Monday, August 18, 2008

"For the love of Christ" by Julie Burchill or, as I understood it, "Why atheists should hate Muslims only." I think it says something when a person has the gall to call themselves a Christian Zionist without comprehending the completely contradictory nature of what they are saying, think "Jewish Nazi" and the picture becomes clear.

Posted by Maysaloon at 6:51 pm

Labels:

11 comments:

Yaman said...

Why is it a contradiction?

10:10 pm
Maysaloon said...

A woman who is truly driven by faith has no place for nationalism, in particular one which is as morally bankrupt as Zionism. The principles of Christianity and Zionism are completely opposed to one another and to say that you've married between the two means you are lying to yourself with regards to one of them.

10:51 am
boxthejack said...

Yaman, because it is not consistent to proclaim as lord a homeless dissident rabbi crucified for upsetting religious bigots and disturbing the Pax Romana, whilst promoting religious bigotry and the maintenance of Pax Americana.

Perhaps 'Christendom Zionist' is a better label?

10:52 am
julius said...

So why is Zionism any more morally bankrupt than any other nationalism?

3:11 pm
Yaman said...

So you, who are not Christian, are arguing to her, who is a Christian, about what Christianity 'really' is. I do not think that she thinks that Christianity and Zionism are inconsistent with one another. You sound like those non-Muslims who like to pontificate about what Islam "really" is.

10:02 pm
Maysaloon said...

Yaman,
I'm a little surprised about how simplistic your view on this person is. Your claim that I sound just like non-Muslims talking about Islam is misplaced as I can categoricaly state that my knowledge of Christianity is a lot more accurate than their view of Islam and, I will add, a lot more sympathetic and understanding. I am sure that if you look at the substance of these two completely opposed ideas rather than just the label, you understand what I mean. I think boxthejack summed it up nicely above.

11:23 pm
julius said...

Did you ever notice what an arrogant little twat Wassim is? If he actually knew something, a swelled head might be in order, but his pathetic graduate student brain rarely comes up with anything more substantive than "you're a simpleton, I'm a genius." His response here borders on hilarious. Wassim has placed himself in an intellectual box, one that is very small. He is very intolerant of dissension (note that he can't bring himself to even respond to posters like Lirun or myself who he fears might accept a 2 state solution - heaven forfend!). Really quite pathetic, he is. The sad thing is, he's not dumb, he's just scared to engage in real dialogue.
Here, for example, he puffs out his chest, but then leaves it to boxthejack to "sum up" nicely. What he actually provides is a classic Islamic negation of Christianity. Certain Christian sects have developed a theology that promotes Zionism. So what? There is nothing contradictory in that. Your "Jewish Nazi" analogy doesn't seem apt at all. I'd ask you to explain, but why bother?

3:48 am
boxthejack said...

Julius - I take your question on face value and would suggest the following answer.

Zionism strikes me as a peculiar phenomenon. It is not quite nationalism because its narrative is centered around migration ('return') and appropriation. It is not quite colonialism because Israel is not transfering resources from the economic periphery to the core, at least not geographically though arguably it does so culturally. And it is not quite apartheid, because institutional and legal discrimination is not based on a racial science.

However, it contains elements of all three.

So whilst, yes, it is nationalistic and understands its aspirations in terms of self-determination, it demands relocation of its national diaspora to another (inhabited) land, [i]and[/i] the establishment of a government that embodies an exclusive national narrative.

In short, Zionism demands self-determination at the necessary expense of the other. Civic nationalism need not do so.

11:45 am
boxthejack said...

Regarding Wassim's authority to pronounce on Christianity, I am quite used to western non-Christians saying "Christianity is about intolerance" or "Christianity is about accommodating power". No-one says: "you don't have the right to say that".

So it's quite refreshing when a non-Christian expresses a more nuanced view of the Way I follow - especially when I agree with it ;o)

11:51 am
Lirun said...

so no one who is truly christian can support the palestinian national cause? or what about someone truly muslim.. can they support the palestinian national cause? is national and religion a good match in this case? have i just found the "Exception" to your brilliant "Rule"?

wassim.. dude.. sometimes.. i think you are a.. ahh doesnt matter.. you mean well.. have a good weekend..

2:44 pm
julius said...

Thanks for your response, boxthejack. I disagree with a couple of points:

Zionism is nationalism. The Zionist narrative says that the Jews return to Palestine is not appropriation, but reappropriation, that is, this place was their origin and they are returning to claim it. That someone else happened to live there complicates the issue, but doesn't remove the nationalist component.

I also don't necessarily agree that Zionism demands self-determination at the expense of the other. Like, let's say, Basques, Israeli "Arabs" have a kind of cultural autonomy. Yes, they are discriminated against in some realms, but, for the most part, they live lives similar to ethnic minorities in other states. Actually, Kurds may be a better analogy than Basques. With large populations in multiple states surrounding their main area of indigenous settlement, they are considered a threat to all of the states in which they live.

That said, the situation of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is vastly different. You're right that it's neither colonialism nor apartheid, but it has elements of each.

5:50 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)