69 million page views

Appropriate Response to UN Security Council 14-0 Resolution on Settlement

Reader comment on item: The Way to Peace

Submitted by Robert (United States), Dec 24, 2016 at 14:38

The Security Council of the United Nations
has just passed into International "Law" a decision defining for the 21st Century
the boundaries, if not the boarders, a new "Pale of Settlement," or a new "Ghetto,"
where Jews may live. If this isn't "Apartheid" imposed upon Jews, that term has no meaning.

Ironically, this is happening when millions of Palestinians, Arabs or Muslims
are Settling all over Europe "illegally"
contrary to the emerging Popular voices resisting the do-good blindness EU ideologues
who are the a part of the elite establishment.

In my view, the UN represents three interests or voices, the Anti-Semitic Christians of the West
who will not accept Jesus as the Savior, and that Jews in Israel should thrive without Him.

This International organization (UN & its Security Council)
also represents the view of Palestinians, Islamists, Arabs, and Muslims
who can Tolerate the "Arrogance" of Jews thriving in Israel-Palestine
where Islam once ruled under the banner of the Prophet Muhammad.

It also represents the Left, and the re-labeled Communists and Socialists
who can only see or define the Start-Up Nation of Israel
as a Capitalist and Colonialist intruder
into the Third World of the Middle East
(with the Politically Correct Multicultural Savage and/or Fundamentalists
who are implicitly permitted to force women
to dress modestly and not drive cars,
unless the father, brother, husband, or son
are sitting in the driver's seat;
not even a male cousin can be the driver.

Then there are the economic opportunists
whose interests are with the far vaster Arab and Muslim populations
who produce Oil and Gas for the world,
and who perfected the Suicide Vest (for which they are effectively forgiven).

Communism has been replace by Islam
I'm deliberately not using the Ideological term "Islamism"
which would make me Politically Correct.
In that regard, I ask Dr. Daniel Pipes
to trace the historical roots of this Concept,
the Concept of Ideology.
Is it historically correct or misleading
to call a manifestation of the Muslim religion an Ideology?
The term, "Ideology," it turns out
was coined by a French nobleman in 1794.
The notable was Antoine Destutt de Tracy (1754-1836)
[he was an Enlightenment "philosophe"].
The tern short after entered the title
of this scholar's multi-volume work: "Éléments d'idéologie."
The author abandoned his title of nobility
and joined the French Revolution and its Assembly.
But he was subsequently imprisoned during the "Reign of Terror";
a conscientious observer who wishes to be fair to Muslims and Islam
may at this point interject that Europe preceded Islam in Terror or Terrorism.
Fortunately for Antoine de Tracy Robespierre preceded him to the Guillotine;
after a year of imprisonment de Tracy released.
But Napoleon made fun of him and his "Science of Ideology."
So did Karl Marx who famously called him a Fish-Blooded Bourgeoisie
(or some variation of the original German).
But the fascination story of the Concept of Ideology
does not end dramatically at this points.
It turns out that our own THOMAS JEFFERSON was a translator in 1917
of the work into English, but the title introduced "Political Economy"
(an improvement by our Thomas Jefferson?):

Destutt de Tracy, Antoine Louis Claude,
"A Treatise on Political Economy,"
trans. Thomas Jefferson (1817)
(reprinted New York 1970).
French 1823 edition online at http://gallica.bnf.fr/scripts/ConsultationTout.exe?O=N041802&E=0.

More on this French scholar, relevant to his "Science of Ideology" is available here:
Life and Works of Antoine Louis Claude, Comte Destutt de Tracy [David M. Hart*]

I did not trace the more modern transformation of the concept of Ideology,
so my view that this is a poor choice for Dr. Pipes to use
in describing Islamism as a Ideology distinct from the religion of Islam
must remain, strictly speaking a hypothesis, but not mere speculation.

Still, in keeping with our great American love for Founding Father Thomas Jefferson
(yes, who owned African Slaves)
may we inquire as to the Political Economy of Islamism?
But that would require one to study the implicit split in the United States
into the two science of Contemporary American Academia
(1) Political Science and (2) Economics,
and that may lead one to enter the "swamp" of Communism in the USA.


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 and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)