In late 2010, the Italian writer and philosopher Umberto Eco published his latest novel, "The Cemetery of Prague", which reproduces historical arguments against the Jews.
According to an excerpt from the novel by Eco in the words of one of his characters:
The Jew, as well as a English vain, ignorant as a Croat, a Levantine greedy, ungrateful as a Maltese, insolent as a Gypsy, English as a dirty, oily as a Kalmyk, imperious as a Prussian and slander as a Astesana, is an adulterer irrepressible zeal: it depends on circumcision erectile it becomes, with the monstrous disproportion between the dwarfing of your complexion and dimension of this excrescence semimutilada cavernous he has.
Horacio Vázquez-Rial
reflects on the book.
That the intellectuals of this period, including among them some Jews, are mostly anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist, or pro-Palestinian or pro-Islamic, both mounted, is not a novelty. I am not referring to the obvious and overt, from Saramago to Chomsky, from Juan Goytisolo to Rossana Rossanda and Mankell flotillero silly, but other equally illustrious but more discrete, including, for strange as it may sound and saw his pro-Western, Vargas Llosa. So far, Eco remained among the latter, the discreet. The truth is that this is an extensive and nasty, telling us how bad we are, because, as one friend told me a few days ago, to be or not to Israel, to be or not to the Jews in general, is a question of simple decency.
0 comments:
Post a Comment