Two book recommendations for you.

 

1  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

 

2 http://www.kingsengland.com/always.htm

 

I'm sure you'll gain pleasure and benefit from reading both, although I'm not quite sure in which order that is likely to be. 

I would be particularly interested in reading your considered response to that article by Peter Hitchens I recently posted.

 

btw: Apparently,( as a Brit ) I am now honour bound to give you at least 2 marks out of 27, even if you decide to flip me the bird, so what ya gotta lose?

 

 

http://www.examiner.com/Topics-Britain_Exam_Expletives.html

 

Christopher Catherwood (2004): Churchill's Folly - How Winston Churchill created Modern Iraq.

1) Nobody is born "morally superior" to anybody else.  Whether anyone is morally superior/inferior depends on that person's intentions and deeds.  Only to the extent that the intentions and deeds of particular individuals are influenced or 'determined' by their surrounding culture(s) could one speak of groups being "morally superior" compared with others.  But, it is a two-way street.  While culture determines the individual to a great extent, the individual can also help determine culture. Given that humans are social beings and are dependent on their surrounding culture, the moral quality of any individual's intentions and actions will to some extent be influenced by the degree of 'cultural resistance' that is needed to be overcome to achieve moral 'good'.  In short, it should be 'easier' for kapitein Andre in contemporary Germany to respect the freedom-of-speech and of conscience of a fellow German, than it would be for a typical Egyptian intellectual in contemporary Egypt.  If it is 'easier' for KA than for the Egyptian, then it would be less morally-deserving for KA than for the Egyptian.  Human morality is generally about matters that are 'difficult' and that are requiring sacrifice.  It is not about feeling 'good' about oneself.  While KA writes that jews are not "morally inferior or equal to muslims", one must hope that he realises that jews are (generally) not "morally inferior or equal" to contemporary Germans either, nor to any other group for that matter.   

2) America's persistant support for Israel has little or nothing to do with "neoconservatism".  Ever since the founding of modern Israel, that support has been rooted in the power of US public opinion to help determine US foreign policy, often over the objections and 'concerns' of cliques and 'elites' (e.g like State Department 'Arabists' for example).  It is certainly not based on any 'triumph of a small lobby over the public will', a misperception that is widely parroted in the media in Europe and elsewhere.    Americans are (still) more prone to making moral judgements than Europeans generally are.  So, the American public can see the democratic nature of Israel's polity, and they see a fellow democracy in danger.  The American public has also been more concerned (than Europeans) about the reality of persecution of Christians around the world, in earlier times under communism, and more recently in the muslim world.   The kapitein is on to something with his reference to "Evangelical Christianity".  It is probably true that a series of religious revivals in the US, after the destructive 1960's, have something to do with this.  But it is certainly not limited to "Evangelicals".

These matters are extensively discussed by Walter Russell Mead in "The Deep Roots of American Zionism", to be found in the current (July/August 2008) issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. 

Could it possibly be true that, "prior to the establishment and recognition of Israel, the jews perpetrated terrorism against both Arabs and British in the Holy Land"? If so, could one still be a supporter of the modern state of Israel while at the same time recognizing those historical realities, and must that individual always be a supporter of the neocon agenda? Well, let's see...

 

http://www.amconmag.com/10_06_03/feature.html

 

 

 

I. The Brussels Journal expends an "inordinate" amount of time and energy trying to prove that Jews are morally superior to Muslims.

 

II. Prior to the establishment and recognition of Israel, the Jews perpetrated terrorism against both the Arabs and British in the Holy Land. Even the paramilitaries and regular forces committed war crimes such as ethnic cleansing and collective punishment.

 

III. The Brussels Journal's definition of Zionism is incorrect. The lands formerly comprising Judea are central to Zionism. Jewish Territorialists, on the other hand, were prepared to establish states as far afield as Australia, Poland, South America and even Alaska, in order to escape ethnic cleansing and/or genocide.

 

IV. While Jews do not seek a global Jewish state or to exterminate non-Jews, their interests expand beyond Israel due to the Diaspora. These interests in the main are focused on preventing another Shoah, and are not necessarily beneficial to the host nation.

 

V. I am still confounded by Neoconservatism's staunch support for Israel, or why the Brussels Journal is determined that the Islamic threat will be met by a united Judeo-Christian front. I can only assume that it relates to Evangelical Christianity stance on Israel and the Jews.

 

VI. I realize that my comments will attract all manner of pro-Israeli counter-attacks and arguments. However, readers will note that I have not argued that Jews are morally inferior or equal to Muslims.

@ Atlanticist

13 minutes is about enough of a "break" for Amsterdamsky-version II.

Two observations:

-- Note his equating of goals ("got what they want") for islamists and zionists.  Apparently, refusal to make empirical observations and addiction to moral relativism are the same in Detroit, California , and Amsterdam. 

-- Note the old canard of "owning nearly all the major WESTERN media outlets".  Is that why Israel and jews are so popular in Europe?  My God, you would think that Amsterdamsky would occasionally manage to leave his 'coffee house' in Amsterdam and actually read a European newspaper or watch a European TV channel, and draw a sensible conclusion from that.

I'd be happy to give you a break, but I digress. Perhaps we can make this a reciprocal arrangement, so you tell me, how long do you want?

"But of course Jews are not flying airplanes into the sides of skyscrapers, or blowing up pizzerias or buses or trains with bomb vests, or lobbing mortars at Muslim schools, and using quotes from the Torah to justify it. "

They certainly did under the British mandate until they got what they wanted. Now they quote from the Torah to justify their genocide and continued expansion in the "Promised Land". They are two branches of the same penis mutilation cult only one has better connection to the west. The "Chosen" are also much better at propaganda and owning nearly all of the major media outlets in the west certainly helps this.