Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
i have my own opinion about ahmadinejad. the short version is that i think that, more than dangerous he is a puppet, the errand boy for people who work against the best interests of the iranians and who want war.

the shock of his words stems mostly from the fact that any, ANY, discussion of israels crimes has been made socially unacceptable in the west. off-topic here, i think that this whole topic should be brought back from the status of anathema ASAP, in the best interest of everybody.

ad holocaust - since school, age 12 or so, i've asked everybody at hand why rather draconian laws are at all necessary to uphold truth. i've never gotten a straight answer to that one simple question. what i got most of times was hateful sneers, unwarranted insults, blank stares. because of this personal experience i tend to think that there is far more to the holocaust than lots of dead people. i'll leave it at that.

ad israel - immigrant jews have been meting out violence and general havoc against palestinians since about 1880 (the relations between the local arabs and jews was cordial and marked by mutual respect). the creation of israel has nothing to do with WW2, but lots with WW1. palestine used to belong to the turkish empire back then. the jews, or rather, the zionist movement, asked the brits to give them palestine in return for screwing over the germans, who were winning the war. the brits signed over the place which decidedly did not belong to them in the same way as today irak does not belong to the americans but they are still signing the place over to corporations. and nobody ever asked the palestinians for their opinion (terrae nullius). may god heap disgrace and ruin on all descendants of lord balfour until the 40th generation.

ad palestinians - i think that they still have many fans in the west, but most of those fans are not to be found among the political classes. and the political classes of the west have never been more alienated from the people since perhaps the times of the borgia papacies.

ad ahmadinejad - as said above. i doubt the statement is idle provocation or bumbling idiocy. his proposition to take the jews of israel back is appealing at face value, but it is a milchmädchenrechnung, the equivalent of a spreadsheet in the world of politics.

zionism, the political movement which lead to the creation of israel, is a misguided answer to the marginalisation the (eastern) european jews suffered much before the advent of nazism, in the 19th century. they wanted out of europe because they knew what was in the tea leaves, and the other europeans were all too happy to get ridden of a people despised by many of them. this stance has IMHO not changed substantially in europe.

even apart from political considerations i doubt israeli jews would have much better chances here in europe if they decided to return en masse today. the well-educated, technologically adept class is a minority in israel, as it is everywhere else. AFAIK their educational system produces far more functional analphabetes than the average european, so here we'd just have one more group of immigrants competing with the local proletariat and other immigrant groups. second, their society is anything but tolerant. they are as racist and classist as can be found. white european askenazis at the top, eritrean falashas at the bottom; their religious and political leaders are mostly "israel über alles" extremists, intractable kooks ripe for the rubber cell by european standards (google "moshe levinger" to see an example). last but not least, how is any european country supposed to absorb the 20% or of the israeli (jewish) population which lives at or below poverty w/o provoking upheavals ? i doubt many of them would be accepted with open arms by the general populace.

i'm sorry, but ahmadinejad didn't do his homework. he's outed himself as a primitive populist, driven by and appealing to base instincts.

(corrections please ?)

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 11:04:07 AM EST
(corrections please ?)

It's really disingenuous to put that at the bottom of a substanceless rant like that. Why should anyone spend valuable time combing through all that and attempting to calmly bring you some facts? That's a very serious question I'm asking you: why?

So I'm not going to spend any more of my time on you. I'll just tell you this: your whole piece stinks of knee-jerk antisemitism.

Yuck.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 12:18:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... I'll just tell you this: your whole piece stinks of knee-jerk antisemitism.

i don't think that is the case. why would you tell me such a thing, and what exactly do you mean ?

i find it rather gross how people who wouldn't know a "semite" if one smacked them in the face need to hurl epithets at people who happen to entertain slightly different opinions on matters of some relevancy. the person posting from seattle pretty much sums up the problem.

but just for the record, let it be known that i proudly find myself in the same camp with another notable "anti-semite", who was even arrested last week because of his unpopular views. just like this person, i entertain the notion that the most rational and least racist of all possible solutions to the israel/palestine conflict is that of one state and one law for all inhabitants of the place. i suggest you check the "anti-semitic" lucubrations of this russian jew who lives in jaffa for yourself: http://israelshamir.net

the fact that i comment on ahmadinejad's provocation does not mean that i agree with them. i do not.

by name (name@spammez_moi_sivouplait.org) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 03:54:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Condemned by your own words. Shamir, a Jewish convert to Christianity is rabidly antisemitic.

The "liberal democracy and human rights" doctrine carried by the US marines even across Tigris and Oxus is a crypto-religion, an extreme heretical form of Judaised Christianity. Alexander Panarin, a modern (deceased) Russian political philosopher, noticed the anti-Christian character of the American doctrine: "The new American vision of de-contextualised Goods and their de-socialised Consumers is a heathen myth"; in his view the US doctrine represents a lapse into heathendom.

In my view, this new religion can be called Neo-Judaism; its adepts imitate classic Jewish attitudes; Jews often act as priests of the new faith and they are considered sacred by its adepts.

[...]

Still, there is a strong feeling of continuity between Palaeo-Judaism and the newer version. The Jewish state is the enactment of the paranoid Jewish fear and loathing of the stranger, while the Cabal policies of Pentagon are another manifestation of this same fear and loathing on global scale. The ideas for Neo-Judaism were formed by Jewish nationalist Leo Strauss, and promoted by Jewish writers of the New York Times. There is a project of supplying Neo-Judaism with exoteric rites by constructing a new Jerusalem Temple on the site of al Aqsa Mosque.

Neo-Judaism is the unofficial faith of the American Empire, and the war in the Middle East is indeed the Neo-Judaic Jihad. It is intuited by millions: Tom Friedman of the NY Times wrote that the Iraqis call the American invaders "Jews". Neo-Judaism is the cult of globalism, neo-liberalism, destruction of family and nature, anti-spiritual and anti-Christian.

This is also an anti-social cult of commodification, alienation and uprooting; fighting cohesive society, solidarity, tradition - in short, fighting the values upheld by the three great churches. As the church has lost its position in the West, the adepts of Neo-Judaism consider Western Christendom almost dead and fight it by bloodless means through their ADL, ACLU and other anti-Christian bodies. The Village Voice calls Bush `the Christian', The New York Times writes of priests' child abuse, Schwarzenegger demolishes a church in The Last Days, - this is the Western front of the Neo-Judaic Jihad.

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Theopolitics.htm

The psychological portrait should be recognizable for the Ukrainians. Yes, the Civilization X presently at war with the rest of the world, is this eminently familiar and contemptible figure, a medieval Ukrainian Jew, a usurer, tax collector and alcohol pusher magnified by a factor of million. Its size impeded our recognition, for it is not easy to recognize an elephant-size louse.  TOP

Centuries ago, this figure ruled your steppes. After expulsion from France and Spain, the immigrant Jews settled in the Ukraine, suborned the timid native Jews and in short time strategically placed themselves between Polish landlords and Ukrainian peasants. They had lent money to landlords and peasants, pushed alcohol, managed the feudal estates, and eventually became the ultimate source of power. The Jews fought the Church, for the Church objected to their liberal trade in alcohol and usury. Until nowadays, the Jewish word kabala (receipt) is used in the Ukrainian language for `debt enslavement'.

The Civilization X pushes heroin instead of vodka, loans out billions instead of two rubles, sucks out the wealth of nations instead of meager livelihood of a peasant, fears nuclear weapons rather than moujik's axe, but it is the same complex of ideas and methods. In short, Civilization X is a dangerous and aggressive mutation of Jewish spirit grafted on the Anglo-American basis. Huntington was right - up to a point. The Conflict of Civilizations is unavoidable, but it is not a conflict of Christendom and Islam, but the conflict of Christians and Muslims versus Neo-Jews

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/civilx.htm

by MarekNYC on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 04:43:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Centuries ago, this figure ruled your steppes. After expulsion from France and Spain, the immigrant Jews settled in the Ukraine, suborned the timid native Jews and in short time strategically placed themselves between Polish landlords and Ukrainian peasants.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 04:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Possibly, if you tar everyone and everything around you that says things you disagree with, with one brush... well, I guess you see a lot of tar.

The person was putting out complex thoughts. If you want to disagree, that's healthy. Simply calling him/her a racist without even picking out one point to refute with facts and reasons? How can that further our group's understanding?

by AllisonInSeattle on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 05:18:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
tar everyone and everything around you that says things you disagree with, with one brush

I'm afraid that you're the one who's spreading it wide there. I spoke to one person, not "everyone and everything". I didn't say what I said because that person said "things (I) disagree with". And what do you mean by "one brush"? The word "antisemitism"? But if I think it's the case that this commenter's writing betrays antisemitic feelings, are you suggesting I must use nuance and political correctness and not plain words? You said above you were relieved to find everyone here didn't jump on you out of a sense of political correctness, and now you want to apply your idea of pc to other users?

You think that commenter was putting out complex thoughts. Fine. I don't. You get into a complex discussion with her/him if you like. If you don't mind, I won't.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Dec 10th, 2005 at 09:01:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... I give you a 3 to counterbalance your rating. Not because I agree with you on matters, I don't, but because you at least make an attempt to make clear where your opinions are based upon. That's a whole lot better than posters who just spill incoherent punditry.

But for the rest, I'd suggest you take a few texts from another perspective and consider those. I can't really start to make corrections, as you ask. For starters, look at the history of Ahmadinejad before his presidency and then ask yourself again how much of him is puppet and how much of him is internally driven.

by Nomad on Fri Dec 9th, 2005 at 10:24:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series