Sometimes, readers leave the kind of comments that deserve a wider readership than they might receive if they are left hiding in a long and popular thread. Reader V. (who is my friend but does not visit the blog out of a sense of obligation 🙂 ) left the following impressive comment:
I learned long ago that it is pointless to argue about Israel with the patriots of Israel… But today I have a weird inspiration, so here it goes (apologies to all native Americans for possible lack of cultural sensitivity):
2050. The great Iroquois thinker Kevin Wolfson develops the ideology of Hochelagism (Montrealers will understand) which involves all the Iroquois assembling on the lands currently known as the Island of Montreal, around the ancient holy places of Mount Royal, and founding their national/religious state. The idea takes hold, and eventually the Iroquois state is founded. All unable to prove their Iroquois origin are at best relegated to second-class citizen status (thoroughly questioned and searched every time they fly in and out of Magua International), or become stateless, or are expelled without the right to return (one cannot really run an Iroquois national state with so many non-Iroquois in it, can one?). Everybody daring to oppose Iroquois hegemony is persecuted, those trying to oppose it with force are labeled terrorists (which they are, but on the other hand “our” terrorists are always celebrated “freedom fighters”, while “their” freedom fighters are always “terrorists” for “us”) and hunted down mercilessly. Their houses are bulldozed, meaning their families are persecuted as well… Or occasionally they get blown up together with their terrorist/freedom fighter father/husband/brother by an Iroquois army helicopter… Regretful mistakes, of course…
Did Iroquois suffer throughout their history? Yes, they did, in ways which many believe constitute genocide. Do they have any less right for their national state than other nations? Of course they have the same right. Can they make justified historic claims involving the Island of Montreal? Of course they can. Does it make Hochelagism a good idea? Free of easily foreseeable conflicts? Any less painful for those on a receiving end of it? Is it reasonable to expect no opposition to Hochelagism? Is opposing Hochelagism morally equivalent to justifying genocide of Iroquois?
But of course, The Great Asian Democratic Empire is interested in a thorn in the Anglo-Saxon (less likely – French) ass. So it supports the Iroquois state with several billion yuables a year… As long as the Iroquois agree to be their lightning rod in the Western Hemisphere…
God knows, I didn’t want to start a conversation about Israel. People keep suggesting that I’d do anything for popularity, but that’s not true. This is a subject I am only going to broach because I have been insistently asked by readers to do so. I have a lot to say on the subject but nobody is going to like what have to say. I warn everybody from the start that the position of “Israelis walk on water, Palestinians are barbaric animals” is just as alien to me as “Palestinians are saints, Israelis are genocidal maniacs.”
I understand that this is a sensitive topic, so I warn everybody in advance: if you are traumatized by any position that differs from the two I just described, you’d be better off simply not reading this series of posts.
I believe that V.’s comment is a great way to begin a dialogue. All I ask is that people avoid calling each other Nazis. If there is a way to annoy me, that’s it. Unless you know for a fact that somebody walks around with a swastika, they are not a Nazi, OK?