I have written the previous post Professor Emeritus Moshé Machover, logic and politics as a result of being surprised by a senseless text. Well, actually, by the fact that this senseless text comes from a person who is supposed to have very few peers where logic is concerned.
After stumbling on another opus: Moshé Machover A FAQ: What do you think about suicide bombers?, I am not surprised anymore. As far as logic is concerned, Mr Machover is a sitting duck. Or is it a dead horse? Some kind of roadkill, in short, I say...
Being a gift that keeps giving, Professor Emeritus displays this to start with:
But suicide bombing – however abhorrent – is clearly not a cowardly act. In some limited sense – which in no way implies moral approval! – it may even be regarded as heroic.Quite startling , but not really original. Anyway, it was only an appetizer, here comes the main dish:
But it is important to point out the positive attitude to an extreme act of this sort in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I am referring to the story about Samson in the biblical Book of Judges.Do you already experience that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach? You should. Because we are getting close to where it really stinks:
Samson, who terrorized the Philistines, was captured by them (using his lover Delilah as honey-trap, in a ruse reminiscent of the capture of the nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu using an attractive Mossad agent).Leave the contents of the parentheses for later. Let's also skip the lengthy quote (Judges XVI, 21-30) and go straight to the conclusion:
This story of the suicidal killing of thousands of men and women, most of them no doubt innocent, by the blinded and humiliated Samson, is taught approvingly to present-day Israeli children. The protagonist is conventionally referred to as “Samson the Hero” (Shimshon Haggibor).Now, using the mechanism of derivation from unclear or even non-existing texts, perfected by Professor Emeritus, you should have no trouble whatsoever to conclude that, as it says in the title of this post, Zionists invented suicide bombers. Case closed.
So, you can easily see that, precisely like Samson, hundreds and even thousands of Israeli children are strapping on explosive belts and happily, singing the Haganah/Palmach songs, run around various world capitals, randomly blowing self up in the midst of innocent citizenry.
No? They don't? And what: Samson didn't have an explosive belt? He didn't blow self up? Oh, so he was tied to a column or two... and what do you intend to prove by all these useless details that don't contribute anything of value to the cause?
Bite me, in short. And now, with your leave, let's go back to the material in parentheses: so Samson was captured by the Philistines (using his lover Delilah as honey-trap, in a ruse reminiscent of the capture of the nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu using an attractive Mossad agent).
This stuff is likely to make one mad, so try to go slowly and carefully there, it's a veritable minefield of logic. First of all, Philistines must be the good guys, since they were against this Zionist suicide bomber Samson, right? Since they've used his [Samson's] lover Delilah as honey-trap, and because we know they were righteous guys, honey-trapping one Samson was a good deed. Am I right or am I right?
But then, Professor Emeritus Moshé Machover adds: "in a ruse reminiscent of the capture of the nuclear whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu using an attractive Mossad agent". Which should mean that Mossad are also righteous guys, since they have used the same ruse as them Philistines and caught this baddie Vanunu.
Yeah, but isn't this Vanunu character a good bloke, him being against Zionists just like the Philistines? And how come Mossad became good guys, when we all know that they are a running lackey dog and all that jazz?
And what is, for crying out loud, "an attractive Mossad agent"? Don't we all know that these Zionist agents are ugly slappers good for cat food only?
I don't think any more of that is needed to break the logic neck of your camel. Do you?