Einstein, Fascism and Zionism
June 3rd, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: Einstein, Fascism and Zionism :: Einstein, Fascism and Zionism :: Einstein, Fascism and Zionism :: Einstein, Fascism and Zionism
Tags: Zionism
— Malcolm Riddoch wrote:
> Universal: we are all constrained by relations of power that
> constantly override any moral considerations, there is no
> ‘exceptionalism’.
OK. Sounds like you’ve been reading Machiavelli. Depending
what you mean by exceptionalism, that’s either obvious (that
no group is exempt from nature by divine right, or any other
metaphysics) or arguably wrong (that no individual can make a
difference in the decisions they make).
> Particular: Ben Gurion decides to execute a terror war against the
> Palestinians in order to gain a Jewish majority in Israel - because
> he had to if Israel was to come into being.
Doesn’t this contradict your universal? In that he might have decided
not to launch a terror war? At the same time Gandhi was launching
leading is campaign to liberate India. How does that fit in with
your thesis?
>
> > If you need a particular example for the universal, why
> > not find it somewhere more disinterested like Timor Leste or Congo
> > (4 million dead and counting) instead of in a conflict where most
> > readers will already have their prejudices decided by years of
> > bickering, and centuries of anti-semitism?
>
> So you would prefer I just stay away from the main geopolitical drama
> unfolding in the Middle East, the one that involves the world’s lone
> super power and all the other great powers in a struggle for energy
> that “will not end in our lifetimes” and that is even now defining
> our new world order? And this because it’s contentious? Are you
> serious, still playing dumb or are you a spoiler? In effect you seem
> to be arguing that it’s pointless discussing the contentious problem
> of “terror” in relation to the US, Palestine, Israel, Iraq and Iran
> and that I should do something a bit less troublesome.
I am not saying that there aren’t contentious problems of “terror”,
although debating them here may, in effect, be pointless.
I was asking (holding onto a flicker of hope) if you were trying
defend a universal point, by example. Or whether (what I suspected,
but wasn’t 100% sure) you were engaging in the usual lets-beat-up-
on-the-zionist-entity using claims of moral, or ethical,
superiority as cover.
> Thanks but no thanks. If you’d care to join the discussion at any
> time feel free though.
Right. I’ll abstain as long as the discussion is merely cover for
beating-up-on-the-zionist-entity.
