Theos-Talk Archives (December 2001 Message tt00128)

Oh well, I should have stayed away from politics, as I usually do. All best
wishes, Etzion
p.s. over and out
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Stubbs <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World olive oil


> Hi, Etzion:
>
> In response to your question, my motive was to
> stimulate your thinking, and perhaps through you to
> stimulate the thinking of others. Like tossing a
> stone into a pond and creating ripples. Agree or
> disagree, I think you have been sold a line of
> nonsense by your rulers.
>
> Your statement that Muslim rulers were very
> enlightened overlords for Jews is a popular myth
> promulgated by people like Karen Armstrong. Had there
> been any truth in that, the Sephardic Jews who made up
> much of the first Zionists colonies would have stayed
> at home. If large numbers of people were to actually
> believe it, this myth could have unfortunate
> consequences. You are much better off being ruled by
> Jews than your ancestors were being ruled by Caliphs,
> Grand Viziers, Czars, or Polish kings.
>
> That said, there are some other modern myths being
> promulgated which also are subject to reasonable
> dispute. One of these is the notion that the state is
> fulfilling its responsibility to ensure the safety of
> the realm and its inhabitants by promoting,
> organizing, and protecting aggressive squatting in a
> foreign country. Recent events suggest to this
> observer that it is not.
>
> If the brotherhood of man means anything, it must mean
> that those whom one could profitably exploit at
> gunpoint have rights which should be respected. If I
> believe in the brotherhood of man, then I an
> constrained by moral considerations from robbing
> people at gunpoint even in a Hobbesian state in which
> there would be no legal consequences for doing so. Of
> course, as Slobodan, Ariel, and others are
> discovering, the legal context has a way of shifting
> to their disadvantage.
>
> The brotherhood of man also implies trying to open the
> eyes of those who have been successfully bumfuzzled by
> cynical politicians. If I were to say nothing, I
> would demonstrate, ipso facto, that I have no interest
> whatever in the brotherhood of man.
>
> >From a purely self interested point of view, one could
> ask whether those who are not benefiting from this
> exploitation should reasonably support it if it means
> an increased risk to their personal safety. Would it
> be rational for them to do so? I think not. No
> number of attacks from helicopter gunships is going to
> make the area safe so long as the squatting continues.
> People are cynically being sold a bill of goods on
> that one.
>
> The only way to make peace with the Palestinian Arabs
> is to convince them that they have a vested interest
> in the success of the Israeli state. Cheating them,
> bombing them, and then exiling them does not appear to
> be working. People there are still paying the price
> for the ethnic cleansing of fifty years ago. It
> therefore appears that ethnic cleaning has been tried
> experimentally for a reasonable period of time, and
> that it has not produced good results thus far. I
> would submit that it is time for a reconsideration of
> this policy.
>
> If I were an Israeli, I would (1) speak out publicly
> against these flim flams and try to wake up other
> members of the body politic, and (2) seriously
> considering moving to some quieter part of the world.
>
> Perhaps the brotherhood of man (singular noun) would
> then evolve into a brotherhood of men (plural).
>
> Best wishes to you in any event,
>
> Steve
>