Author |
Message |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4569 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 7:14 am: |
|
Aren't all NAMBLA members of a like point of view whereas there is considerably diversity of thought and practice in the Islamic world? When I hear NAMBLA, I hear adult and child and that does sit too well with me whether is is man-boy or man-girl. If I take the MB out of NAMBLA, it ceases to exist. If I take Al-Qaeda out of Islam, the religion is, arguably, better off. |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5668 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:31 am: |
|
The NAMBLA analogy is ridiculous. Not to mention incredibly insulting to many, many people, including many men, women and children who live in our community. |
   
3ringale
Citizen Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 319 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
tjohn, I don't actually know how much "diversity" exists in NAMBLA. Perhaps there are some who are unable or unwilling to act on their beliefs. But they might be very sympathetic and supportive of those that did act and be unwilling to condemn them. For my part, I would be suspicious of and, yea, even prejudiced against anyone who expressed the least amount of symapthy and support for NAMBLA, even if they broke no laws. Is that rational or irrational? I'll leave that up to you, but I don't expect to be changing my mind about it. If I take the MB out of NAMBLA, it ceases to exist. If I take Al-Qaeda out of Islam, the religion is, arguably, better off. Again, this is a hard one to answer. Islam lacks a central authority, so who is to say what constitutes authentic Islam? If you take Al-Qaeda out of Islam, maybe it isn't Islam anymore. If you take the heart out of the body, what happens to the body? I can always tune in to PBS and see some Muslim in a 3-piece suit, who spent a few years at Harvard, burbling about how Islam is a religion of peace, except for a few "extremists". As I've said before, this is true to a point, but what accounts for the extremists? And what makes the guy in a 3-piece suit an authority on what constiutes authentic Islam? I don't know, but I'd probably be just as addled if I spent a few years at Harvard! Cheers
|
   
Hoops
Citizen Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1735 Registered: 10-2004

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
3ring - I echo Nohero on this one. The analogy is ridiculous. Your point is that we are not going to find a consensus of much on the board because on any given issue there are many people here with valid differences of opinion. Ok good point but ridiculous analogy (from one whose last analogy got more then little criticism). |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1221 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 11:02 am: |
|
I stand squarly in awe of the deliberate obtuseness of the usual suspects ! Nohero- Has Cindy Sheehan made any comments about islam yet? Tom Reingold- I too have spend time a great deal of time among muslims. The issue is: Is one a truly a religious muslim unless they fully "surrender" to the express words and required acts specified in the koran, hadiths, and suras? Radical islamists say you cannot be unless you do. In honest conversation one can hear that segments of the religion must be deliberatly ignored in order to be a "moderate" muslim. This of course is for those in america. You do hear from american muslim leaders that "jihad" means a personal struggle with oneself, a self-improvement of the soul and interpersonal relationships, rather than war against the infidels. This view is at variance with the interpretations given "jihad" by religious authorities in the Middle East.
|
   
Tom Reingold
Supporter Username: Noglider
Post Number: 15157 Registered: 1-2003

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 1:17 pm: |
|
factvsfiction, OK then. It sounds like you are saying there is no concensus. Therefore, there is no one conclusion about Islam. No big surprise there. Looking for the One True Answer about Islam is about as foolish as looking for the One Truth about God. If you found it, it would be beyond words.
|
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1224 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Tom Reingold- No Tom, I am saying that some of those in the United States and exposed to our culture, society, and economy respond selectively to the call. They are the minority. The fact that the Saudis support mosque building and islamic education worldwide, including the US is telling. I have appreciated the aspects of beauty in islam, as in any religion. Like I find the gregorian chants of the christians to have spirituality and depth. The adhan in the time in which I would hear it was reassuring and not to my mind violent. However we cannot ignore the reality that islam requires reformation for the modern day.
|
   
kathleen
Citizen Username: Symbolic
Post Number: 600 Registered: 3-2005
| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:17 pm: |
|
Why don't the Jews "reform" and accept Christ? The structure of bigotry is just an empty vessel into which a bigot pours the flavor of the yaer. As I said before, I'm sure tjohn was well-intentioned in starting this thread, and I suspect he actually was alarmed when he decoded what some people were saying about Muslims and how strikingly reminiscent it was of genocidal hate speech of the 20th century and before. But the thread is just going to continue to be a platform for several paranoid crackpots people to give you their crackpot theories of Islam. They need this enemy. Any enemy. It's how they explain to themselves why they aren't fulfilled in life. I come into contact with more hate speech on MOL than I do anyplace else in Maplewood, South Orange or Millburn. Is Jamie Ross still running for office? How does he expect people to vote for him if he cannot manage this website according to its own stated rules? Why is this board allowed to be a venue for hate-mongering and religious bigotry against neighbors and friends? |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1227 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:01 pm: |
|
Wow. Total meltdown. Sweet. Let's see what we have. Claims of non-existent calls for genocide against muslims by posters. Threatening Mr. Ross's candidacy because he allows FREE SPEECH on MOL and permits intelligent discussion and debate. Claims that others who do not continually post anti-Israel articles by marginal or biased figures are the unhappy crackpot posters that need to have an enemy in life. Hmmm. |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4580 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
I may have missed it, but I don't recall any claims of calls for genocide againts Muslims. What might have been said, quite correctly, is that demonizing a group of people sets the stage for pogroms, for Rwanda, for the Armenian expulsion, etc., etc. |
   
Blue Heeler
Citizen Username: Blueheeler
Post Number: 69 Registered: 10-2005

| Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Let's stop demonizing Islam and kill some American Jews, instead, pregnant women preferrably. After all, they are all responsible for Israeli weapons... http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003159826_webbelltown28.html
|
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1231 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Food for thought? Or debate? Cathy Seipp's article on immigration at: http://politicscentral.com/2006/07/25/the_media_immigration_and_isla.php |
   
3ringale
Citizen Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 320 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:38 am: |
|
Anti-Semitic terrorism, another job Americans won't do? Cheers |
   
Dave
Supporter Username: Dave
Post Number: 10264 Registered: 4-1997

| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:53 am: |
|
Quote:Seeing Islam as a culture rooted in war By Carlin Romano Inquirer Book Critic Islamic Imperialism A History By Efraim Karsh Yale. 276 pp. $30 It sounds like yesterday's newspaper: Growing lawlessness... led to the formation of citizen organizations for defense and reprisals... . Notable among these were... thugs drawn from the lower reaches of society... . Ready to sell their services to the highest bidder, groups... competed against each other to serve the rival Shiite and Sunni camps in their incessant squabbles... Yesterday's Financial Times on today's Iraq? No, Efraim Karsh on eighth-century Baghdad. Forgive yourself if "the more things change, the more they stay the same" comes to mind. Muslim scholars, proud of Islam's cultural feats, often don't know what to say about its endemic violence and militarism. Even great ones fall victim to soft-pedaling the endless battles, assassinations and massacres by which Islam expanded from Arabia to become a world religion. In his Islam: Religion, History, and Civilization (2003), the distinguished Iranian philosopher S.H. Nasr embodied this tradition in a telling, self-contradictory sentence: "In less than a century after the establishment of the first Islamic society in Medina by the Prophet, Arab armies had conquered a land stretching from the Indus River to France and brought with them Islam, which, contrary to popular Western conceptions, was not forced upon the people by the sword." You might say that Efraim Karsh, head of the Mediterranean Studies Program at the University of London, gives the other side of the story. In his nervy, tightly documented Islamic Imperialism, Karsh challenges scholars and Muslim leaders to refute his own picture of Islam: an imperialist seventh-century Arabic movement that forced itself on neighboring lands such as today's Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt for secular colonialist payoffs - money, booty, territory. According to Karsh, Muhammad, by claiming Allah's authority to act as both a political and religious leader, was able "to cloak his political ambitions with a religious aura" and "channel Islam's energies" into geographic expansion. In seventh-century Arabia, Karsh argues, the peninsula teemed with people claiming divine inspiration. What Muhammad added, Karsh contends, was insistence on Allah as the sole god, a desire to unite believers equally in a Muslim umma (or "community of believers"), and a will to do so by force if persuasion failed. On the practical side, Karsh maintains, Islam began in banditry. After going to Medina, Muhammad sought to "entice his local followers into raiding the Meccan caravans," and the multiple attacks increased their war chests. His unpopularity with Meccans stemmed not just from his new beliefs, Karsh asserts, but from his brigandage. Medina, originally known as Yathrib, had been partly "settled by Jewish refugees fleeing Roman persecution." Karsh says Muhammad first tried to persuade Yathrib's three Jewish tribes - the Quainuqa, Nadir and Quraiza - to convert to Islam. He adopted "a number of Jewish rituals," including praying "toward Jerusalem" and not eating pork. When the "Medina Jews" demurred, Karsh states, Muhammad turned on them, dropping Jewish rituals and changing the direction of prayer to Mecca. Eventually, Karsh writes, Muhammad expelled the Quainuqa and Nadir and stole their goods. Then, in 627, after accusing the Quraiza of conspiring with Meccan enemies, Muhammad ordered its nearly 800 men beheaded. The Muslims sold the women and children into slavery and split the tribe's money. Muhammad also continued his conquest of Arabia. He conducted raids throughout the peninsula and "resorted to the assassination of political rivals." In 630, he showed up at Mecca with an army, the city capitulated, and Islam's great rise began. In Karsh's view, Muhammad has served as a model for Muslims not just as a wise man and prophet, but as a warrior. Anyone not expert on early Islam will need a scorecard to follow the innumerable murders, impalings, decapitations and dismemberments that marked the early Islamic caliphates and Shiite/Sunni split. You think what's happening in Iraq is new? So many severed heads get sent from one leader to another in Islamic Imperialism, you wonder why "Fed Head" didn't get off the ground as a Meccan firm. From Muhammad's farewell address in 632 ("I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no God but Allah.' "), to Saladin in 1189 ("I shall... pursue them until there remains no one... who does not acknowledge Allah"), to Osama bin Laden in 2001 ("I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah..."), Karsh finds Islam's outward imperialism consistent. But internally, Karsh notes, mayhem against rival Muslims also implicated Islam's spiritual side as "a facade that concealed what was effectively a secular and increasingly absolutist rule," one by which Arab caliphs could "enjoy the material fruits of imperial expansion." Every Islamic takeover, Karsh emphasizes, came with a demand for tribute, taxes, or both: "Arab conquerors were far less interested in the mass conversion of the vanquished peoples than in securing their tribute." Meanwhile, infighting made "a mockery" of Muhammad's ban on fighting among Muslims. This history of Islam's internal wars forms the timely, eye-opening side of Karsh's book. By the first Abbasid caliphate in 749, Karsh summarizes, "the Islamic empire was an Arab military autocracy run by Arabs for the sole benefit of Arabs." Islamic Imperialism stirs a thought beyond its historical record. American newspapers have lately flagellated themselves for not challenging the White House's belief that Iraq possessed WMDs. Karsh's history suggests a different foul-up: their editorial drumbeat for the United States to immediately return sovereignty to Iraq, as if an artificial nation containing two Islamic factions long at each other's throats, their ethics further deadened by dictatorship, could handle democracy without any re-education or experience. For all the analogies early in the Iraq War to our post-World-War-II rebuilding of Germany and Japan, Karsh's history, which takes Islam right through the Ottomans and Osama, indicates that both the White House and press ignored a crucial historical truth: Cultures rooted in violence, if not shown another way of life before being given back a right of self-determination, slip back into it.
|
   
Illuminated Radish
Citizen Username: Umoja
Post Number: 47 Registered: 6-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:08 pm: |
|
In fairness, would you not say that the Ancient Hebrew's use of Judaism to control Canaan was Hebrew Imperialism? Isn't that the purpose of religion, to get land? Or is that just how it plays out? |
   
anon
Supporter Username: Anon
Post Number: 2906 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:23 pm: |
|
FvF, Dave: How do you react to 3ring's analogy of Islam to pedophilia, or his position that the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Religion should not apply to Muslims? What about his snide remark about ant-semitic violence being a job for immigrants, as if we don't have plenty of home-grown anti-semites. I believe the shooter in Seattle may have been born in the US. He's also facing previous charges for "flashing" in another Town. You think maybe he's just a nut-job? |
   
anon
Supporter Username: Anon
Post Number: 2907 Registered: 6-2002
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 3:29 pm: |
|
The wars between Protestants and Catholics in Europe were more recent than the wars described by Karsh, or the Hebrew's conquest of Cannan. |
   
3ringale
Citizen Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 321 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:32 pm: |
|
I saw one article that said Naveed Haq's immigration status was uncertain, which sometimes means the person in question is an illegal. He may have been born in the US though, since his parents came here in the 1970's. On the other hand, I believe that Hesham Hadayet, who shot up the El Al ticket counter at LAX in 2002, came here on a "Diversity" visa. Not something to celebrate, in my opinion. Cheers |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5673 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Apparently, some folks think that people who are anti-Semitic, and who bring guns with them to shoot people as a result, must be part of the vast Muslim conspiracy. Please let us know how Buford O. Furrow Jr. fits into your theories. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1233 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Nohero- Channelling Mel Gibson? |
   
Nohero
Supporter Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5674 Registered: 10-1999

| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 9:46 pm: |
|
No, just the opposite, actually. But thanks for the gratuitous personal attack. You're new here, I know (and an out-of-town guest, to boot); try to learn how to behave, please. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1239 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:44 pm: |
|
gratuitous personal attack? how so? I was referring to Furrow. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1240 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 10:59 pm: |
|
Does anyone find it interesting that the New York Times covers the murder of one woman and the wounding of five others at the Seattle Jewish Federation by a muslim "hater" on page 22 ? Too big a news day for heavy investigative reporting on the event? Possible domestic islamic terrorism that kills a jew don't merit front page coverage to the esteemed editors of the Times like " So Big And Healthy Nowadays. Grandpa Wouldn't Know You" or " Disowning Conservative Politics Evangelical Pastor Rattles Flock" which both graced the cover? Guess the "Mohammed" cartoon riots had no impact on these intrepid crusading journalists, just Gitmo. |
   
Innisowen
Citizen Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2181 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 11:13 pm: |
|
fiction: Might that perhaps be because the incident happened on July 28 (Friday) and a story was published on July 29 (Saturday-yesterday), and today's article was a follow-up? And the investigators of the case gave no credence to the possibility that it was a terrorist act; they believed it was the act of a loner with a grudge.
|
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1244 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:18 am: |
|
innisowen- And where was the placement on Saturday? And why no follow up investigative report on our "mad" shooter? Don't care what the local yokel police say, rest assured that Homeland Security is checking every cranny of this s$#@bags life and associations out. |
   
joel dranove
Citizen Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 782 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 11:46 am: |
|
You can't make this up. The following is verbatim from littlegreenfootballs.com (No idea about the origin of that). Never mind Iranian president Ahmadinejad’s calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” or the fact that Iran funds and supports Hizballah. French foreign minister Philippe Douste-Blazy says Iran is a respected, stabilizing force in the Middle East. Iran is a significant, respected player in the Middle East which is playing a stabilizing role, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said Monday, during a visit to Lebanon. “It was clear that we could never accept a destabilization of Lebanon, which could lead to a destabilization of the region,” Douste-Blazy said in Beirut. “In the region there is of course a country such as Iran - a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region,” he told a news conference. And this is the country that is supposed to guard Israel’s northern border. |
   
Innisowen
Citizen Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2184 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Fiction: Thanks for the laugh. So DHS is checking out the alleged shooter. You mean the very DHS which couldn't secure New Orleans at Katrina? The one that can't get and keep qualified people to check passengers and baggage at major airports? The one whose boss was blissfully oblivious to the Gulf Coast hurricane aftermath? The one whose financial grants to New York and Washington for their security this year were so niggardly? The one granting funds to protect Dunkin Donuts shops in Iowa and Indiana? Again, thanks for the laugh. It would be less funny if I thought you possessed one iota of proportionality in your thought processes and judgement. But, hey, I guess that only some of us are rational beings. |
   
joel dranove
Citizen Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 784 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 12:49 pm: |
|
The following was not covered at all in the Western media. It is a sentencing proceeding for a group of Lebanese gang rapists, (White women only), dutifully recorded in Australia. http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002682.html |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1248 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
innisowen- Now now. Name-calling is the sign of being unable to formulate cogent and effective arguments. joel- I believe muslim gang rape and assaults at Australian beaches were covered at several web sites. They also had a riot on an Australian beach. |
   
Innisowen
Citizen Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2185 Registered: 3-2004
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Fiction: Once again your grasp of language fails you. I didn't call you a name. I questioned your point of view on DHS and identified what I believe is a large fault line in your thought processes and your judgement. And the sub-par ability to comprehend what you read.
|
   
Blue Heeler
Citizen Username: Blueheeler
Post Number: 71 Registered: 10-2005

| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
Joel, Here's a link from Haaretz, regarding the French FM Douste-Blazy's press conference in Beirut : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/744705.html The world has gone completely mad; how can he even say this with a straight face? What's next, French troops spying for Hezbollah while pretending to patrol the border? BlueHeeler |
   
joel dranove
Citizen Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 786 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 1:53 pm: |
|
He is French. You know, Vichy and all that. jd |
   
joel dranove
Citizen Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 787 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
You may read the following Mohammad's Willing Executioners, by Andrew Bostum, M.D., author of The Legacy of Jihad, at your peril. Or, you can ignore it, at even greater peril. Knowledge is power. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23609 |
   
Bob K
Supporter Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12283 Registered: 5-2001
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 3:44 pm: |
|
..and Marquis? One way or another the French had an active and effective resistance movement in WWII. I agree that his statement borders on insanity. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1250 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:18 pm: |
|
Innisowen- I am dreadfully sorry, I am sure you are as well connected with the Homeland Security people as you are with the active duty U.S. millitary planners. Agree, lots of problems with Homeland Security. On the other hand murder does generate some attention and an effective response. U.S.authorities pay more attention after the Kahane murder and the LAX shooting, fyi. Unclear to me why you have to personalize this stuff with me by making comments about my reading comprehension or intellect, unless it is from frustration in being unable to frame solid responses. I read everything you have to say. Hint: On Iraq look to the Soviet experiences in Afghanistan, not Vietnam.
|
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4606 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 4:26 pm: |
|
France can say what they like about Iran. What matters is how they vote on applicable U.N. resolutions. Cynical as it may seem, in the world of foreign affairs, it is often good to make nice in public and behave otherwise in the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1254 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 5:02 pm: |
|
tjohn- Your acknowledging the world is a cynical place undercuts 3/4 of your posts.
 |
   
tjohn
Supporter Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4607 Registered: 12-2001

| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Either that or I have a nuanced view of foreign affairs. |
   
joel dranove
Citizen Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 792 Registered: 1-2006
| Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
A cynical and nuanced view of the current situation: The Secret to Peace with Israel – Don’t Attack it First Filed under: Front Page, Israel, Hezbollah George Jonas, Ottawa Citizen Eureka! I’ve stumbled upon the secret of the countries Israel has never bombed or invaded. Different as they may be from one another, they have one thing in common. These countries have never bombed or invaded Israel. Nor have they funded, sheltered, armed or incited any group to do so. They haven’t even made menacing gestures while developing weapons of mass destruction, like the former president and current star hunger-striker of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The phenomenon is consistent enough to be reduced to a simple formula. I’ll offer it here as Jonas’ Law: To avoid being bombed and invaded by Israel, avoid bombing and invading it first. Avoid also funding, sheltering, and supplying terrorists, on your own soil or elsewhere. Avoid inciting proxies to infiltrate, shell, booby-trap, sabotage, kidnap, or otherwise expose to physical harm Israeli installations and residents. To be on the safe side, don’t even threaten to destroy Israel at some future date. Don’t, especially, combine veiled threats with a nuclear development program, like President Ahmajinedad of Iran. If you can resist doing this, the historic record guarantees you a bomb - and invasion - free existence as Israel’s neighbour. It’s not necessary to like Israel. Whether you are a fanatic mullah, a pan-Arab nationalist, or just an ordinary Arab or Muslim, whether you get on well with the People of the Covenant or consider them the sons of pigs and dogs, you don’t have to fear military measures until you start throwing things at Israelis first - and I don’t mean stones. Stones invite rubber bullets in response; you need to throw rockets to invite the Air Force. No matter how much you detest Israelites in particular, or Jews in general, as long as you can content yourself with calling on God’s wrath to rain down on the Jewish State, and refrain from reinforcing your prayer by supplying missiles to Hezbollah, you can exercise your religious freedom of loathing with no other consequence than perhaps being loathed in return. It seems necessary to jot this down because current critics of Israel, before they start muttering darkly about war crimes, tend to preface their remarks with the pious bromide: “Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself.” That’s good news for Israel - or would be, if the people who say so meant it - for Israel never did anything but defend itself from attack, actual or impending. A country whose sole war-aim is to exist is defensive rather than aggressive by definition. The Jewish State’s internal monologue, like Hamlet’s, has always been “to be or not to be.” You don’t look for a fight, if all victory can achieve for you is the status quo. No one bets his house on the proposition that if he wins, he can keep it. Look at what a belligerent can hope from victory, and you’ll see whether he’s defensive or aggressive. This simple test demonstrates that all of Israel’s wars have been defensive since 1948. If the world truly accepted that Israel had a right to defend itself, there could be no criticism of its actions, no moral issues, and no talk of war crimes even when innocent civilians get hurt. But Israel’s “right to defend itself,” to which its western critics are careful to pay lip service, hinges on Israel never actually doing so. The Jewish State is entitled to armed self-defence; it just cannot shed any blood. If this sounds familiar, it may be because it’s straight out of The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare’s heroine, Portia, disguised as a doctor at law, tells the Duke that the Jew Shylock has a valid contract. If the Venetian merchant Antonio cannot honour his bond, Shylock is entitled to a pound of his flesh and can use a knife to obtain it. But, says Portia, the contract says nothing about blood. Shylock taking a pound of flesh is a legitimate creditor, but if he draws as much as a drop of blood, he’s a criminal. Gotcha! The play was popular then - a smart lawyer sticking it to the avaricious Jew, all perfectly legal - and it’s popular today. The UN plays the Duke; Israel is cast as Shylock, and Lebanon as Antonio. Canada contributes a contemporary Portia to lay down the law. Oh yes, Israel can defend itself against a camouflaged Hezbollah hiding among the civilian population, but if it sheds any civilian blood, it commits a war crime. Please welcome Madame Justice Louise Arbour. I’ll offer it here as Jonas’ Law: To avoid being bombed and invaded by Israel, avoid bombing and invading it first. © 2006 Osprey Media Group Inc. All rights reserved. |
   
Factvsfiction
Citizen Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1257 Registered: 4-2006
| Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:27 pm: |
|
tjohn- So in other words you are a self-contrarian? Interesting. |
|