Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Il ministro razzista di Diliberto

A proposito di battaglie culturali del PDCI:
Asor Rosa ieri:
========================================
Gli ebrei, da RAZZA deprivata, perseguitata e decisamente diversa è 
diventata una RAZZA GUERRIERA, PERSECUTRICE e perfettamente omologata 
alla parte più consapevole e spregiudicata del sistema occidentale
========================================
Asor Rosa oggi:
========================================
Considero l'intervista resa ieri al Corriere da Claudio Morpurgo, 
presidente dell'Unione delle comunità ebraiche italiane  come 
un'indebita PRESSIONE SUGLI AFFARI INTERNI e sulla politica dello 
Stato Italiano
========================================
Evidentemente, nel partito dell. On. Prof. Diliberto, l'antisemitismo 
più smaccato è una buona credenziale per la carriera.
Mi domando, e questo seriamente, come il governo di centrosinistra 
possa presentare tra i suoi ranghi un personaggio che considera gli 
ebrei una razza di ospiti, piuttosto indesiderati.
Tb

ebrei una razza di ospiti, piuttosto indesiderati.
Mi domando, altrettanto seriamente, perché ritieni che l'argomento sia
in topic in it.politica.internazionale.
-- 
ciao,
Marco

 in topic in it.politica.internazionale.
"pressioni sugli affari interni".
Secondo Asor Rosa lo è. E io ne prendo doverosamente atto.
Tb

 Asor Rosa ieri:
ovvero come il neoteoconsionista dalla vibrante tastiera ToniTarocco mette
un subject insultando indebitamente il segretario di un Partito, gli
antepone una carica che al momento non risulta, e nel testo parla di
dichiarazioni di un'altra persona, ovviamente estrapolando due frasi da un
contesto ben più ampio e meritevole, per il gusto estremamente violento di
etichettare come antisemita chiunque non stia sull'attenti davanti a uno
dei più criminali, autoritari e violenti Governi supposti democratici.

 contesto ben più ampio e meritevole,
n3t, mi parli di cosa ci sia di meritevole nell'utilizzare concetti come
_*razza*_ (cazzo, dico: _*razza*_)?
Così, giusto per capire: tendenzialmente il sottoscritto ha uno strano
riflesso condizionato e tende a partire di capoccia, quando sente quella
parola.

 dei più criminali, autoritari e violenti Governi supposti democratici.
... quello del berlusca o questo nuovo?... ;-)
bye
d

 _*razza*_ (cazzo, dico: _*razza*_)?
E di questo se ne è parlato.
Ma dire che le dichiarazioni di un presidente dell'Ucei sono PRESSIONI 
SUGLI AFFARI INTERNI?
Questo degli ebrei stranieri è né più né meno antisemitismo 
ottocentesco.
Sarebbe poi interessante che l'antagonista spiegasse cosa ha a che 
vedere tutto questo con la politica israeliana.
Tb
Ps: secondo le ultime notizie, Asor Rosa è stato trombato. 

 wrote in message
op.s9osca0rbkerdv@roma_fuji_02_05...

domanda indecente:
tutti e due, come in Italia da sempre.
Il Vaticano, i catto-comunisti, Andreotti, gli incoerenti inciuciatori alla
LETTA- SGRENA-MANIFESTO-PIERSCOLARI-SERVIZI SEGRETI o la CRI dello
scellerato Scelli-PONTEMINNITI-LETTA- DUE SIMONE COMUNISTE, che però erano
alla Difesa sotto il Governo D' ALEMA......insomma..capito mi hai!!!!
Luciana Cencioni

 parola.
ma certamente. 
Cosě come il sottoscritto parte di capoccia quando continua a veder
liquidato il pensiero altrui come "antisemita" da parte di zelanti
interlocutori di un governo che pratica lucidamente e scientificamente una
politica di repressione e di apartheid vero e proprio.

 etichettare come antisemita chiunque ...
...chiunque affermi che gli ebrei sono una razza perseguitatrice, le 
cui istituzioni associative non rientrano tra i cittadini italiani a 
pieno titolo.
Non trovi che "antisemita di merda" sia una definizione estremamente 
azzeccata?
Tb 

 ottocentesco.
no, guarda, questo giovane, inesperto e fanatico ultra sionista di Morpurgo
ha dichiarato:
"«Guardi, togliere i singoli non basta. Io penso che i poli debbano evitare
di dare qualsiasi voce o spazio a quelle componenti o formazioni che, pure
in modo subdolo, richiamano stereotipi antisemiti o antiisraeliani»"
cioè costui si preoccupa non del suo paese, l'Italia, ma dalle voci
contrarie a quello che percepisce come SUO VERO PAESE e NAZIONE, cioè
Israele. Può farlo,no problem, libertà di voce, ma non può dettare la linea
politica italiana (parla dei due poli) sulla base delle insofferenze della
Comunità Ebraica italiana . 

 politica di repressione e di apartheid vero e proprio.
'azz.
Tieni ganesch,  č il caso che te lo legga anche tu:
http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=471
Tb

 'azz.
chi è che sguissa?
E' non è un Governo repressivo, che sistematicamente viola i diritti umani,
che pratica apartheid, restrizioni di libertà ovunque, toglie territori
dove gli pare, riduce alla fame e alla disperazione (e da qui alimenta pure
il successo di Hamas e di altri estremisti o terroristi), che pure nella
sua suprema Corte mette il sigillo a leggi razziste, un Governo che per
anni ha violato sistematicamente risoluzioni dell'ONU, richiami da parte di
tutto il mondo, che pratica e ha praticato la "vendetta" come strumento
quasi-divino uccidendo frotte di civili sin dai fatti del Libano, uno stato
militarizzato e zeppo di spie e servizi segreti, grande esportatore di
tecnologie di morte e di guerra, invischiato nei più loschi affaire
internazionali, con ramificazioni e lobby potentissime in Stati *esteri*
che curano gli interessi di Israele , che detiene senza dichiarare
pericolose armi nucleari alla faccia di ogni legalità internazionale, in
nome di un suo Divino Diritto?
Dai, rispondi un pochettino a queste trascurabili questioni.
-- 
http://angolobologna.splinder.com

 Israele.
Ok, grazie. Direi che questo outing mette fine a una serie di thread 
fumosi.
Tb 

politica italiana (parla dei due poli)
E tu invece, o chiunque tenga comportamenti smaccatamente antisemiti,
hai il diritto di "dettare la linea politica italiana" caro fesso di un
n3tgan3sh?
-Stefano

Dai, rispondi un pochettino a queste trascurabili questioni.
A quelle *EMERITE STRONZATE* per le quali non hai portato nulla a
sostegno?
-Stefano

 fumosi.
E' vero. 
Gettano la maschera i difensori di un Governo violento, guerrafondaio, che
nega i diritti a un popolo, che si piccano di intervenire manco fossero
Ambasciatori di Stato decidendo cosa debbano fare "i poli" per non dare
spazio nè voce (che facciamo, gli rinchiudiamo? Devono essere espulsi da
tutte le formazioni politiche?) a chi richiama "stereotipi" "antisemiti O
(dice O, attenzione!questa è pazzesca, è oscena, è sintomo della stazza
morale di questo losco individuo)  "antiisraeliani".

individuo) 
...disse il losco individuo...
-Stefano

 E' vero.
Purtroppo sì. La situazione mi sembra un po' troppo seria per la 
solita tastiera.
O forse sono io che, tra candidature incredibili e profanazioni di 
cimiteri, non sono molto in vena.
Nemmeno per un pirlacchione e le sue accuse di doppia lealtà.
Leggiti questo, medita. Chissà che ne esca qualcosa.
http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=471
The New Anti-Semitism
Bernard Lewis
The American Scholar - Volume 75 No. 1 Winter 2006 pp. 25-36
There is a well-worn platitude that we have all heard many times 
before: it is perfectly legitimate to criticize the actions and 
policies of the state of Israel or the doctrines of Zionism without 
necessarily being motivated by anti-Semitism. The fact that this has 
been repeated ad nauseam does not detract from its truth. Not only do 
I accept it, but I would even take it a step further with another 
formulation that may perhaps evoke surprise if not shock: it is 
perfectly possible to hate and even to persecute Jews without 
necessarily being anti-Semitic.
Unfortunately, hatred and persecution are a normal part of the human 
experience. Taking a dislike, mild or intense, to people who are 
different in one way or another, by ethnicity, race, color, creed, 
eating habitsâ€”no matter whatâ€”is part of the normal human 
condition. We find it throughout recorded history, and we find it all 
over the world. It can sometimes be extraordinarily vicious and 
sometimes even amusing.
Not long after World War II, the Danes were seething with resentment 
against two of their neighbors: the Germans, for having occupied them, 
and the Swedes, for having stood by with unhelpful neutrality. A 
Danish saying current at the time was: What is a Swede? A German in 
human form. Another double-barreled insult, this one from the British 
army in the late 1930s, when it was concerned about two different 
groups of terrorists: What is an Arab? A toasted Irishman. I quote 
these not in any sense with approval or commendation, but as examples 
of the kind of really nasty prejudice that is widespread in our world.
Anti-Semitism is something quite different. It is marked by two 
special features. One of them is that Jews are judged by a standard 
different from that applied to others. We see plenty of examples of 
this at the present time. But there too one has to be careful. There 
can be different standards of judgment on other issues too, sometimes 
even involving Jews, without anti-Semitism or without necessarily 
being motivated by anti-Semitism.
For instance, in mid-September 1975 in Spain, five terrorists 
convicted of murdering policemen were sentenced to death. European 
liberal opinion was outraged that in this modern age a West European 
country should sentence people to death. Unheard of! There was an 
outcry of indignation, and strong pressures were brought to bear on 
the Spanish government. But in the Soviet Union and its satellite 
states during the same period, vastly greater numbers were being 
sentenced to death and executed; and, in Africa, Idi Amin was 
slaughtering hundreds of thousands, a large part of the population of 
Uganda. Hardly a murmur of protest in the Western world.
The lesson is very clear. Right-wing governments (General Francisco 
Franco was still in charge) are not allowed to sentence offenders to 
death; left-wing governments are. A further implication: slaughter of 
or by white people is bad; slaughter of or by people of color is 
normal. Similar discrepancies may be found in responses to a number of 
other issues, as for example the treatment of women and of ethnic or 
other minorities.
These examples show that even a wide disparity of standards of 
judgment is not necessarily in itself evidence of anti-Semitism. There 
may be other elements involved. For example, the comparison is 
sometimes made between the world reaction to the massacre of 
Palestinians by Lebanese Christian militiamen at Sabra and Shatila in 
September 1982, where some 800 people were killed, and the massacre 
earlier in the same year in Hama in Syria, where tens of thousands 
were killed. On the latter, not a dog barked. The difference, of 
course, was in the circumstances. In both cases the perpetrators were 
Arab, but in the case of Sabra and Shatila, because of the dominant 
Israeli military presence in the region, there was a possibility of 
blaming the Jews. In Hama, this possibility did not exist; therefore 
the mass slaughter of Arabs by Arabs went unremarked, unnoticed, and 
unprotested. This contrast is clearly anti-Jewish. In a different way, 
it is also anti-Arab.
We see other instances of differing standards and methods of judgment 
nearer home and in a perhaps less alarming form. We hear a great deal, 
for example, about the Jewish lobby and the various accusations that 
are from time to time brought against it, that those engaged in it are 
somehow disloyal to the United States and are in the service of a 
foreign power.
The Jewish lobby is, of course, not the only lobby of its kind. 
Consider three others: the Irish, Greek, and Armenian lobbies. The 
Irish lobby, which campaigned against the United Kingdom, Americaâ€™s 
closest ally, and the Greek and Armenian lobbies, which campaigned 
against Turkey when Turkey was a crucial NATO ally, were seen as 
pursuing their legitimate concerns. I donâ€™t recall accusations 
against any of them of disloyalty or even of divided loyalty.
The other special feature of anti-Semitism, which is much more 
important than differing standards of judgment, is the accusation 
against Jews of cosmic evil. Complaints against people of other groups 
rarely include it. This accusation of cosmic, satanic evil attributed 
to Jews, in various parts of the world and in various forms, is what 
has come to be known in modern times as anti-Semitism.
In the Western world, anti-Semitism has gone through three clearly 
distinct phases. Some people have written and spoken about 
anti-Semitism in antiquity, but the term in that context is 
misleading. We do indeed find texts in the ancient world attacking and 
denouncing Jews, sometimes quite viciously, but we also find nasty 
remarks about Syrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and the rest. 
There is no great difference between the anti-Jewish remarks and the 
ethnic and religious prejudices expressed against other peoples, and 
on the whole the ones against Jews are not the most vicious. The 
Syrian-born Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus, for example, 
speaking of the Saracens, remarks that they are not to be desired 
either as friends or as enemies. I donâ€™t recall, in the ancient 
world, anything said about the Jews quite as nasty as that.
Polytheism was essentially tolerant, each group worshiping its own god 
or gods, offering no objection to the worship of others. Indeed, one 
might have been willing to offer at least a pinch of incense to some 
alien god, in courtesy as a visitor or, even at home, in deference to 
a suzerain. Only the Jews in the ancient world insistedâ€”absurdly, 
according to the prevailing view of the timeâ€”that theirs was the 
only god and that the others did not exist. This gave rise to problems 
with their neighbors and their various imperial masters, notably the 
Romans. It sometimes provoked hostile comments and even persecution, 
but not the kind of demonization that has come to be known as 
anti-Semitism. The tendency was rather to ridicule the Jews for their 
faceless, formless god in the clouds and for such absurd and barbarous 
customs as circumcision, the rejection of pig-meat, and, most absurd 
of all, the Sabbath. Several Greek and Roman authors noted that 
because of this comic practice the Jews were wasting one-seventh of 
their lives.
Demonization, as distinct from common or garden-variety prejudice or 
hostility, began with the advent of Christianity and the special role 
assigned to the Jews in the crucifixion of Christ as related in the 
Gospels. Christianity started as a movement within Judaism, and the 
conflict between Christians and Jews had that special bitterness that 
often makes conflicts within religions more deadly than those between 
religions. The Christian message was presented as the fulfillment of 
Godâ€™s promises to the Jews, written in what Christians called the 
Old Testament. The rejection of that message by the Jewish custodians 
of the Old Testament was especially wounding.
An important concern of the early Christians was not so much to blame 
the Jews as, for understandable reasons, to exculpate the Romans. 
Jewish guilt and Roman innocence, the two interdependent, became 
important parts of the Christian message, first to Rome and then 
beyond, with devastating effect on popular attitudes toward Jews, 
especially at Easter time.
For many centuries, hatred and persecution of Jews, and the ideology 
and terminology used to express them, were grounded in religion. Then 
came the phase when religious prejudice was discredited, seen as not 
in accord with the ideas of the Enlightenment. It was seen as bigoted; 
worse, as old-fashioned, out-of-date. That meant new reasons were 
needed for hating Jews. They were found.
The process of change began in Spain when large numbers of Jewsâ€”and 
also Muslimsâ€”were forcibly converted to Christianity. With a 
forcible conversion there was inevitably some doubt, especially among 
the enforcers, as to the sincerity of the converts. And this doubt was 
well grounded, as we know from the phenomenon of the Marranos and the 
Moriscos, the sometimes dubious converts from Judaism and Islam. Thus 
the practice arose of examining the racial origins of the so-called 
new Christians. We even find statutes in 16th-century Spain about 
purity of blood, la limpieza de sangre. Only people who could prove 
Christian descent for a specified number of generations could be 
accepted as genuine Christians. â€œPurity of bloodâ€  was required for 
certain positions and certain offices.
This is where the racial form of anti-Semitism began. It was 
systematized in Germany in the 19th century, when for the first time 
the term â€œanti-Semitismâ€  was invented and adopted.
â€œSemiticâ€  was first used as a linguistic, not as an ethnic or 
racial, term. Like â€œAryan,â€  it was coined by philologists to 
designate a group of related languages. Aryan included languages as 
diverse as Sanskrit, Persian, and, by extension, Greek, Latin, and 
most of the languages of Europe. Semitic, similarly, brought together 
Syriac, Arabic, Hebrew, and Ethiopic. Already in 1872 the great German 
philologist Max MÃ¼ller pointed out that â€œAryanâ€  and â€œSemiticâ€  
were philological, not ethnological, terms and that to speak of an 
Aryan or Semitic race was as absurd as to speak of a dolichocephalic 
(long-headed) language. â€œWhat misunderstandings, what controversies 
would arise,â€  he said, from confusing the twoâ€”a correct if 
understated prediction.
Despite these warnings, â€œSemiticâ€  was transferred from its 
original linguistic meaning to a new racial meaning and became the 
basis for a new and different bigotry. The people who advocated this 
bigotry spurned religious prejudice because they saw themselves as 
modern and scientific. Their hostility to Jews, they claimed, was 
based on observed and documented racial otherness and inferiority.
And then, just as religious hostility was spurned by the Enlightenment 
and replaced by modern and â€œscientificâ€  racial hostility, so 
racial hostility was discredited by the Third Reich and its crimes, by 
the revelations after its fall of the appalling things that it had 
done. This discrediting of racism left a vacancy, an aching void.
This is where the third phase of anti-Semitism arises, which for want 
of a better term we might call political-cum-ideological Judeophobia. 
Race? Oh no, we wouldnâ€™t have anything to do with that. Religious 
prejudice? Oh no, weâ€™re far beyond that. This is political and 
ideological, and it provides a socially and intellectually acceptable 
modern disguise for sentiments that go back some 2,000 years.
Turning from the Christian to the Islamic world, we find a very 
different history. If we look at the considerable literature available 
about the position of Jews in the Islamic world, we find two 
well-established myths. One is the story of a golden age of equality, 
of mutual respect and cooperation, especially but not exclusively in 
Moorish Spain; the other is of â€œdhimmiâ€ -tude, of subservience and 
persecution and ill treatment. Both are myths. Like many myths, both 
contain significant elements of truth, and the historic truth is in 
its usual place, somewhere in the middle between the extremes.
There are certain important differences between the treatment, the 
position, the perception of Jews in the pre-modern Islamic world and 
in the pre-modern and also modern Christian worlds.
The story of a golden age of complete equality is, of course, 
nonsense. No such thing was possible or even conceivable. Indeed, 
among Christians and Muslims alike, giving equal rights or, more 
precisely, equal opportunities to unbelievers would have been seen not 
as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. But until fairly modern times 
there was a much higher degree of tolerance in most of the Islamic 
lands than prevailed in the Christian world. For centuries, in most of 
Europe Christians were very busy persecuting each other; in their 
spare time, they were persecuting Jews and expelling Muslimsâ€”all at 
a time when, in the Ottoman Empire and some other Islamic states, Jews 
and several varieties of Christians were living side by side fairly 
freely and comfortably.
The comparison has often been made between the Cold War of the 20th 
century and the confrontation between Christendom and Islam in the 
15th, 16th, and 17th centuries. In many ways the comparison is a good 
one. But one has to remember that in the confrontation between 
Christendom and Islam, the movement of refugees, of those who, in 
Leninâ€™s famous phrase, â€œvoted with their feet,â€  was 
overwhelmingly from west to east not from east to west.
This was tolerance and no more than that. Tolerance is by modern 
standards an essentially intolerant idea. Tolerance means that I am in 
charge. I will allow you some though not all of the rights and 
privileges that I enjoy, provided that you behave yourself according 
to rules that I will lay down and enforce. That seems a fair 
definition of tolerance as usually understood and applied. It is, of 
course, an intolerant idea, but it is a lot better than intolerance as 
such, and the limited but substantial tolerance accorded to Jews and 
other non-Muslim communities in the Muslim states until early modern 
times was certainly vastly better than anything that was available in 
Christendom.
Prejudices existed in the Islamic world, as did occasional hostility, 
but not what could be called anti-Semitism, for there was no 
attribution of cosmic evil. And on the whole, Jews fared better under 
Muslim rule than Christians did. This is the reverse of what one might 
expect. In the canonical history, in the Qurâ€™an and the biography of 
the Prophet, Jews come out badly. The Prophet had more encounters with 
Jews than with Christians, so we find more negative statements about 
Jews than about Christians. The biography of the Prophet records armed 
clashes with Jews, and in those encounters it was the Jews who were 
killed. Muslims could therefore afford a more relaxed attitude toward 
Jews in the ensuing generations.
The other advantage for Jews was that they were not seen as dangerous. 
Christianity was recognized as a rival world religion and a competitor 
in the cosmic struggle to bring enlightenment (and with it, 
inevitably, domination) to all humanity. This cosmic competition had 
important consequences. Local Christians were dangerous in that they 
were a potential fifth column for the Christian powers of Europe, the 
main adversary of the Islamic world. Jews were not suspected of being 
pro-Christian. On the contrary, they were seen as being reliable and 
even useful. It was not merely tolerance or good willâ€”though these 
were essential preconditionsâ€”that led the Ottoman sultans to admit 
so many Jewish refugees from Spain, Portugal, Italy, and elsewhere. 
Jews, especially those of European origin, were active in trade and 
industry, and from many documents in the Ottoman archives it is clear 
that they were valued as a revenue-producing asset. They were not just 
permitted; they were encouraged and even on a few occasions compelled 
to settle in Ottoman lands, especially in newly conquered provinces.
Obviously, this is not equality, but it is not anti-Semitism in any 
sense of the word either. The Ottomansâ€™ treatment of the Jews even 
included a kind of respect. We do of course find expressions of 
prejudice against the Jews, as against any group of people that are 
different, but their general attitude was of amused, tolerant 
superiority.
An interesting difference in hostile stereotypes can be found in 
anecdotes, jokes, and the like. The main negative quality attributed 
to Jews in Turkish and Arab folklore was that they were cowardly and 
unmilitaryâ€”very contemptible qualities in a martial society. A late 
Ottoman joke may serve to illustrate this. The story is that in 1912, 
at the time of the Balkan war, when there was an acute threat to the 
Ottoman Empire in its final stages, the Jews, full of patriotic ardor, 
decided that they, too, wanted to serve in the defense of their 
country, so they asked permission to form a special volunteer brigade. 
Permission was given, and officers and ncos were sent to train and 
equip them. Once the Jewish volunteer brigade was armed, equipped, and 
trained, ready to leave for the front, they sent a message asking if 
they could have a police escort, because there were reports of bandits 
on the road.
This is a very interesting human document. Is it hostile? Not really. 
It shows a sort of amused tolerance, at once good-humored and 
contemptuous, that may help us to understand the bewilderment and 
horror at the Israeli victories in 1948 and after. We have some vivid 
descriptions at the time of the expectations and reactions of 1948. 
Azzam Pasha, who was then the secretary-general of the Arab League, is 
quoted as having said: â€œThis will be like the Mongol invasions. We 
will utterly destroy them. We will sweep them into the sea.â€  The 
expectation was that it would be quick and easy. There would be no 
problem at all dealing with half a million Jews. It was then an 
appalling shock when five Arab armies were defeated by half a million 
Jews with very limited weaponry. It remains shameful, humiliating. 
This was mentioned at the time and has been ever since. One writer 
said: â€œIt was bad enough to be conquered and occupied by the mighty 
empires of the West, the British Empire, the French Empire, but to 
suffer this fate at the hands of a few hundred thousand Jews was 
intolerable.â€ 
The Western form of anti-Semitismâ€”the cosmic, satanic version of Jew 
hatredâ€”provided solace to wounded feelings. It came to the Middle 
East in several stages. The first stage was almost entirely Christian, 
brought by European missionaries and diplomats. Its impact was 
principally on the local Christian minorities, where we find 
occasional recurrences of the previously little known blood libel. In 
the 15th and 16th centuries this had indeed been explicitly rejected 
in orders issued by Ottoman sultans. It was now revived on a massive 
scale.The first major case was the Damascus blood libel in 1840. This 
kind of anti-Semitism continued to grow, at first on a small scale, 
during the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a limited response. At 
the time of the Dreyfus Affair in France, Muslim opinion was divided, 
some against Dreyfus, some supporting him. A prominent Muslim thinker 
of the time, the Egyptian Rashid Rida, wrote defending Dreyfus and 
attacking his persecutors, accusing them not of fanaticism, since they 
had no real religious beliefs, but of prejudice and envy. Despite this 
response, one consequence of the affair was the first translation into 
Arabic of a batch of European anti-Semitic writings.
Then came the Third Reich, with connections to the Arab world and, 
later, to other Muslim countries. Now that the German archives are 
open, we know that within weeks of Hitlerâ€™s coming to power in 1933, 
the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem got in touch with the German consul 
general in Jerusalem, Doctor Heinrich Wolff, and offered his services. 
It is interesting that the common image of the Germans pursuing the 
Arabs is the reverse of what happened. The Arabs were pursuing the 
Germans, and the Germans were very reluctant to get involved. Dr. 
Wolff recommended, and his government agreed, that as long as there 
was any hope of making a deal with the British Empire and establishing 
a kind of Aryan-Nordic axis in the West, it would be pointless to 
antagonize the British by supporting the Arabs.
But then things gradually changed, particularly after the Munich 
Conference in 1938. That was the turning point, when the German 
government finally decided that there was no deal to be made with 
Britain, no Aryan axis. Then the Germans turned their attention more 
seriously to the Arabs, responding at last to their approaches, and 
from then on the relationship developed very swiftly.
In 1940 the French surrender gave the Nazis new opportunities for 
action in the Arab world. In Vichy-controlled Syria they were able for 
a while to establish an intelligence and propaganda base in the heart 
of the Arab East. From Syria they extended their activities to Iraq, 
where they helped to establish a pro-Nazi regime headed by Rashid Ali 
al-Gailani. This was overthrown by the British, and Rashid Ali went to 
join his friend the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in Berlin, where he 
remained as Hitlerâ€™s guest until the end of the war. In the last 
days of Rashid Aliâ€™s regime, on the first and second of June 1941, 
soldiers and civilians launched murderous attacks on the ancient 
Jewish community in Baghdad. This was followed by a series of such 
attacks in other Arab cities, both in the Middle East and in North 
Africa.
While in Berlin, Rashid Ali was apparently disquieted by the language 
and, more especially, the terminology of anti-Semitism. His concerns 
were authoritatively removed in an exchange of letters with an 
official spokesman of the German Nazi Party. In answer to a question 
from Rashid Ali as to whether anti-Semitism was also directed against 
Arabs, because they were part of the Semitic family, Professor Walter 
Gross, director of the Race Policy Office of the Nazi Party, explained 
with great emphasis, in a letter dated October 17, 1942, that this was 
not the case and that anti-Semitism was concerned wholly and 
exclusively with Jews. On the contrary, he observed, the Nazis had 
always shown sympathy and support for the Arab cause against the Jews. 
In the course of his letter, he even remarked that the expression 
â€œanti-Semitism, which has been used for decades in Europe by the 
anti-Jewish movement, was incorrect since this movement was directed 
exclusively against Jewry, and not against other peoples who speak a 
Semitic language.â€ 
This apparently caused some concern in Nazi circles, and a little 
later a committee was formed that suggested that the FÃ¼hrerâ€™s 
speeches and his book Mein Kampf should be revised to adopt the term 
â€œanti-Jewishâ€  instead of â€œanti-Semiticâ€  so as not to offend 
â€œour Arab friends.â€  The FÃ¼hrer did not agree, and this proposal 
was not accepted. There was still no great problem in German-Arab 
relations before, during, and even for a while after the war.
The Nazi propaganda impact was immense. We see it in Arabic memoirs of 
the period, and of course in the foundation of the Baâ€™ath party. We 
use the word â€œpartyâ€  in speaking of the Baâ€™ath in the same sense 
in which one speaks of the Fascist, Nazi, or Communist partiesâ€”not a 
party in the Western sense, an organization for seeking votes and 
winning elections, but a party as part of the apparatus of government, 
particularly concerned with indoctrination and repression. And 
anti-Semitism, European-style, became a very important part of that 
indoctrination. The basis was there. A certain amount of translated 
literature was there. It became much more important after the events 
of 1948, when the humiliated Arabs drew comfort from the doctrine of 
the Jews as a source of cosmic evil. This continued and grew with 
subsequent Arab defeats, particularly after the ultimate humiliation 
of the 1967 war, which Israel won in less than a week.
The growth of European-style anti-Semitism in the Arab world derived 
in the main from this feeling of humiliation and the need therefore to 
ascribe to the Jews a role very different from their traditional role 
in Arab folklore and much closer to that of the anti-Semitic 
prototypes. By now the familiar themes of European anti-Semitismâ€”the 
blood libel, the protocols of Zion, the international Jewish 
conspiracy, and the restâ€”have become standard fare in much of the 
Arab world, in the schoolroom, the pulpit, the media, and even on the 
Internet. It is bitterly ironic that these themes have been adopted by 
previously immune Muslims precisely at a time when in Europe they have 
become an embarrassment even to anti-Semites.
What encouraged this development was what one can only describe as the 
acquiescence of the United Nations and, apparently, of enlightened 
opinion in the Western world. Let me cite some examples. On November 
29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 
famous resolution calling for the division of Palestine into a Jewish 
state, an Arab state, and an international zone of Jerusalem. The 
United Nations passed this resolution without making any provision for 
its enforcement. Just over two weeks later, at a public meeting on 
December 17, the Arab League adopted a resolution totally rejecting 
this UN resolution, declaring that they would use all means at their 
disposal, including armed intervention, to nullify itâ€”an open 
challenge to the United Nations that was and remains unanswered. No 
attempt was made to respond, no attempt to prevent the armed 
intervention that the Arab League promptly launched.
The United Nationsâ€™s handling of the 1948 war and the resulting 
problems shows some curious disparitiesâ€”for example, on the question 
of refugees. At the end of the initial struggle in Palestine, part of 
the country was under the rule of the newly created Jewish state, part 
under the rule of neighboring Arab governments. A significant number 
of Arabs remained in the territories under Jewish rule. It was taken 
then as axiomatic, and has never been challenged since, that no Jews 
could remain in the areas of Palestine under Arab rule, so that as 
well as Arab refugees from the Jewish-controlled areas, there were 
Jewish refugees from the Arab-controlled areas of mandatary Palestine, 
not just settlers, but old, established groups, notably the ancient 
Jewish community in East Jerusalem, which was totally evicted and its 
monuments desecrated or destroyed. The United Nations seemed to have 
no problem with this; nor did international public opinion. When Jews 
were driven out, no provision was made for them, no help offered, no 
protest made. This surely sent a very clear message to the Arab world, 
a less clear message to the Jews.
Jewish refugees came not only from those parts of Palestine that were 
under Arab rule, but also from Arab countries, where the Jewish 
communities either fled or were driven out, in numbers roughly equal 
to those of the Arab refugees from Israel. Again, the response of the 
United Nations to the two groups of refugees was very different. For 
Arab refugees in Palestine, very elaborate arrangements were made and 
very extensive financing provided. This contrasts not only with the 
treatment of Jews from Arab countries, but with the treatment of all 
the other refugees at the time. The partition of Palestine in 1948 was 
a trivial affair compared with the partition of India in the previous 
year, which resulted in millions of refugeesâ€”Hindus who fled or were 
driven from Pakistan into India, and Muslims who fled or were driven 
from India into Pakistan. This occurred entirely without any help from 
the United Nations, and perhaps for that reason the refugees were all 
resettled. One could go back a little further and talk about the 
millions of refugees in Central and Eastern Europeâ€”Poles fleeing 
from the Eastern Polish areas annexed to the Soviet Union and Germans 
fleeing from the East German areas annexed to Poland. Millions of 
them, of both nationalities, were left entirely to their own people 
and their own resources.
Some other measures adopted at the time may be worth noting. All the 
Arab governments involved announced two things. First, they would not 
recognize Israel. They were entitled to do that. Second, they would 
not admit Israelis of any religion to their territories, which meant 
that not only Israeli Jews but also Israeli Muslims and Christians 
were not allowed into East Jerusalem. Catholic and Protestant 
Christians were permitted to enter once a year on Christmas Day for a 
few hours, but otherwise there was no admittance to the holy places in 
Jerusalem for Jews or Christians. Worse than that, Muslims in Israel 
were unable to go on the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. For 
Christians, pilgrimage is optional. For Muslims it is a basic 
obligation of the faith. A Muslim is required to go on pilgrimage to 
Mecca and Medina at least once in a lifetime. The Saudi government of 
the time ruled that Muslims who were Israeli citizens could not go. 
Some years later, they modified this rule.
At the same time, virtually all the Arab governments announced that 
they would not give visas to Jews of any nationality. This was not 
furtiveâ€”it was public, proclaimed on the visa forms and in the 
tourist literature. They made it quite clear that people of the Jewish 
religion, no matter what their citizenship, would not be given visas 
or be permitted to enter any independent Arab country. Again, not a 
word of protest from anywhere. One can imagine the outrage if Israel 
had announced that it would not give visas to Muslims, still more if 
the United States were to do so. As directed against Jews, this ban 
was seen as perfectly natural and normal. In some countries it 
continues to this day, although in practice most Arab countries have 
given it up.
Neither the United Nations nor the public protested any of this in any 
way, so it is hardly surprising that Arab governments concluded that 
they had license for this sort of action and worse. One other example: 
unlike the other Arab countries, the Jordanians were at that time 
willing to accept Palestinian refugees as citizens, and the Jordanian 
nationality law of February 4, 1954, offered Jordanian citizenship to 
Palestinians, defined as natives and residents of the mandated 
territory of Palestineâ€”â€œexcept Jews.â€  This was clearly stated. 
Not a murmur of protest from anyone, anywhere.
These examples may serve to illustrate the atmosphere within which the 
new Arab anti-Semitism grew and flourished. After the 1967 war, the 
Israelis came into possession of the former Arab-occupied Palestinian 
territories, including a number of schools run by UNRWA, the United 
Nations Relief and Works Agency. These schools were funded by the 
United Nations. When the Israelis had a chance to look at the Syrian, 
Jordanian, or Egyptian textbooks that these UN-funded schools used, 
they found many examples of unequivocal anti-Semitism. Although the 
Israelis could do nothing about anti-Semitism in textbooks in Arab 
countries, they felt that they could do something about anti-Semitism 
in textbooks used in schools funded and maintained by the United 
Nations. The matter was referred to the UN, which referred it to 
UNESCO, which appointed a commission of three professors of Arabicâ€”one 
Turkish, one French, and one American. These professors examined the 
textbooks and wrote a lengthy report saying that some textbooks were 
acceptable, some were beyond repair and should be abandoned, and some 
should be corrected. The report was presented to UNESCO on April 4, 
1969. It was not published.
For those who needed it, all this provided an up-to-date, 
intellectually and socially acceptable rationale for what ought to be 
called anti-Semitism but, since that word isnâ€™t acceptable, might be 
called Jew-baiting, Jew-hating, or generally being unpleasant to Jews.
The rationale has thus served two purposesâ€”one for Jews, the other 
for their enemies. In anti-Semitismâ€™s first stage, when the 
hostility was based in religion and expressed in religious terms, the 
Jew always had the option of changing sides. During the medieval and 
early modern periods, Jews persecuted by Christians could convert. Not 
only could they escape the persecution; they could join the 
persecutors if they so wished, and some indeed rose to high rank in 
the church and in the Inquisition. Racial anti-Semitism removed that 
option. The present-day ideological anti-Semitism has restored it, and 
now as in the Middle Ages, there seem to be some who are willing to 
avail themselves of this option.
For non-Jews the rationale brought a different kind of relief. For 
more than half a century, any discussion of Jews and their problems 
has been overshadowed by the grim memories of the crimes of the Nazis 
and of the complicity, acquiescence, or indifference of so many 
others. But inevitably, the memory of those days is fading, and now 
Israel and its problems afford an opportunity to relinquish the 
unfamiliar and uncomfortable posture of guilt and contrition and to 
resume the more familiar and more comfortable position of stern 
reproof from an attitude of moral superiority. It is not surprising 
that this opportunity is widely welcomed and utilized.
The new anti-Semitism has little or no bearing on the rights and 
wrongs of the Palestine conflict, but it must surely have some effect 
on perceptions of the problem, and therefore on the behavior and 
perhaps even on the policies of both participants and outsiders. Nor 
is the offense all on one side. One might argue that when Arabs are 
judged by a lower standard than Jews, as for example the minimal 
attention given to the atrocious crimes committed at Darfur, this is 
more offensive to Arabs than to Jews. Contempt is indeed more 
demeaning than hatred. But it is less dangerous. V
Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton 
University, is the author, most recently, of From Babel to Dragomans: 
Interpreting the Middle East. This essay is based on a lecture 
delivered at Brandeis University on March 24, 2004

 nome di un suo Divino Diritto?
Mi spiace dirlo, ma stai sbroccando.

Puttanata che saprai dimostrare, vero *FESSO* di un n3tgan3sh?
Senti, sei andato in loop o cosa? La prossima volta che gli dai del
fesso ti segnalo all'abuse desktop.
VERGOGNA!

 Mi spiace dirlo, ma stai sbroccando.
non mi sembra di aver scritto delle menzogne, qui sopra. 
Saranno esposte in modo forte, ma veramente spiegami dove sta lo "sbrocco".
Soprattutto, e mi interessa particolarmente, ravvisi dell'antisemitismo in
ciò che ho scritto qui sopra? 

 VERGOGNA!
non ti stare a preoccupare: il soggetto in questione č la burla vivente di
Usenet, e non leggo proprio piů i suoi messaggi, ho visto solo il tuo
quote.
Perdere tempo a leggere e rispondere a uno che č in loop da anni (hint: fai
una ricerchina del soggetto su Google per capirlo un pň) significa solo
fargli aumentare la dose di pugnette che si fa davanti al monitor.

 ciò che ho scritto qui sopra?
Rileggiti, cominciando da questo
====================
quello che percepisce come SUO VERO PAESE e NAZIONE, cioè
Israele. Può farlo,no problem, libertà di voce, ma non può dettare la 
linea
politica italiana
==================
Poi, le lobby potentissime e tutto il resto.
Poi leggi Bernard Lewis (il link te l'ho dato) e ti risponderai da 
solo.
Tb

==================
Nota
Questa è in assoluto la "madre di tutte le calunnie" pensa che era
gia' diffusa nella Roma Imperiale ai tempi di Nerone.
MMAX
-- 
E' in discussione su it.news.gruppi la RFD 
di it.politica.internazionale moderato

 A proposito di battaglie culturali del PDCI:
tu accusi di razzismo il PdCI quando difendevi quella merda razzista di
Kahane? ma ROTFL!!!!!!!!!
sei sempre piu' paranoico...
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 gia' diffusa nella Roma Imperiale ai tempi di Nerone.
Nota anche che il maiuscolo è tutto di ganesch.
Tb 

 sei sempre piu' paranoico...
Ancora con questa accusa di sdoganamento di Kahane? E basta, cazzo,
Sergio, basta! Rimani sul tema; ribalta le tesi dell'interlocutore senza
andare a ravanare in un passato che neanche esiste, ma è così complicato?  
-- 


Nota anche che il maiuscolo è tutto di ganesch.
Beh..per proseguire..la prima traccia di antigiudaismo cattolico
ravvisabile nasce come conseguenza di questa calunnia. Infatti
[nonostante pare certo da studi recenti che sia provato  che i
cristiani effettivamente furono gli artefici del famoso incendio della
suburra da cui poi si propago' per tutta Roma] nel "rigirare" la colpa
su Nerone si insinuo' che fossero stati i numerosi ebrei della corte
neroniana a suggerire prima l'incendio e poi l'accusa ai cristiani
poiché considerati degli apostati.


dell'antisemitismo in ciò che ho scritto qui sopra?
No. Solo delle emerite puttanate di un povero ignorante.  Poi
l'ignoranza tua potrebbe essere solo la punta di un antisemitismo, ma
questo importa poco.
-Stefano

 non mi sembra di aver scritto delle menzogne, qui sopra.
Lobby, vero paese eccetera eccetera.

 fumosi.
Si dice coming out. Che schifo pero'.
Palmiro Pangloss
-- 
Fight Integralism, Buy LEGO.


al monitor.
Che invece tieni tutte per te :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 dei più criminali, autoritari e violenti Governi supposti democratici.
quoto. Ma comprendi il suo delirante rosicare : grazie a Diliberto "Emma"
è stata trombata come ministro alla Difesa <g>
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 


 Ps: secondo le ultime notizie, Asor Rosa è stato trombato.
anche "Emma" alla Difesa, per fortuna.


 quoto. 
Ti stai facendo politicamente male <cit>.
Tb

n3tgan3sh ha scritto:



quoto.


A me sembra più razzista un paese che concede la cittadinanza su base
razziale come Israele come dimostra la sentenza recente della corte
suprema di quello stato

 anche "Emma" alla Difesa, per fortuna.
Sergio, non so se ti sei reso conto che in questo 3d, per una volta, non 
stiamo giocando al somarello tastierato.
Si sta discutendo un'ipotesi piuttosto agghiacciante: quella che un 
governo di centrosinistra presenti un antisemita come ministro della 
pubblica istruzione.
E' una eccellente occasione per uscire dalle gabbiette dei partiti e 
dire, se č il caso, "il mio partito ha sbagliato".
Posso assicurarti che se il fatto dovesse verificarsi, non aspetterņ un 
secondo per farlo. Perché va bene lottare per dare una posizione di 
evidenza ai propri ministri, va benissimo trattare per riportare la 
legalitą nelle liste degli eletti al Senato.
Ma in un governo con un antisemita di merda non si sta, a nessuna 
condizione. E'un must assoluto di igiene politica: ci si oppone con ogni 
mezzo, si esce dal governo, si rovescia il tavolo. Non esistono scuse 
per non farlo. Non ci sono beni maggiori da salvaguardare.
Questo č quello che sono pronto a dire se dovessi vedere Asor Rosa nella 
lista. Sarebbe decisamente bello che un militante del PDCI che parla di 
battaglie culturali per battere l'antisemitismo, non decidesse di 
seguire il suo partito comunque e dovunque, fino in fondo alla fogna.
Tb

 pubblica istruzione.
Ipotesi agghiacciante sfumata, fortunatamente.
http://www.corriere.it/Speciali/Politica/2006/Politche2006/governo-prodi/
Fioroni (che non so chi sia) all'Istruzione.
Tb

 seguire il suo partito comunque e dovunque, fino in fondo alla fogna.
fatti curare il cervello, tonibabbeo. Il tuo vedere antisemiti dappertutto
sta peggiorando. Spero che sia solo dovuto ad un mix di caldo e rosicata
per la trombata che ha preso "Emma" alla Difesa <g>


 in topic in it.politica.internazionale.
lo ha postato per flammare con chi è vicino al PdCI. 


 andare a ravanare in un passato che neanche esiste, ma è così complicato?  
quel passato esiste eccome e ti ho dato anche un link per leggertelo con
comodo.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 


 ma tu giochi al fare il babbeo come sempre.
Niet, irrecuperabile.
Tb

come dimostra la sentenza recente della corte suprema di quello stato
Sentenza ... di cui non sai una sega.
-Stefano

 comodo.
Sergio, io ho visto solo che la tua interpretazione di quanto contenuto in
quel link ( ammesso che si parli del medesimo link ) era un tantinello
faziosa. Ma "un tantinello" mica di piů, nhč !!!!  
-- 


 faziosa. Ma "un tantinello" mica di piů, nhč !!!!  
no guarda, forse devi rileggere il contenuto di quel msg di cui ti ho dato
il link. Tb affermava chiaramente che non considerava razzista Kahane.
C'e' poco da interpretare visto che erano tutte parole sue, non mie.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 


ma tu giochi al fare il babbeo come sempre.


 Tiè sciroppati l'int/cut/
Porello, davvero.
Tb 

ma tu giochi al fare il babbeo come sempre.


 C'e' poco da interpretare visto che erano tutte parole sue, non mie.
Sergio non tergiversare : io ricordo che TB deplorava Kahane nomenclandolo
con diversi termini infinitamente chiari ed inequivocabili. INOLTRE ( vado
a memoria ) concludeva la sua affermazione scrivendo che -
sebbene/nonostante non si occupasse ( "lui stesso medesimo" TB ) di
razzismo e considerasse la materia "razzismo" qualcosa da maneggiare con
cautela - era possibile ravvisare indizi in quel senso. Una dichiarazione
cauta, ragionata.
Ora al di là di tutto ciò, credi che sia possibile un dialogo *serio* con
un interlocutore "x" instaurandolo in questo modo; cioè andando
ininterrottamente a ritroso nel tempo in cerca di elementi che screditino
l'attendibilità stessa di detto interlocutore? 
 
-- 


 cauta, ragionata.
curiosa sta tua difesa di uno che senza problemi e senza pensarci bene da
dell'antisemita e del razzista ad Asor Rosa :)
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
5 per mille all'Associazione di amicizia Italia-Cuba cod.fis. 96233920584
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 


 dell'antisemita e del razzista ad Asor Rosa :)
Si, la fava.
Non sto difendendo TB, cosa ne ricaverei? Ti ricordo solo che non hai
opportunità di accusare ( se non infondatamente ) *quella* persona a QUEL
proposito. E visto che sono mesi che scrivi la stessa cosa.....mi è data
facoltà di segnalarti che mi si sta sfracellando la minchia, o ti
dispiace? Tutto qui. In serenità, beninteso. 
 
-- 


 dell'antisemita e del razzista ad Asor Rosa :)
Carta canta: AAR, uno che ha scritto quanto č quotato all'inizio del 
thread, č un razzista di merda.
Non occorre nessuna particolare esegesi.
E in piů č vigliacchetto e dissimulatore. Strano non abbia l'amico 
ebreo.
Apprendo che č pure "poco trasparente".
Fortunatamente, non c'č stato bisogno di fare le barricate contro un 
Ministro della Pubblica Istruzione che nemmeno Berlusconi avrebbe 
avuto la faccia tosta di presentare.
Meglio cosě.
Tb

 Nota anche che il maiuscolo è tutto di ganesch.
siete pazzeschi. Non è che col maiuscolo volevo qualificare in modo
negativo Israele o usare "la madre di tutte le calunnie" (dire che uno
percepisce come suo vero paese e nazione Israele e non l'Italia in che modo
è antisemita e/o squalifica?), dico semplicemente che il Morpurgo parlando
di queste cose dà l'idea di essere un diplomatico israeliano, non un
italiano che è di discendenza e tradizione ebraica.

italiano che è di discendenza e tradizione ebraica.
Non ti agitare non ti stavo cagando di pezza..ho solo sottolineato che
sei riuscito a dire una cazzata "archetipo" totale.
My best compliments.
MMAX
-- 
E' in discussione su it.news.gruppi la RFD 
di it.politica.internazionale moderato

 Lobby, vero paese eccetera eccetera.
per il "vero paese e nazione" sono allibito che venga letta come una
calunnia, vedi risposta a Toni; in quanto alle lobby, whip, dimmi che non è
vero che esista la lobby ebraica di pressione riguardo alle politiche USA
nei confronti della questione mediorientale. 
Stiamo scherzando? Mica sto dicendo che è un complotto giudo-pluto non so
che, dico che c'è una lobby composta da persone molto,molto potenti e
influenti (molte di discendenza ebraica o appartenenti a comunità ebraica)
che sostiene pesantemente la politica disastrosa,repressiva e violenta (nei
confronti dei palestinesi) di Israele.

 avuto la faccia tosta di presentare.
ma ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
il tuo stato delirante peggiora a vista d'occhio.


ho solo sottolineato che sei riuscito a dire una cazzata "archetipo" totale.
sarò pedante, ma spiegami per bene dove la mia frase risulta essere cazzata
"archetipo" totale.
Non ci penso nemmeno per un momento a catalogare qualsivoglia comunità, sia
essa costituita per discendenza, etnia, hobby,politica,cultura, come
"straniera" o "estranea" al dibattito INTERNO delle politiche di un paese.
Non condivido il "non si intrometta negli affari interni", altrettanto non
condivido le indebite pressioni, giocate continuamente sulla questione
antisemita, di un giovane fanatico (e perfettamente allineato con
sensibilità e politiche di Israele) che disgraziatamente è stato messo a
capo della comunità ebraica italiana.

 infatti ho risposto a Toni.
Leggiti Bernard Lewis.
Tb

 Leggiti 
ma piantala buffone paranoico.


 
/cut/
Continui a farti politicamente male (semicit.)
Tb

discendenza e tradizione ebraica.
E perche' mai darebbe questa idea, caro *FESSO* di un n3tgan3sh?
Oltretutto tu non hai parlato di "da l'idea" ma proprio del fatto che
"percepisce come suo".  Peccato che non sia un fatto ma solo una
menzogna senza nulla a sostegno.
-Stefano

Stiamo scherzando?
Magari.  Purtroppo carta canta.
-Stefano

thread, è un razzista di merda.
Fonte?

 Apprendo che č pure "poco trasparente". 
il nazistucolo di corso magenta č in preda al delirio.


 il nazistucolo di corso magenta è in preda al delirio.
"E in più è vigliacchetto e dissimulatore. Strano non abbia l'amico 
 ebreo."
è una delle sue preferite, l'ha usata anche con me : se uno cita un
giudizio dissonante dato da un ebreo diventa "l'amico ebreo" o "l'ebreo
buono", questo per darti neanche tanto velatamente dell'antisemita che però
adora il suo "cagnolino" .
Comunque, lo sport del Taroccatore ha i suoi schemi:
prendi una disgraziata e discutibile dichiarazione di poche righe, cancella
tutto il contesto nel quale era inserita, elimina il personaggio che le ha
scritte, la sua autorevolezza, la sua estrema disponibilità riguardo alla
faccenda di dibatterne pubblicamente e insulta come razzista e antisemita
di merda, bollandolo a fuoco per sempre.
Passo finale: aggiungi la tacca al tuo fucile da cacciatore Usenet,
ridacchia con la cricca di amici di merende e sbeffeggia possibilmente
alludendo tra le righe.

 corso magenta è in preda al delirio.
Psst. Segui il gruppo.
Tb 


/cut/
Hai poi letto l'articolo che ti ho segnalato?
Guarda che è utile.
Tb 

 alludendo tra le righe.
Tonib, prima o poi mi spieghi come fai a farli rosicare cosě. 

 Tonib, prima o poi mi spieghi come fai a farli rosicare così.
Non so, è un dono che ho ricevuto.
("tra le righe": rotfl!)
Tb 

 Guarda che è utile.
è inutile che continui con queste spregevoli allusioni.
L'articolo l'ho letto; le tesi di Lewis non mi sono nuove.
Al bevitore di rum posso dire che non si rosica, si rimane indignati per la
tattica mafiosa.

Tonibaruch ha scritto:




da come hai rosicato con delirio su Asor Rosa a seguito della tua solita
tonigoebellsata non si direbbe che siano gli altri a rosicare.


 L'articolo l'ho letto; le tesi di Lewis non mi sono nuove.
Ecco, se io fossi in te prenderei una rasserenante pausa di 
riflessione. Leverei un attimo il coltello di tra i denti e proverei a 
pensare anche da quel punto di vista. Lewis non č un fesso.
Tb

 pensare anche da quel punto di vista. Lewis non è un fesso.
Lewis? Assolutamente no, è un grandissimo.
Il fesso sei tu, e io a ruota da coglione.
A mai più quotarci, fanatico.

 A mai più quotarci, fanatico.
Eppure, secondo me, lo sai di aver scritto un filotto di cazzate.
E' palpabile. Tutto sommato, resto fiducioso.
Tb