-
-
- ‘Forward’ piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall … 0
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by … 0
- Bradley Manning rally to feature, Ellsberg, Ann Wright, Dan Choi, … 0
- Another ‘NYT’ piece buys Israel’s al-Dura report– which PA spox … 0
- Jewish philanthropies stay away from org dedicated to Yiddish culture … 4
- Reporters Without Borders on the Israeli al-Dura investigation: ‘the nature … 2
- Obama’s secret wars in Muslim world make Americans vulnerable 2
- ‘Al Jazeera’ reposts Massad piece, after censoring it 0
-
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 2239
- Washington state bus-ad campaign dares to state: ‘Equal rights for … 1716
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem 1691
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 1368
- Palestinian-American Raed Zidan plants flag on top of Everest, dedicates … 1339
- Christians denounce Israel’s manhandling of worshipers at Holy Sepulcher on … 950
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 809
- In photos: Gaza marches and rallies mark 65 years of … 442
-
- International Criminal Court opens preliminary investigation into attack on Mavi … 96
- Barbara Boxer’s visa bill for Israel comes under concerted attack 87
- Abulhawa declines to ‘balance out’ several Israelis in ‘Al Jazeera’ … 86
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite … 75
- Washington Post’s racism map omits Israel 73
- Israeli airport sorts passengers with ‘Jewish stickers’ and ‘Arab stickers’ 69
- Uncompromising hope inspired by Ghassan Kanafani 63
- ‘Newseum’ folds under pressure, will not include Gaza cameramen in … 62
-
- ‘Forward’piece on destruction of Palestinian neighborhood fronting Western Wall not embraced by all ‘Forward’ readers http://t.co/a8nvXYynM6, 31 mins ago
- Israel cracks down on American travel to West Bank by requiring tourists to obtain military permit http://t.co/vNUagVufkS, 35 mins ago
- Bradley Manning rally to feature, Ellsberg, Ann Wright, Dan Choi, Sarah Shourd http://t.co/C1C7G1DXJ6, 51 mins ago
- "belligerent military occupation of Palestine does not need any hoax or staged incidents to expose its brutality" http://t.co/PGFbErTIOK, 56 mins ago
- Another ‘NYT’ piece buys Israel’s al-Dura report– which PA spox calls ‘fantastical’ racist propaganda http://t.co/PGFbErTIOK, 1 hour ago
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (75)
- Hostage: Here is a memorandum from Acting secretary Bowles to President Kennedy, April 28, 1961 regarding An...
- Two friends meet for 5 minutes in Jerusalem (45)
- Obsidian: AND this http://www.timesofisrael.com/p alestinians-nabbed-for-plannin g-to-kidnap-israelis/
- Jewish philanthropies stay away from org dedicated to Yiddish culture because it doesn’t focus on Israel or the Holocaust (4)
- Adam Horowitz: “Zionism corrupts everything it touches” – I thought the same thing. Thanks.
- ritzl: Wow, sounds like a great program. You’d think it would be a top priority. How do the...
- Shmuel: Setting aside the question of historical Jewish pluralism (going way back to those fights over Baal and...
- Video: Paterson, NJ raises the Palestinian flag over city hall for Palestinian-American Day (14)
- ritzl: Heh. But I thought that was Sarah Palin’s lapel’s job. Oh wait, define balance. ;)
- Biden says Jewish ‘influence’ behind American cultural politics is ‘immense… immense’ (13)
- Pamela Olson: As a lover of science, and especially physics, I grew up with Jewish heroes. It was staggering to me,...
- marc b.: Hey, what about me? - Jeremy Jacobs (from Buffalo, NY)
- rsmatesic: The problem with Philo-anygroup is that no collection of human beings constitutes an unqualified good,...
- Obama’s secret wars in Muslim world make Americans vulnerable (2)
- Donald: “America is at war with terrorism.” America is at war with certain forms of terrorism, while...
- Kennedy’s insistence on right of return prompted Ben-Gurion to rewrite history: They fled ‘of their own free will’ (75)
Our Writers
More WritersBlogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
Spot on, kalithea.
Great article.
Bernard Lewis has been peddling this nonsense for ages. Everybody knows why. Yair Shamir or Sam Harris, they all rely on that same clash of civilisations ideology (the phrase originally coined by Bernard Lewis who the NYT describes as the "doyen of Middle Eastern studies" which is equivalent to a paper in a Muslim country describing Sayyid Qutb as the "doyen of Western studies"). The dehumanisation helps killing the Other, whoever does it.
Bernard Lewis, a Zionist foremost, offers a myth called the "Judeo-Christian civilisation" against "Muslim rage". This is ideological service for Zionism as even the odious Harold Bloom acknowledged here link to beliefnet.com:
"It is absurd to talk about a Judeo-Christian tradition. I say this in spite of the political good that this does for the State of Israel or the remnant of Jewry."
Bloom is wrong just as well: like all Zionists, or tribalists of any religion whether they are atheist (as he is or not), he makes claims for Jewry that would be opposed by any right-minded Jew. Zionism is advertised to the "Western audience" in this language, drawing upon terrorist atrocities like the Boston bombing in a united front. It knowingly exploits the fears of ordinary people. If the original inhabitants of Palestine were Buddhist, they would be peddling nonsense about Buddha. Fundamentalism, whether coming from the Islamists or Zionists or Hindu nationalists, is the same thing. Yair Shamir and Bernard Lewis are both fundamentalists.
Reminds me of:
"How do you take your poison? We can take it from nurse Romney, who will tell us not to whine and play the victim, or we can take it from nurse Obama, who will assure us that this hurts him even more than it hurts us ...." - Chris Hedges, Truthdig, Sept 24 2012
Annie, Djinn and Shingo,
Mendes once came to lecture Mondoweiss, I remember from a comment ages ago. He never returned, wonder why, though that's one less hasbarist. "Mendes and co." tried to bully Overland magazine and failed: link to overland.org.au
I was googling for his exact comment on Mondoweiss but instead came upon a dishonest recent article smearing Mondoweiss. Mendes, of course, couldn't miss commenting on it and ran with his usual propaganda.
Excellent thought-provoking essay.
Citizen,
Aye. Aye.
Fritz, thanks for the explanation of the parable and the background info.
Also curious how "just war" was used as a liberal hasbara meme relating to "the wish also to be seen as most moral". Hand it to Walzer: link to mondoweiss.net
As you put it "the arrogance mixed with liberalism". That hits the bull's eye.
"... the arrogance mixed with liberalism ...."
Bingo. Here is Fania Oz-Salzberger:
"Of course, civilians have always been in the line of fire and conquest, from Troy to Berlin. But no regime has ever used its citizens so deliberately as tools to arouse world sympathy, as hostages to modern sensitivities. While theories of just war instruct us not to hurt noncombatants, Hamas and its military arm have made a conscious decision, banking on global humanitarian concerns, to ensure that Israel hits as many civilians as possible."
Full article: link to japantimes.co.jp
Always enjoy Phil's take on anything to do with Walzer. Mondoweiss blows the bubble of myths and discomfits composed "luminaries" with straightforward facts and reflections.
"BTW: Read about some of the Islamic mass murders of Buddists when they conquered India. Read Here link to fsmitha.com"
That is no different from the Buddhist mass murder of Muslims in 1258 and razing Baghdad to the ground: link to en.wikipedia.org
To call it "Islamic mass murders" is a bit rich when these murders, like the ones committed by Buddhists, were actually Mongol conquests in religious garb.
The rest of your "history" on the Native Americans and the Crusades, which objectively were mutually destructive and aggressive, is just as nonsensical.
"At the same time, it is hard to swallow the claim that Islam is not a patriarchal religion. Can anyone really read the Quran and fail to perceive that the author has a patriarchal view of women?"
I think it boils down to who is doing the interpreting and who is the translator/interpreter, who has power over discourse (gender group etc).
One can similarly argue that the Qur'an's absolute prohibition against burying female babies alive or dead because of their gender or rebuke to the Arabian polytheists who claimed "God has daughters" while not wanting daughters themselves and not accepting what the Qur'an calls "glad tidings" of a girl's birth is anti-patriarchal. How are these meanings not conveyed by the religious orthodoxy when "honour killings" are committed?
A religious text is not a concrete manifestation. Islam certainly arose in a patriarchal societal context but is not bound by a context as theologians like Muhammad Abduh argued. The argument that Islam is a patriarchal religion is perfectly valid, ontologically speaking, from the perspective of non-believers who consider religion a historical document or religious traditionalists/Puritans who consider religious knowledge as constant and anchored in history or commentary.
Learned scholars like Abduh, derided by Puritans as rationalist/liberal/modernist, would disagree that the "author" is patriarchal. Muslim family law is definitely patriarchal. But there is a difference between law and the text. The law is a contested interpretation. To call the author "patriarchal" would make no room for thought, which devoids the very stated purpose of the text.
For example, check this debate, including some of the patriarchal and anti-patriarchal responses: link to goatmilkblog.com
"Ultimately history is determined by those who are organized, who feel there is something worth fighting for, and who are prepared to put their lives on the line."
The fact that you think that's gallant reveals a lot about your ideology. A tribal Zionist sounds a lot like a tribal Islamist (excuse the superlative "tribal").
"What makes matters even worse is that the liberals ignore the draconian nature by which Arab and Mulsim societies are usually run, and refer only to the liberal Israeli press for their political thermometer. Only that the liberals pursue narrow agendas and don’t represent a lot of people."
What balderdash! You make some astonishing, false claims about "liberals". It must hurt you to know that the liberal establishment actually supports Israel and is largely PEP and supports colonialism without batting an eye: link to guardian.co.uk.
Ordinary liberals, on the other hand, are much more informed. Most educated university students are liberal. They don't support draconian anything.
Thank you Marco. When I read this piece I knew something was amiss. Anyway I was thinking further: that if we are to scrutinise, we shouldn't leave out the myths, including the grand, self-important national myths Americans believe in about their own nation. To take these two examples is selective at best. I consider Obama a brand and am not his fan, but let me ask Bromwich and those who consider this article excellent: can you name one national leader who does not believe in the myth of the nation? Obama's only problem here is echoing more myths than one. It's not like he has ignored the myth of American exceptionalism which like all his predecessors he is sworn to repeat.
"That’s the brilliant, truth-telling MSNBC analyst that so many liberals seem to love."
These liberals are ensconced in privilege and incapable of any questioning. They are Puritan minded and liberated only in their latte sipping or sexual awakening, whatever they want to call it. It was not the conservatives that run Pilger and Hedges under their wheels by censuring them though conservatives are abominable too, it were liberals like Maddow, who edit papers and the liberal establishment in general.
Here's another such liberal: link to antonyloewenstein.com. The case reveals how the liberal establishment functions.
"Even if one accepts the 2SS along the 67 borders (with any adjustment in boundaries compensating the Palestinians in some major way for what they lose), the rhetoric employed by Obama and most “liberal Zionist” politicians is heavily biased in favor the Israel."
Right on Donald. I also think liberal Zionists happen to be the number one fans of Obama even if other liberals have given up or are giving up on him. Liberal Zionist critique of Israel is tepid even at its most severe, it is made to ingratiate liberal Zionists to the wider and corrupt liberal establishment while at the same time maintaining Zionist credentials. Those who are truly liberal and universalist have no place in the liberal establishment and neither should they.
"I have yet to understand the moral framework that guides Obama’s behavior."
Teresa, this might interest you: link to abc.net.au
Good, but did these feminists have anything to say about the secular Labor party? Condeming the orthodox or religion is a convenient distraction. The religious who are deluded did not receive revelations from God but from the state.
Hophmi, methinks you protest too much. Let me put this straight: the Zionist movement as a whole fosters Islamophobia. Islamophobia is ingrained in Zionism just like Islamophobia is ingrained in Hindutva. Just as anti-Westernism is ingrained in Islamism. The beginnings of these movements can be traced to the last two centuries are so.
Let's stop pretending Zionism is a Biblical prophecy. It's another petty, paranoid, non-special, fascist, gold calf-like, tribe-makes-right fundamentalist movement that comparatively gets way more respect than other fundamentalist movements.
Or better yet, as Abraham said something like: "I don't believe in the sun because I can't see it at night. It can't be godly like the pagans around me seem to think, nor can the tree control my destiny nor objects of stone." The great rationalist if there ever was. A few Greek philosophers reached the same conclusion.
"William C. Thompson Jr. is a progressive black Democrat ..."
It should now be clear to anyone that a person's colour or his own emancipation has nothing to do with his sense of justice. People bought in to Obama's brand too quickly, forgetting that Bush's cabinet was perhaps the most multiracial in US history (Pilger). The right of coloured people to hold equal power against the myth of white superiority (which was enchained to technological progress) is indisputable. What is troubling is the liberal penchant to ignore human rights abuses whether in their country or abroad just for a brand utility. Case in point: consider the liberal Zionist support for Obama at the expense of the Palestinians. As for enclaves of African-American support for Obama and for power in general after continued exclusion, without reflection of its ethical merit, it should be called out for the ethnocentrism it is. The same applies to other tribal politics, including the one underway in Syria at the behest of Saudi Arabia et al. or what occurred in Libya, including the massacre of sub-Saharan workers there.
"First, there is no analogy: even among evils, the Holocaust is in a class by itself, as absolute and unimaginable form of evil as the world has ever known."
There is a relation between all sufferings. To not believe so would justify absence of empathy. Evil is imaginable. Let's not smother reality with mysticism.
Piotr, early Muslims made considerable forays into philosophical and scientific discourses and made many inventions that were not pioneered in India. Yes like all thinkers they were influenced by those that came before just as today's Muslims cannot claim great and profound European achievements as their own. How does that nullify those achievements? Also AlBeruni travelled to India, you might want to look him up. In truth, I am more with Gamal on this topic. We are just one family, even if distant relatives as AlBeruni would say. Also achievements are made by individuals, not cultures. As the Prophet Muhammad said: a tribe that does not desist from boasting of its forefathers is like a beetle which rolleth forward a ball of dung by the end of its nose.
This guy sounds as ignorant as Frank Miller. The civilisation of Islam produced the highest number of polymaths in the shortest time span ever in human history and the highest number of polymaths in general. Look up Ibn Rushd, AlBeruni, Ibn Sina, Ibn Khaldun...they are unheard of but talking facts each of these men intellectually weighed more than Voltaire, Freud and Spinoza combined.
Isn't that akin to some American joining the Taliban? The question remains: Why is one form of violent tribalism permissible while the other is not?
Interesting how pro-Israel advocates build their common case with Europe through the "Islamic spectre". Imagine if someone talked about the "Jewish spectre" or rather the "Judaic spectre", no you would never hear that. These people continue to lump all Muslims together, incidentally they also lump all Jews together. Bernard Lewis's wet dream come true.
May the meek inherit the earth.
Yes those are conspiracies, but how does that take away from legitimate critiques of Chomsky's analysis of responsibilities? Since Chomsky is often regaled as a guru, it is only right to shine the light where he doesn't tread all too well. Why is that a problem?
Your comment struck out in the first piece, one of the best I've read on Mondoweiss. Couldn't agree more. Anything else obfuscates reality.
Recently I have not heard any Brand Obama customer 'droning' about how 'universal humanistic' their guru is. He has been reduced to the "lesser of the evils". Perhaps further discounts will apply? Has the Brand lost the charm? I don't think this tragedy will figure in his or any other statesman's periodic ponders -- if they even do ponder, which I reckon is not the case. If they did, they would be held unsuitable for public office.
Good catch, Qualtrough. I think that shows us how narratives define reality.
One thing is clear: these interventions have successfully instituted a Taliban Raj. The citizens, besides a handful of "rebel" strongholds whose voice was amplified to that of the "Libyan nation" etc., of these countries did not ask for anyone to intervene, they well knew the ugly ideology that Saudi Arabia's clergy propagate and whose foot soldiers wreak tremendous havoc in addition to centuries of Western interference. Even Al Jazeera appears to be distancing itself from the Syrian rebels now or it was in that one Al Jazeera English report I watched.
Libya was essentially about the US-Russia/China Cold War standoff and look how far that arrogance got them and at what cost to ordinary people.
"New anti-Semitism has think tanks devoted to classifying and tracking the phenomenon and branding the perpetrators. It has about as much of moral validity as Intelligent Design has scientific validity."
What's interesting is that Bernard Lewis's Islamophobia fully mirrors, no comprehensively extends, what he called new anti-Semitism, including his wet dream about Iranian cosmic evil.
Betsy, nothing wrong with the word 'tribal' here. 'Tribal' is indeed bad and racist ethnonationalism. Before human beings were divided into tribes, still prevalent with Indigenous systems, but the nation-state limited that to families. The 'tribal' in Indigenous systems has nothing to do with racism, but tribal partisanship as espoused by certain groups is indeed bad. It has nothing to do with Indigenous system of tribalism. All fundamentalist movements are driven by tribalism.
Zionism is the golden calf, not the monotheist God. And the monotheist God is not a tribal god or "the God of Israel" (that would make it close to paganism), but of everyone. Perhaps those who have no understanding of monotheism should limit their critiques to tribal monotheism. I wouldn't call the Zionist conception of God as monotheist, only universal, humanist souls understand monotheism.
Even Gandhi was inspired by true monotheism, other great minds like Tolstoi and Abduh. You also forget that there were monotheist Greek philosophers who resisted the idols of the state.
Krauss, that's like saying a person is not a human if he projects inhumanity. Let's face it, liberals can be war-mongers, close-minded and imperialists. The argument that liberalism and Zionism are incompatible is a different one, even here we must note that contemporary liberalism is vastly different from classical liberalism.
The Qur'an endorses no such evil, in fact speaks against the old practice of burying female children which was practised at the time. Muhammad Abduh, a remarkable scholar, spoke out against this rote education which is tantamount to child cruelty.
Waleed, you may read it whichever way you like. The verse following this refers to the battle of Uhud. And also chastises the Muslims for their weak faith. It is within that context. Interestingly Muhammad Asad's translation uses the word "dread".
I was replying to Abu Malia, I didn't use the word "Mushrikoon", perhaps you need to take that up with the relevant person.
Yes idolators, but not all idolators. Verses such as the above refer to the persecution meted out to the fledgling Muslim community by the polytheists. I think Islam is very clear: all human beings are to be respected and God alone is the Judge. Religion cannot be coerced and no human being can be cursed.
The Qur'an endears itself to "believers who do good deeds", and only once refers to Muslims and that to correct them by saying that they should not call themselves believers. Clearly the Qur'an is a deep book and I believe it has not been understood as it should be.
Also worth adding that the worst offenders in Islam are hypocrites from among the Muslims themselves (a whole chapter is dedicated to them) and it is reported that they will earn the lowest depths of hell fire. Muhammad even said: "The greatest enemies of God are those who are entered into Islam, and do acts of infidelity, and who without cause, shed the blood of man." Muhammad also said: "Feed the hungry and visit the sick, and free the captive if he be unjustly confined. Assist any person oppressed, whether Muslim or non-Muslim." This effort to paint Islam as darkness itself both by Muslim hypocrites and the Gellers of this world is predicated on ignorance of the religion and political opportunism. Muhammad Abduh has already addressed these matters in 'The Theology of Unity'.
Islam positions paganism as ignorance, monotheism redeeming man, acts such as burying infant girls alive are considered ignorance of old before man is emancipated ethically through Divine guidance and rational evolution to consider the message, with the One God of all asking the child for what crime she was slain. Contemporary actions such as honour killing continued by populations would not meet the litmus test of belief if one considers it intelligently.
It was a calculated, conscious crime.
Would the distinction be fine if she only held Muslims responsible for 9/11?
Sean, I don't feel this is a controversial statement either. I have myself lamented on this site of how mid-20th century fundamentalist pioneers advocated the changing of the meaning of Islam itself and undid the great efforts of luminaries like Abduh. Those who ignore the fact or do not wish to consider that Zionism is changing the meaning of Judaism and how corrupt the establishment has become are actually unwittingly letting it happen. It is participants in a socio-historical context who give meaning to a text, even a sacred one (Khaled Abou El Fadl). I disagree with you on a few points in this diverse exchange, but good on you for firmly reinforcing this absolutely crucial fact. It is indeed a matter of fact.
Interesting. The secular gets played down a lot.
Hophmi: "India is a country that is certain in part an ethnic nationalistic state. It is a tech incubator. The idea that ethnic nationalism has dragged Israel down is belied by your own argument; it outpaces virtually every country on earth in tech start-ups per capita."
Chris Hedges: “We’ve bought into the idea that education is about training and “success”, defined monetarily, rather than learning to think critically and to challenge. We should not forget that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers. A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, which fails to understand that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death.”
Sean, sorry if I misunderstood you. I think of Zionism as more of an illusion, like the golden calf and I do the same for Islamism and the Christian Right. But the bigger worry than these philosophical questions is what it does to Palestinians day in and day out. Legal action must be taken on that account alone, and the struggle for the Jewish soul should be left to serious-minded Jewish ethicists who I think will be born or active in this century. The use of Jewish iconography by Zionists - a feature of all false, morally vacant, ethnoreligious movements - only shows that a theological critique is indispensable. The latter should not dwarf the immediate, practical concern of freeing Palestinians from the yoke of abject injustice and continual 24/7 war crimes.
We agree on the universality and importance of knowledge and freedom and on monotheism understood within the context of reason and inquiry, indeed it calls for it. As expressed by great people like Abduh, Elmer Berger, Tolstoi, Gandhi, and yes Newton.
Sean, I agree with many aspects of the Enlightenment (such as those you mentioned, particularly freedom of opinion even though it was and is applied selectively by the elites) and disagree with others ("scientific racism"). I was in effect responding to your statement quoted by Mooser where you argued that Zionism was a corollary of Judaism, which I protested. Similar statements have been made by posters on monotheism, some Jewish. So your statement was not extraordinary. I didn't think you were attacking Judaism in particular, but attribute it to your Enlightenment Whiggishness. You appeared to have overlooked one simple fact: Zionism, like all modern fundamentalist, ethnoreligious segregationist and violent movements is wedded to the ideology of revolution which is one of the bad products of the Enlightenment. That Jewish establishments have bought into Zionism, we agree. That is a task for Jewish ethicists to recognise and separate the two. This is true for all violent, revolutionary movements that have hijacked the moral voices of faith. On Hitchens, we disagree. I think he was always deluded and was at best a mediocrity. My attitudes are shaped by a rational, universal monotheism ontology of One God, one humanity with compassion toward all that exists, everyone has freedom but no one is a master of his destiny. Some of the thinkers other than the monotheist prophets I admire are Muhammad Abduh, Elmer Berger, Tolstoi, Lao Tse and Gandhi and the many women who history has not recognised such as my life mentor. I dislike all forms of tribalism and ethnic-binding. Life has taught me nothing is permanent, we are all travellers. And yes I like Newton on your list. I admire both his scientific and theological observations.
Sean: 'All ethnic groups have “intrinsic traits” — statistically significant characteristics, mannerisms, attitudes, behavioral styles, customs, etc. Contemporary Hollywood exploits this basic fact of life on a regular basis.'
Behaviour is formed not out of genealogical predestination but fully through conditioning and commerce, including through categorisation by dominant groups which affects subordinate groups to view themselves in the defiled image, which is in fact what Hollywood does. Contemporary Hollywood, like popular cinema anywhere, is fascistic.
Remember Spielberg's Temple of Doom? How close was that to reality? What's the moral lesson in that? Simple: Hollywood is opportunistic and plays upon political moods. It is not art or sociology, it's the establishment run by men who lack any moral depth or even shallows.
Mooser, to be fair that quote on Judaism is ideologically consistent with the anti-monotheism screeds by a lot of people on this site. You may have missed Sean's responses to the killing of Christopher Stevens at the hands of deranged "revolutionaries" in Libya. Sean, I think, subscribes to the progressive linear Enlightenment nature of time. Within this context Christianity is treated to the same apprehension. He believes that traditions must be facilitated to this scheme. The problem with that is that he can take up allies as morally shallow, overrated thinkers and advocates of murder like Christopher Hitchens and forgets that the ideology of "revolution" of which Zionism is a product comes out of Enlightenment Europe, not monotheism. These masters of rhetoric like Hitchens would not have earned a second glance from great sages like Socrates who already deconstructed rhetoric.
This often blindsides blind Enlightenment-thumpers just like their fundamentalist religious opponents, other than the fact that their worldview is provincial and often excuses and even celebrates polytheism which is also riddled with fundamentalists and "revolutionaries". There are two sides to the Enlightenment, it is not sacred as testified by Hitchens et al., it has influenced humanity for both good and ill. Judaism is just like any other religious tradition. I lean toward universalism, which I believe is the true message of Jewish thought as advocated by Elmer Berger. Zionism appeals to the early religious construction of tribalism which is particular to a tribal notion of God but theological contested by right-minded, universal-oriented Jews.
Couldn't agree more. Obama will principally be known as a scam or a brand by future generations who have acquired distance from the public relation stream of the present. Those who have recognised him as such in the present have been shunned by the so-called left. I have heard otherwise intelligent people express support for him just because of the colour of his skin, which is patronising to say the least. That may be historic, but universalists never cared about a history that sins. Each man is known by his fruits. No one with moral integrity can be allowed to run for president. There are too many players and powers you must bow to. No truly moral man can fulfil the duties of a president. The whole system in place is rotten. Now they come out to stone Hagel and Brand Obama could care less.
OlegR, the question is directed at you. As you are the occupier, does the direct relation between occupation and conservatism not interest you? Why would you choose to denounce conservatism while actually profiting from it?
"A classic totalitarian trick, a permanent state of national emergency that forever takes priority over any kind of internal problems."
This is not "dirty laundry", it's a discussion. Avi G pointed out the connection between occupation and conservatism. What do you have to say to that?