Caroline Glick, “Our World: The convenient war against the Jews”, Jerusalem Post:
The anti-Semitic belief that all Jews are Zionists and therefore all Jews are fair game in the war against Israel – itself simply another round of the age-old war against the Jews – allows anti-Semites to obfuscate the fact that their anti-Israel rhetoric is simply warmed over Jew-hatred. People like Iranian leaders Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, and Palestinian terrorists from the PLO and their progeny in Hamas and Hizbullah nearly always limit their threats to “Zionists,” and so pretend that they aren’t actually anti-Semites.
Their razor-thin deception is eagerly embraced by their fellow travelers in the West – from university professors like Juan Cole, Steven Walt and John Mearshimer, to policymakers like Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Western decision-makers and European heads of state, and an alarming number of American politicians.
This deception is par for the course of anti-Semitism. Throughout history anti-Semites have used Jew-hatred as a way to rally their troops. By attacking Jews as the collective enemy, tyrants have given their people a convenient, weak culprit to attack to deflect criticism away from their own failures or to hide real enemies from pacifistic publics uninterested in fighting. Anti-Semitism appeals to people’s basest instinct. But people don’t like to acknowledge how much they hate Jews, and Jews have always preferred to deny that they are hated.
So anti-Semitic leaders have disguised their appeal to base instinct by pretending that they are actually appealing to sublime aspirations. In the case of the Nazis for instance, Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels appealed to Germanic pride and love for the Fatherland. Today, the Left appeals to people’s aspirations for peace and justice. It is only by permitting and indeed enabling Jews to die and the Jewish state to be destroyed that “peace” can be secured and the Palestinians can receive “justice.”
THIS STRATEGY appeals to European – and to greater and lesser degrees American – policymakers for two reasons. First, as French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner made clear in an interview with Ha’aretz on Friday, while the West understands that Islamic jihadists seek the destruction of Europe and the US, they believe – in part because their own anti-Semitism leads them to exaggerate Jewish power – that they will get away with coddling the Arabs and Iran because Israel will protect them.
Referring to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Kouchner said that no one is particularly worried about Iran’s nuclear threat because everyone believes that Israel will attack Iran for them. In his words, “I honestly don’t believe that [a nuclear arsenal] will give any immunity to Iran. First, you [Israel] will hit them before [they acquire nuclear weapons]… Because Israel has always said that it will not wait for the bomb to be ready. I think that they [the Iranians] know. Everybody knows.”
What is ironic about this view is that it exposes the inversion of anti-Semitic rhetoric. Five years ago, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamed told an approving audience of Islamic heads of state, “The Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.”
But the West’s belief that Israel will protect it from Iran shows that the opposite is true. The West is absolutely certain that Israel is its proxy, and that Jews will fight and die protecting it from the forces of global terror and jihad.
THE SECOND reason the Western champions of “peace” have opted to sell Israel and the Jews out to the jihadists is because as anti-Semites, Western “anti-Zionists” fear Jewish power and therefore want us to be weak. So it is that for the past 40 years, European governments and the US State Department have bankrolled anti-Zionist groups in Israel like Peace Now, B’tselem and Four Mothers. So it is that they have blamed Israel for Palestinian terrorism. And even when Israel succumbs to all their demands for territorial withdrawals, they always manage to demand still more.
In the same interview with Ha’aretz for instance, Kouchner on the one hand praised Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for their willingness to surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, but argued that this is still not enough. Israel must also accept the free immigration of the hostile descendants of the Arabs who left Israel in 1948. That is, Israel must also agree to its own destruction in order to pave the way for “peace.” In his words, “The main problem is the refugees and Jerusalem, but more the refugees. Olmert and Livni do not have the perception of this.”
Kouchner for one is certain that Livni will come around to recognizing the need to allow hostile foreign-born Arabs to move here. “I think she will change. This is always the case for people that are in charge for politics and for life,” he claimed.
Kouchner soothed the reporters’ fears of national destruction by claiming that he’s probably not talking about more than 100,000 hostile Arabs immigrants. But that’s today.
If Livni does form a government and comes around to this view, leave it to the West to explain that placing “arbitrary” limits on Arab immigration is a human rights abuse, and that Israel’s Zionist racism is compelling the Arabs and Iran to kill Jews and Westerners around the world.
AND THIS brings us to perhaps the greatest irony of the West’s collusion with the Arabs and Iran in their war against the Jews. The logical outcome of the twin delusions of anti-Semitism – that Jews are all powerful and that the Jews must be cut down to size – is the destruction of Israel. And if that happens, the West will find itself in jaws of the Islamic jihadists they have been feeding the Jews to for four decades.
The West’s subversion of the Israeli elite has fomented a situation where many Israeli leaders have embraced their anti-Semitic views of Israel. Leaders like Livni and Olmert, and the media and academia in Israel, have largely accepted the notion that Israel is to blame for the global jihad. Today these leaders uphold Jewish weakness as an ideal. The longer these Western-supported elites remain in power, the larger the chance that Israel won’t attack Iran and that Israel will allow itself to be destroyed in the interest of pursuing “peace” with Palestinian terrorists.
And if Israel is destroyed, the West won’t be able to depend on us Jews to fight and die for them anymore. They will be all alone.
At the outset of the column (not excerpted here, Glick goes into detail about deals made by Italian leaders with terrorist organizations that allowed them to target Jews in exchange for promises not to attack Italy or Italian interests worldwide.
Which is why I urge you to read the whole column before commenting.
Glick sees in the late rhetoric of anti-“Zionism” some of the same indicators of “pragmatism” that she feels could be adopted by many Western left elites. My question to you is, is she right?
And if so, can I please has my gun now? Please?
(h/t Claudia A)
You are Jewish?
Seriously, I have no secular explanation for the world’s irrational hatred of Jews, but yeah, she is right. Some few generations of Jews escape this sort of misery, but this is about the only unifying aspect of humanity.
The more that terrorists are reborn as “freedom fighters” and the more Israel is blamed for “Palenstian” problems, the more likely other weak western nations will turn a blind eye to terrorism and cut deals with terrorists. Her prediction fits my worldview of a pragmatic West fairly well. I don’t see it happening in the U.S., though, but I expect that anti-jew sentiments will rise again, as they always seem to do. As a species, humans haven’t really changed all that much. Our cumulative knowledge is impressive, and our technology is increasingly more sophisticated, but we as a people are not much different than we were ten thousand years ago.
Jeff
Since Obamy has declared health care a ‘right’, and therefore decided that ‘right’ means to force other people to pay for things, then I guess your ‘right’ to keep and bear arms means Obamy will ensure other people provide you a gun.
Unless he scraps the 2d amendment because there would be a chance that it would increase the costs of healthcare to one of the Democratic voting blocs.
Random thoughts:
-Man, that Caroline is teh hotness
-if you were in Israel, they’d give you the gun, gratis. Probably in their Constitution somewhere, b/c Jews are smart.
-it takes balls to be a Jew.
-if we’re to believe in all 3 Abrahamic faiths, there will come a time when everybody is against the Jews & Israel. Yes, that includes the USA. Sorry, that’s just how it is.
-Luckily, we can each make own minds up & act differently, but I think its probably the act that’s important.
Pete:
Could be Baracky will raise taxes on smokers and gun owners, especially.
Wether she is right or not, you should already have a gun and know how to use it. All the mad martial arts skillz are pretty useless if your opponent can engage you effectively long before you can get close enough to him to do any damage. As the saying goes, “God created men, but Col. Colt made ’em equal”.
A sobering article. It seems that the Muslims have succeded in causing Italy at least to accept their extortionist proposal; in arge part by appealing to the ideology that somehow all Jews are Jewish first, and citizens of their respective country’s second. An amazing sentiment that I’ve often heard put forth here in America, but less though than in Europe.
What people don’t understand, especially Americans, is the eternal emnity, the age-old blood fued, that exists between the descendants of the middle-east kingdoms, now mostly Muslims, and the Jews. The same Islamic faith that is shared by most middle easterners is itself supremely intolerant of heretics; fundamentally they have a two-tiered social order, Muslims and Non-Muslims.
The espoused anti-semetic nature of the jihadists is basically a tool, employed by their leaders, to develop ideological solidarity. Even if we all caved to their demands today, and Israel ceased to exist, Iran would still work toward developing nuclear weapons, and the fundamental Islamists would still be looking for ways to overthrow the infidels so that they could achieve a world-wide Caliphate.
Make no mistake, this is struggle that has been going on for more than 1000 years, at varying levels of intensity. It is rooted in the theocratic nature of what is considered, by Muslims, to be a legitimate government. Unless Islam undergoes it’s own version of the European, Christian, reformation then the jihadists goals will to some degree be wed with the official positions of the nations it’s believers control, albeit more subtle in some cases.
In which case we may all want to get guns, especially if one lives in Detroit-i-stan…
I am making a list of people who I strongly believe did not read the whole column before commenting. Ok I’m number five.
I think smokers get a pass.
I am wondering what method was employed to make sure O didn’t have the Nicotine shakes like he did at the first debate.
I actually read the column first, and didn’t skim like I normally would, though I make no claims about the usefulness of any comments I leave. It’s frelling 93 degrees here and my brain is frying.
I have a searing emotional memory attached to these events. I was working at the time for a friend, a State Department Officer (renovating her home in DC) serving as liaison to the White House and working in close collaboration with Ollie North on capturing this fuck Abbas. I arrived for work at her home at 8:00am just as she was getting home from an all nighter in the White House situation room and the great success capturing Abbas. She was quite simply high as a kite on lack of sleep and elation at finally having a small victory after years of failure against the terrorists.
My partner and I both caught her joy as she told us what she could of the fight to get Abbas (this was a Delta operation and as such, pretty secretive so she couldn’t tell us much.) Plus, as I read in the paper later, someone was monitoring Egyptian communications with Abbas.
So she was home only briefly, to shower, change clothes and grab a bite to eat, then to go straight back to work to finish the details of extradition and so-on. But within minutes, before she could do any of that, the phone call from the White House came (it was Ollie). And her elation fell to a dark and grim gloom.
What? We asked. What just happened? The Italian Army has our guys surrounded on the tarmac and won’t let Abbas off the plane into our custody. They are threatening to shoot our people. We had to give this bastard up. And give him up we did. I’ve had a dim view of the Italians ever since. I’ll probably die still holding it.
“I’ve had a dim view of the Italians ever since. I’ll probably die still holding it.”
Great story. They do make some awesome wine, however.
Barollos, Barbarescos, you bet. I may have a dim view of the Italian whatevers (gov., politicians, etc.) but that doesn’t mean I don’t make pasta fresco twice a week.
a
Another of the many undercurrents in this campaign that have been swept under the rug by the MSM is the blatant anti-semitism among Obama’s movement.
I am not talking about legitimate criticisms of Israel that are dismissed as racism (the Walt and Mearshimer thesis), but actual, old-fashioned Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Holocaust-denial type of anti-semitism.
oh. Europe. I bet McCain probably plans on letting those bastards into his League of Democracies or whatever. And the cycle begins anew. Beats the shit out of Baracky though. Baracky voters hate them some Jews for breakfast.
Sdferr,
There is not much I can say except that the episode you cite was one of the lowest point in the history of Italy.
Can I touch your hair?
Brunellos or just about anything from Tuscany. Mmm, mmm.
Fk the Italians
Hey, I recommend you have two guns. One the government knows about that you can give up when they come for it, and one the government doesn’t know about that you can use when you need it. Just sayin’, is all.
Are Italians still being less than useless in Afghanistan?
“The anti-Semite necessarily defines himself as monumentally inferior to the Jew.”
-Shrinkwrapped Blog
I thought that comment was wise.
Ahh, an Italian conversation. Two points.
My grandmother, God love her, was a full blooded immigrant from Sicily, came to the US after WW2. Lovely person, but she had some strong opinions about Jews.
By some twist of fate, I saw that new Spike Lee movie, which was really a two part film consisting of 1/4 ‘hate whitey’ and 3/4 Italian movie revolving around partisans in a small mountain town. The point was that the Italians were supposedly more accepting of African-Americans than whites in the US at the time. I think Spike Lee likes Italians because they have strong Communist predilections.
she’s right. the Isrealis are basically alone here.
the euro’s are weak and getting weaker; we have protected them so long they no longer have the interest or capacity to imagine even having to do so for themselves. Like a teenager “rebelling” because they were told to clean up their large, private bedroom in their spacious house in a nice suburb, the Euro’s fret and lament every iteration of US foreign policy–or any reminder they are utterly dependant on us for the most elemental aspects of nationhood.
it doesnt help that out ability to really scare iran has been diminished by the sundry fuckups of the past several years. they cant be terribly impressed with our effort in Afghanistan, which has bordered on the unserious for awhile. Iraq proved great sport for them, until the surge.
still, short of a full shooting battle with US troops, which has zero chance of occurring, the Iranians are unlikely not terribly afraid of direct US action.
My best friend here in LA hates Jews. He’s from Europe. He hates the ones at the phone company especially. And all of the tech support ones.
Isn’t Hannity in trouble for hosting some crazy anti-semite (who also happens to hate Obama as well) last week?
The enemy of mine enemy is
my friendan anti-semite. Woops!! I thought it was us lefties who had the lock on the crazy anti-semites buddies (who we gushed stupidly over because they happened to also be against the Iraq war).To address your post: I always get nervous about people who yap about anti-zionism vs. anti-semitism. There may be a difference in definition, but the people who claim anti-zionism are invariably also anti-semites. I don’t think Israel is immune from criticism. But discussing whether Israel screwed up by bombing Lebanon with a purported “anti-zionist” invariably leads to some creepy conversation about Jewish influence on American foreign policy and banking and the Protocols of Zion or some batshittery. The sensible folks on the left address it and condemn the anti-semites, but get shouted down by the folks who love that these guys are anti-war and anti-neocon.
The euros also don’t have any more babies. 4 grandparents for a single grandchild, inverted family tress and all that, cf. Mark Steyn’s book. Very possible they’re trying to be nice to the demographic that’s going to fill the vacuum so helping Israel not so high on the list of priorities.
Sadly, my MIL casually hates Jews as well. Those poor Palistinians…
“I don’t think Israel is immune from criticism”
I don’t think they are either, but if I were a smart anti-semite, I would mask my rhetoric in the language of anti-zionism, sorta like how exactly Iran and pals do it, because then Western chaps like Foucault and R. Fisk get all melty for them.
Jimmy Carter is a raving Jew-hater I think. He’s on NPR a lot and you can tell.
No one wants to bell the cat. In this instance they believe that cat will go away if a mouse is sent out as a sacrifice. The truth, as Ms. Glick noted, is that the cat won’t be satisfied with just one mouse, and the rest of the mice know it – they just don’t want to admit it. To admit it means doing something hard and necessary.
No one wanted to die for Abyssinia.
There’s another language post for you Jeff in Jimmuah C’s apartheid book. Sort of like how calling someone a “racist” lacks the connotation of actual racism and deflates the term, while calling out Israel for apartheid policies renders the term meaningless.
Lisa,
that post is the absence of wrong. Sort of like the sly racism of the early 70s, “Some of my best friends are black…”
No one wanted to die for Czechoslovakia, either.
They still had to fight in the end.
I think Dinner Jacket realized most people are hip to his spin, because the other day or week he said something like “our quarrel is not with the people of Israel but the Israeli gov’t.”
On the other hand, in Do The Right Thing Spike Lee does not show a huge deal of love for Italians.
Back to the actual topic of the post…
I think that tranzism is one of the reasons for the hate of Israel: in an age where the intellectual elites were supposed to have found enlightement and abhorred those barbaric tools of war and violence, Israel was fighting and – horror! – winning wars, for its indipendence and survival. That’s ideological apostasy, a deadly sin.
Palestinians are welfare-case drama queens. Nonetheless, I support a 2 state solution b/c then the Palis will attack Israel and Israel will wipe them off the planet, settling the question forevermore.
But Glick still has a point, in that my scenario spills their blood. But, you know, nobody’s telling the Pali drama queens to attack them, are they? Oh, noes….
tranzism. oh. NPR has been hinting a lot at how having different countries and stuff is making this whole financial thing way more complicated than it needs to be. They haven’t really driven that one home yet that I’ve heard.
When someone says to me that the Jews are running everything, I tell them I don’t believe it because if they were I think things would be running a lot more smoothly.
Pronoun abuse. I condemn myself.
Palestinians are kind of a debased people for real I think. You just can’t sit on your ass in a U.N. camp for more than, say, twenty, thirty years and not develop some self-esteem issues I don’t think.
The Palis are probably mucho resentful at Israel not just because they lost war after war after war after war and didn’t push them into the sea as they like to say, but because their economy is pretty good, like more high tech companies than all of Western Europe and pretty much no oil reserves. The whole inferiority complex leads to anti-semitism thing.
I think Jeff, you’re hitting at Nietzsche and his eternal return business. The Jews were weak and dispersed in Europe, whereupon they were slaughtered, then become strong and concentrated in Israel, now the physical strength still remains, but the world hammers them day in for merely defending themselves and the whole business of debasing themselves to Western Intellectuals makes the military prowess moot.
But also there’s this Baracky person whose Baracky voters hate them some Jews for breakfast. Last night he was on the tv saying how cause of George Bush the Iranians, who hate them some jews in a sort of 24-hr Las Vegas buffet kind of way, went from like x many centrifuge thingers to a whole lot more. But Baracky knows that Bush had a plan for that but the European fag people, meaning French ones and German ones and British ones, what they did was say hey let us talk to them in our European language of faggy reason. And they dicked around in their faggy European way until Bush had to step back in at a point when his military options were different. Baracky is dishonest and he covers for the European fag people and blames America is what his game is.
After the horror of the last century I don’t know why any jew anywhere would’t own some sort of firearm.
#39
I don’t favor giving the palis anymore of anything, unless its a kick in the ass. Gaza proves my point. They were handed Gaza with everything intact. A complete infrastructure, homes, even ready to run businesses(those greenhouses) just about everything they needed to be self sufficient. It was a perfect opportunity to prove to world that they were capable of self governance. Today Gaza is a steaming pile of shit wholy of the Palestinians making.
Fuck em. They are a waste of time and resources.
neocon = Jew? Damn. I’m in good company.
So which, if your analysis is correct (and I think it is, hf) then who Baracky really is hating on, when we get right down to it, is us.
So like, thanks Baracky, I’ll take that to the bank.
jeff,
even though I do not support your support of idiotic GOP,
have a great Yom Kippur.
And btw, Arabs were fucking Italians especially in the south of the Peninsula for too many centuries. So it does not surprise me…
A lot of Israel hate is about the Jews but also about their alliance with the USA putting them in the way of Soviet-style communism.
It occurs to me Ayers and Dohrn were fucking nuts over Vietnam for the same reason.
Overly simplistic perhaps but it seems a contributing factor.
Tim McNabb:
FabioC:
Really, guys? There’s no mystery, and no need to cite post-, pre-, anti-, or neo-modernism — nor any sense to the latter, really, since the phenomenon has persisted for millenia. It’s Willie Sutton, neither more nor less.
Jewish society works better than its competitors. Wherever you look, in the world or down through history, if a mixed population has a Jewish minority that group will be notably more prosperous than the surrounding people. (I have a prejudice as to why that might be so, but reasons are irrelevant.)
When you’re running a society that doesn’t produce wealth (or doesn’t at the same rate) you have questions to answer from the populace. The easiest answer is “Oh, they cheat.” That’s especially true if, like most societies, the one in question is run by oligarchs who consider it their absolute right to take what they want. It’s never good to rob anybody; on the other hand, it’s virtuous to punish cheaters and criminals. Treating the successful as cheaters and criminals simultaneously takes the peoples’ eyes off you and your unsuccessful policies and procedures, and provides a rich source of takings. Sutton’s Rule: Because that’s where the money is! All the nasty myths (blood seders, etc.) are in support of that. The root is envy and frustration.
This is most obvious in the case of European anti-Semitism. The “feudal” societies that grew up after the fall of the Roman Empire could hardly have been better designed as dissipators and preventers of prosperity and wealth; the Jews of the Diaspora, as usual (and more spectacularly in that case) set up systems that allowed them to build and accumulate wealth and prosperity, in distinct contrast to the general run. A European Prince could hardly be said to exist without having two experiences: launching a pogrom against the damned Jews, and going hat-in-hand to a Rothschild for a loan to support his habits. On the rare occasions where a Prince actually managed to exterminate or expel the Jews, things generally went downhill afterwards. They had to tolerate Jews, but also had to vilify them in order to justify robbing them. Mohammad had much the same problem.
Nowadays, of course, Israel is an order of magnitude more productive, and more wealthy, than all its neighbors combined. This is an intolerable affront to the neighbors; since they cannot imagine that there could possibly be any deficiency in they way they run their countries, it must of necessity be that the Jews are cheating, and cheaters are fair game to everybody.
Parallels may occur to you.
Regards,
Ric
Also it’s not fair for Jews to show everyone up over there. Just downright oppressive for them to succeed
Lefty history wrt Israel is eh weird. At first, they were bully for Israel b/c it was the UN’s creation and it was kibbutz-style Socialist, with all the worker’s paradise crap. But then they were like ‘ick Jews’ and ‘why o why won’t the Palis thrive when the UN is putting them up too?’ and, just like whenever a Lefty plan goes pear-shaped, they lash out like poopyheads and call everybody teh stoopid.
Oh and b/c of the tranzi google-quest, I was re-reading den Beste’s response to Wretchard’s 3 conjectures. SDB had 4 things what would happen if the USA got nuked, if you’ll recall. Rereading the thing got me thinking about Baracky’s lazyboy response to such a thing.
Those apple slicer thingers work even better on pears than they do on apples. I note this because anti-Semitism is depressing and that freaky off-his-meds Denninger guy what Instapundit linked is depressing too. Even Alyssa is a nervous wreck. At least she’s not on about beans and firearms though.
oooooh Alyssa. I would use girl soap for her any day
One of my reactions to 9/11 was to study a bit of religious history, trying to figure out wtf everybody over there was so friggin’ pissed about. One of the interesting debates was who really crucified Jesus, the Jewish hierarchy or the Romans. There isn’t enough evidence either way to state conclusively, but if were the Romans it would sure explain a lot of things.
Excellent post , Rick.
One of your bestest.
thanks
In northern europe they were the original ‘other’. Clannish,closeknit, with extremely tight familial bonds. Strange religious rituals and dress. In good times something to be poked fun at. In bad times, the scapegoat for all of the communities fears. We as a race have evolved, hardly at all.
Way too late I guess, but @3 I meant I didn’t see the U.S. making a deal and harboring terrorists. I fully expect anti-jew sentiments to arise here again, probably in the wake of the credit crunch.
Theologically of course, it doesn’t matter who gave the order or who pounded the nails. Anyone calling himself a Christian who would try to shift blame onto either the Jews or Romans is not a Christian where it counts.
#57 BMoe:
My guess is the Romans wanted any troublemaker made an example of, and the Jewish hierarchy wanted any troublemaker that threatened them gone. The question was who was to take the ‘credit’ for it. Pilate had no problem nailing someone up, but he wanted the Temple along with it so they couldn’t turn around and use this Jesus of Nazareth as a martyr. The Temple had to bend to Rome, they had to acknowledge Rome’s authority to remove the threat, even as Pilate said “I wash my hands of this – I will do what you want done.” Rome had the power to enforce the Temple’s wishes – or not. And Rome did – but did not have to. They sought to game Rome, and instead got gamed hard, having to acknowledge Rome was over them. Pilate was sent there for a reason – he was good at what he did.
I read the whole thing… this particularly caught my eye:
Erm, blockquote crazy, me.
C’mon it was obviously the Romans. What Jew would use a damned crucifix to kill someone? The Temple stoned blasphemers, while Rome crucified criminals. This isn’t rocket science.
Erm, italicans too.
Besides, they sent a cohort to get Jesus from Gethsemane. A Cohors was a Roman military term for a squadron of men, around 500, the equivalent of the Greek xenagie. They wouldn’t have sent that kind of strength out for just a small band of peacenik rabble, so yeah, He was seen as a badass mofo back in the day. No need for confusion at all on Jew vs. Roman in this.
pfft. ‘Squadron’ should be ‘army’
Ah, the good old days of SDB and USS Clueless.
He has since traded nuked for chibis.
McGehee, you hit the nail squarely.
‘Battalion’ would be the better word, urthshu. Just as ‘company’ would more match a century. A Legion comes in best as a division, the largest permanent field organization, with a maniple being a constituent brigade. Auxiliary units are attached to a legion as circumstances demand, as are specialist units such as seige engineers.
The various powers in Judea wanted Jesus gone – just how that was going to be done, well – that is where the politics come in. And deploying a battalion to make sure that all remains peaceful as he is gathered in and imprisoned? Better to use too much force than too little, and then want.
See Somalia and the hunt for Mohammed Adid for why you might want to do that – the last thing Pilate wanted to hear – and report home – was ‘Blackhawk Down’. Amazing how the time rolls on but it all remains the same.
I think Pilate wanted to force the Temple to cleave hard and fast to Rome, to acknowledge Roman supremacy, so he made sure that this ‘messiah’, this ‘king of the Jews’ would be done in as much by them as by Rome. Rome would do the excution, but the local powers had to be the ones agitating for it. Kept them from making a martyr, a symbol of resistance to Rome; from them adopting him after the fact as a symbol.
Well done, Pontius Pilate. Machiaveli would have approved.
McGehee – not a Christian myself, but see your point enough.
Mikey NTH – I’m not well versed with that army stuff as I was Navy. ;^D
But, I think if you look at Rome’s attitude towards religions, it becomes clearer. They only persecuted 3 religions [celtic Druidism, Judaism, and Christianity] but absorbed all the rest. Why that is so is the interesting part to me.
The thing is, other than the Biblical accounts made decades or centuries later, there is nothing, nada, zip in the historical record about the event, which indicates it really wasn’t perceived as that big of a deal at the time, so Jesus likely didn’t have that much political clout. So he likely was killed for a more pedestrian transgression. Reformers and critical preachers and zealots weren’t considered that big of a deal by the Jewish authorities, oddballs and freaks were kind of a tradition. If one of them had committed a gross heresy, he would have been stoned as urthshu indicated. Crucifiction was a Roman deal, too expensive and elaborate for the locals.
The Romans also didn’t care about the local religious shenanigans, but they did care about property, especially the Temple, which they enjoyed exercising power over to remind the Jews they were subjects. Jesus attack on the Temple would have been considered a serious offense by the Romans, and they would likely have enjoyed using it to set an example of who the fuck was who.
Of course, this would have been quite embarassing later, when the Holy Roman Church began to develop, and the Jews would have been convenient scapegoats.
Theologically of course, it doesn’t matter who gave the order or who pounded the nails. Anyone calling himself a Christian who would try to shift blame onto either the Jews or Romans is not a Christian where it counts.
Absolutely correct theologically speaking. I was looking for political answers, and if the early Roman Church set up the Jews it matters a great deal historically.
Well, I won’t comment much more, as I would piss off waaay too many of you. But I’ll add:
-Rome persecuted religions based on whether they subverted basic Roman principles. Celts regarded gold as sacred, so that’s monetary subversion and not giving up the gold. In France and the like, there were official Roman versions of Druidism, but the celts of Ireland, Scotland, and out to the Low Countries maintained a separate trade system. You can read about various sacrificial bodies found along the trade networks, seeming to be magical protection thingers.
-Jews just wouldn’t worship Emperors. The Temple was sort of a compromise at the time of Jesus.
-Jesus was a combo of Maccabee purist [casting out moneychangers = money had graven images of false gods] and Essene mystic. Allowing Jesus to build up a following strengthened the Essene hillbilly crowd and threatened war with Rome. Had to protect those phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen!
No offense B Moe, urthshu, but you guys are making my eyes roll.
It sounds like you are trying to construct a reality wherein Jesus isn’t who he said he was. So you need to reassign motives and contemporary perceptions.
During that time, Israel had a theocracy governed by Rome. All the players had a sweet thing going on that they expected to support them in the way they had grown accustomed.
There were revolutionaries like Barabbas that wanted Judea to be ruled by Israel, naturally they had more sympathy among the Jews than the Romans.
Crucifixion wouldn’t be anything a Jew would do, not because of expense or ceremony, but because they had very specific rules for EVERYTHING.
Jesus came on the scene just like Obama, Only MUCH bigger and humbler. And there are few events in history with more proof
He had zero political clout, because he didn’t use it. He was all about tweaking the nose of the Jewish elites with Gods law. They used the Torah like Obama wants to use the constitution, so Jesus publicly defied their stupider laws, because the elites made them, not God.
By gathering the people behind Him in a way Ron Paul people can only wish, and threatening the authority of the elites, he sealed his fate. The Jewish leaders trumped up a charge of treason, and let the Romans do the dirty work.
I don’t see what it is you guys are grappling with.
No offense, lee, but I am trying to construct a reality based on accepted historical standards. If you choose to believe the Bible, more power to you, I respect your faith. But it is faith, other than the Bible, there is no other written history of Jesus from the time he lived. The Romans were fanatic record keepers, if Jesus had been considered a significant threat or factor of any kind at the time, it would almost certainly have been recorded.
As I said earlier, all of this is just speculation, but from a purely historical perspective, the Romans crucifying him for vandalizing the Temple makes the most sense. The Romans took destruction of Roman property much more seriously than the Jews considered radical preachers.
No offense taken, Lee. I’m aware my opinions would upset alot of Christians.
>>It sounds like you are trying to construct a reality wherein Jesus isn’t who he said he was.
Not trying at all.
B Moe, what happened is, the Jews went to the Roman authorities and told them Jesus would tell the people not to pay taxes, and he wants to be king. Pilate told them they had noth’in. He sent him to Herod, who happened to be there, and Herod disgustedly sent him back. Pilate, against his preferences, was forced to sacrifice Jesus.
As for historical standard, denying that there was a Jew named Jesus who preached in Galilee two thousand years ago is like denying there was an ice age.
Visit a glacier and call it a snowdrift if you like, but the evidence is apparent all around you.
But no fear, I know without belief, Christianity seems stupid. The sun melts wax but hardens clay, and all that.
I don’t hold it against you if you have a dead philosophy. ;)
Urthshu, I’m not upset at all. Just confused at the search for the glasses on your nose.
Oh, goody. Theology. Now we can run everybody off :-)
The Romans were complicated. Simple answers don’t work. Jews were persecuted, yes, but primarily because they wouldn’t go along with Roman polytheism. Remember the Roman attitude toward power: if you had it, you were part of the Government or part of the problem, pretty much a binary choice. What we know today as the Roman “Catholic” (= a cross between universal [or, better, universally applicable], indifferent, and official) Church began as a Roman bureaucracy to coordinate feast days, parades, offering collections, and temple construction; if we had a Federal Department of Religion it might come close. Jews who wouldn’t go along with that were perceived (rightly) as anti-Roman. Not all of them maintained that attitude. Remember that Saul of Tarsus, definitely a Jew, was not merely a Roman citizen but a tax collector. (Privatization? Ha! Roman tax collectors were private contractors working on commission.)
If that were the ultimate source of anti-Semitism there would be (as urthshu points out) a roughly equal anti-Druidism. It didn’t happen.
Regards,
ric
Lee, Bmoe, ushthu, and etc. Thanks for the reminder that reasoned discourse can yet exist. Ciao.
If that were the ultimate source of anti-Semitism there would be (as urthshu points out) a roughly equal anti-Druidism. It didn’t happen.
Then where are all the Druids today?
And about religion, too, cynn!
THIS STRATEGY [Jew hatred/blame] appeals to….
people who hate themselves and life – and btw who are, therefore, not Classical Liberals.
So, yes, this kind of “pragmatism” will almost necessarily be “adopted by…Western elites”. As will any other hatred which exhibits these particular hominid’s hate of life and their instinctive knowing failure as to their inability to be able to deal with it.
Finally, the “pragmatism” of such entities involves annihilation of the species.
What a show, ladies and gentlemen, what a show!
[…] complicity in Arab […]
Well, there was a reason why my comment began with the “Th” word. I certainly understood that the discussion going on around me wasn’t about theology but I also know there’s bound to be somebody lurking who might try to argue that blaming da Joooooz is TEH CHRISTIAN thing to do.
I don’t know if my comment headed that off, or if it was like the guy throwing papers out of the New York City bus to scare away wild elephants.
Lee, B Moe, Urthshu and Ric…nice dialogue. I’ll second cynn’s comment. After reading the dialogue, I’m having a hard time seeing the disagreement. It has always been my understanding that the Romans officially had Jesus killed for the same reason you all mentioned. He abused the temple. And McGehee’s comment is perfect. It doesn’t matter who killed Jesus, from a Christian perspective. The only thing that matters is that he died for us.
Rather that should say, “unofficially”.
B Moe,
In answer to your assertions that the only record of “the event”(we might have to decide exactly that that entails) is in the Bible, and He wasn’t a big deal at the time, I ask you to consider this:
The Romans started killing every Christian they could get their hands on. Used them as lion kibbles at the coliseum. Way before the formation of the Catholic Church. There is record of that, no?
The Catholic Church regards Peter as its first Pope. Peter was one of the martyred. I think from a historical-record standpoint it’s reasonable to say that Rome began trying to suppress Christianity as soon as it detected it. I think what that argues is that Christ’s teachings and his life — and especially his resurrection (I’m using the non-theological rules of capitalization for the purpose of this discussion) — were certainly a big deal to his followers and to those who joined them. There’s a considerable difference between one man teaching a message, and a growing movement devoted to that message.
It’s also worth bearing in mind the time lag between the end of Christ’s ministry and the spread of his message to Europe. Presumably the Romans had already heard of “this new Jewish cult” making its way through the provinces, and had plenty of time to start getting worried before it showed up in the city itself.
Rome began trying to suppress Christianity as soon as it detected it within its own walls, that should be.
According to Eusebius, in the first century in particular, there was a problem with some a sect of Christians who taught that Jesus was a common man who became King, and that he taught any man could become a King regardless of their birth status. This was considered heretical by Eusebius who believed in the virgin birth, (I wish I still had a copy of the book and could give direct quotes and cites, sorry) and a political threat by the Romans who believed royalty could only be born to royalty. Eusebius stated that these barbaric fake Christians were the ones fed to the lions and gladiators. There is additional evidence that the killing was more widespread, but that is the earliest and most direct account by an actual Christian I could find.
In answer to your assertions that the only record of “the eventâ€Â(we might have to decide exactly that that entails) is in the Bible…
I am referring to the trial(s) and crucifixion itself. Since the four Gospels themselves don’t agree exactly on what happened, historians have been searching for other accounts for a long time now, and there just isn’t any.
No citings of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny or Cassius Dio; on the topic?
I am referring to the trial(s) and crucifixion itself.
Thanks, it helps to focus the discussion.
Since the four Gospels themselves don’t agree exactly on what happened, historians have been searching for other accounts for a long time now, and there just isn’t any.
Perhaps the gospels aren’t told the same way, but they all agree that it was the Jewish leaders, religious teachers, and law makers who brought Jesus to Pilate, who was reluctant to do their dirty work.
Can I assume there is no contrary evidence, since the search has been such a long one? In the absence of alternative evidence, I’m comfortable accepting the gospel version, especially since all following history supports it.
To the larger point, it is ridicules to rationalize antisemitism with the idea it was the Jews who killed the Christ.
Jesus was a Jew!
To the larger point, it is ridicules to rationalize antisemitism with the idea it was the Jews who killed the Christ.
Jesus was a Jew!
Perhaps, but there is ample evidence that is exactly what the early Roman Church did. You have to realize it would have been rather embarassing for Rome to confess to killing their own Savior, and they did control the narrative.
Boy Howdy! Did they control the narrative!
No citings of Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny or Cassius Dio; on the topic?
Nothing I found except a very brief couple of paragraphs in Josephus that appeared to have been added later, the writing style was obviously different, and seemed to be Christian in origin.
Perhaps, but there is ample evidence that is exactly what the early Roman Church did.
I’m not sure what you are arguing here. You say the early Christian church was antisemetic?
I’m sure there was a lot of grievance at the time, Christians were teaching Christ had come, and the law of Moses was over. No need to sacrifice animals or follow dietary laws, or rely on religious leaders to speak to God. The strife at the time was a necessary placing of blame on the legalistic generation of Jewish elite that disposed of Jesus, not Jewish tradition or population in general.
Is calling a spade a spade racist, if you have a hole to dig?
I’m not sure what you are arguing here. You say the early Christian church was antisemetic?
I am saying the Church in Rome at its founding may have placed undue blame for Christ’s crucifixion on the Jews, which led to the the later pogroms and antisemitism displayed throughout Europe.
I gotta ask…what is “undue blame”?
And, evil always rationalizes. Blaming it on the early church’s version of events is quite a stretch, given that the Christ is through the “Chosen ones”, of the House of David.
I’m not saying you are evil B Moe, I’m saying those that slaughter Jews may say they are on the side of the Angels, because of the intent to revenge Christ, but that is the exact opposite of the Christian Churches teachings, like forgiving your enemies, confronting evil with love, judge not lest you be judged,
If I say Obama should not be elected, and someone uses that to justify killing Obama supporters, that’s on them, not on me.
Yeah but saying that Obama should not be elected is different than saying that Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. One is a teensy bit more incendiary than the other.
Oh and don’t get any ideas….everybody just stay where they are…(backs slowly out of the room clutching her Obama ’08 t-shirt).
You are no doubt right Lisa; doesn’t change what I said though…
CHICKEN!!
lol
Hey! I know!! Maybe you could buy an Italian war surplus gun. Most have never been fired and only dropped once..
I’m saying those that slaughter Jews may say they are on the side of the Angels, because of the intent to revenge Christ, but that is the exact opposite of the Christian Churches teachings, like forgiving your enemies, confronting evil with love, judge not lest you be judged…
That’s what you say here and now. Other Christians throughout history, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, haven’t always agreed with you. None of what I am trying to say is meant as an indictment of Christianity, in fact I see it more as an indictment on the various political powers at the time influencing and corrupting the message and using Christianity purely as a political tool. I am just expressing my opinions on what conclusions I, and others, have drawn from the facts as far as they can be known.
. None of what I am trying to say is meant as an indictment of Christianity,
I get that, you’re cool. :)
[…] deals were similar in kind to those struck by, for instance, Italy with Palestinian terror groups who desired free reign to go after […]