The problem is that authorities (people) who claim to “know the Quran” have extremely different perceptions of this book.

On one hand, there are the pro-Quran authorities who claim that the Quran is a book of love and peace which preach to tolerance and solidarity.

On the other hand, there are the anti-Quran authorities (which I tend to accept) who claim that the Quran is a fanatic militant paranoid book, and the direct cause to the fact that the Muslim world takes the lead in areas like women slavery and religious wars.

Simple test

I suggest a simple test: decide how much time you have at the moment. Open the Quran (English translation here) in a random place, and start reading. 5 minutes will be more than enough to understand where the wind blows.

A moderating comment

Luckily the Muslim world is not as horrible as the Quran orders it to be. Muslim people are people like any other people; so the vast majority of them find workarounds that make them able to think that they are living by this monstrous book, without losing their humanity.

The probability that the nuclear weapon of Israel will violate the regional stability in the near future is pretty low. Even if Israel will have much more militant and religious government it is still very likely that they will not use it.

The reason for that is that Israel doesn’t have proxies in the Middle East. If Syria or Iran for example will get nuclear reactors, than the main practical danger of it will not be a nuclear war, but that some of the nuclear waste will fond its way to small radical Islamic groups.

Israel, as I said, doesn’t have this option, so she will have to carry direct responsibility for any dirty bomb that “serves” her side.

Ideological Parasites are those who take real problems and tie them with some faux statements that serving their own interests. By doing so, the Ideological Parasites make anyone who think that the real problem should be solved, automatically become a supporter of the appended interests.

Example: Erdogan humanitarian sensitivity

Erdogan, the Turkish PM, tends to be emotional about the condition of the Palestinians. He feel sad that Israel kill people because that is very wrong; that Israel is the biggest threat to the middle east, using disproportionate force, and possibly committing crimes against humanity etc. The Turkish position, on the contrary, is humanitarian, according to Erdogan.

The opinions and sensitivity of Erdogan are correct, and might even be honest. The condition of the Palestinians is disgraceful and something has to be done to change it. And it is definitely a sad thing that the Israeli government is to impotent to make some change and withdrew the Israeli Army from the occupied areas.

The problem, however, is that opposing the Israeli violations of human rights does not necessarily put Erdogan on the other side of the spectrum.

Turkey has a large minority of Kurds, and this minority wishes for independence. Erdogan don’t want the Kurds to be independent so he slaughters them – much more liberally than Israel does to the Palestinians – every time the Kurds trying to do raise their square heads.  The Turkish army killed about 200 Kurds only in the last month. If there is still a doubt whether this policy represents Erdogan opinion or not, Erdogan statement that Kurdish Rebels will “drown in their own blood” makes it quite unquestionable.

There are also quite militant restrictions on the usage of the Kurdish language in Turkey, the ability to support Kurdish interests in public and live painless life in parallel, and admitting that Kurdish people are really exist in general.

This was only one example about one minority. Women, gays, Armenian, and other minorities or oppositions does not experience much pleasure as well.

I’ll make it clear: the fact that Turkey is violating human rights by no means makes it OK to Israel to do similar things. The Israeli occupation is a real and serious problem.

My point is to show how by pointing a real problem (the Palestinian condition) Erdogan created a momentum and tied this problem with a faux statement (“Turkey is a country who does give a shit about human rights”), so people who agree with him about the real problem are moving to his side.

Bizarre as it sounds, Erdogan’s tactics work. It became common to see Turkish flags carried by human rights useful-idiots activists.

————————————–

This was only one example of one Ideological Parasite, but there are many of them everywhere. Many of the funding myths of the Israeli Palestinian conflict are based on such false facts (and I have to say again that there are real problems that should be solved).

Here is a partial list that of such Ideological-Parasite-originated statements and beliefs. It is just what I had in mind at the moment and there are much more:

• There is a Genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
• Israel massacred hundreds of people at the battle of Jenin in 2002.
• Muhammad al-Durrah Killed by the Israelis.
• Every criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism (this one is from the Israeli side, but the idea is exactly the same).
• Hamas is fighting for the freedom of the Palestinians.
• The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the cause for wars in Yemen, Somaliland and Afghanistan, and the reason for many of the social problems inside Syria and other Muslim countries.

The sad thing is that such parasites only make it harder to see the real problems so it is a lot harder to understand how to solve them.

There are real problems and there are lots of crazy fanatics around who tries to take advantage over these problems and make everything much worse.

1. Taking a side.
2. Think about the facts.
3. Using the facts to reinforce her side.

A non-fundamentalist

1. Possibly have some positions.
2. Integrating new facts with her previous positions.
3. Having new and improved positions.

Interaction between the two:

1. The problem is when the fundamentalist has better rhetoric.
2. The solution is to remember that the conclusions should not be done on the spot, and can wait for further thinking and analysis.
3. A new problem is that the fundamentalist would win the game she is playing with herself.
4. I can’t think about solution for that. Maybe showing some affection can help a little.

Boycott is a strong weapon that is not suiting every situation. It could be an overkill in many cases, and achieve the opposite then the required result.

I’ll try to examine several common forms of boycott and explain their possible results. Then, I’ll try to provide some rules of thumb for effective boycott.

My assumption is that the consideration whether to boycott or not depends only in the question if the boycott would achieve practical results. Boycotting as a statement or as a punishment is fundamentally senseless when you are not a teenager who defends her popularity.

 
Cultural Boycott

One area, which in a boycott is almost always wrong, is the cultural area. I’m talking about cases like boycotting Israeli books and movies, excluding Israeli artists from festivals, or simply expelling Israeli people from public discussions.

The main reason that boycott is wrong in such cases is that cultural events are aiming to the little people. The little people can be roughly divided to three groups:

1. People who are already agree with your opinions: these people are not your problem.
2. People who are disagree with your opinions: the boycott will not positively affect them anyway.
3. A large mass of little people who are just living their little life: these people are not interested in the big picture (they want to, but they don’t have the time or the nerves). It’s not their fault that they born in this crazy place and they just want to live there life. They don’t have strong opinion about the Israel-wrong-things issues, and they are the ones who are actually able to change their minds.
   The only result of working against these people will be that these people will tag you as an enemy who is positioned in the “other side”. This means that whatever you are trying to say, they are probably against it. You are just arrogantly disturbing their little life with your naïve and stupid ideas. It is also a strengthening to “everybody is against us so we should trust only ourselves and listen to nobody” arguments.
   If you are against what their government is doing, but not against “them”, then accepting this people as people, and communicate with them naturally about your common interests, will expose them much more effectively to your alternative opinions. If there is a common sense in your opinions, then something will probably defuse.

 
Economy and Diplomacy

There are, however, places where the boycotting weapon might work. I’m talking about economy and diplomacy. In those two areas people tend to believe that they are making rational decisions, so pressure may be annoying, but effective in some degree.

 Even in those cases, the boycotting should be done carefully and responsibly as a strong way to say moderate things. As soon as a tiniest amount of propaganda or judgment is involved, the whole thing become emotional again and the little people are closing themselves again (and this time also with contempt to the stranger who doesn’t understand the complexity of the situation).

 
Academic Boycott

A place that boycott is possible in principle, but is wrong for the current Israeli situation IMO, is the academy.

Academy should be loyal to the truth. If the academy is bending its methods to support a political agenda, then it’s no longer Academy, but Agora. The global academic community should not tolerate such cases. This should be the only reason for academic boycott. As I said, this is not the situation in the Israeli academy these days.

Any other reason for academic boycott will betray the fundamental idea of academy.

 
Rules of Thumb for Effective Boycott

• Avoid judgment. There is no point in telling people that they are morally wrong. Just tell them that they crossed your lines and you practically don’t want to be a part of that. Leave the right or wrong question to their own conscience.
• Be specific as possible. If you are against the Israeli occupation, for example, then work against the occupation. Boycott companies that provide weapons, or boycott products of the Israeli settlements. Boycotting “Israel” in general will damage your focus and will position you as a distant “other” who is against “us”.
• Be clear about your conditions. It should be clear that you are stressing a specific point, and not pushing as much as you can.
• Have willing to listen and learn. It will give you an honorable way back in case you are changing your mind; it will reduce the resistance of the other side to listen; or at least it will help you to know your enemy.
• Make it clear that your interests are not contradicting the interests of the boycotted group when this is the case. If you think that the occupation is bad to the Israeli interests then make sure they know that.
• Keep it close to the subject. Don’t boycott as a statement. Don’t boycott in one area to stress another. If you’ll do such things then people will recognize the inconsistency and focus on that. If you are boycotting the academy, and the academy is not the root of the problem, then people will think that you found an excuse to strike wherever you can.
• Work against the big system and not against the little people. If you work against the people, then people will reduce the situation to pro/against us and ignore your messages. More than that, some politicians may use your acts it as a trigger to encourage xenophobia and strengthen the parts of the big system that you are against. But if you are working against the big systems, then the little people are probably on your side.

The child grew up to be a man and it looked like he is on the right track. He started an academic career, found a lovely girlfriend which became his wife later on, and took part in the public life. People respected him and appreciated his opinions.

In some stage the child got a proposal to get a senior position in the private sector. It immediately doubled his salary, and a promotion was promised really fast. He has been warned that this job was not interesting or important as his academic work, and he would not have much time to write or participate in public discussions. He has been warned that the private sector is a jungle and he won’t be able to handle it. But he thought that it won’t be a problem to a tough orphan like him. He had enough life experience to know that the money and the power are the only things that finally counts. His academic achievements and his esteemed reputation were just a childish entertainment. So the child took the job and upgraded his life.

The child played in the professional league now. He moved to a bigger house and got a new car. He did pretty well in his new job. Some colleagues tried to undermine his position, but they were only bitter too old people who were jealous on his success. He knew how to deal with them and stay safe. He was stable financially so the wife couldn’t complain.

The years passed and the child got used to his position. He became pretty good in the office-politics involved, and knew that he is in a stage that he don’t need to worry whether people like him or not. He knew how to make everything work for his own favor, so he will keep making good money without working too much. He didn’t play with ideals anymore, but he definitely knew how to use his former reputation as a public figure.

This whole thing has its price of course. The child went back home exhausted every evening, watched the news (and a soap-opera that was just after the news), drunk his one or two beers and went to sleep. He had no desire to do more than that. He had to maneuver all the time between the moans of his wife and the requirements of his bosses which were completely unreasonable. A child in his position does not deserve such a treatment.

Today the child is in his early 40′s (in the last 5 years or so). The house is still standing but it is not very clean and some maintenance should be done. The wife is depressed, he has no friends and nobody likes him at work. He doesn’t have much savings as he never get a promotion and the wife sucks all the money. The child is just trying to carry on from one day to the other.

There is some chance that the child will lose his wife and his job (and keep his drinking problem), but it is more likely that he will just decline slowly until some medical complication will take him down.

It is a good idea because when two children are fighting, than sometimes it is the best to send each one of them to his room. After each one of them will calm down from all the bitterness and the frustration, it may be easier to make them think rationally again. It is also help to demonstrate which room belongs to which child.

Its implementation is disastrous because Israel – who is the side which is building the wall – is trying to gain some little extras on the way. Israel is doing that by pushing the borders a little bit to its own favor, and by building walls (which are officially part of the big wall) who separates between Palestinians to Palestinians, in order to “stress” the population.

* More details about the Israeli West Bank barrier can be found here