Eye for an Eye: On the moral chasm in the Arab-Israeli conflict

People who like to bait Jews enjoy accusing them of taking “an eye for an eye” in their fight with the Palestinians, despite its profound misunderstanding of the original source. (I argue that it’s also a indicator of equality before the law: unlike other law codes, Israelite law does not recognize aristocratic privilege in its “wergeld/manprice.”)

It’s also a favorite theme of pacifists arguing against retaliation, as, e.g., in the case of 9-11. Gandhi, in what I’m beginning to suspect was not an innocent misreading of the principle, is quoted for saying, “an eye for an eye and pretty soon the whole world is blind.

Here’s a good illustration of what the phrase means in reality. Nothing quite like an incident like this for clarity about the huge moral chasm that separates Israeli culture from Palestinian.

Monday, July 19, 2010
Israel Treats Palestinian Cancer Patient, Father Goes on Terror Rampage
Posted by Jameel @ The Muqata at 7/19/2010 01:09:00 PM

On the Monday morning of June 14, 2010, an Israeli policeman was killed and three others were injured when Palestinian terrorists opened fire at a police car near the Yehuda/West Bank settlement of Beit Hagai. The officers were making their way to Hebron from the southern city of Beersheba.

The killed officer was identified as Command Sergeant Major Yehoshua (Shuki) Sofer, 39, who had served in the Hebron region for 14 years. (YNET).

This morning, the Shin Bet cleared for publication, that the Shin Bet has arrested a Hamas cell believed to be behind the shooting attack.

The Paradox:

One of the cell’s heads said in his interrogation that just two weeks before he embarked on the attack, his six-year-old daughter was hospitalized in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, where she had a tumor removed from her eye. The operation was funded by an Israeli organization. (YNET)

I’d love some more information here. How did this man talk about the two deeds – his and the Israeli hospital’s?

Walla reports that some of the terrorists in the cell were released from Israeli prisons just weeks before the terror attack.

We provide free medical treatment for the enemy’s family, who then 2 weeks later commit terror attacks against us.

We released terrorists from prison as a measure of “good faith” and then they attack us weeks later.

Do we need to vet every Palestinian child with cancer prior to treatment, to see if their parents are planning to kill us?

Obviously, Israel’s surgical treatment (and the free funding from an Israeli organization) for a six year old girl with a tumor near her eye, made zero impact on this Palestinian family’s commitment to terror against the Jewish State.

There is a notion in Judaism known as “hakarat hatov” – acknowledging the good (others have done to you). The resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict will come when the Arabs (especially the Muslims among them) can develop some hakarat hatov for all that Judaism has provided them with (from the outset) – i.e., without Judaism there would be no Islam.

Just imagine if, struck with a sense of appreciation and gratitude, the Arab world were to say, “Hey you Jews, thank you for your contribution to our faith. In recognition, why don’t you take the tiny sliver of land that you first began your spiritual adventure on and settle it they way you want. Given the enormous territories we’ve conquered and taken over in the course of our imperialist career, it’s the least we can do.

And the Western left could also engage in a bit of the sentiment when it comes to their own, rights and freedom-granting culture.

But that’s another rant for another day.

65 Responses to Eye for an Eye: On the moral chasm in the Arab-Israeli conflict

  1. Sergio says:

    This is a good reminder of what kind of enemy Israel is dealing with.

    Regarding Ghandi, didn’t he reply to a journalist, when questioned how his non-violent method could work against the nazis, that the only options available for jews was suicide? What a fraudulent piece of “humanist”!

  2. E.G. says:

    RL,

    Sorry,in this case it’s a life for an eye. A different equation.

    I suspect that in the moral universe of these terrorists medical care is due to them and their relatives, just as killing the infidel/occupier is their duty. Different people have different duties.

    The rights discourse is for propaganda.

  3. Michelle Schatzman says:

    RL, do you know what Daniel Sibony writes about the problem in your conclusion? Sibony started as a mathematician, and then turned to psychoanalysis. He does not belong to any chapel (to my knowledge), and in the past years he wrote a lot about monotheism, and in particular the attitude that the three monotheism have relatively to life.

    I have a long and fascinating quotation that I will post in french and translate, paragraph by paragraph. It is from “Nom de Dieu”, Seuil, 2002, pages 122 and 123.

    Et le récitant du Coran, qui jouit du rythme et de l’harmonie de ses versets, sait-il qu’il récite la Bible sur un mode simplifié, apaisé? Que son texte prélève sa substance dans celui des juifs, y ajoutant comme nouveauté que le vrai texte est le Coran puisque l’autre, celui de la Bible, fut trahi ou falsifié? S’il savait qu’il récite du texte juif, il serait très gêné. Notre hypothèse est que cette gêne est présente, active, sur un mode étrange, à la fois conscient et refoulé. Mais l’affect sous-jacent est intense et demande à être déplacé. Il tourne autour de l’idée que l’«autre» – juif ou chrétien – n’est pas «bien», et que s’il lui arrive du «mal», il n’a que ce qu’il mérite. Il est source d’injustice. Or cela exprime une injustice originelle : l’origine est pleine, parfaite, et voilà que ces «autres» la rejettent, la dérangent.

    [And in his recitation of the Koran, does the reader who takes pleasure from the rythm and the harmony of its verses know that he is reciting the Bible in a simplified and pacified mode? That his text extracted its substance from the Jews' text, and, that the new true Text is the Koran, since the other one, the text of the Bible, was betrayed or forged? If he knew that he is reciting jewish text, he would be quite disturbed. Our hypothesis is that this disturbance is present and active, repressed and conscious, which is a strange configuration. But the underlying affect is intense and demands a displacement. This displacement turns around the idea that the "other" – jew or christian – is not OK, and if "bad" things happen to him, it just serves him well. He is source of injustice. This expresses an original injustice : the origin is full, perfect, and lo and behold, these "others" reject and disturb it.]

    Les gênes réelles, dues à l’histoire, nourrissent et masquent cette gêne originelle. Simple détail : beaucoup ont remarqué que lorsque la violence et l’injustice éclatent entre pays musulmans «frères», comme entre l’Irak et l’Iran, elle peut faire des millions de morts sans que la Oumma ne bronche. De même, les territoires palestiniens peuvent être occupés pendant des décennies par l’Égypte et la Jordanie sans être réclamés et sans que leurs occupants arabes pensent à les «restituer». C’est que «l’injustice véritable» ne peut venir que de l’«autre», il est comme tel le plus apte à être injuste, étant déjà «insoumis».

    [The real historical disturbances feed and hide this original disturbance. A simple detail: many observed that when violence and injustice burst between "brotherly" muslim countries, as between Iran and Irak, they can kill millions of people without the Umma ever sneezing. Similarly, the Palestinian territories may have been occupied for decades by Egypt and Jordan, without a complaint and without their arab occupiers ever thinking of "giving them back". The reason is that the "true injustice" can only come from the "other". As such, he is the most liable to be unjust, since he did not "submit".]

    Or, inconsciemment, il est dur de pourfendre ceux dont on répète les paroles. On peut donc s’attendre à ce que le sentiment antijuif, sauf s’il est vraiment combattu, devienne assez violent. Et s’il est grave, ce n’est pas tant parce qu’il vise des gens réels et vivants, ni que les juifs seraient spécialement faits pour être aimés, mais parce qu’il est le symptôme d’une impasse avec l’«autre» : en tant qu’écarté de l’origine, mais revenant dans le réel ; fustigé par le symbolique (fondateur et homogène) mais insistant à l’intérieur du discours islamique.

    [But, inconsciously, it is hard to damn the people whose words one repeats. One can expect, therefore, that the antijewish feeling become rather violent, unless it is fought against. The reason why it is serious is not that it aims at real living people, or that the Jews deserve love, but because it is the symptom of a dead end with the "other" : the "other" has been pushed off the origin, but comes back in real life ; he has been lashed by the homogeneous and founding symbolism, but persists inside the islamic discourse.]

    (…)

    Or si on leur demande [aux musulmans] ce qui spécifie Allah, ce qui spécifie sa dictée du Coran par Gabriel interposé, beaucoup diront que c’est son soutien à Mohamad, dont il a fait son prophète. Mais le point spécifique, c’est que Mohamad fait dire à Dieu (ou que son Dieu lui dit) qu’il désavoue son premier don du livre, qu’il rejette son premier peuple comme trop pécheur et les suivants comme idolâtres, et qu’il désigne comme nouveau peuple Mohamad et ses fidèles, les «soumis». Ce dernier point évoque le geste de l’Église pendant des siècles : se poser comme verus Israel, le vrai destinataire du Livre. La prétention d’être «les vrais» a donc été déjà jouée. C’était du reste le vœu de l’Église, et non pas celui de Jésus. Ici, c’est dans la bouche de Dieu lui-même.
    [If you ask them [the muslims] what characterizes Allah, what characterizes his dictation of the Koran through Gabriel, many will say that it is his support of Muhamad, whom he made his prophet. But the really specific point is that Muhamad makes God say (or God says to Muhamad) that he revokes his first gift of the Book, that he rejects his first people as too sinful and the following as heathens, and that he appoints as his new people Mohamad and his followers, the “submitted” ones. This last point calls to mind the attitude of the Church for many centuries: pretend to tbe the verus Israel, the real recipient of the Book. The pretention of being the “true” ones has thus already be played. It was indeed the wish of the Church, not of Jesus. Here, it comes directly from the mouth of God.]

    There would be more, lots more to quote from Sibony. It should be observed that, being born in Morocco, he knows arabic, including its literary form, and read the Koran in the original, therefore substantiating his observation that most of the Koran comes from Jewish sources, save for the saga of Muhamad, of course.

    At some point, in another book, he suggests that the muslims could pray to Allah for his curse of the Jews not to be forever, since after all, they did bring most of the material of the Koran to the world.

  4. judith rosay says:

    Hi,you mean WITHOUT judaism,there would be no Islam,not WITH judaism,there would be no Islam
    Kind regards

  5. incognito says:

    and read the Koran in the original, therefore substantiating his observation that most of the Koran comes from Jewish sources, save for the saga of Muhamad, of course.

    You may wanna read the interview in JPost with the italian imam Palazzi and the counter to him by an idiot researcher on Islam, who does not realize he negates one of the main claims about the Qoran.

  6. incognito says:

    medical care is due to them and their relatives, just as killing the infidel/occupier is their duty.

    Well, if you were kept uneducated and indoctrinated from childhood with such crap, what morality would you expect?

  7. Eliyahu says:

    Michelle, much of the Quran is derived from Jewish sources, not just the Jewish Bible [Tanakh] but the Midrashim, etc. Some parts come from Christian traditions, some of them from outside the New Testament [such as the notion that Jesus did not die on the cross. Bernard Lewis ascribes this notion to the Donatist Christian sect]. Part of it comes from pre-Islamic sources.

    Denise Masson gives a detailed comparison of Quranic verses with Jewish and Christian sources [in French]. I think that she is at the CNRS.

    There is a new theory by a “Christoph Luxenberg” [or Luxenburg] that parts of the Quran were poor translations from Christian Aramaic or Syriac prayer books and readers. Luxenberg concluded that the 72 black-eyed virgins as a reward for the jihad warrior in paradise were originally 72 white raisons. These supposed virgins, called Houris in Arabic, should be compared with the Hebrew/Aramaic word hiver חור meaning pale.

  8. Eliyahu says:

    I think that Siboney has a point. He says that it didn’t bother the Muslim world when Egypt and Jordan ran Gaza and the west bank but when Jews conquer those places, the world is out of joint, because a Zionist is a Jew who has stepped out of his place, above his proper station in life. He is insoumi, unsubdued, he has not submitted to the dhimma or has breached it, breaking the pact that allows him to live in an inferior status. Some Americans used to take that attitude towards Blacks who were not subservient. They were called “uppity Niggers.” In other words, they too were “insoumis”.

    Ben Bella once said that Islam could not continue to exist throughout the world if Israel continued to exist. This means that Israel’s very existence is an affront to Islam. Human rights and civil rights mean nothing to Ben Bella except as slogans to exploit.

  9. [...] Augean Stables » Eye for an Eye: On the moral chasm in the Arab-Israeli conflict theaugeanstables.com/2010/07/20/eye-for-an-eye-on-the-moral-chasm-in-the-arab-israeli-conflict/ – view page – cached + “Post-Modern” Anti-Semitism: Cognitive Egocentrism, Moral Schadenfreude, and “Progressive” Anti-Zionism * Multiple-Part Essays + PJ (OSM) Media Launch + Mainstreaming Conspiracy Theories + Open Letter to Jostein Gaarder * HERZILYA CONFERENCE + Conceptual Principles + Program with Links + Bibliography * Saïd and Honor-Shame * Richard Landes CV Tweets about this link [...]

  10. incognito says:

    There is a new theory by a “Christoph Luxenberg” [or Luxenburg] that parts of the Quran were poor translations from Christian Aramaic or Syriac prayer books and readers

    That’s the one!!!

  11. incognito says:

    This means that Israel’s very existence is an affront to Islam.

    I’ve been arguing that for a long time.

    You indoctrinate arabs from birth that Allah will reward muslims and will punish the infidels who must be subjugated. Then you live in a reality in which arabs are subjugated by their rulers and the infidels thrive.
    What should be the expectations from that?

  12. incognito says:

    Obama Pal Rashid Khalidi Back in the News for Aiding Hamas
    [Andy McCarthy]
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IxYjM2M2UyNmY3YjkwOWI2YzBjOWY1ODc0MWEzZTU=

  13. [...] Augean Stables » Eye for an Eye: On the moral chasm in the Arab … [...]

  14. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Palazzi is more or less a joke… nobody takes him seriously, and his own personal path is rather strange too, since he belonged to a number of sects (including Rajneesh and followers of Julius Evola) before converting to islam. He was also ousted by his fellow italian muslims a few years ago from a muslim association he was leading.

    I would not give any credit to Palazzi, who is known also for claiming he had been a lecturer at the University of Velletri – which does not exist.

    I researched him a few years ago, and the sources of all this were easy to find on the web, but now, most of them have disappeared. I guess that Palazzi needed money and his invitation to settlements in the West Bank helped him balance his checkbook.

  15. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Luxenberg, Denise Masson: good and serious scholars.

    Sibony includes in “the Book” also the rabbinical literature. I forgot to mention that. And of course, Sibony knows it. He is making a very strong argument that the Koran uses up a lot of space to curse the Jews. But for this, one has to read sequentially the verses.

    It is a pity that he is not translated into english.

  16. John P. says:

    This episode symolises so much of the ingratitude endemic in the Islamic world.

    I supose that when raised with a sense of superiority and entitlement, acts of charity are not seen as gesture of exception kindness, but rather as perks Muslims are fully expected to obtain from submissive non-muslims.

    The countless billions The West has spent on the islamic world, the endless amounts of military, financial, technologcal and medical aid sent to these countries is never reciprocated in even the smallest ways.

    Look, for instance, at Turkey’s refusal to allow NATO to use its air bases back in 2003 during the Iraq Invasion, air bases designed, built and financed by NATO!

    Many adherents to Islam lack a whole layer of consciousness, the layer in which a sense of gratitude, appreciation and recprocity resides.

  17. incognito says:

    I would not give any credit to Palazzi, who is known also for claiming he had been a lecturer at the University of Velletri – which does not exist.

    I am aware of all that, which is natural given his position.

    However, I am not willing to dismiss what he says as completely useless.

    If you read the article in JPost, see if you can figure out into what fundamental problems the response to him by a mainstream islamic scholar gets. This can be used.

  18. incognito says:

    John,

    You got it.

  19. Don Cox says:

    “The countless billions The West has spent on the islamic world, the endless amounts of military, financial, technologcal and medical aid sent to these countries is never reciprocated in even the smallest ways.”

    From their point of view, the great gift they have to offer the West is Islam itself. They find it amazing that we should refuse such a gift – just as we find it surprising when some Muslims refuse vaccination against measles or polio. Islam is (they believe) a “vaccination” against going to Hell when you die – a fate which is certain for non-believers.

    As for gratitude, I think that is a very rare emotion anywhere in the world, not only among Muslims.

  20. incognito says:

    [MUST READ]
    Mainstreaming Hate
    How media companies are using the Internet to make anti-Semitism respectable
    By Lee Smith

  21. incognito says:

    Islam is (they believe) a “vaccination” against going to Hell when you die – a fate which is certain for non-believers.

    Which is what keeping them down on any dimension you care to look and at the same time preventing them for realizing it.

    I have this gut sense that had they been very successful and thriving, they wouldn’t be so eager to gift it to us.
    I suspect that they want us in in order to piggyback on our success, without realizing that if we went their way, we would end up just like the.

  22. incognito says:

    [MUST WATCH]
    PA Negotiator Explains the “Peace Process”
    http://www.viciousbabushka.com/2010/07/pa-negotiator-explains-the-peace-process.html

  23. Eliyahu says:

    back to my #7, Ben Bella means that Israel, Juifs insoumis [unsubdued Jews], are a mortal threat to Islam.

    What has to be said and Siboney, who spoke at the Jerusalem Int’l Book Fair back in 2007 or 2005 where I heard him, probably said it, is that the Quran supports Zionism. I know that Andre Chouraqui said it for sure in French. Here are some verses in a Zionist vein from the Quran:
    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/05/quran-agrees-with-zionism.html

  24. Red Pencil says:

    Went to Lee Smith’s “mainstreaming hate” in Incognito’s link in #18. The comments frighteningly prove how mainstream hate is.

  25. incognito says:

    is that the Quran supports Zionism

    Palazzi, who Michelle dismisses, makes the same argument.

    And some wiseguy “islam scholar” rejects it by arguing that Zionism did not exist at the time when the Quran was written, so how could it support it?

    But I thought that the Quran contains the final and total knowledge and takes care of everything at all times, no?

  26. Michelle Schatzman says:

    The trick with the Koran is that it often says something and its contrary. Rabbinical literature has a way of dealing with contradictions in the Tora, often saying that statement A and statement B apply in different cases. In contrast, a current way of dealing with contradictions in the Tora is for islamic doctors to consider that the later verses overcome the earlier verses. The verses favorable to the Jews in the Koran usually belong to Mekkan suras. The verse spreading hate against the Jews usually belong to medinese suras, and these are later.

    As far as I know, the favorable view of the Jews in the Koran is contrasted by the claim that the Jews falsified the Koran (but in a very subtle way), so that the announce of the prophecy of Muhamad was erased from the Tora. In consequence, Allah retracted his promise to the Jews, who were too sinful.

    One of the points is that, according to the sunnis, the door of interpretation has been closed, so that there is no way to reinterpret the Koran, by considering that maybe, later verses do not abrogate earlier verses.

    It is clearly up to the muslims to see if they can reinterpret their sacred text. I keep my claim about the people such as Palazzi who do not follow this tradition of earlier verses aborgated by later verses: they are outside of the main currents of sunni islam, and hold very little weight.

  27. Eliyahu says:

    Michelle, what I think you want to say is that Muslims hold that the Quran is uncreated, timeless, etc. In this Muslim view, the Jews received the Quran but falsified it, producing the Torah.

    Anyhow, the Quran says that the Jews & Christians both falsified their scriptures. So that means that the Jews & Christians both had the true scriptures but perversely, evilly falsified them.

  28. Peter B says:

    Eliyahu has it exactly right, which means that Siboney errs in thinking that the Muslim reader would be bothered by that. The Muslim framing of that fact is that the Jewish texts are corruptions of the Divine Word, so corrupt that it was necessary to re-release the original version in the revelations to Mohammed. Islam’s position on the Christian writings is the same.
    To Islam, Jews and Christians deserve a certain recognition for having been entrusted with God’s word, but even more deserve eternal oppression and subjugation for having corrupted and distorted it and for having been so perverse as to refuse to recognize the real thing when Muslims offered it to them. For a non-Muslim to refuse that offer is considered by Islam to be an aggressive act, so that any subsequent Muslim action that might appear aggressive is actually an act of self-defense. Note that Muzzammil Hassan, the broadcast executive who beheaded his wife, is claiming that it was self-defense in response to her abuse and cruelty.

  29. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Eliyahu,

    I was not tackling the fundamental problem of uncreated Koran and so on. I was just explaining why the “zionist” verses in the Koran don’t hold water with respect to the violently antijewish and antizionist verses, and I gave the current rationale of abrogating and abrogated verses.

    Not being muslim, I do not hold a personal opinion about what the muslims should do… as far as I am concerned, if the muslims follow the noachide laws, they may do what they like beyond that.

    But I certainly have my doubts about the way they establish justice when they are in power, and not establishing proper judges and courts of laws is definitely a transgression of one of the seven noachide laws.

  30. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Peter B, where and how do you think that Sibony (no e before the y) erred? Could you point me to the proper line?

    Besides that, I basically agree.

  31. Red Pencil says:

    One serious operational difficulty of the Koran is its non-linear presentation, internally and externally, which its adherents apply to other issues also. Since unlike either Hebrew or Greek scriptures the Koranic verses are in order of length and not of chronology, the very valuable but much maligned “linear thinking” is somewhat actively discouraged. In this context it is not insane that Hebrew and Greek scribes who predated Mohammad by many centuries are maligned for not knowing about Mohammad.

    Linear thinking! It is good for science, civilization, and mutual comprehension.

  32. incognito says:

    The trick with the Koran is that it often says something and its contrary. Rabbinical literature has a way of dealing with contradictions in the Tora, often saying that statement A and statement B apply in different cases.

    You can count on religion to rationalize contradictions. It’s not exactly very strong on logic.

    As far as I know, the favorable view of the Jews in the Koran is contrasted by the claim that the Jews falsified the Koran (but in a very subtle way),

    Falsifiers tend to claim that others falsified. Muslims copied from judaism, christians (Paul) hijacked judaism, that’s why about the only thing they often agree on is to hate jews. And if your foundation is stolen from the jews, wouldn’t you hate them?

  33. incognito says:

    Peter,

    It’s called rationalization.

  34. incognito says:

    I was just explaining why the “zionist” verses in the Koran don’t hold water with respect to the violently antijewish and antizionist verses, and I gave the current rationale of abrogating and abrogated verses.

    You are correct with respect to the contradictions.

    The fun thing about religious scriptures, though, is that they can be and are INTERPRETED in ecah and every way that’s convenient in specific times and places.

    I again strongly recommend writings (and Internet videos) by Bart Ehrman, in particular JESUS INTERRUPTED. It’s eye-opening with respect to the christian scriptures and what happens when one applies knowledge and reason to them.

  35. Eliyahu says:

    The Marxist-Leninists [communists] were always encountering contradictions which is what happens in real life. Their ideology has its own inner contradictions too. These were explained away by the “dialectic” etc. Incog, are you implying that the Communists [marxist-leninists] were followers of a religion??

  36. E.G. says:

    Eliyahu,

    If Communism is not a religion, it’s a Ginger Ale one: it’s got all the features of religion, except the “alcohol” or “opiate”, substituted by “fake but similar” ones.

    Seek the purist feature characterising most religious and secular religions, and ye shall find.

  37. Michelle Schatzman says:

    Incog, you got it right, since you read Sibony… but Sibony also says that everybody is allowed to steal from the books of the Jews: they do not own their scripture (if it comes from God, who could claim to own it?). What is problematic is not the stealing, it’s excluding the Jews from contributing to all that.

  38. incognito says:

    Incog, are you implying that the Communists [marxist-leninists] were followers of a religion??

    Absolutely. And so do the “free market” capitalists. These are secular religions.

  39. incognito says:

    What is problematic is not the stealing, it’s excluding the Jews from contributing to all that.

    I really don’t care about ANY scriptures, except in the historical sense.

  40. Eliyahu says:

    “What is problematic is not the stealing, it’s excluding the Jews from contributing to all that.”

    I really don’t care about ANY scriptures, except in the historical sense.

    In fact, Incog, you are wrong not to care since denial of Jewish contributions whether to other religions or to the history of philosophy and science is a major manifestation of Judeophobia. If you get your email address to me, I will send you my documented writings on the subject. Michelle & Sibony are right here.

  41. Cynic says:

    E.G.,

    it’s a Ginger Ale one: it’s got all the features of religion, except the “alcohol” or “opiate”, substituted by “fake but similar” ones.

    Ginger ale is not a religion cause I would not have rid myself of it, of ginger beer and ginger snaps, by emigrating to another continent where it is unknown.
    I would have been praying to it every night.
    On second thoughts maybe what was missing was a ginger ale bottle effigy?
    :-)

  42. Don Cox says:

    22: “I suspect that they want us in in order to piggyback on our success, without realizing that if we went their way, we would end up just like them.”

    I think this is just what happened in North Africa, when the Muslim conquerors piggy-backed on the civilisation of Late Antiquity.

  43. John P. says:

    I have this gut sense that had they been very successful and thriving, they wouldn’t be so eager to gift it to us.
    I suspect that they want us in in order to piggyback on our success,

    Exactly. The Islamists constantly talk about dialogue and bridge building bridg with the non-Muslim West. However, that strategy is riddled with cynicism because the islamic lcearly has nothing with which it can reciprocate such ouvertures.

    The calls for “dialogue” are merely crude ruses designed to trick us into handing over scientific, technological (AND MORE) knowledge that the islamic world could never invent or discover on its own.

    Of course they want to built bridges, just as any homeless guy on a park bench, a homeless guy entirely responsbale for his plight, would want to build bridges with a millionaire.

    I mean, there’d be so much in it for the millionaire!

  44. John P. says:

    Please excuse typos errors in above comment.

  45. Eliyahu says:

    Don #43, I would go farther. I would say that the Arabs/Muslims did not merely piggyback on late ancient civilization, they finished it off. They gave it the final coup de grace.

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/05/arab-conquests-finished-off-ancient.html

  46. Eliyahu says:

    Here is more on the subject of Arab contributions or non-contributions or anti-contributions to the history of science.

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/04/arab-conquest-of-ancient-east-orient.html

    http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2007/09/arab-nationalist-megalomania-endorsed.html

  47. incognito says:

    In fact, Incog, you are wrong not to care since denial of Jewish contributions whether to other religions or to the history of philosophy and science is a major manifestation of Judeophobia.

    When I said “historical sense” I meant whatever contributions they had to civilization.

    Nothing will make me care about the SUPERNATURAL component of the scriptures.

    What almost everybody seems to forget or disregard is that all 3 monoteistic religions were founded when humanity was completely ignorant. They were supposed to explain the world in a state of ignorance and as such was an evolutionary development.

    The more we bother with religion today, the more it means we regressed into that state of ignorance. We can handle philosophy today without religion.

  48. incognito says:

    I would have been praying to it every night.

    Don’t pray to ANYTHING. You wanna eat and drink those, do it.

    I think this is just what happened in North Africa, when the Muslim conquerors piggy-backed on the civilisation of Late Antiquity.

    What exactly was the purpose of the muslim conquest out of Arabia? And what exactly did the arabs do when they conquered? I wonder how much of the contributions of the so-called golden age of Islam were due to the subjugated dhimmis? Because ever since the conquerers were pushed back, the muslim contributions dried out to NOTHING.

  49. incognito says:

    Exactly. The Islamists constantly talk about dialogue and bridge building bridg with the non-Muslim West.

    That’s usually the more sophisticated ones, of whom there aren’t that many. The radicals and the uneducated are pretty clear that it’s not bridges they have in mind.
    And they don’t need bridges to get the achivements of the west: the west has been handing them quite readily without anything in return.

    Do you know how many trillions has the west dumped on the poor pals, 80% of which are parasitic on that?

  50. incognito says:

    he Arabs/Muslims did not merely piggyback on late ancient civilization, they finished it off. They gave it the final coup de grace.

    Well, you see, one of the major drawbacks of exploiting the knowledge and achievements of others without the will or ability to learn from them is that if your god tells you to finish them off, you’re up the creek without a paddle.

    You can see the exact replication of that today: the muslims come to the west to exploit its achievements (of which there is nothing in islam), but pretty soon they want to impose islam and sharia, without realizing that they are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

    As I said so many times, islam keeps them down while inhibiting their understanding of that.

  51. incognito says:

    And here’s a very clear example of the west handing in its achievements to advance islamic purposes and, probably later, to have them turned against itself:

    http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2010/07/change-we-must-believe-in.php

  52. incognito says:

    And here’s evidence for what they wanna do with the west:

    One Thousand and One (or Fewer?) Arabian Nights
    http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2010/07/one-thousand-and-one-or-fewer-arabian-nights

  53. incognito says:

    In fact, Israel is much more of an enemy kiss-ass than the west:

    More Israeli appeasement of Turkey – return of four flotilla boats
    http://www.debka.com/article/8927/

  54. Cynic says:

    Eliyahu,

    Saw the comment to your second link in #47.
    Mr Krebs obviously has not seen the documents Bat Ye’or researched.

  55. Eliyahu says:

    Incog, the development of philosophy and science since ancient times has been much intertwined with the history of religion, whether you like it or not. Of course, you are free to believe what you like and the fact that Thales, for example, considered the first philosopher, said several things about the Creation that echo the words of Genesis 1:1-2, as well as –to a lesser extent– what the poet Hesiod wrote about the origin of the gods in his Theogony, does not make anything Thales or Hesiod said true or false or confirm or refute Genesis 1:1-2. Nevertheless, it would be unscientific to overlook or deny the factual, historical links between the development of religion, philosophy and science.

  56. incognito says:

    Read carefully what I wrote about the birth of religion and its function at that time. I think it addresses your comment.

  57. incognito says:

    Caroline Glick:

    In line with this, if the US intends to recognize a Palestinian state formed in the framework of a negotiated peace settlement, then it is utterly ridiculous, in the face of Abbas’ latest pronouncements, for it to upgrade the Palestinians’ diplomatic status. The move makes sense only if the US is secretly preparing to help the Palestinians avoid negotiations and obtain a state that is not established in the framework of a peace treaty.

    Must read.

  58. Daniel Bielak says:

    incognito,

    In the following clip Melanie Phillips articulates, concisely, what is the case.

    Melanie Phillips: World Turned Upside Down [Q&A] (6/7)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdqPDqtg7Po

  59. E.G. says:

    Cynic #42

    I gingerly agree.
    :-D

  60. Cynic says:

    E,G,.

    There are numerous sayings by the worshipers of beer:
    “Tread gingerly if you would mess with the beer” and with the ale-ists it’s “don’t ginger with the beer”.

    Unfortunately gingerbread men get no respect anymore.

  61. [...] a moral chasm here so great that even contemplating it becomes unbearable. So what do outsiders do with this [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>