Anti-anti-semitismo

A propósito de "O Vaticano, o anti-semitismo e os extremismos de sempre (agora em nova embalagem) " no Mata-Mouros que remete para The Vatican's Betrayal of Israel

Permito-me surpreender para já que um Católico escreva um texto intitulado de "The Vatican's Betrayal of Israel". É como quando Thomas Fleming escreve sobre Michael Novak:

"Dear Michael, I read your latest piece in Il Sole, in which you take issue with an Italian priest who had said that democracy could not be established at the point of a gun. (...) I well remember the first time I heard you speak—though it was a speech you had given (and would give) many times. Your basic argument was that the only problem with Latin America was that it had never had a Protestant Reformation. I was an Anglican in those days, but I could not understand how a Catholic could be so disloyal to his Church. I still don’t."

Antes de prosseguir com uma breve análise do artigo em questão vou sugerir aqui a leitura de um texto de Murray N. Rothbard (conservative-libertarian, filho de pais judeus - tal como o seu mentor e austríaco Ludwig von Mises - imigrantes da Polónia).

PAT BUCHANAN AND THE MENACE ANTI-ANTI-SEMITISM

Nota rápida: parto-me sempre a rir quando leio neste texto "...Poor Barbara; like all Randians, she is perpetually out of sync" - esta é uma boca aos adoradores do culto de Ayn Rand" :)

"I have it on good authority that Barbara Branden is spending a good portion of her time lately brooding about the Arising menace of anti-Semitism." Poor Barbara; like all Randians, she is perpetually out of sync. There is indeed a menace in this area, Barbara, but it is precisely the opposite: the cruel despotism of Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism. Wielding the fearsome brand of "Anti-Semite" as a powerful weapon, the professional Anti-Anti-Semite is able, in this day and age, to wound and destroy anyone he disagrees with by implanting this label indelibly in the public mind. How can one argue against this claim, always made with hysteria and insufferable self-righteousness? To reply "I am not an anti-Semite" is as feeble and unconvincing as Richard Nixon's famous declaration that "I am not a crook."

So far, Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism has been able to destroy, to drive out of public life, anyone who receives the "anti-Semite" treatment. True, "anti-Semitic" expression is not yet illegal (though it is banned in many Western "democracies," as well as increasingly – as with other "hate speech" – serving as grounds for expulsion, or at the very least compulsory "reeducation," on college campuses). But the receiver of the brand is generally deprived of access to organs of influential opinion, and is marginalized out of the centers of public life. At best, the victim of the brand may be driven to abase himself before his persecutors, and, by suitable groveling, apologies, and – most important – the changing of positions of crucial interest to his enemies, he may work his way back into public life – at the expense of course, of self-emasculation. Or, if, by chance, the victim manages to survive the onslaught, he may be induced to exercise due caution and shut up about such issues in the future, which amounts to the same thing. In that way, Organized Anti-Anti-Semitism (OAAS) creates, for itself, a win-win situation."

Mas voltando a Don Kenner, que não conheço, e que escreve na FrontpageMagazine de David Horowitz (um antigo esquerdista anti-guerra do vietname que achou por bem fazer um upgrade para neoconservador). Parece que o problema é condenar o Muro. Pois eu acho que o Muro é uma decisão que compete a Israel mas não vejo como a Igreja pudesse apoiá-la em tal decisão. O Muro é uma derrota de uma certa estratégia e um retrocesso. Pode ser necessário ou não, compete aos próprios decidi-lo, mas é um retrocesso. Os extremistas alimentam-se destes retrocessos. Mesmo quando são necessários.

Quase que apostaria que o mesmo Don Kenner terá escrito sobre a traição (ou coisa do género) do Vaticano aos EUA na questão do Iraque. Os Neoconservadores escreveram abundantemente sobre a falta de patriotismo ("unpatriotic conservatives") dos conservadores tradicionais (aqueles que desconfiam da "national greatness", do "império benevolente", da exportação da democracia na ponta da baioneta - tal como o padre italiano que Novak quis rebater).

Curiosamente não cita a sua fonte, compõe um texto que não fornece e diz (vou pôr a Negro o mais importante):

"The real violation is to be found in article 11, section 2, which reads:

"The Holy See, while maintaining in every case the right to exercise its moral and spiritual teaching-office, deems it opportune to recall that, owing to its own character, it is solemnly committed to remaining a stranger to all merely temporal conflicts, which principle applies specifically to disputed territories and unsettled borders."

It is refreshing to hear the so-called "occupied lands" referred to as disputed territories. But the Bishops refer to the anti-terrorism fence as a "land grab" and speak of it cutting through "Palestinian land." Does this sound like a solemn commitment to "remaining a stranger" to conflicts concerning "unsettled borders"?"

Pois, primeiro congratula-se por poder concluir que os "territórios ocupados" são "territórios em disputa", depois quer apanhar em contradição e uma razão de "traição a Israel" pela aparente (mais uma vez não cita o texto, quer "apenas" que acreditemos na sua palavra) condenação a partes do seu traçado. Um pouco excessivo, não?

Finalmente, conclui magnificamente: "Later, during a heated exchange, Latin-rite Patriarch Michel Sabbah told Israeli President Moshe Katsav that the security fence is not necessary because the occupation causes terrorism. It cannot be stated too often that Arab pogroms against Jews, massacres of Jewish civilians, and even terrorism predate the 1967 war, and therefore predate the "occupation."

Uma conclusão forçada. Como muitas neste assunto. Antes de 1967 as vítimas israelitas de ataques árabes eram muito diminutas comparando com as depois da guerra de 1967 (e consequente expansão territorial alegando necessidades de defesa). Querer provar que ovo precedeu a galinha ou o contrário na necessidade de "ocupação" não afasta a realidade da "ocupação" e os seus custos (e vidas) impostos sobre os não terroristas (a maioria da população), e a cuja falta de soluções alimenta os que escolhem o terrorismo.

Deixo ainda o final do texto de Murray N. Rothbard:

"But am I not redefining anti-Semitism out of existence? Certainly not. On the subjective definition, by the very nature of the situation, I don't know any such people, and I doubt whether the Smear Bund does either. On the objective definition, where outsiders can have greater knowledge, and setting aside clear-cut anti-Semites of the past, there are in modern America authentic anti-Semites: groups such as the Christian Identity movement, or the Aryan Resistance, or the author of the novel Turner's Diaries. But these are marginal groups, you say, of no account and not worth worrying about? Yes, fella, and that is precisely the point."