Orwellian Definition of Israel as a "rascist" state
Reader comment on article: Columbia University Celebrates Edward Said

Submitted by Leonard Applebaum (Israel), Apr 27, 2003 at 05:28

Re- Dan Katcher's comments: How absurd that Israel can be even remotely considered to be "rascist." Israel is a country composed of people who emigrated from over 100 different countries and is composed of people of literally every color in the rainbow who only want to be free to practice the Jewish religion. All religions are free to practice in Israel.

For over 1400 years, humiliating treatment was consistently and brutally imposed upon all non-Muslims living in the Muslim world - Christians as well as Jews as well as anyone else who would dare to practice his own religion. This was under the Islamic religion's legally mandated status of subjection of any "infidel" non-Muslim, who were viewed there as inferior "dhimmi": a word ridiculously defined as "protected"! : protected in the sense that "if we deign to allow you to live, and do not actually slaughter you outright, then mandate rules for everyday living that seek to humiliate you in every possible way, this is defined as "protected". This history is whitewashed with the Orwellian doublespeak term: "golden era" of "peaceful relations".

Now compare this to the Arab middle eastern countries, where there is far less racial diversity and tremendous pressure against all non-Muslims and now decide who are the actual rascists!? In Saudi Arabia, for example, non-Muslims cannot even set foot in their holy city of Mecca. I remember being sickened during Gulf War I when George Bush Sr., doing the "politically correct" thing, was forced to remain on an aircraft carrier off the coast of "ally" Saudi Arabia in order to say his Christmas prayers - since, as a non-Muslim he is considered "infidel". This, while the USA was in the act of risking its soldiers' lives to protect that country from Saddam Hussein!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited, before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments.