determines their attitude towards Israel. Palestine is constantly on their mind – but that is true of all Egyptians. Their conscience is troubled by the feeling that at Camp David, Anwar Sadat betrayed the Palestinians. Or, worse, that the devious Jew, Menachem Begin, tricked Sadat into signing a document that did not say what Sadat thought it said. It is not the Brothers that caused the Egyptians who greeted us enthusiastically, the first Israelis to visit their country, to turn against us.

Throughout the heated election campaigns – four in a year – the Brotherhood has not demanded the abrogation of the peace agreement with Israel. Their attitude seems to be as pragmatic as ever.

ALL OUR neighbors are turning, slowly but surely, Islamic.

That is not the end of the world. But it surely compels us, for the first time, to try to understand Islam and the Muslims.

For centuries, Islam and Judaism had a close and mutually beneficial relationship. The Jewish sages in Muslim Spain, the great Maimonides and many other prominent Jews were close to Islamic culture and wrote some of their works in Arabic. There is certainly nothing in the two religions that precludes cooperation between them. (Which, alas, is not true for Christianity, which could not tolerate the Jews.)

If we want Israel to exist and flourish in a region that will for a long time be governed by democratically elected Islamist parties, we would do well to welcome them now as brothers, congratulate them on their victories and work     for peace and conciliation with elected Islamists in Egypt and the other Arab states, including Palestine. We must certainly resist the temptation to push the Americans into supporting another military dictatorship in Egypt, Syria and elsewhere. Let’s choose the future, not the past.

Unless we prefer to pack up and head for Canada, after all.

97 Responses to Our Muslim Brothers

  1. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    “So when God told him to take his people to Canada, he took his people to Canaan, spending the prescribed 40 years – just long enough to reach Vancouver – wandering hither and thither in the Sinai desert.”

    A jewish joke the Palestinians hearing it must be splitting their sides laughing.
    Like the rest of his article.
    If I were Palestinian I wouldn’t give Avneri the time of day. I am not and I don’t.
    For Avneri Israel took a wrong turn in… 1967. Before that it was, you know, just a “Zionist-Arab struggle started as a clash between two great national movements, which were born more or less at the same time as offshoots of the new European nationalism.” See? Israel is a state like any other state.

    The trifling distinction is that while peoples that were nations in everything but political administration sought to become legal nations (e.g., Garibaldi fighting to unify the separately governed provinces into ITALY), zionists jews wanted to invent a nation made up of citizens of any and all countries, tied only by religion, and locate it on an other continent, on another people’s land.
    But Avneri assures us religion had nothing to do with it back then, except as a trick:
    “Almost all the early Zionists were convinced atheists, inspired (and pushed out) by the European nationalist movements. They used religious symbols quite cynically – to mobilize the Jews and as a propaganda tool for the others.” Ahem… and as the ONLY criterion, I think, Mr Avneri.

    I have no idea in what context Karen Armstrong, whom he cites, discovered the “astonishing fact” that “Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalist movements were very much alike” but insofar as the subject of his article is concerned– Israel–neither christian nor muslim fundamentalists are squatters armed to their teeth, sitting on other people’s invaded land and ethnic cleansing them in order to fulfill their “national independence.”
    The only thing that really bothers Avneri, the atheist settler, about Israel is the increased political power of the jewish fundamentalist settlers. He wishes the golden days of the atheist kibbutzim “pioneers” had never ended. Wasn’t everybody happier then? He often talked with Arafat. He was so open-minded and everyone knew it….
    “Let’s choose the future, not the past,” he says, but for him the “future” is in fact in the past.

    • Blake June 26, 2012 at 12:18 am #

      Am in agreement with you and he was a terrorist but he almost gets it now. He is way more understanding of the Palestinians than the average indoctrinated to nothing Zionist in denial is.

  2. searching June 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    i will quote an excellent quote that Ariadna placed somewhere else about the Muslim brotherhood and its role in the Zionist’s scheme of gloabl events.

    “Tony Cartalucci in the ICH:

    The Egyptian military, like in many developing nations, may accept money from the West, may train with Western forces, and may even participate in Western machinations of global domination, but are ultimately nationalists with the means and motivation to draw lines and check the West’s ambitions within Egypt and throughout Egypt’s sphere of influence. The necessity for the West of removing not only Hosni Mubarak who had refused to participate in a wider role against Iraq and Iran, but the grip of the military itself over Egyptian politics and replacing it with the Muslim Brotherhood who IS already hard at work in Syria attempting to overthrow one of Iran’s primary regional allies,IS paramount.

    “Pro-democracy” movements, particularly the April 6 youth movement, trained, funded, and equipped by the US State Department, serve the sole purpose of giving the Muslim Brotherhood’s installation into power a spin of “legitimacy” where otherwise none exists. Those within these “pro-democracy” movements with legitimate intentions will be inevitably disappointed if not entirely thrown under the wheels of Western machinations as regional war aimed at destroying Iran, Syria, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah arch of influence slowly unfolds.
    Muslim Brotherhood WERE, ARE , AND WILL BE WESTERN PROXIES.
    Despite the Brotherhood’s lofty rhetoric, it has from its inception been a key proliferator of Western foreign policy.
    Currently, the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved heavily, LEADING IN FACT, the US, Israeli, Saudi, and Qatari-backed sectarian violence that has been ravaging Syria for over a year.
    In a May 6, 2012 Reuters article it stated:
    “Working quietly, the Brotherhood HAS BEEN FINANCING Free Syrian Army defectors based in Turkey and channeling money and supplies to Syria, reviving their base among small Sunni farmers and middle class Syrians, opposition sources say.”
    While Reuters categorically fails to explain the “how” behind the Brotherhood’s resurrection, it was revealed in a 2007 New Yorker article titled, “The Redirection” by Seymour Hersh, as being directly backed by the US and Israel who were funneling support through the Saudis so as to not compromise the “credibility” of the so-called “Islamic” movement.
    Hersh revealed that members of the Lebanese Saad Hariri clique, then led by Fouad Siniora, had been the go-between for US planners and the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.
    Hersh reports the Lebanese Hariri faction had met Dick Cheney in Washington and relayed personally the importance of using the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in any move against the ruling government:
    “[Walid] Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility of undermining Assad.
    He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would be “the ones to talk to,” Jumblatt said.” -The Redirection, Seymour Hersh.”

  3. Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    Does Uri still self-identify as a Zionist I wonder?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

      Gilad told us a few times that for the Israelis, “zionism” was —not his words, but my interpretation of them— just the larva out of which the incredibly beautiful butterfly emerged so for them ‘zionism’ is a term without current meaning, only a historical reference.
      Chomsky even goes so far as to say that when he was an early settler–squatter rather–in a kibbutzim in Israel he was…. anti-zionist…
      So whatever they call themselves, for the uninitiated, Israel is the ongoing zionist project and those supporting it are zionists as far as I am concerned.

      • Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 5:42 pm #

        Arghh I see. So its a bit like admitting you still like Gary Glitter then…

        • fool me once... June 25, 2012 at 6:10 pm #

          Spot on, but I hope not ffs!

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

          Th Wandering pedophile… poor thing. I looked him up in wikipedia and saw that he was kicked out of more countries than… you name it.

      • fool me once... June 25, 2012 at 6:08 pm #

        “…out of which the incredibly beautiful butterfly emerged…”
        AT, does that mean israel is the butterfly??? I can’t believe he thinks that! Where did he infer that? I aint saying you’re making it up but you’d have to be a nut job to think there’s anything ok about israel, never mind beautiful. This is serious shit if critics of israel harbour love type feelings for the shit hole :( . Sos for the rushed writing, haven’t got much time, but you get what I mean. Back later.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

          I said pretty clearly that those are MY words.
          I think the metaphor apt however given that Israel has been associated with beauty, has it not?

          • fool me once... June 25, 2012 at 10:51 pm #

            “I said pretty clearly that those are MY words.”
            Yes, you did, I was wrong. I read your comment and got it all jumbled up, thinking that you was saying that it was Gilad who thought israel was (in your interpretation) like a butterfly that had emerged from the zionist larva.
            I think Gilad’s “israeli boycott beauty exception” was still stuck in my gizzard and may have, well it actually did, affect my understanding of what you wrote.
            Btw when you say;
            “however given that Israel has been associated with beauty, has it not?”
            Is that a reference to Gilad’s view? ;)

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

            As far as I recall Gilad found beauty in Israeli art (the Israeli jazz musicians are apparently incredible and so is its still unappreciated literature), and in a more abstract fashion he saw Israel as the
            “aesthetic ideal” impersonated by the new Jew, which he linked to German Romanticism because some of the German Jews who came to Palestine must have carried that pollen on their wings, so to speak.

            Paul’s perception of Israel’s beauty was never clearly explained. Going just by the illustrations of boys and girls in IDF uniform he used in his article and his enthusiasm for the phrase “Israel’s fierce beauty”
            his perception may be perhaps inferred as being a Foucault type aestheticization of power/force (Foucault was into ‘rough trade’).
            I don’t remember anyone else seeing beauty in Israel (to Paul’s endless surprise and sad dismay).

          • fool me once... June 26, 2012 at 12:49 am #

            Thanks for that answer.

        • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 7:26 pm #

          “but you’d have to be a nut job to think there’s anything ok about israel,”

          Do you really mean this Fool Me Once? Do you really think that there is absolutely nothing ok about about Israel? Even allowing for figurative language, it’s still quite amazing.

          Is there anywhere else on the earth about which nothing is ok?

          • Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

            The problem I perceive is this Paul. With Zionism’s crimes becoming so vast now, These crimes have tainted more and more Jews in Israel & in the Diaspora. The reason being that many Jews still defend Israel despite these crimes is a rather sore point with many Goyim as a result.

          • fool me once... June 25, 2012 at 11:59 pm #

            “but you’d have to be a nut job to think there’s anything ok about israel,”
            “Do you really mean this Fool Me Once?”
            Yes I do. There ain’t no fence sitting for me on that score. You’re magen david medallion seems to be interfering with your moral compass. Try this;
            You’re weeping, knelt over the bodies of your murdered children, with the perpetrator stood across the road behind a steel fence. A friend walks up and observes the scene, then comments, “That’s terrible Paul, I feel so sorry for you, but look, the murderer’s got a quiff, a lovely Tony Curtis, and his eyes, their beautiful, hey chill, he’s ok man.”
            How are you going to respond? Are you going to stand up, dry your eyes, take a look and say “Yeah, you’re right, at least there’s still some ok beauty left in this world.”?
            As has been said on another thread, there’s a fair bit of turd polishing going on with regard to israel and it’s activities. israel has a bad stink about it and a shower is long over due.
            If that doesn’t make sense, then JB’s comment below covers what I think.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 12:03 am #

            You mean JB’s comment above, not below, I think.

          • fool me once... June 26, 2012 at 12:32 am #

            Told you I was slow :)

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 12:59 am #

            on the contrary… you’re too fast :-)

          • fool me once... June 26, 2012 at 12:29 am #

            correction;
            If that doesn’t make sense, then JB’s comment below yours covers what I think.

        • Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

          @foolme
          Quality comment. lol

  4. searching June 25, 2012 at 5:37 pm #

    he is probaly a reformed Zionist who hopes that the past will become the future or something like that. he seems to be deeply immersed in a sort of a deluded dream of the la la land of its own making.

  5. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 5:45 pm #

    My view of him has not improved over the past 5 years; on the contrary, I find I was going easy on him back then…

    http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=12314

    • Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm #

      Ariadna you are a devastating critic… but always an eye opener. :-)

    • Blake June 26, 2012 at 12:27 am #

      That was a great article. Thanks for the link. You definitely get it!

  6. Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 5:47 pm #

    I don’t think Uri Avneri is a reformed anything. He is an intelligent, coherent Zionist with a point of view different from most contributors to this site. I, for one, am delighted to see his contribution.

    Also, regarding Ariadna’s dismissal of Jews as a nation, I think that needs careful reflection. I think Jews could make a credible case for being a nation – they fulfil many of the possible criteria. Anyway, who is it that has the final word on what is a nation? is it you Ariadna?

    I also think they can make a credible case for stealing Palestine. Why not, everyone else steals.

    • searching June 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm #

      oh well Paul . great reasoning .
      Hiler was also an intelligent , coherent Nazi with a point of view different from many.
      Everyone knows his “contribution’ to humankind.
      Pol Pot studied at University in France so I assume he was aloso an intelligent and coherent communist/marxist.
      I ma not delighted to see his “contribution” to people in Cambodia.

      • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 6:29 pm #

        Indeed, Hitler did have a coherent point of view. That’s why I’ve always gone to such lengths to de-demonise and re-humanise him.

        • searching June 25, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

          what was so humane in him that deserves his “re-humanisation” ,and what was not so demonical about him that calls for his de-demonisation??
          and… yes ,I know, he was a human being.
          we can not accuse him of being an alien.sadly.

          • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 6:49 pm #

            Not ‘humane’, ‘human’.

            BTW, many people thought (and think) that Hitler was a great man in the sense that Napoleon et al were great men. we like to think that they were all either terrified, mad or hypnotised but I’ve never been so sure.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 8:00 pm #

          Paul, I don’t subscribe to your making “coherence” the absolute criterion for “humanization.”
          I could, for example, develop the fixed idea that my a$$ is made of glass, which makes me special: I will always insist of having special cushions provided in all the places I frequent, I will regard people who dispute my claim as anti-glassa$$ists and every single one of my behaviors and statements will be totally consistent with my glassa$$ worldview. I will have.. coherence.
          I will be as human as other coherentists: the Flat Earth Society, the Nazis (not the zionists, they are still working on it and it keeps coming up short on coherence), etc.
          Coincidentally I will decide to grab harda$$ people and butcher them in my efforts to give myself more “security” or fragile a$$ Lebensraum or what have you.
          Can I count on you to to go “to such lengths to de-demonise and re-humanise” me when they close in on me? In the name of coherence, needless to say.

          • Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 5:43 am #

            Coherence is not my absulute criterion for humanization. Hitler was human because he was human. That’s it. Figuratively speaking he has been de-humanised. I’m sure you know what I mean.

            Much the same thing could be going on with Israel and Zionism. People (rightly) find lots wrong with them but then everyone starts thinking in absolutes and talking in slogans and soundbites.

            Unless of course there is something particularly evil about them – which there may well be – but what is it?

          • who_me June 26, 2012 at 5:51 am #

            why must they be special? either as goodies or badies?

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 6:22 pm #

      “He is an intelligent, coherent Zionist with a point of view different from most contributors to this site.” — I agree.

      “I, for one, am delighted to see his contribution.” — I, or one, am also delighted to see contributions like this. If deLib published –not an easy feat at all– only stuff everybody agreed with, there would be no discussions. Someone would say “yep,” and someone else “Second that” and that would be it. I wouldn’t get, for example, the opportunity to discuss the term “nation” with you, Paul.

      Paul: “Ariadna’s dismissal of Jews as a nation, I think that needs careful reflection. I think Jews could make a credible case for being a nation – they fulfil many of the possible criteria. Anyway, who is it that has the final word on what is a nation? is it you Ariadna?”

      No, Paul, that’s precisely the point, that neither Ariadna, nor Paul define “nation” by personal criteria.
      A “nation” is not a “people,” nor a “state.” The “nation” concept has long been defined and generally agreed upon:
      a community of people who generally have in common:
      — majority language
      — distinct culture
      — common history developed on a
      — given, contiguous territory
      — majority religion
      The Ashkenazi jews from Russia, the Ukraine, Germany, France, Southern Europe, the UK, the US, South America, etc, and the Sephardim from Spain, Portugal, the Levant, Iraq, etc lack ALL these criteria but the majority religion (unknown if the early zionists even had that).
      That a group of people who felt connected to each other by (1) supremacists tribal beliefs and (2) religion decided to become a “nation” on another continent is, however, true.
      Whether the Israelis have, through an accelerated and abbreviated process (inventing a common history and resuscitating a dead language to serve as their esperanto), succeeded in becoming a nation after only <60 years is an open question.
      That the jews, however, are a “nation” is in my opinion pretty hard to maintain, unless we choose to to make words mean whatever we want them to mean.
      Furthermore, if you think jews are a nation you must consider yourself a foreign national in Britain, don’t you think?

      • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 6:34 pm #

        I’m not a foreign national because I hold a full British passport but, because I’m an honest man, I know that, in some very important ways, I am foreign.

        Regarding the ‘nation’ discussion, you make a powerful argument. Ok, so let’s say they’re not a nation – they do however believe thay have a powerful collective identity. What’s to be done about that?

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

          “thay have a powerful collective identity”

          So does the Rotarian Club.
          That was a joke, but I can think of many groups of people of disparate nationalities tied by an ideology/religion about whom the question “What’s to be done about that?” never arises: methodists, atheists, etc. True, they don’t have any financial power as a group or powerful political lobbies.
          For jews who “feel foreign,” — whether they are religious in part or in toto– in the country in which they were born and raised as nationals of that country, jewish culture and mentality has always had the ideal solution: the shtetl. In modern terms it can be a gated community where there are mostly jews or simply deriving comfort from the frequent if not exclusive company of other jews who feel foreign.

          • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

            Fair enough but unfortunately the Jews in question, and at the time, had other ideas.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 8:32 pm #

            Actually they didn’t. The majority of them were not easy to convince to go to Israel. But their “betters” spared no educational effort, including killing a few of them in false flag ops to move them. The holocaust, and more than that, the Holocaust™ helped speed up their “national” awareness.

        • who_me June 25, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

          “they do however believe thay have a powerful collective identity. What’s to be done about that?”

          why should anything be done about it? just keep them away from power. eventually, as the young wander off, as they will, “the jews” will outgrow that silliness and eventually melt into the pot with the rest, perhaps leaving a few amish like colonies for tourists to visit.

        • Gilad Atzmon June 27, 2012 at 1:50 pm #

          Paul and Ariadna, I actually think that you are slightly wrong here,,, to a certain extent, all (ideological) nations are inventions, and there is nothing wrong about it. Yet, we want to look at the level of coherence and consistency between the founding ideology and practice… this is where Israel and Zionism are falling apart. If Zionism was there to pull the Jew out of the ghetto, Israel made itself into the ultimate J ghetto. In other words, Israel proves that its initial notion of authentic J folk has been defeated. If Zionism was there to introduce an ethical Jew, Israel was born into a sin and until now, it didn’t find the means to deal with that original sin..

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

            “all (ideological) nations are inventions”

            In the sense that it was an a priori, or God-given structure, maybe.
            In the sense that it evolved, like language, maybe.
            But not that a nation is an invention and there is Herzel at the root of every one of them.
            You could argue –you’d get chuckles but you could–that the Vatican dwellers are a nation just like the Israeli: they speak Latin, a dead language, they have a territory they have laid claim to for many centuries, they have a …. sort of culture and more costumes than the israelis (who, it just strikes me have not invented yet “national Hebrew costumes), an “army” even–the Swiss guard. They, like the Israelis, live on extorting the faithful/fearful and thrive on dubious banking activities. No jazz players in the Vatican and their literature has all been written already.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

            Corrections:
            In the sense that it was NOT an a priori, or God-given structure, maybe.

      • Gilad Atzmon June 27, 2012 at 1:32 pm #

        AT: Whether the Israelis have, through an accelerated and abbreviated process (inventing a common history and resuscitating a dead language to serve as their esperanto), succeeded in becoming a nation after only <60 years is an open question.

        Gilad: Ariadna , the early Zionists openly admitted that Jews should invent themselves as a nation. Herzl’s most famous statement “If you will, it is no dream” should read as “If you wish to be become a nation, it is no dream”. The truth of the matter is that Jews were very quick to invent themselves as nation (as Sand points out), but they really find it hard to fill this invention with meaning. It is Jewishness that pops out all the time and reminds us that all we see in Israel is a bunch of supremacist hooligans celebrating their culture to the extreme..

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

      “I also think they can make a credible case for stealing Palestine. Why not, everyone else steals.”

      They can and they do. All the time. The common zionist argument on these lines goes like this:
      Didn’t the English steal North America from the natives whom they massacred? Why disallow the jews (who incidentally suffered more than any other people) behaviors others have indulged in?
      We’re people too. If you prick us, do we not bleed? Why can’t we too massacre our way into stealing a country? The American colonists did all that and then (after a massive tea party in Boston and a little war) declared their independence and became a nation. Our case is similar. Hurray, we ‘re a nation!”

      The problem, Paul (just one of them) is that, you who are such lover of coherence must wince, no doubt, at the cacophony of conflicting jewish narratives:
      1. “Jews have returned to their ancestral homeland after a fond absence of thousands of years is in conflict with “we’re predators and marauders like everyone else who stole a country to which we had no connection;
      2. “In the beginning we came and said “let there be light” and the Light Unto Nations shone golden and warm, and we said “let the desert bloom” and it bloomed and all was well because the fundamentalist jews were thin on the ground and weak and we had a great democracy (Avneri)” is in conflict with “We massacred like drunken serial killers, razed hundreds of villages to the ground and sent more than 700,00 fleeing into refugee camps, but there was no other way: these were the hard labors of giving birth to the State for Jews” (Ben Morris, revisionist Israeli historian).

      Which specifically is the “case” that can be made?

      • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

        The credible case is: We wanted it, we had the power, we took it.

        You can add to that: We used every and any tactic we thought we could get away with.

        What’s not credible or coherent?

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

          “The credible case is: We wanted it, we had the power, we took it.
          What’s not credible or coherent?”

          Then stick with that and forget about agreeing with Avneri on everything except the religion thing, as you said.
          Re-read my post above.
          Coherence, Paul, your guiding star!

        • Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

          The Jews did have the power, Chutzpah and the Might so they took what they wanted and still are, But is it right?

          • Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

            I imagine that’s a whole other matter. No, of course I don’t think it is right but I don’t think that’s what is at issue here.

            What seems to me to be at issue is whether Israel is sufficiently and noticeably ‘not right’ to justify the particular negative attention it attracts here. The issue is “Is Israel worswe than say, China or the U.s.?

            I can think of one reason why it is, and that’s because of the special way Jews are seen.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm #

            “What seems to me to be at issue is whether Israel is sufficiently and noticeably ‘not right’ to justify the particular negative attention it attracts here. The issue is “Is Israel worswe than say, China or the U.s.?”

            Perhaps you are right. It is way too early to tell. The Americans did kill off all the natives that posed any inconvenient and penned up the few remaining ones in reservations, out of sight.
            Israel has not finished off the Palestinians. It is best to wait until they do to make a proper comparison and draw conclusions. What if the Israelis are not “sufficiently not right”?

      • Blake June 26, 2012 at 12:30 am #

        If they come with that irrational argument they shut up when you ask them “And who is awaiting a right of return”?

  7. Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 5:49 pm #

    Maybe he is slightly naive, But Its not wihtout merit this article, it is after all an upbeat positive message of Unity. Perhaps you criticsms are too harsh.

    • searching June 25, 2012 at 5:57 pm #

      if you like utopian fairy tales, you may enjoy this one as well.

  8. Jonathon Blakeley June 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm #

    I predict this thread is going to pass 100 comments

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 6:27 pm #

      I predict you are right!

  9. Paul Eisen June 25, 2012 at 5:55 pm #

    The main difference I have from Avnery in this article is that he experiences a far, far greater distinction between so-called religious and secular Jews. I don’t see it like that. Basically they both buy into the (irrational but hugely compelling) Jewish narrative of chosenness and special suffering.

  10. Lasse Wilhelmson June 25, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Sadly enough for Avnery and Chomsky it is just because of the past that Israel will not have a future, despite theese nice guys endless love of the Pals.

  11. Kassandra June 25, 2012 at 6:16 pm #

    Fine, Ariadna, with so many people falling for Avnery’s luring distortions it’s good to see you haven’t lost yer ball of thread (aka yer marbles) throughout the centuries. ;-)

    Virginia Tilley’s concurring under (2)

    1)

    Re Uri Avnery (né Helmut Ostermann in Germanistan):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery

    Uri Avnery (Hebrew: אורי אבנרי‎, also transliterated Uri Avneri, born 10 September 1923) …

    The German Wikipedia:

    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Avnery

    Uri Avnery (hebräisch ‏אורי אבנרי‎‎; * 10. September 1923 in Beckum, Deutschland [= Germany] als [=as] Helmut Ostermann)

    2)

    http://www.uruknet.info/?p=32477

    “Virginia Tilley’s Response to The Bed of Sodom [by “Uri Ostermanns”]

    There is no reason simply to assume that Avnery is right about this analysis, which is much circulated these days.

    It is full of reversals, contradictions, and deliberate distortions:

    for example, when he cites Adam Keller’s question, “Why do you think that a boycott would break the Israeli public, which is far stronger economically, so that they would give up the Jewish character of the state?” (There was no answer.)”

    In fact, Adam Keller addressed this question not to Ilan Pappe but to Omar Barghouti, who shared the panel and who answered the question at length, and whose answer triggered loud sustained applause from the audience.

    Avnery is also greatly mistaken about the nature of the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, about which he knows next to nothing and which he uses and distorts only to serve his efforts to defend Israel from serious and effective international repercussions.

    Avnery has opposed a one-state solution from the very beginning; his first strong statement against it was issued immediately after the PLO issued its formal support of a democratic unified state, in 1968.

    Over the decades he has used every argument to defeat calls for democracy and he knows exactly why: he has never escaped his early romance with and loyalty to Jewish statehood or his nostalgic memories of his own fighting with Zionist forces in 1948, although his own battalion was directly involved in forced expulsion of Palestinian villages and was implicated in the massacres that took place as well.

    He is indeed a sharp critic of Israel’s worst racist abuses.

    But the basic abuse which necessarily gives rise to all the others, which is the tenet that Israel must remain a state with an overwhelming Jewish majority, is one he has always worked to defend.

    Virginia Tilley

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

      Yes, Virginia, there is beauty in Israel, the beauty of a butterfly, I am coming back to that idea..
      The Ostermann pupa begat butterfly Avneri and the Golda Meierson pupa begat the Golda Meir butterfly and Ariel Scheirnerman begat Ariel Sharon and Palestine begat Israel and jews begat Israelis and Israelis begat jews as a nation.

      This is a beautiful tale of hocus-pocus that could have been written by that other Israeli genius: Uri Gellert.

  12. Lasse Wilhelmson June 25, 2012 at 6:44 pm #

    In the appendix to this intervju with an ex “nice guy”, u can read about the Swedish Chomsky and Avnery.

    http://lassewilhelmson.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/arabnyheter-interviews-lasse-wilhelmson/

    Theese nice guys “progressivness” is a real problem, as most pal solidarity people – primary in the left – need to love them, not to be accused of being “anti-semites”. And because marxists “r” contrary to nazists ….

    So the pal solidarity movement “love” the Jewish marxists because they “love” the Pals, in spite of them beeing Jews. Safe take, isn´t it?

    • searching June 25, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

      because marxists “r” contrary to nazists ….
      ..
      yeah, nazists murdered lika what ,about 15-20 millions of people, while communists/bolshevics/marxists killed more than 100 millions, but nazists are always somehow “worse” than communists.
      Actually many do admire communists and cite them as their role models.
      I must say that many are much more deluded by Jewish/zionist propaganda than they are willing to admit. It is quite scary how deluded people may be, in spite of all evidence.

  13. Lasse Wilhelmson June 25, 2012 at 6:50 pm #

    Btw Virginia, u r my woman, but Gilad liberated my thoughts :)

  14. who_me June 25, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    “Unless we prefer to pack up and head for Canada, after all.”

    don’t canadians get a say about that? oh, i forgot, they are not “special”, so they’ll follow orders and say what they’re told to say, think what they’re told to think. like all the lesser peoples of the planet.

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

      They have long packed up and headed for Canada.
      Not all of them, only enough to seed the usual positions of financial/political/media power and make Canada (especially under Harper) a state that even the US has a hard time besting in competitions like:
      Israeli butt kissing
      on one leg
      on your knees
      supine

      • who_me June 25, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

        Ariadna Theokopoulos

        but to dump several million on canada all at once? the quislings may love it, but canadians probably not. even with all the indoctrination. they might get upset and do one of those ungrateful quebec things.

        if are to be gathered up and sent somewhere, utah is the place. or nevada.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 8:04 pm #

          I’ve always said I favor Nevada for it. Reasons, too many to count. In all fairness, I copied the idea from the Taxi Driver (with whom I never seem to disagree on anything).

    • fool me once... June 26, 2012 at 1:19 pm #

      A Canadian having a say about Howard Galganov’s “I Am Israel”
      .
      “Thanks to the Internet and its anarchist model of no centralized control, your dirty, stinking, blood-soaked laundry is now being hung out on the cyber line to air and the neighbours, to put it mildly, are not impressed with the foul stench that your “Israel” undergarments are emitting.”
      http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/howard-lame-duck-zionist.html
      Arthur Topham, publisher of the Radical Press website, was arrested on May 16, 2012, at 11:30 am. The warrant for his arrest read “commission of hate crimes” and was endorsed by Richard Warman and Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith, Canada.
      .
      “I Am Israel”
      http://www.galganov.com/editorials.asp?id=1227

      • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 1:45 pm #

        This

        “I Am Israel”
        http://www.galganov.com/editorials.asp?id=1227

        is by far the most revolting piece of deranged writing I have read in a while, which illustrates the kind of dangerously deluded people who live there and endanger their neighbors and world peace.

        • fool me once... June 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

          AT, yeah agreed. I shouldn’t have held back from asking Paul if he could find anything redeeming in the piece, anything ok, anything beautiful, anything he agreed with.
          Seriously, reading it the fist time made me wanna puke.
          I’ve just read it again after eating a yoghurt and I can feel it bubbling up around me uvula :(
          Galganov is one of them JDL turds.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Galganov

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 7:10 pm #

            What a thoroughly disgusting individual.I guess it is good for Canada that he removed himself to Israel.

            He hates it when minorities want certain rights:

            Howard Galganov (born February 12, 1950 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada) was briefly a political activist and radio personality in Montreal during the late 1990s. He made headlines in Quebec for being a vocal and confrontational opponent of the Charter of the French Language and Quebec nationalism as one of the most prominent leaders of the short-lived “angryphone” movement, before moving to Ontario and criticising official bilingualism in Canada. He also protested the actions of the Office québécois de la langue française on numerous issues including when language inspectors ordered stores to remove kosher products from their shelves just before Passover because they weren’t labelled in the French language.
            On March 22, 2010, Ottawa-based dailies reported that Galganov distributed 5,200 (or 6,124) copies of a 12-page (or 10-page) English-only brochure entitled How to wipe-out the Franco Ontarian Language & Culture.

            but that only goes for Goyim. The Russian jews who were not allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union–like ALL other Soviet citizens–were special, of course:

            Galganov reportedly had an activist history. His grandfather, a Russian Jew, came to Canada to escape communism. In the 1960s, as a member of the Jewish Defense League, Galganov threw coffins on the Soviet embassy lawn in Ottawa to protest the treatment of Jewish “refuseniks”.

  15. Lasse Wilhelmson June 25, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    Well, I still think that the problem is not really the “nice guys” but those who adore them, because of all the tabues that block their minds. That is what deLiberation really is about …

    • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 25, 2012 at 10:17 pm #

      Words of wisdom. The hard part is to sustain hope that deLib can unblock hearts and minds when in practice even intelligent and sensitive people seem to be such a hard sell.

  16. who_me June 26, 2012 at 12:02 am #

    i don’t really care that some jews have special feeling for israel any more than i do some skinheads lament the passing of the 3rd reich. they both represent similar things.

    yet of those 2 (i selected nazis, but could also use jim crow types for this example) there seems to be this idea that jewish people should be accomodated and their wishes understood and respected, even if one disagrees with them. there is this special effort put out because the problem children are jewish. a special effort made with no other people.

    should we also accomodate nazi types and their ideals in the same way? i could go on, but the point is made.

    it’s not up to the rest of society to adjust to the views of those which are parasitical and otherwise harmful to that society. people are people, if they cant get along with their neighbours and continue to abuse and exploit they should simply be removed from that society. there should be no special rules for one group, nor special effort to make them come around. either they do, like the rest of us, or they’re out, like the rest of us.

  17. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 12:07 am #

    “should we also accomodate nazi types and their ideals in the same way? i could go on, but the point is made.”

    Pay attention, who_me. Paul got that covered already–he said he went to great lengths to “humanize and de-demonize Hitler.”

    • who_me June 26, 2012 at 12:19 am #

      Ariadna Theokopoulos

      “Pay attention, who_me. Paul got that covered already–he said he went to great lengths to “humanize and de-demonize Hitler.”

      humanising or de-demonising is fine. that should be applied across the board. it doesn’t relieve one of their responsibility to get along with one’s neighbour. in fact, it makes one all the more responsible for their actions. dehumanised and demonised people are not human, they don’t have to be responsible for what they do. they’re evil, it’s beyond their control. they have no free will any more. this is part of what i was getting at. we all are responsible for what we do, we get no special treatment. unless, one is jewish, then one gets a little extra understanding, more leeway for their transgression. humanise and de-demonise jewish people and they become the same as the rest of us. no more special treatment.

      • Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 5:51 am #

        Humanizing someone or something really means trying to understand them or it. It doesn’t have to mean condoning or even accomodating.

        And BTW, if Israel were better understood, the quality of opposition to it (at the moment, awful) might improve.

  18. Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 6:37 am #

    So, is not the issue: Is there something particularly evil about Israel and Zionism? If thwere is, what is it and how can it be confronted?

  19. who_me June 26, 2012 at 7:08 am #

    “So, is not the issue: Is there something particularly evil about Israel and Zionism?”

    not with me. it’s the same old junk from those who think their right to rule over others is something special. it’s not.

    my bitch is people treat it as it is different. why do people think israel/jews/zionism need some special exception above the human norm, after all they have done?

    it’s not that they are “special bad”, but they get all these exceptions so they can be considered as something different. exceptionable. unaccountable. excusable.

    it’s a con.

  20. Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 7:12 am #

    Is that perhaps it or at least a big part of it? That Israel is treated differently from other cases. That must be because Jews get treated differently.

    • who_me June 26, 2012 at 7:19 am #

      “That must be because Jews get treated differently.”

      That must be because Jews insist they get treated differently.

  21. who_me June 26, 2012 at 7:12 am #

    dehumanized

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qi47LLBifo

    R.I.P. Jo

  22. Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 8:49 am #

    But how do they manage to get everyone to go along with it?

    • who_me June 26, 2012 at 9:05 am #

      “But how do they manage to get everyone to go along with it?”

      how do they create a folloeing for lady gaga?

      advertising based upon “scientific” marketing.

      so. this isn’t exactly old news?

  23. Paul Eisen June 26, 2012 at 12:31 pm #

    If it was just clever marketing, everyone would do it .
    You under-estimate us, Who-me.

    • who_me June 26, 2012 at 9:21 pm #

      “You under-estimate us, Who-me.”

      no i don’t. i realise it is more than marketing.

  24. Ariadna Theokopoulos June 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Paul, you approach Israel as an anthropologic thesis of a newly discovered tribe that happens to practice cannibalism on the neighboring villages, saying in effect:
    But WHY are they different? And are they really THAT different? Haven’t there been cases of cannibalism in other societies? Isn’t there anything GOOD and BEAUTIFUL at all about their tribal life? Look at the designs of their war paint.
    Is there really something particularly evil about cannibalism? Aren’t acnnibals people like any other people (but.. special)? We have to understand them first, to humanize them, otherwise our arguments against their cannibalism are flawed.”

    Actually, Paul, we have to STOP them first. The anthropology can come later. Isn’t that how it worked with the Nazis?

    You approach Jewish Power/Jewish mentality, on the other hand, as if it were an infinite and awe-inspiring mystery of transcendental significance:
    “But if their specialness is just their false self-image, how come they get others to go along? Could it be that just as I see Beauty in Israel there is indeed something ineffable but enduring and therefore real about their (our) specialness that others sense too?

    It’s not ineffable at all, Paul: money begets power, lots of money begets lots of power and power moves the powerless and the power-seeking along.
    How come the Palestinians “go along”? Why did they flee in the hundreds of thousands to become refugees? I guess they sensed the beauty and the ineffable specialness too. Why did Truman go along? Why did he break down and agreed to to recognize Israel? He must have sensed the specialness also.
    If you have a tribe that through its high representatives controls the wealth of the world and owns the governments of the major powers, you get to be as special as you fantasize and people “go along.” The media you also own will explain it to them: specialness in everything: suffering, entitlement, Beauty–that “fierce beauty.”
    When a large enough number of the people stop in their tracks and refuse to “go along” then the negotiation starts:
    Yes, we are bad but really, not ALL bad, and not in a way that is very different, no, not special at all.
    Ok, if you insist, we are evil, downright evil, but are you saying no one else was ever all bad? Because if you do, then you have to prove that we are indeed special. Come on, let’s meet in the middle somewhere between all evil and therefore special requiring more exegesis or commonly evil and then you have to let up on this focus.

    • who_me June 26, 2012 at 10:30 pm #

      why engage them at all? why not work to remove them instead? them being jewish-supremacist people. as soon as someone shows they are jewish-supremacist, boot them. don’t sit there and argue with them, that’s what they want people to do, it keeps things from moving ahead, which is their primary job/role in the orgs they infiltrate. if an org becomes saturated with them, leave it and form a new org without them.

      we don’t have the power to exclude jewish-supremacy from government, media and economics, yet, but we do have the power to exclude their disruptive influence from the groups and and orgs we belong to. let’s use that power and move ourselves beyond jewish influence.

      • Paul Eisen June 27, 2012 at 3:34 pm #

        Dear Ariadna and Who_me

        Both of you speak with some certainty about ‘stopping’ the Jews. If you look at the list contained in this post
        http://www.deliberation.info/before-its-too-late-2-2/
        you’ll see some examples of some previous attempts at this. Many were successful but only for a time.

        Do you have any proposals that would work any better?

        • Jay Knott June 27, 2012 at 5:02 pm #

          Fortunately, modern Western societies have evolved more sophisticated mechanisms for stopping racial supremacists than expulsion, or worse. In the 1900s, the British government put white South Africans in concentration camps, where thousands died. In the 1980s, it peacefully pressurized them to abandon apartheid, which they did.

          Unfortunately, the Western societies haven’t quite worked out how to deal with Jewish supremacy in the same way. Let’s hope they can – it can be done the easy way, rather than the hard way.

        • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 7:52 pm #

          I was going to reply to you largely on the same lines as Jay, who beat me to it.
          In addition, however, I would point out that the list of expulsions of jews throughout history that you appended contains your implied assumption that “Stop Israel” equals “Expulse the jews out of Israel en masse.”
          To me this indicates that you do not believe it is possible (or perhaps even desirable) to replace “the State for Jews” with one state. The jews, as you seem to see them, are a dense clot that can either be left to their own devices (with the scoldings to be nicer) or herded out somewhere else.
          I don’t know what Jay means by “western societies.” I think many societies worldwide do know what to do. I think the problem are the zionist-controlled western governments and institutions that thwart those societies.

          • Paul Eisen June 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

            Ariadna, I think your assumptions are too hasty.

            I’m really no activist and I have no idea how the current conflicts in the Middle-East might best be resolved. ‘Two-State’/’One- State – both have become just slogans around which people like to gather.

            But I do tend to see Israel as less as a problem in itself (though it evidently is a problem) and more as a symptom of an unchecked, overbearing and abusive Jewish power.

            Generaly, and most importantly, I don’t have a hidden agenda (at least not to my knowledge). When I ask questions, they’re just that – they’re not rhetoric.

          • Paul Eisen June 27, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

            Nor, by the way, do I have any real idea how the ‘Jewish problem’ might be solved. You seem to have more confidence in this matter.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 8:18 pm #

            Which “jewish problem”?

          • Paul Eisen June 27, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

            Well, you can start with wikipedia and take it from there.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

            I think there is an immediate “jewish problem’ crying out to be resolved, and that is Palestine, which deserves focus before continuing to contemplate the Jewish Problem, of which it is indeed a part but why not break it down into bits that can be triaged in the emergency room?

            As for the Jewish problem in capital letters you have a very dark vision of doom. You may be right but I do not share it.
            What I read in your references to it is “We’re doomed. Nothing and nobody can save us. They have tried (clumsily, harshly, however) but nothing worked and we are headed toward catastrophe again.”
            Maybe I misread you.

          • Ariadna Theokopoulos June 27, 2012 at 8:17 pm #

            “I have no idea how the current conflicts in the Middle-East might best be resolved”

            No one can claim to have the answer, that’s given. But each of us has inclinations, even convictions.

            “‘Two-State’/’One- State – both have become just slogans around which people like to gather”

            Perhaps, but that’s not as important as the fact that the two concepts are not nebulous at all but rather clear and fairly well defined.

            “I do tend to see Israel as less as a problem in itself (though it evidently is a problem) and more as a symptom of an unchecked, overbearing and abusive Jewish power.”

            I think it is both, the former excruciatingly so for the Palestinians which you in fact know.

            “I don’t have a hidden agenda (at least not to my knowledge). When I ask questions, they’re just that – they’re not rhetoric.”

            I never meant to imply that. On the contrary, you are one of the most candid discussants of the topic. When I say that “imply” this or that, I don’t mean to say you are working an “agenda” into the discussion, only that this or that is the implication I read in what you say.

  25. Paul Eisen June 27, 2012 at 5:23 pm #

    I assume by the ‘easy way’ you mean by raising consciousness in various populations. But don’t you think that’s been tried before? For example the church tried desperately to spritually arm populations to resist long before they resorted to physical expulsion – and I’m sure the same is true for, say, the Czarist government.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: