Few people are sufficiently proud or righteous to refuse asserting themselves at others’ expense. For most people, fear is provocative. A typical man feels the urge to strike a weak person who doesn’t implore for his help. Men reassert themselves by domination, and push the others as much as possible until encountering or expecting to encounter resistance. They eagerly accept the weaklings who plead for master-vassal relationship. Such weaklings are provided benevolent protection. But Jews constitute the case of weaklings who remain staunchly different, thus independent. Jews submit without being submissive. Jews never accept the strongman’s authority as absolute because they have their own ideas. Yet Jews are weak and fearful. The Jews’ fearfulness provokes anti-Semitism. All of us have seen a similar situation in schools: the weakest children are despised and often kicked. Even the otherwise decent classmates sometimes cannot resist the urge to kick that weakling. They do so to reassert themselves, but also as a means of punishment. Frightful weakness offends or at least irritates the bystanders because it presumes them hostile and ill-wishing. Fearful weakness also switches the cognitive framework: people are used to the situations when others fear them for a reason, being guilty and expecting punishment. A fearful person is subconsciously seen as guilty, deserving punishment.
Many minorities are weak, but Jews are also fearful because they historically lacked institutional protection. In most cases, Jews are institutionally oppressed rather than simply left unprotected. They have a good reason to fear. But fear prompts oppression and builds on itself.
Rare nations, such as the proud populations of Caucasus mountains, harbor no anti-Semitism. For most nations, Israeli weakness, her suing for peace fits into the cognitive framework of fear and irresistibly provokes for anti-Semitism.


Thank you for this excellent analysis.
So peacemaking in cowardice and weakness? I don't think so!
Surely it is often more brave to sue for peace when one's family and friends are pressing for vengeance. … to learn to love one's enemy is more courageous than to persist in dehumanising alienation and stereotyping.
Care to offer a single historical example of those enigmatic "brave" suing for peace?
Or how about an example of any surviving nation espousing "love to its enemies"?
Is it just drugs you people are taking in Belfast, or is leftover radiation from the soviet era involved as well?
Man, it is really frustrating when I have to agree with Ray
. I don't know personally about the people of the Caucasus, but the analysis is spot on.
.
==
Danny — Jesus supposedly pulled off the "turn the other cheek, love your enemy" thing, but then he was also supposedly able to rise from the dead after his enemies reacted as would be expected. And he did say the "render unto Caeser…" thing. Might want to follow him as a spiritual leader, but I wouldn't vote for him for President.
==
Also, Danny — The Tibetans tried that approach recently. Didn't work very well.
==
Erick — It isn't drugs; I've tried that. I think the nukes might help though
==
Cheryl — In all seriousness, I am a pacifist at the deepest level of my soul. But if someone, God forbid, attempted to harm your son or daughter or someone else depending on you for protection, would you just let it happen?
Giving the other cheek, is the most arrogant thing a person can do. It is like saying "I am better than you". I am above violence, above your primitive level. It is almost always insincere, too. Most peacenicks are full of hatred and anger. Mahatma Gandhi was a very hateful man. (His son oldest son disobeyed him and went to study law in England, the "Mahatma" punished him by saying that he was no longer his son, and banning him for the rest of his life from the family. "Mahatmas" wife was not allowed to see her own son.
It is much more respectful to meet our enemies on their own conditions: This way we are showing them our humanity, we are like them, they can understand us, and a form of respect can actually grow between the two groups.
Note that Obadiah even speaks about Hamas, with a certain respect.
Throughout history, Muslims and Christians have murdered similar number of people. Muslims have been straight about their hatred, and Christians were murdering while blabbering about "giving the other cheek"!
To Erick: Belfast is very fine, actually ) We have many friends there.
Samson Blinded on how the Middle East peace process builds up anti-semitism.
http://kashmiri-nomad.blogspot.com/2007/12/islam-and-west-accelerated-links-for-9.html
OK, Now let us try to put the Forum concept into action, Ray, if you are going to start calling the Christians blabbering murderers. I admit to getting a little off topic, but only in response to Cheryl, and with one liners at that. I agree about Gandhi, by the way. But if you want to Christian bash, let's just "step outside".
Danny, are you saying that you would never be friends with someone who is doing drugs and overdosing on radiation?
Danny,
A question/suggestion/request:
Is it possible to do that:
If someones message is a direct response to Obadiah's post it stays in the "comments" section.
As soon as we are responding to someone else's post, it AUTOMATICALLY goes to the forum?
Working on something similar…