Diebert wrote:Funny is that you're trying to backpedal on what you wrote and end with basically repeating the same sin.
It is not my fault you either cannot understand or refuse to. So you are saying I tried to backpedal but failed - meaning I didn't end up back pedaling? So I didn't backpedal? This is my sin?
You wrote "Somewhere, somehow, there will always be Islam and Jews. That's what I am bemoaning. The song that never ends. I can honestly say I do not have a dog in that race. But so many Jews are in one place - and not just any place, our place! If we can't live there, why should they be allowed to? "
If with they you mean "Iran" then why introduce Islam in your story at all as if that's the major reason of the conflict?
Ah! You misread! The
they is the Jews. "...-not just any place, our place!" was supposed to be attributed to an Islamic mindset - Islam considers the Jews - Israel - to be interlopers.
You are saying "oil and water do not mix" but then suddenly claim you were not mixing (comparing, offsetting) them at all. And yet you brought it up. Something is seriously broken in your argumentation machine, just as with all your characters, being it Sam or Broke. It's like a fingerprint and you cannot hide it no matter how you change everything else.
I brought up "oil and water" in an attempt to spoon feed you - just you - my point about Israel and Islam - which in case you did not know is a large part of Iranian culture. How the hell can you be so stupid? It has to be an act, it just has to be. Where do I claim I was not mixing or comparing them? You implied I was making the Jews (Israel) and Islam equivalent somehow. Why do I bother responding to you. You are so fucking annoying. I suppose you are still Tomas butt-buddy with the "Broke" thing (well, he says "Brokie" which is a term he himself made up.) And now there is this Sam, whoever that is. Anyone one else while you are at it? No wonder you have trouble understanding me.
Anyway you say Israel is "every bit as real" as Iran. My answer was that this claim is false. A country's "reality" is a function of its connections to its neighbors, its history (as a nation) and the way it's being accepted over time and maintained by exchanges with the immediate neighbors. In all these senses Israel has no real existence apart from immense Western financial, political and military support and foreign immigration waves
At last you make your point. Why don't I deliberately misunderstand it so you could see how irritating your dumb act gets? Why don't I say this proves you are anti-semitic?
A country's reality is a function of many things. You list characteristics of the state of Israel in particular, and then say because it has these characteristics, it is somehow less than real. So in 1800, the U.S. was not real because it was less than 50 years old, warred with native people over land and settlement rights, and had constant quarrels with Mexico as it received foreign investment from both France and England. By your inane criteria, the Netherlands is more real than the United States. But naturally you
would think that.
Israel defies the reality principle and can only really exist by opening up: the one state solution, "the end of the world" and of course many in Israel for this reason feel like they are 'fighting for survival" that is: surviving the myth of their existence as Jewish nation. Iran is crucial in this process because of their material and political support for the Palestinian claims for refugee status, Hezbollah and through Syria also Hamas (although this is shifting somewhat with events - this is why Isreal will support the revolution in Syria no matter what, even if it means helping al-Qaeda along the way. AQ is no direct threat being a non-state entity as well).
I maintain that I don't have a dog in the race, but it is clear that you do.
How can you call the existence of a Jewish nation a myth - nation in the sense of a people, like the Cree nation or the Seneca nation? You imply that Israel is less real because it is a mere 70 years old. Since it is so young, it should be easier for you to remember the events that led to its creation - the wholesale slaughter of millions of Jews in Europe during the 15 years just prior. Don't the Dutch schools teach history? Do you not know that Germany - Hitler - first tried deporting Jews but no other nation wanted them? Why was that, I wonder? Because they are Jews, their diaspora is widespread, but they never assimilate, do they? Why? Because they are a nation, in the sense of a people apart.
But you are correct about the heavy-handed
mandated manner by which Israel the
state was established. You can call their nation mythical and disregard their "survival" mentality; I assure you they disagree. Many people blame the Jews for the way history has persecuted them, but to me this doesn't matter. What does matter is that Israel very much exists as a UN recognized nation (not
unrecognized). It has borders - else why the ceaseless quarreling over where those borders lie? For a country that is not real, it has a formidably well-trained army. And it is no big secret it has nuclear weapons.
It is this anti-Israeli viewpoint of yours that is shared by its neighbors. The very first step in any military conflagration is always to somehow dehumanize your enemy, or develop a view that they are unrecognized or in some manner less legitimate. You know, not real as a nation. This "myth" the Israelis seem to share has lasted these past 70 or so years despite the reactions of Israel's neighbors - it is a direct descendant of the "myth" of Jewish nationhood as a people, together despite their diaspora, a myth that has lasted thousands of years.
Again, the entire point of my original post was that perhaps Iran's development of nuclear energy could be viewed as legitimate - they may be taking the long view in their energy-producing capacity. Obama seems to be more vocal every day over Iran: "I don't bluff" was today's quote in the papers. Because even though Iran has repeatedly stated that it has no intentions of building nuclear weapons, that nukes are immoral and that
no nation should have them, no one seems to buy that.
What about you, Deebs? Do you buy it? A nation's international politics are always informed by its culture - in Iran's case, its culture is largely Islamic. Islam is not something you drive to on Sundays for a hour. I have read enough of a Koran translation to know that vilification of the Jews as Christ-killers is a repeated theme. So the nightmare scenario is: the Iranians are a step or two away from nuclear weapons; if they are allowed to develop them, their Arab neighbors will clamor to do the same; not lost in this is that here is a close by region where all the Jews are, all in one place... not just any place, but a pace stolen from our Palestinian brothers...
Again, I personally have no dog in the Arab-Israeli race:
any use of nuclear weapons is a nightmare. But I suppose to an anti-Semite like you, this is not so nightmarish...