Here is the deal; consider if you will 3 little nuggets;
- forgetting the mideast conflict entirely, imagine this intervention being in respect to Russia (cause they’re both political positions and have absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs or protections, as to their credit many jews recognise) and a proposed law considering any criticism of Russia deemed illegal; would that make sense in a democracy.
- this new bill would in effect shackle not just ordinary citizens but the entire political and possibly the judicial system into submission based on bogus religious pretences that are mainly serving political ends – it is much too clear to even argue about it, particularly at a moment where the mess of the mideast conflict is reaching historical levels. Its as if just watching atrocities being committed left, right and centre in the mideast with many western leaders lacking courage to make any serious effort to stop it is not gut wrenching enough, now “some” want to make it even illegal to even complain about it; how “rich”….
- lets for arguments sake accept that this is a matter of religious protections; does that open the door for other religious groups (and nations adopting same religion) to demand similar protections against any form of criticism; this to be imposed on a secular society/political system. In fact I would go as far as suggesting the term antisemitism to be restored to its genuine unequivocal intent of protecting religious beliefs within the larger context of fighting all forms of racism in general. In other words lets make this approach to be the only one fit in memory of all those who perished in the Holocaust (jews and non jews alike) and all atrocities/genocide committed since then, because – and correct me if I’m wrong – no scar is more relevant/serious than another; does this make sense? Also I’ve posted plenty about the history of the jewish population in the mideast for context and I encourage people to establish historical context before making judgements based on narrow narratives that lead us all to wild fires that get out of control (need not imagine it when you can see it).
Now to my final point which I regularly repeat in my posts; the real threat to universal values that are key part of western culture – that is political/social culture – is the toxic foreign influence championed by those with suspect allegiances; just because you hold the flag and speak the language isn’t proof of loyalty when you consistently defend foreign interests particularly (but not only) when indefensible actions are involved. This happens across Europe and my hope is that people from all sides of the political spectrum stand up against this threat. Unreformed immigration policies become a threat if left unchecked, but toxic foreign influence is catastrophic socially, politically and in terms of national/regional security. The United States is a great example of this, but unlike the U.S., Europe is much more vulnerable to the blowback from consequential regions so it should remain engaged yet politically to help resolve conflicts but remain isolated from the toxic narratives within regions of conflict in order to have the best chance to be a strong force for peace in such regions; and history suggests that peace is only achievable via incentives and disincentives. Of course it would help immensely to have Europe depend on people who understand the true psyche and genuine history of the region well as a starting point; people with the right motivations and allegiances. Its all a question of approach however well intentions may fly.