| Subject: Re: fundamentalism is scary |
Author:
Raisinmom
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 04:55:20 07/10/02 Wed
In reply to:
Astrid
's message, "Re: fundamentalism is scary" on 00:17:11 07/10/02 Wed
Aargh, I had a big response done and lost it. Please note that it was much more eloquent than what follows:
>I wanted to comment more on this idea (that it is fair
>game to criticise those who accept the financial aid
>of fundamentalist Christians whose goal is to convert
>the Jews of Israel). I tried to think of a parallel
>to explain why I think this is odd to the point of
>self-loathing. Imagine if a segment of the African
>American population began a movement to relocate to a
>nation in Africa (Liberia, say ;-) and white
>supremicists offered to pay their voyages. They could
>accept this money as it furthers their goals, but
>isn't it almost conceding that the supremicists have a
>laudable goal in mind?
>
>Aren't those who support Israel in the conflict with
>the Palestinians just saying that these
>fundamentalists have a legitimate role to play in all
>of this? I don't know, I do think one has to be
>careful of who they ally themselves with, for both
>practical and moral reasons.
No, I disagree. There is nothing problematic with accepting support of Christian fundamentalists -- that's the political process at work. It doesn't mean that one agrees that the *end* goal of fundamentalists is laudable, simply that the *intermediate* goal (support of Israel) is. Zionists can worry about the conversion problem later if necessary (it's not like Jews haven't been the target of conversion efforts in the past, ha ha, and in the meantime Israel is the more pressing problem). One group need not agree completely with the politics of another for them to combine to achieve at least one goal -- if your distaste for political alliance were more broadly shared, almost nothing important would get done. For example, should those who believe with every fiber of their being that capital punishment is wrong and a danger to civilized life turn away support of fundamentalists who agree because every life is sacred and only God has the right to terminate life? Of course not. Similarly, should the African-Americans in your example refuse the money of white supremicists? Maybe, but this is cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. They would do better to take the money and laugh their asses off on the way to Africa. Again, they don't have to agree with the *end* goal, just the *immediate* one.
You also query whether Zionists accepting fundamentalist support are "just saying that these fundamentalists have a legitimate role to play in all of this?" Well, of course they have a role to play. If they organize a grass-roots movement, or petition their member of Congress, or whatever, then their role is most certainly "legitimate." That's democracy in action. I suspect that's not quite what you meant, though -- perhaps you could clarify?
Finally, it's worth noting that not every Christian who supports Israel is a "scary fundamentalist." Some Christians support Israel because they agree with Bush that it's important strategically; some because they agree that Israel has a right to the land because of 1948; some because they believe the Jews have a right to the land for Biblical/historical reasons. I think it most unfortunate that you appear to lump all these together as "fundamentalist" and intimate that it's wrong to accept their support because your average Zionist might not agree with all their views. Hell, I don't agree with the endgame proposed by some Zionists -- does that mean my support should be shunned?
More soon, but my baby is now up.
The Guardian link that ate my previously drafted response is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,677524,00.html
BTW, Ian Buruma is not known as a Zionist, despite mudslinging to the contrary.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 