<< LOVE ALL ~ MAIN ~ ERWIN KREMER >>
VIEW EVOLVES
Antony Loewenstein in his book:
I support the State of Israel and believe in its existence.
Antony Loewenstein at his blog:
When will Jews start to realise that the establishment of Israel was in fact against their interests?
I notice the first comment on his site is from good old Ed Maryiani. This peanut teaches “economics” at the Uni I used to work for even though his experience in economics is limited to untying the 20 cent piece his Mum tied in the corner of his hanky for “little lunch”. He actually wears a purple suit with a fez to work! I’m not kidding folks, although he once corrected me. Apparently it’s not a fez, it’s a “poonce” or a “pitz” or a “pizza-shit” or something. It looked like a fez to me.
What this guy knows about economics could be scratched on an Aspro with a crowbar. He seems to have found a permanent place sucking Anty boys bum. I suppose that’s the best a friendless public service economist can hope for. I pity the poor suckers whom he lectures.
He was for Israel before he was against it.
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2007 01 15 at 08:14 AM • permalinkHe speaks one thing and says another. He definitely learnt that from Arafat.
And then he will claim, like the Mufti, that he was ‘taken out of context’ if someone points out his flaws.
Yeah well Antony, until you can actually discern the sex of certain members of the Israeli Government, you have no hope of ever being taken seriously.
Posted by The Best Infidel on 2007 01 15 at 08:29 AM • permalink#4
And then he will claim, like the Mufti, that he was ‘taken out of context’ if someone points out his flaws.
No he won’t. He doesn’t actually engage his critics at all. He censors them and hopes that nobody will notice.
Dan, that’s more fun than I deserve just before going to bed.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2007 01 15 at 08:47 AM • permalinkOnce again, Flavius Antonius answers that two thousand year old question first posed by his distinguished ancestor: “Who do you want me to be, sailor?”
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 01 15 at 12:05 PM • permalinkI don’t see the contradiction. He supports Israel and he thinks Israel harms the interests of Jews.
That’s Ant in a nutshell.
Posted by tim maguire on 2007 01 15 at 12:09 PM • permalink#13
What was the name of Ant’s book again? The Jewish Question?
If it’s about Ant, then it’s probably The Questionable Jew.
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2007 01 15 at 01:30 PM • permalinkSo, Mr. Lowenstein - how did the Jews do when they had no state and were at the mercy of whomever happened to be their sovereign at the time? Not so hot, eh? [A few examples: Germany 1930s and 1940s, Spain 1492, Russia and Poland - the word “pogrom” mean anything to ya? There has even been nervous time here in the US with people like Henry Ford, Kennedy, et al running around back in the day blaming Jews for every ill.]
But the state of Israel is contrary to their interests…
Posted by Major John on 2007 01 15 at 01:58 PM • permalinkPersonally, I think Lowenstein is very much a nothing. He doesn’t warrant a post by Tim.
I say bring back Margo! She was fun to lambast and ridicule.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 01 15 at 03:28 PM • permalinkLoewy is simply taking a page from the Muslim handbook: saying one peaceful thing to one group of people, and saying the contradictory violent thing to another group (if a group actually read his blog, that is). There’s no Hebrew or Yiddish word for taqiyyah that I know of, but in English we call it “lying”.
Belief in God: Easy, the world is charged with the grandeur ....etc!
Belief in Santa Claus: Hard to shake, even at my age.
Belief in Tooth Fairy: important for some.
Belief in Easter Bunny: well, ok - just for the kiddies’ sakes.
Belief in The Two State Solution: I think we’re into the realms of fantasy here.ON/OFF/ON Topic. Hilary says something (I think, had to listen three times) about PA sponsored TV and “shahada”.
Check to the Paleo attempt to invoke “context”.
Seriously, this is worth a view—maybe House/Senate will rethink releasing funds or resuming aid to the PA.
Via Palestinian Media Watch, here’s the (edited) link of the Senate hearing
Much more important than whatever this Ant insect writes or thinks…
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 01 15 at 06:30 PM • permalinkWho said what about being able to hold two contradictory thoughts simultaneously?
Has he been reading to much F. Scott Fitzgerald?
Or perhaps The Other, unfunny, Marx: But once it has managed to pose itself as a thesis, this thesis, this thought, opposed to itself, splits up into two contradictory thoughts.
What came fuirst, the book or the blog?
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 01 15 at 07:28 PM • permalinkWith Lowenstein, as on Hilarious Hilali, the appeal will be the same -to ‘the context’.
Leftist Ross Fitzgerald diagrees -context has no meaning for him, even for a few Christians quoting the Koran in private:
““In his summing up of the [Vic. Incitement to racism] appeal, the presiding judge, Geoffrey Nettle, said: “It is conceivable that a statement made about religious beliefs in the course of a talkback radio broadcast could run foul of section eight of the act while the same thing said as part of intellectual discourse within a seminary or faculty of theology would not have that effect.”
In censorship parlance at the Office of Film and Literature Classification, it’s called context, but it’s a ..big furphy
Looks like Hilali better watch out.. from the Left.
And then there’s this link.
Of course, the Ant may say that while he is an anti-zionist he believes in the right of Israel to exist…but what he means is a nation with greater rights for suicide bombers.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 01 15 at 08:46 PM • permalink#26 “Trust me” is neither Hebrew nor Yiddish.
In Hebrew the word for truth is emet. Emet consists of the letters aleph, mem and tav, the aleph being the very first letter, the mem exactly at the middle of the aleph-beit, and the tav the very last letter.
Thus, the word for truth spans the Hebrew language, symbolizing that one’s entire course in life must be made up of truth, from the beginning and the middle to the end.
The great sage Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky was once visiting a Jewish school in New York, when he noticed something unusual about the mezuzah. It was affixed much lower on the doorpost than is customary. It turned out that this was an innovation designed to make it easier for the children to reach the mezuzah to touch it, thus making the mitzvah literally more accessible to them.
Rabbi Kamenetsky did not approve. “Put the mezuzah on the upper third of the doorpost, where it belongs,” he said, “and let them use a stool to reach it. Otherwise, they will grow up thinking a mezuzah can be put anywhere you wish. One does not raise children with falsehood.”
The life that is taught and the life that is lived are inseparable. Contrast the above anecdote with the secular attitude articulated by Bertrand Russell who, when caught having an affair with one of his female students, explained away any conflict with his standing as an ethical philosopher with the remark, “You don’t have to be a parallelogram to teach geometry.”
“Trust me”, Dan, there is no Taqqiyah in Judaism.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 01 16 at 05:42 PM • permalink#28 Clarification: I have been unable to discover any thing resembling the Quranic concept of canonically sanctioned taqiyyah in Judaism—I cannot, of course, speak to the ethics of individuals
Nothing in the 24 books comprising the Tanach (i.e, Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings)); nothing in various other Apocrypha. Nothing in the Mishna or commentaries.
The nearest reference may be found in the writings of Maimon (his son, Moses ben Maimon [1135 - 1204] is better known as Maimonides.)
Maimon apparently comforted Jews forcibly converted to Islam by assuring them that their real faith was the genuine belief concealed within their hearts.
In fact, Jewish law allows violation of all laws under duress—save for idolatry, forbidden sexual intercourse, and murder.
For the latter three, one is expected to give his or her life rather than transgress.
There is no actual prohibition against pretending to be an adherent of another religion, unless this would lead to a violation of the aforementioned laws.
Ideed, under the Spanish Inquistion, following the Reconquista, some Jews in Spain and Portugal publicly professed Catholicism, but more or less remained true to the Jewish faith. They were called Marranos by the Christians.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 01 16 at 08:27 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
The Leftenstein strikes again. The duality of man writ large.
Or else he’s bipolar.