The Culture of Dispute and Israeli Hi-Tech

In a recent WSJ article one finds the following (HT: YE):

5.  Wall Street Journal (Ben Rooney), Oct. 24: It is extremely hard not to be a bit star-struck by the Israeli technology scene…. ‘It is Silicon Valley for the rest of the world‘ said Saul Klein, a London-based venture capitalist…. ‘On a scale of one to 10, the innovation I see in Germany would be close to zero. In Israel, it is a 10,’ said Mark Tluszcz, co-founder of Mangrove Capital Partners, a Luxembourg-based venture firm…. What’s the secret? Reasons include the role of the Israeli Defense Forces, and in particular the high-tech Unit 8200; the unique cultural values of a country forged from centuries of oppression; and Jewish mothers…. The link with America remains as strong as ever. If you look at the flight schedules into Tel Aviv, there are just three direct flights a week from Beijing, and another three from Seoul. There are at least that many a day from the U.S.”

Lots of explanations available. I tend towards the one about the Jewish culture of dispute, and the way that one is encouraged to ask challenging questions. About which, two anecdotes and a thought:

1) The first time I studied Talmud, I learned with a venerable and brilliant man, Rabbi Abraham Lappin. At the end of a long passage in which we read carefully and exhaustively not only Rashi’s commentary by that of every Tosafot, he asked us if we understood. We all nodded dutifully. To which he replied, “no you don’t.” When he saw the pained look on our faces, he added, “if you did, you’d have questions.”

2) On a plane from Israel to Germany in the late 1990s, sitting next to an Israeli businessman with factories in Germany and Israel. “Is there a difference between Israeli workers and German workers?” I asked. “Yes,” he replied, “if I ask a German worker to do something, he says, ‘Yes boss.’ If I ask an Israeli worker to do something, he says, ‘Why do you want to do that?'”

3) This is intimately linked to the difference between honor-shame dynamics and integrity-guilt. I you view challenges as attacks on your “face”, as forms of zero-sum one-upsmanship, then questions from subordinates is insubordination; if you take challenges as occasions to up your game, as potentially positive-sum ways to learn from an exchange with another person who may have a different and valuable perspective, then such questions are opportunities.

When Abba Eban said, “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” he got is somewhat wrong. For them, positive-sum encounters in which both sides win (i.e., Israel also wins) are not viewed as opportunities, but decisive defeats in the zero-sum world of honor lost (by Israel’s successful resistance and survival), and the overriding need to regain face by destroying her.

One man’s opportunity is another’s shame… at the core of the difference between innovative and productive cultures on the one hand, and cultures of impoverishment on the other.

UPDATE: Apparently Dawkins is puzzled by the phenomenon. In an interview with the New Republic he admits:

RD: …the number of Jews who have won Nobel Prizes is phenomenally high.

IC: OK, but what do you make of that?

RD: Race does not come into it. It is pure religion and culture. Something about the cultural tradition of Jews is way, way more sympathetic to science and learning and intellectual pursuits than Islam. That would have been a fair comparison. Ironically, I originally wrote the tweet with Jews and thought, That might give offense. And so I thought I better change it.

IC: I still want to know what you draw from this. Do you think the Torah is more progressive than the Koran?

RD: No, I doubt it. I don’t think that.

Of course he has no idea; and like Christopher Hitchens, his exposure to the Hebrew Bible is via his Anglican teachers whom he apparently disliked intensely. A Christian lens, especially one formed in the crucible of invidious identity formation, is not the way to find out just how “progressive” the Torah is.

And I don’t think that the key is in the text (although that’s critical), but how the community reads the text. The culture of dispute is unquestionably encouraged by the text – think of Abraham arguing with God about just how much innocent collateral damage is acceptable to punish the guilty – but unless that is embodied in the relations of the community, the idea has no life.

IC: So then what?

RD: I haven’t thought it through. I don’t know. But I don’t think it is a minor thing; it is colossal. I think more than 20 percent of Nobel Prizes have been won by Jews (24% of Science).

23 Responses to The Culture of Dispute and Israeli Hi-Tech

  1. Dr Landes said:

    “When Abba Eban said, “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity,” he got is somewhat wrong. For them, positive-sum encounters in which both sides win (i.e., Israel also wins) are not viewed as opportunities, but decisive defeats in the zero-sum world of honor lost (by Israel’s successful resistance and survival), and the overriding need to regain face by destroying her.

    One man’s opportunity is another’s shame… at the core of the difference between innovative and productive cultures on the one hand, and cultures of impoverishment on the other.”

    Today i left a comment at the Eleder of Ziyon blog which is relevant to the honor/shame mindset of the Muslims who, feeling threatened in their religious and macho pride by both the Zionists and modernity (and, especially, the union of the two), they express their frustrated and honor-motivated domination-desires in conspiracy theories. Such theories are the hallmark of an honor/shame individual who happens to feel powerles. Imagining crazy plots is a sure indicator of the presence (and intensity) of honor/shame concerns.

    The Elder’s article was referring to a conspiracy theory in Egypt about Pepsi being a Zionist puppet. The Jews apparently left a coded date on a Pepsi ad that is supposed to represent the date that the conspiring Jewish lobby will bring back the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt. Elder mocked the idea that the Jews would communicate their intentions before the plot materializes, and here is my contribution:

    Elder said:

    “Anyway, did you ever wonder why Jews feel such a compulsion to give
    coded messages of their nefarious plans to the enemy? Wouldn’t it be
    easier to just act without telegraphing their moves?”

    “It’s projection.

    The Muslims project their own honor-shame mindset on the Zionists, and they assume that the Jews would feel the need to “leave their mark” somewhere, so as to take credit for their alleged plot. To leave your mark is supposed to be a dominating gesture, much like dogs piss somewhere to mark the place as being their territory. To the honor-shame minded Muslim it seems quite natural that the Jews would forfeit the element of surprise and risk their alleged plot being uncovered by announcing (even in a coded form) their plans.

    By the way, the conspiracies involving Pepsi are widespread in the Muslim world. And in this i think we have a clear case of the psychological process of displacement:the Muslims displace their (well known) fear of modernity to a consumer product that in their minds has come to be associated with the dreaded modernity – the Pepsi drink.

    And, of course, Pepsi as symbol of modernity is associated with another symbol of modernity, i.e. the Zionists, who in the Muslim mindset are the carrier of the modernity virus. The Zionists have come to be seen as such by the Muslims mainly due to their bringing into the region ideas about liberation of women, which is ultimately where the Muslim fear of modernity resides.”

    So the Muslims opt for substituting a culture of civilized dispute (and challenging questions to superiors, according to Dr Landes) with a culture of scapegoating and conspiracy theorizing. It is wishful thinking to expect them to realize their emotional poverty but, at least, one hopes they might come some day to draw the right conclusions from their economic poverty – but this will happen only if the westerners point it to the Muslims, instead of indulging the Muslim Israel-scapegoating.

    PS:all Muslims referred to here are, obviously, the Islamist Muslims. But since the majority of Muslims are Islamists (as the latest Pew poll confirms) i used the more generic term.

  2. Rich Rostrom says:

    Dionissis: Why would reactionary Moslems (Arabs and others) particularly identify the liberation and empowerment of women with Zionism? One sees extreme misogyny among Moslems in areas where Zionism is a distant bogeyman, and Jews are never seen. Rural Pakistan, for instance. And there was relative empowerment of women that was widespread before the 1970s. (Mark Steyn has commented on how in 1970, none of the coeds at Cairo University wore hijabs.)

    It’s not especially surprising that Egyptians would conflate “modernism” with “the Jews”, as they have been on the front line of the conflict with Israel. But reactionary Islamism is rampant in areas far away from the Middle East. Consider Boko Haram in Nigeria. Or Afghanistan, which (from an Islamist viewpoint) has been worked over by the Soviets and then the U.S., but not Israel.

    Professor L.: As to the Torah versus the Koran, neither text is very “progressive”. The great difference is in the commentary: the Talmud versus the Hadiths.

    • @Rich

      I didn’t express myself clearly.

      When i spoke of Muslims identifying modernity with Zionists due to the Zionists’ liberal treatment of women i had in mind the Middle East Muslims, hence my reference to the Zionists’ “bringing into the region ideas about liberation of women”. I don’t know if other Muslims associated at the time the liberation of women with Zionism – probably not, because the distance made it impossible for them to be aware of the Zionist practices, as you implied.
      As for the Egyptians having then been tolerant towards women, as you told me, surely they must have been less tolerant than the Zionists. It’s the relative difference that counts, i think. The Zionists would still be seen as a modernity threat due to their relative lenience to females.

    • Cynic says:

      Don’t forget that the Egyptians were practically colonised by the British and many aspects of British culture found its way into their daily life.

      • @Cynic

        I’m willing to bet that attitudes towards women was not among the British cultural transplants that the Egyptians chose to put on!

        • Cynic says:

          I’ll grant you that, but under British control the religious activism had not attained the blatantly violent imposition of the Imam’s view.
          Observing the “care” the Israelis take not to inflame Europe and the State Department, they permit the Arabs, be they Bedouin or fedayeen, to abuse the law of the land with regard to building standards, land “ownership” etc., and then the behaviour of the British at the height of their colonial empire one is faced with the absolute arrogance by the British with regard to any objections to their rule.
          When the Israelis try to maintain legal precedures with regard to “land abuse” which one sees all the time in the media when European “diplomats” punch Israeli soldiers in the face, and one compares that to what one witnessed under British authority it is plain that the British brooked no parallel order.
          With Egypt it took some time until its educational facilities managed to shake things British out of its system.

  3. @ Cynic

    Concerning the Bedouins, Ted Belman said that there is a clear-cut legal reason for moving them:the density of the totality of their buildings (buildings without permits, to be sure) is far lesser than the density of Israeli communities. I understand this means that the Bedouins are simply wasting space, so it is not just a legal technicality that dictates they move where the government tells them to – not that i needed to hear it from Ted Belman, i am fully aware of how tolerantly Israel treats its Arabs, citizens or residents. Do you happen to have any resource/link to such facts concerning building permits and land ownership etc? They are useful for silencing the anti-Israel brouhaha in comment sections.

    when European “diplomats” punch Israeli soldiers in the face

    I hate both French culture and the way Europe interferes with the Israelis’ rights, but the French lady got me excited. I love aggressive women :)

    With Egypt it took some time until its educational facilities managed to shake things British out of its system.

    I know nothing about those periods and i don’t doubt it when you tell me that the British were arrogant, but it is stupid for the Egyptians to miss a chance to get themselves a little more civilized. They can only gain from borrowing English cultural traits.

  4. w.w.wygart says:

    Quick thought on the “Culture of Dispute”.

    The difference between the “Hebrew Bible”, the “Koran”, and the cultures that operate them is that the way that the Jewish people ‘operate’ the Torah doesn’t seem to hold the Jewish people back intellectually, economically and culturally, whereas the style Muslims tend to ‘operate’ their own text seems to hold them back rather dramatically.

    The way a text-based religion or culture operates their text can either enlighten and stabilize it or benight and retard it. Having a cultural style that seeks to understand the operating principles of its text rather than treat it simply as a list of revealed commands to be obeyed blindly is a real plus for any culture.

    What IS on God’s mind that he expects us to act this way?


  5. @Wygart

    The way a text-based religion or culture operates their text can either enlighten and stabilize it or benight and retard it. Having a cultural style that seeks to understand the operating principles of its text rather than treat it simply as a list of revealed commands to be obeyed blindly is a real plus for any culture.

    Good point.

    You touch upon the reason why Islamists will probably win over the (very few) moderate (i.e. non-Islamist, i.e. Muslims who do not want to live under sharia) Muslims: they have the literal interpretation of the Koran on their side.

    Here is a video of the leader of the most mainstream Norwegian Muslim organization making plain (miniute 4:08) that whatever is the word of Allah (i.e. the Koran) it must be followed for that very reason:

    I quote from the link:

    Next question: How many of you agree that the punishments described in the Koran and the Sunna – whether it is death, whether it is stoning for adultery, whatever it is… If it is from Allah and His Messenger, that is the best punishment ever possible for humankind, and that is what we should apply in the world. Who agrees with that?

    Everyone in the audience did, everyone raised their hands in agreement.

    Now, the fact that the literal interpretation of the Koran is religiously sanctioned has not escaped the attention even of liberal cognitive egocentrists, like Fareed Zakaria:

    (min.6:50, he interviews Ayaan Hirsi Ali)

    So why are we still hoping that the Muslims are not going to keep on pushing for the implementation of sharia in Europe? Why do we still hope that the very few moderate Muslims who don’t want sharia will stand up against their fellow islamists despite knowing that the islamists can easily win the religious argument? Especially when we westerners are not empowering the moderates, but choose to mainstream hardcore Islamists, like the Muslim Brotherhood?

    What IS on God’s mind that he expects us to act this way?

    Maybe that we should refer to Her by using the female gender in an act of reverse discrimination? :)

    • w.w.wygart says:

      Playing to my audience. [wink] Of course, using a pronoun of any sort in regards to the source and ultimate creative impulse of creation is positively absurd – but what else can you do as a neophyte human-becoming?


  6. A good combination of islamist apocalyptic thinking with BBC cognitive egocentrism:

    A video was discovered that featured an iranian military commander of the Revolutionary Guards on the ground in Syria leading fighters against the Syrian rebels – yes, an iranian officer, one of those that Iran denied that it has sent on Syrian ground.

    The BBC lady journo that narrates the video describes the commander as “relaxed and humorous” and observes that he has “a very ideological view of the conflict and [of] iran’s role in it”.

    And what does this view consist in? I quote the commander:

    “The current conflict in Syria is one of Islam against the infidels. A war of good against evil.”

    His words couldn’t have been any more apocalyptic than that. His words, coupled with the serene and matter-of-factly way he stated them, should have sent some kind of message to the journalist that the “relaxed and humorous” commander is a ticking bomb, views such as his are the first stage in engaging in suicide bombing, or in pushing the nuclear button.

    But spotting such things must be an instance of Islamophobia, so let me stop here.

  7. Hamas’ new spokeswoman:

    “Since you westerners are such suckers, and so desperate to hear things that make us (hamas), look moderate, i’m going to be duping you for the foreseeable future (and until my male guardian takes me off the job) by talking to you in human rights lingo, instead of speaking to you in the words of Allah that you, western weaklings, cannot really understand”.

    Ok, she didn’t say it exactly like that:

    “The Palestinian Hamas movement has appointed its first female English-language spokesperson, as part of a new strategy to engage with Western media.”

    “She said: “I will make the issues more human, and even if [Palestinian] officials do not understand this language, I know Western people will.” She added: “The West does not understand religious discourse the same way they do human discourse.”

    They are so smart only because we are so eager to believe anything they say that can fit them into our preconceptions of a courageous Palestinian underdog that fights in defiance the powerful Israeli oppressors.

  8. On honour-shame dynamics and integrity-guilt

    I have made some progress, I think, on clarifying my understanding of this topic so central to Richard Landes’s thinking, and it has its roots in Parmenides, Saint-Augustine, Eric Voegelin and the naturalistic theory of natural law by Frank van Dun.

    Parmenides: what is, is (and can be known); what is not, is not (and cannot be known). When you’re there, you know you’re there; when you’re not, you cannot know you’re not, and you will therefore more often than not believe you are. It’s the difference between people who are sure of what they’re doing or saying, not so much because they feel sure of themselves, but because they are sure of the ground on which they’re resting (amor Dei), and people who only appear to be sure of what they’re doing or saying, because they only feel sure of themselves (amor sui) without being sure of the ground on which they are resting.

    It has to do with what I would call the ‘center’ that people often seem to be missing, the center that ties everything together. That missing center is what makes out narcissism, the inability to look at yourself and at others from a vantage point lying somewhere behind yourself. Narcissists can only look at themselves and at others through the prism of their expectations, which they’re trying to live up to and expect others to live up to (Narcissus couldn’t see his mirror image reflected in the pond, because there was no substance to be reflected). You hear people talk about their clothing style, or their religion, as part of their ‘identity’. When obviously they’re just talking about their properties, properties that can and do change over time, and that can therefore not be part of their identity. Identity is that center that holds all these properties together, allowing you to create a distance between your properties and your self, which is a prerequisite for learning, admitting mistakes, and acknowleding faults. Why is it missing? How does narcissism come about? It must have something to do with the logic of ‘living up to expectations’ that comes from childhood and is then maintained even in adulthood (moralism, life style obsessions). Never learning that as an adult you don’t have to live up to expectations anymore, you’re free to make your own choices, by looking inside yourself for what you really are, for where your talent, motivation, pleasure and love are located. In fact, since Socrates, we know that education is entirely about that looking inside yourself, and never simply about living up to expectations. But then, who needs Socrates in our time, right? A classical Greek!

    Natural law? It is the natural order of human conviviality, wich is entirely a factual matter and not a matter of ‘norms and values’ (i.e. moral expectations to live up to), and the respect we ought to pay to that factual order of the distinctions between persons and what they do or say. The civilisational disease called ‘pneumopathology’ (not psychopathology) by Eric Voegelin lies in the disrespect of this natural order in the name of moral or ideological expectations. And it is widespread.

    I would like to understand better what it is in Jewish religion, culture and society that makes Jews more resistant to the disease, if that is indeed the case. Because it may just be that their having a long habit of being the victim of prejudice that has taught them to overcome their narcissism (amor sui).

    • The part played by natural law is only summarised here. Because it involves the use of language in understanding the factual order, the word or logos that is at the beginning. And the misuse of language for creating the ideological distortions of reality (second reality) without which pneumopathology could not take root. See Eric Voegelin’s discussion of Karl Marx as an “intellectual swindler”. Or Frank van Dun’s discussion of the notion of “positive freedom”: calling the ability acquired through training to jump over a 2m high obstacle “my being free to jump over 2m” (or the inability through lack of training “my being not free to do so”) is just plain nonsense designed to create confusion, but it can become very effective nonsense entailing a lot of confusion, as when my lack of means to afford living in a mansion or buying a car is called “my being not free to live in a mansion or to buy a car”.

    • The natural law or order is natural, i.e. God given and not for us to change, i.e. to redefine by using ideological language to misrepresent the facts of that order. Frank van Dun distinguishes three types of relationships between persons: rex relationships (regere, having under your control, like owning a slave), lex relationships (legere, command-obedience), and ius relationships (iurare, solemn speech or agreement between equals). Only the last one is natural, while the second one only exists in artificial setups (a legal system to which one either adheres freely, e.g. as a worker under a labour contract, or unfreely, e.g. as a citizen of a political state), and the first one is only based on brute force or violence. (Rex relationships in the natural order only exist a person-thing relationships, i.e. property.)

      In my shorthand, amor Dei is the ability to see and respect that natural order of the distinctions between your own actions or sayings and those of other people, while amor sui (narcissism) is the inability to see it by being caught up in ideological or moralistic expectations of command-obedience relationships. And I always thought that that is also what Nietzsche called the discovery of the individual, which he thought was recent.

      (Well, this is all in a rough state, I admit.)

    • Amor sui, narcissistic people: you criticise what they say or do, and they inevitably interpret your criticism as if you were criticising them (thus perceiving your criticism as an ad hominem attack and not just as criticism of what they said or did), which they cannot let pass, and against which they then more often than not defend themselves with an outright ad hominem attack directed at you, and not with some reasonable defense of what they said or did. (See the typical defense of anti-semites against criticism of their anti-semitic utterances by simply condemning the reasonable criticism as an inadmissible ad hominem attack of themselves. Jakob Augstein: “Jeder Kritiker Israels muss damit rechnen, als Antisemit beschimpft zu werden. Das ist ein gefährlicher Missbrauch des Begriffs. Im Schatten solch falscher Debatten blüht der echte Antisemitismus.”)

    • I just continue here what I started (on honour-shame, narcissism).

      «In Robert Musil’s The Man Without Qualities, the man without qualities is contrasted with the qualities without the man. The hero lives in a shadowy relationship with himself. He doesn’t recognize his qualities as his own because they operate as qualities of a particular role and not as the qualities of a man. The qualities are classified within specific contexts. The “man without qualities” can do this and that; he merely carries out different roles. The qualities are defined in terms of their social function. But no man belongs to them. In this context, the expression “spirit” has become meaningless; there’s no longer any meditative experience. The hero finds out that he doesn’t love himself. Aristotle had defined nous as the core of personality. If man doesn’t love this core, and thus his own self, he has lost contact with reality. This self-love, of course, is not the same as selfishness. Self-love is a core problem not only for Aristotle but also within Christianity. The self-love implicit in “Love your neighbor as yourself” also implies love of the divine. But in Musil, the hero doesn’t love himself because he doesn’t have a self, and so the world becomes an apparent reality. Musil thus has performed a decisive analysis of the breakdown of contact with reality.» (Eric Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans, p. 253)

      «This is the general background material, in terms of which Doderer develops his ideas:

      (1) The notion of the “second reality”: The construction of a second reality comes from the desire to have the beyond in this life. One does not have a genuine relation to the transcendent, which becomes rather an object to be possessed. Political conviction is understood as a kind of slit in an armored car through which one glimpses only arbitrary facets of reality.

      (2) The notion of a worldview (Weltanschauung): The worldview takes the place of reality. The worldview is the expression of a systematic refusal to apperceive reality (Apperzeptionsverweigerung). The one who represents a worldview is beyond rational discussion. The refusal to apperceive reality is, not sheer ignorance, but a deliberate desire not to understand. A worldview is a concupiscent fantasy. A worldview can apply to every sector of reality, for example to sexuality and eroticism (a particularly interesting phenomenon), but also to the areas of law, language, and order in general. In all of these areas, the worldview can produce constructs in conflict with reality.

      There is also the problem of the raging ructions. If the concupiscent fantasy is disappointed, outbursts of rage can occur. The outburst of rage reveals a radical lack of contact with reality. (This links Doderer to Musil’s analysis of stupidity.) From a worldview that is still contemplative there can be a shift toward active outbursts of rage.» (Eric Voegelin, Hitler and the Germans, p. 255)

      After reading:

      Being the victim of an injustice and too weak to defend yourself triggers a feeling of shame or wounded pride that easily mutates into hatred. I think that is totally normal (human). I can remember experiences from childhood and adolescence very much like that, and as an adult I also have them whenever I have to deal with tax officials and their legal ways of reversing the burden of proof!

      In Plato’s Gorgias Socrates argues (demonstrates) that being the victim of injustice is ‘better’ than being the perpetrator (because the perpetrator is ‘uglier’ and consequently ‘worse’), but he doesn’t deny the obvious, namely that the victim suffers more.

      So I remain of the view that it is not so much the honour-shame emotional complex itself that is a problem, it is the cognitive misapprehension of reality (understanding something as an injustice when it isn’t) that triggers it when there is no reason for it.

      In the case of Muslims and Arabs raging because of the injustice done to them by Israel’s sole existence one may suspect that the unescapable insight that they brought it all on themselves by their own misplaced intransigeance makes the ‘suffering’ only greater. The criminal rages about his victimhood in order not to have to admit to his crime (fault). Placating the criminal by withholding the truth from him, however, will certainly not help to deflate his narcissistic bubble.

      I don’t believe that the real criminals, i.e. the political leaders themselves, are very much the victim of an honour-shame emotional complex; they’re cynically exploiting it for the power it achieves for them. The Muslim population at large could also probably be weened off rather easily by a different political leadership. It’s those in between, the ‘supernumerous young men supplied by excessive demographic growth’ Martin Kramer somewhere mentions, who suffer from it and thereby become the instruments of the true criminals.

  9. Inspired by Martin’s reference to command-obedience relations and to ad hominems, i will relate a public discussion i had with commenter SerJew:

    And i will only quote SerJew’s responses when he felt that his arguments were demolished. Here is SerJew talking to me fantasizing that he is my master and that i am his dog. I quote him:

    “Come on, doggy-dog, follow me. Now, sit, sit. Fart some more, ´cause you ate all that fiber. That´s it. So cute, little puppy.”

    “Aww, doggie needs attention. Little doggy farter needs to follow me. Such a nice little puppy”

    “Yes, I am your master. Keep following me, like a good doggie farter.”

    “Very good, doggie. You are such a nice puppy. I´m so proud of you.”

    “Nice little puppy, you are. Good little farter.”

    “I´m your leader, right? And you are like a faithful muslim. Nice.” (i guess that some latent supremacism came to the surface, hence SerJew temporarily saw me as his obedient Muslim, not as his obedient dog).

    “Awww, little doggy farter lost the game…”

    “Yes, you are a total loser, dog.”

    “Oh, good, the little slave dog is typing.”

    “You are taking too long, farting dog. TYPE FASTER!”

    Is SerJew ridiculous or scary? He certainly is annoying.

  10. SerJew now calling me “a Nazi” and doubting that i am pro-Israel. He has revealed a latent supremacist wish to own Muslim slaves and he has the nerve to call me a Nazi.

    By the way, my discussions with him are taking place in a cloud of deafening (and revealing?) silence from bystanders.

  11. @ Martin

    Dionissis, I didn’t take the time to read through all of it, but I would suspect that half of it at least is SerJew making fun of you

    Martin you suspect wrong, half of it is SerJew’s attempts to save face in light of the complete debunking of his arguments in my previous discussions with him.

    the other half being, well, SerJew’s unqualifiable self

    Well, calling me a Nazi just went too far, i would think.

    And all of it was more or less off-topic,

    Off which topic?

    what are you people playing at?

    I’m just very curious to see how much the Jew-vs-Gentile meme which SerJew attempts to exploit against me will meet with silent acquiescence (as it has happened to me once already elsewhere in the past, but i forgave), especially from the administrator of the site in question. Depending on the outcome, i might after all find out more about the psychological dynamics that drive certain actors in the conflict.

    Thank you for the links.

  12. It’s been 11 hours already since SerJew made the Nazi-allegation against me, and still the blog owner Elder of Ziyon has not interfered to chastise SerJew. But i am hoping that by tomorrow he will have done so. I mean, what, is it possible that Elder of Ziyon is indeed a right-wing supremacist that he will side with a Jew against a Gentile just because he is a Jew, no matter what justice dictates? I don’t want to believe that he is so “my-side,-right-or-wrong” in his thinking – it would mean that some Jewish right-wingers are as much of an obstacle to peace as the Palestinians.

Leave a Reply

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