"Germany, Russia and Switzerland joined the European Union on Friday in a chorus of condemnation of the Iranian president for suggesting the Holocaust might not have taken place and that Israel should be moved to Europe."
Sorry Paul. You must be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Actually, it's probably more a case of anti-semitic Europe not wanting Israel in their back yard either. Because after all, after President Bush, everything else is Zionist's fault.
Who wouldn't want their area proclaimed the Jewish homeland? It would certainly solve all of Detroit's financial problems.
The Europeans are saying they don't want that riff-raff in their neighborhood? Are they being anti-semitic?
====Nadir=====
The Europeans are saying they don't want that riff-raff in their neighborhood? Are they being anti-semitic?
=============
Maybe. I don't know they're rational. If they are supporting the existance of Isreal in Palistine, but not in Europe, then they are being hypocritical, according to my view.
Although as a practical matter I support Isreal in its current configuration, on theoretical grounds I absolutely oppose it. The religious Jewish justificiation for Isreal's existance in Paslistine is a mixture of superstition, racism, and bad history: "God gave it to us" (by which is meant their ancestors, but the white Jews who founded Isreal are not the descendants of the people who God supposedly gave the land to" and "it used to be ours" (by which they mean, their presumed ancestors executed all of the original human inhabitants, acting on the orders of a merciful and benificent god). This is all hogwash, and detestible hogwash at that.
However, many great advances in civilization have derived from detestible hogwash, including the current state of peace/prosperity/democracy in Northern Ireland.
Nadir: Let me clarify my last statement prior to you blasting me. Let's consider Castro's Cuba. I believe that this guy replaced one dictatorship with another dictatorship, and that he desearves a violent ouster as much as did the Batista regime before him. But if he were to reform his national government into what I considered to be a democracy, I would support that, and not insist that he were additionally subjected to what I consider to be justice for his past actions that I consider to be unjust. This also holds for Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. I think that the quest for justice and freedom must make allowances and comprimises in the name of achieving the best possible and practical outcome. Another example is Northern Ireland. Theoretically I think that the IRA is correct. But practically, the Catholics/Irish there have democracy and freedom, if they choose to accept it.
Until recently, a critical mass of Irish Catholics in Northern Ireland chose to accept brutal enforcation of justice rather than accepting democracy. This kept that region mired in fear, brutality, and poverty. Since pretty much giving up on "universal justice", and embracing British-imposed democracy, the Irish now enjoy massive amounts of prosperity, security, and freedom. I must say now, Down the Rebels.
Post a Comment