Jews and Muslims are so wrapped up in their ancestral battles with each other that they do not seem to consider that no one really cares how whether Jews or Muslims are greater in victimhood.
To the extent that non-Muslim gentiles pretend to care about Jews and Muslims fighting each other, they would be antisemites throwing dead Muslims at Jews or Islamophobes throwing dead Jews at Muslims in the hope of shaming them into shutting up about their victimhood.
However, if the rest of the world would like to avoid the death, injury, economic loss and inconvenience of WW3, people should start taking an interest in the resolution of the Arab-Israeli territorial dispute.
Broadly speaking, antisemitic gentiles both Muslim and non-Muslim hate Jews and their Western governments for preferring Jews over themselves.
Broadly speaking, both Communists and Nationalists resent their government. Communists reject their dictatorship of the bourgeiosie and the Nationaists, as you would expect, resent the narrative that gentile Europeans who died in large numbers in WW1 and WW2 are treated as lower in status to Jews and Muslims in the 21st century.
This is because Western governments have made a mascot of Jews in order to create a trap for anyone wishing to criticise their government to fall into: antisemitism. The moment you question the privileged status of Jews in the Post-WW2 settlement, you will be accused of being a goose-stepping Nazi with the result that everything you say will be demonised and dismissed. This would of course confirm the feeling that Jews are indeed privileged and that this was somehow a nefarious Jewish conspiracy to have one over the gentile again.
Those who have always disliked Jews will incline to this belief.
Any knowledge of the law would tell you that who bears the burden of proof has a significant effect on the outcome of any prosecution. If you were accused of a crime, should the burden be on the accused or prosecution?
If the burden of proof were on the accused the prove that he was not guilty of a crime, how is he to prove it without an alibi? Without that, it is impossible to prove a negative ie that you did not kill or steal as accused.
In English law, the standard of proof for conviction of a crime is proof beyond reasonable doubt. For civil actions, the standard is the balance of probabilities.
Who are the Jews? This question is relevant for antisemites who believe Jews are synonymous with unmitigated evil, guilty of every detestable policy by their government.
Are you a Jew if your mother is not?
Can Jews themselves agree on who is a Jew? It appears not.
Is it important that Jews and gentiles can agree on who is a righteous and unrighteous Jew?
At the very least, wouldn't the righteousness of any individual be dependent on his ability to speak the truth and exercise logic?
Even if that individual had no principles to speak of, he is still redeemable if he is prepared to submit to truth and logic.
Can the Arab-Israeli dispute between Jews and Muslims be settled by Christians? The answer is no, because it would not be logical for Jews and Muslims who regard Christians as idolaters and blasphemers to trust heretics cursed by God worshiping an executed blasphemer as the co-equal of the Abrahamic God who created the Universe to adjudicate on their dispute.
So who would be the arbitrators to their dispute? Russians? But they identify as Christian. Indians? But they are idolaters. The Chinese are atheists who want to consider themselves wise. They are at any rate not compelled to believe in nonsense by their government and nothing in human history approaches the levels of absurdity the Trinity reaches.
This much is clear: you cannot be a righteous gentile if you are a Christian who breaks two of the Seven Noahide laws forbidding idolatry and blasphemy.
But what about those Christian Zionists who support the existence of Israel?
Their views do not count in the same way that the views of someone with no legal or moral capacity must have their opinions dismissed.
The Arab-Israeli dispute cannot be decided by Western imperialists whose imperialism is the cause of the Arab-Israeli territorial dispute. It would be against the rules of natural justice for someone to decide in his own cause.
Who is both Chinese and satisfies the condition of being properly grounded in Western history, culture and the theology of the three Abrahamic religions known for her learning and judicious impartiality who has recently published a book proposing a new moral and legal political system for the West and the rest?
Even if you are skeptical of the ability of just one individual to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute, don't you owe it to yourself to hear her out?
No comments:
Post a Comment