The Forum > Article Comments > Why the academic boycott of Israel is not anti-Semitic > Comments
Why the academic boycott of Israel is not anti-Semitic : Comments
By Ciara O'Loughlin, published 15/8/2013Lynch is accused of being anti-Semitic, prejudiced and of associating with a movement that supposedly aims at the destruction of Israel. Is there any truth in these claims?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 19 August 2013 9:41:09 PM
| |
Dear Lego,
I am not enjoying our interchange so will end my part of it. Goodbye, Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 August 2013 9:21:46 AM
|
North America, Australia and New Zealand were settled primarily by the North European protestant people with English being the common language on account of the fact that most of the original European settlers were British. Just because there were a few Jews and Catholics and other minorities among the original settlers does not detract from that fact.
Your desire to create a nation that is race, religion and culture blind equates to the quixotic dream of the socialists to create a class free society. There is not a single country on planet Earth which does not have a dominant culture, and fighting to decide who's culture is the dominant one in every territory is the single most important reason for human hostility within those countries cursed with multiple cultural identities who's population proportions have reached critical mass.
Where two or more cultures exist in any territory which have diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive cultural values (exacerbated by race) and birth rate differentials, the result has always been serious civil disorder, race riots, demands for separatism, terrorism, and finally civil war. The aim of separatists is to create societies where their culture is the dominant one and no amount of dreamy fantasising by yourself is going to prevent that. Most people think that the desire to live in a society with their own kith and kin where they feel safe is something worth fighting for. Why be a minority in one country when you can split the country in two and make the former majority who's values you reject a minority in yours?
The idea of preventing war by having everybody holding hands and singing "Kumaya" around the campfire is a nice idea, but it is as likely to happen as preventing teenage pregnancies by telling teenagers that they must not think about sex.
Now, the question still stands. If your desire is for a secular nation, how would you reconcile that with living in a country with a growing minority which insisted on laws which complied with the dictates of any particular religion, who's values you vehemently opposed?