The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Autistic Obsessions
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It’s a little commented fact, but one that is true nonetheless, that Russian relations with Israel are better than with almost any Western country.

  • Open visa regime.
  • No sanctions over Crimea, an attitude largely of mutual studied indifference as regards Ukraine and Palestine, respectively.
  • Open to Sputnik V vaccine.
  • Criticized Biden’s comments about Putin as a killer as “bizarre and extreme.”

Many more such examples can be brought up.

Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies. But by their own arguments, ZOG runs the US, so this is really asking Russia to put itself in the position of Iran, magnified tenfold (because most Americans hate Russia as it is already).

This is why official Russian statements on the Gaza conflict are quite anodyne and boil down to calls for a ceasefire. The Chinese also have good relations with Israel (why not? It has even transferred them American military technology) and the more “anti-Zionist activist” types tend to get slapped down. And why shouldn’t they? It’s not like it’s the Israelis who are pushing the Uyghur Genocide black legend.

These are normal, practical state-to-state relations. It is the US, of course, that behaves highly abnormally with respect to Israel, sending it billions of dollars and providing diplomatic cover for behavior that would get a country like Russia sanctioned to hell and high water. But that’s the problem of Americans (to the extent that Americans see it as a problem, most don’t, AFAIK), not of Russians or Chinese.

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Anatoly Karlin

    On the subject of Israel:

    https://www.rt.com/news/524410-qureshi-cnn-antisemitic-slur/

    A few too many years ago, I had an excellent NYT journo professor, Gerald Eskenazi, who in class once said (without quoting verbatim) that Israel gets a lot of coverage (in part) because of a good number of Jews in media positions with a sympathetic interest in that country.

    At the time, him saying that was somewhat par on when a Black uses a certain N word as opposed to a non-Black using it. That comparison is changing. In an MSNBC segment this week, host Brian Williams said that the political and general landscape in America is changing with a greater number of folks who're openly more critical of the Jewish state. This criticism includes some Jews as well.

    Brianna Golodryga is a hypocrite, who using her own standard (in the below) is an anti-Russian bigot. I've come across numerous people who note how many Jews are fanatically and wrongly anti-Russian. I've disagreed with that observation by noting how mass media is prone to getting a certain view represented in media over others. A case in point is how Ukrainian anti-Russian slants get more mass media play than Ukrainian pro-Russian perspectives.

    As a comparison, consider the instances when "Russian" is negatively and flippantly used in situations involving clear bigotry which don't get rebuked - even by RT.

    Golodryga has former Moldavian SSR Jewish roots along with Slava Malamud and Julie Roginsky. All three being noticeably anti-Russian. Some will get a wrong impression by not taking into consideration what US mass media prefers.

    In totality (stressing what he said from start to finish), the Pakistani diplomat fell short of being bigoted. Given the hypocritical selective sensitivity out there, he should've chosen his words more carefully.

    Golodryga's whataboutism with the Pakistani diplomat on the treatment of Muslims in China is pretty rich, given the permeating Western mass media and body politic double standards on global human rights issues. Alexey Navalny's arrest gets a much higher profile concern when compared to the Kiev regime apprehending the leading Ukrainian political opposition figure Viktor Medvedchuk. Ditto the overall clear human rights issues in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine when compared to Russia.

    There's also the ongoing situation with Julian Assange.

    Golodryga is better suited for an AIPAC position than a news host of a TV network truly professing some reasonable sense of objectivity. Isn't it fair to say that AIPAC has "deep pockets", when compared to most (perhaps all) US based orgs lobbying for the benefit of a foreign country?

  2. Doesn’t seem to be much of a strategic advantage in supporting Palestine now that the Arab countries have been peeled off. It is a wonder that Iran still does it. Probably some interesting political dynamic at play.

    If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the revolutionary regime in Iran overused rhetoric as an organizing tool. Anti-Israel/US propaganda became their mantra as much as “diversity is our strength” became America’s. It was inescapable and not helped by the hostility of the US.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Boomthorkell
    @songbird

    Well, Iran is a theocracy, and modern cynics tend to forget theocracies, especially revolutionary ones, are based on genuinely held beliefs. They genuinely support Palestine for genuine Islamic and Islamic Social Justice reasons. Tsarist Russia didn't just want the Balkans for warm water ports. They wanted them because they were Mostly Orthodox Christians and mostly Slavs, and they were being ruled by Muslims. Genuine belief and ethnic solidarity at play there.

    While many things "political" and pragmatic, one should never forget that people and nations are also things of soul and imagination. For better and for worse.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    , @Menschmaschine
    @songbird

    Saudi Arabia and the GCC statelets are of course quasi colonial vassal states of the US (and therefore Israel). The formal recognition of Israel is only a meaningless formality.

    Replies: @songbird

  3. Draw your own conclusions from this fact according to your worldview, but this nearly confirms (along with Putin & Xi going to Davos web conferences and China recently banning cryptos) my suspicion that the Russian-Chinese is the false resistance to the WEF agenda.

    Libertarians are right – any state institution are corrupt at its core since it is pure power.

    • Agree: Jatt Aryaa
    • Disagree: El Dato
    • Replies: @LondonBob
    @Yellowface Anon

    Cryptos are an obvious scam, read about Israeli organised crime groups moving in to them after the world started banning binary options.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Yellowface Anon

    Klaus Schwab and most members of the Politburo have an engineering background and practically grounded technocratic-utopian visions of human progress. They probably get along quite well, possibly better than with many Western politicians, who tend to be lawyer-ideologues of various stripes.

    Replies: @Californian Candidate

  4. Do you think Great Bifurcation good for Israel?

    Turkish & Chinese MIC are two to watch Imo.

    Russia 2 since US arms carry woke conditions.

    Iran’s interesting since so hard to get neutral take

    Has anyone ever just been neutral toward Persia?

    • Replies: @Caspar von Everec
    @Jatt Aryaa

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/07/china-exports-imports-trade-data-april-2021.html

    US-China trade deficit grew to all time high this year despite alleged bifurcation. So far the supposed great rift has not materialized into any real policy or economic outcomes. Its all a war of words

  5. The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn’t support Israel who’s Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don’t worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ”white supremacy” in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    • Agree: nokangaroos
    • Replies: @One time poster
    @Caspar von Everec

    While I fully agree with your statement re Palestine, I disagree with the statement to be “anti Israel.”.

    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel. First, if a European right winger was an Israeli (I.e., live in a rich civilized country but be surrounded by countries and have a minority within you country which are uncivilized and want to destroy you), he would behave like Israel. In fact, i think a lot of right wingers would love be like Israel: developed and ethno-nationalist. Second, I do not see Israeli leaders being hostile to the west. Remember Netanyahu’s tweet saying how he supports Trump to build a wall as he did the same and it worked to keep illegals out?

    Therefore my position is this: I am against Palestine and I sympathize with Israelis. HOWEVER as a large Jewish elite, including Jewish organizations, who live in the west, is anti western countries, I do not support Israel.

    Let them fight it out themselves.
    Basically the Chinese and Russian position is the best.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @Boomthorkell
    @Caspar von Everec

    Ha ha, this was well said.

    Really, we should just leave the Middle East alone. Everyone is guilty of something there. The Turkish landlords who sold the land to foreign merchants. The Palestinians for being weak, the Jews for being modern day settlers, and everyone else for...well, all the stuff they've done there.

    The Russian position is best. Trade and talk and generally live and let live. What matters is your own country, its immediately borders, and who is trying to influence things within and without said borders.

    , @DNS
    @Caspar von Everec


    ...but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.
     
    I don't think this is correct, the Palestinians probably just want to live in their homeland and do not have any grand designs on Europe. But that being said, I do notice that a lot of the pro-Palestine rhetoric comes from the same people who are heavily into anti-European activism. Many of them seem to view Israel as a "European settler colonial state" akin to America, Canada and Australia and thus want it destroyed.

    Their mental contortions are quite funny to witness though, they think they can cow the proudly ethnocentric Israelis onto submission and demographic suicide by using the same tactics they use against the supine Western Europeans (supine for now at least), but they are very confused when it doesn't work. Left wing criticism of Israel is completely based on Slave Morality, one is meant to take sides in this duel between two desert cults because one of them keep getting rekt by the technologically superior other.

    Also, these left-wingers also avoid discussing the Jewish angle, due to the Political Correctness the disproportionately Jewish elite have imposed on them, so they are always at a disadvantage when discussing these things and try to pin the blame on Evangelicals.

    https://hedgewik.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/hedgewik-cope-run-down-several-panel-comic.png

    , @Menschmaschine
    @Caspar von Everec

    You are obviously a Jewish Hasbara troll and not even a very subtle one.

    For instance, the "There are now more Palestinians than in 1947" is a standard Hasbara talking point (I should know, I regularly squash such vermin on twitter for instance). Of course, the fact that there are more Palestinians does not change anything regarding the fact that they get ethnically cleansed and squeezed together into an ever smaller space.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palestinian-loss-of-land-1946-2010.jpg

    , @Yevardian
    @Caspar von Everec


    Yes, obviously you shouldn’t support Israel who’s Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.
     
    Stupid fucking comment from another ignoramus from this site, they were and still are mostly simple peasants or artisans.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.
     
    That's only part of the story, much of the Lebanese civil war consisted of various Maronite clans fighting each other, whereas many Melchite factions joined forces with Sunni Muslim groups, both against each other or the Maronites. Many Armenians arrived as refugees to Lebanon and Syria fleeing from the Turks, and have almost never been molested for their religious beliefs. The Civil War really went into high gear after Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by another Maronite, with the mutual connivance of Israel and Syria, the former because he refused Israeli vassalage, the latter due to his clan's hostility to pan-Arabism and Phoenicianist ideology.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.
     
    And almost none of them would be here if not Israeli/American foreign policy, or their political control over Europe's ruling classes. And I suspect architects of such policy know perfectly well the Arabs... they're not sending their best. A constant background low simmering violence and terrorism naturally grabs the public's attention to the exclusion of slow, but portentous things like the implementation of financial neo-feudalism, and so on. Obviously a group as blatantly against the public interest as the Republican party could never survive if America was not blessed by the presence of so many joggers, the same social conditions are being manufactured in Europe.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.
     
    ..Except the Palestinians received practically nothing, most continued to rot in refugee camps (like the ones at Sabra and Shatila where the Maronites massacred hundreds of women and children, under Israeli protection), without citizenship or means of finding a decent living.
    Additionally, Salafist movements barely existed at all amongst the Palestinians at that time, their two main armed political branches, the PLO and the PFLP, were militantly secular. The latter group's leadership heavily came from Christian backgrounds in it's early years. Again, you pose as a 'neutral' observer, but consciously or not, you're just reciting Israeli propaganda points.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.
     
    It matters in the sense that overwhelming Western sponsorship of Israel has both set the entire region on fire, led to a massive and often violent Islamic revival, in an area bordering the Mediterranean, so the chaos there was bound to have repercussions in Europe sooner or later.

    Akh, I didn't want to write so much verbiage, and the gist behind your general point is reasonable, but when I see someone claim neutrality, whilst using the rhetoric of trash like Pamella Geller or Mark Stein, it riles me. I suspect you're American, given your black & white Marvel DC view of the world, but at least you seem to be attempting to address that.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @Kent Nationalist
    @Caspar von Everec

    Palestinians don't do anything to harm white people. Jews are the greatest enemy of white people. Therefore white people should side with Palestinians against Jews.

    This is the area on which Jews are weakest, as their equivocal posture, obsession with BDS and the worldwide (India and evangelicals excluded) dislike of Israel and sympathy for Palestine shows.

    , @Svevlad
    @Caspar von Everec

    "pox on both their houses"

    , @Bragadocious
    @Caspar von Everec


    These very Palestinians call out ”white supremacy” in the US and venerate George Floyd.

     

    So do virtue signalling whites in London and Paris.
  6. The whole notion of boomer anti-imperialists demanding Russia fight Israel to save Palestine just shows how stupid and archaic these people are.

    Even now after decades of Islamic rape gangs, terrorism and bestial violence against their own people in Europe, they salivate and worship the poor ”oppressed Arabs”. They demand that White Russians shed blood and treasure to defend inbred arabs engaged in one of their many perennial religious wars.

    People who simp for the Palestinians seem to forget that in 1948, Christian Lebanon gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of their kind who fled the holy land after being defeated by the Zionists.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.

    They’re no different any other Arab or Pakistani and slightly less vile than the Jews.

    • Agree: Seraphim, Vishnugupta
    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Caspar von Everec


    The whole notion of boomer anti-imperialists demanding Russia fight Israel to save Palestine just shows how stupid and archaic these people are.
     
    I've never actually seen anyone say anything like that except utu, who I think it's fair to say has rather.. unique views.
    Every pro-Palestinian leftist I've ever met has despised and talked slander about Russia, despite that country being the only realistic chance the Palestinians have at getting a relatively disinterested broker that holds any international weight.

    Incidentally I might mention anecdotally that Palestinians are no exception to general Iranian contempt for Arabs, Iran's stance purely comes from it's leadership caste, although the idea that every Iranian would become a secular liberal if the regime collapsed is a fantasy, there's no doubt the population would prefer to throw Palestine under the bus at the first opportunity.

    Replies: @Morton's toes

  7. @Jatt Aryaa
    Do you think Great Bifurcation good for Israel?

    Turkish & Chinese MIC are two to watch Imo.

    Russia 2 since US arms carry woke conditions.

    Iran's interesting since so hard to get neutral take

    Has anyone ever just been neutral toward Persia?

    Replies: @Caspar von Everec

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/07/china-exports-imports-trade-data-april-2021.html

    US-China trade deficit grew to all time high this year despite alleged bifurcation. So far the supposed great rift has not materialized into any real policy or economic outcomes. Its all a war of words

  8. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    While I fully agree with your statement re Palestine, I disagree with the statement to be “anti Israel.”.

    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel. First, if a European right winger was an Israeli (I.e., live in a rich civilized country but be surrounded by countries and have a minority within you country which are uncivilized and want to destroy you), he would behave like Israel. In fact, i think a lot of right wingers would love be like Israel: developed and ethno-nationalist. Second, I do not see Israeli leaders being hostile to the west. Remember Netanyahu’s tweet saying how he supports Trump to build a wall as he did the same and it worked to keep illegals out?

    Therefore my position is this: I am against Palestine and I sympathize with Israelis. HOWEVER as a large Jewish elite, including Jewish organizations, who live in the west, is anti western countries, I do not support Israel.

    Let them fight it out themselves.
    Basically the Chinese and Russian position is the best.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel
     
    If only that were true. In reality, the right wing opposition at least in Europe is very much into Israel bootlicking, usually under the banner of "Anti-Islamism". An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 Norwegian youths because they had awakened his ire by participating in a demonstration critical of Israel. Or "activist" Tommy Robinson, who, for instance, duped his donors by promising a documentary about the abuse of English girls, but then proceeded to actually make one about the supposed sufferings of a (likely fictional) Jewish man. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands (Who supposedly has some Jewish ancestry himself) is a particular extreme example, but most right wing opposition parties like Sweden Democrats, AfD etc. are at least to some extent into Israel pandering.

    Why should a right winger oppose Israel?

    First of course, common morality and Human decency. If you support murderous wars of aggression, brutal suppression and ethnical cleansing then you have forfeited essentially every bit of morality and humanity.

    Second, logical consistency. It is obviously absurd to whine about the loss of identity of Western countries by mass immigration, but at the same time support the outright ethnical cleansing of an autochthonous population (At least we are not yet so far as to be forcibly expulsed from our land). You could argue that the fate of the Palestinians is the prime example of the dangers of mass immigration...

    These two points alone are already sufficient, as long as you don't want to declare yourself a raging amoral nihilist.

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don't need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    Fourth, the wars in the Middle East to destroy enemies of Israel massively contribute to the supply of aliens. There was much whining about the influx of Syrian refugees by right wing parties, but what right did they actually have to oppose them? As great friends of Israel, they certainly would not mind to take on the burden of a war that was waged to weaken Syria, an adversary of Israel, thereby contributing to Israeli "security". The same logic applies to the Palestinians themselves - the logical endgame for the continuing Israeli campaign of ethnical cleansing that squeezes them into ever smaller spaces is, of course, to expulse them entirely. And where do they go? Certainly those great friends of Israel will not mind taking a few millions unwanted Palestinians?

    Fifth, it is an awesome club to beat leftists with. "Anti-Racists" have the following problem:
    1. They worship the sacred Holocaust and Jews as victim master race and therefore have to endorse Israel. Usually with some mumblings about some stuff that could be a bit less unpleasant, but any fundamental criticism of Israel is impossible.
    2. Israel is the worlds most hyper-racist state.
    What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? The luck of the leftists is that they very rarely get challenged about their breathtaking hypocrisis; The fact that rightwingers don't use this thermonuclear Wunderwaffe against the Left shows that they are complete morons and totally deserve their political marginalisation. I personally can beat any "anti-racist" leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question "Why do you support Israeli crimes?"

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster, @DNS

  9. china-russia-all-the-way says:

    What do you think of the assessments?

    Over the years, I’ve heard an array of explanations from Russian Jews about Putin’s apparent friendliness. There were those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg (then known as Leningrad). There are apocryphal stories of his hanging out as a kid largely with Jewish friends, even of them all breaking into a local synagogue around Passover to gorge on matzot.

    But it’s not only nostalgia that formed Putin’s views on Jews.

    “Putin has spent decades analyzing why the Soviet Union collapsed,” a senior Jewish-Russian official, who has had many conversations with the president, once explained to me. “He is convinced that one of the mistakes of the Soviet leadership was to have made enemies of the Jews. Not only did that work against the U.S.S.R. on the global stage, but it caused Russian Jews to hate their country. And Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia.”

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-is-vladimir-putin-an-anti-semite-or-friend-of-the-jews-1.5890733

    Anna Borshchevskaya notes that in this, as in other things, Putin is driven by pragmatism rather than emotion: “If you treat the Jews well, from his perspective, that plays well in the West.” As she notes, if you think like a KGB officer who observed the passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, it was the power of Western Jewish elites that drove Western decision-making.

    https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/krasna2018.pdf

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @china-russia-all-the-way

    Most of the postsoviet states and politicians have gone in pro-Israel direction, apart from the some small ones like perhaps Armenia (which is friendly with Iran, from lack of options), and Kadyrov (who is in reality said that Chechny should learn from Israel, but outwardly tries to appeal to the Islamic world).

    This is partly because Israel can be viewed as a development model for postsoviet states. It's half-way between East and West, the economy is a mixed state/freemarket, and it managed to succeed with the multivector foreign policy that many postsoviet leaders would like to use.

    It's also a reflection that the Soviet conflict with Israel, had been an artificial product of the geopolitical alignment of that time.

    There's finally a more cynical situation that Israel, like Cyprus, is one of the useful part of the political class's "walking route" for moving into tax havens, and was a place for investing outside of the postsoviet space. For example of politicians and wealthy people sometimes use Israel, as with Cyprus - e.g. Lavrov's family (Foreign Minister in Russia), which lives in Monaco and London, but seem to use Israeli citizenships .


    those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg

     

    On a personal level (which has to be separated from the professional point of view) Putin has said he was a fan of Israel since the 1990s.

    He said that he fell in love with Israel in his first visit in the 1990s when he was working in municipality of Saint-Petersburg, and then subsequently borrowed a car drove his family all over Israel. There's an interview in YouTube of the early 2000s where he explained this.

    But the personal attitude of the politician doesn't necessarily influence politics, at least for larger countries. Putin is also a significant fan of Germany, where he lived and worked when he was in the KGB. But Germanophile sentiments of Putin, isn't enough to produce a geopolitical alignment with Federal Republic of Germany, or even much rapport with Angela Merkel.

    Similarly, it's known that Putin's family owns properties in France; but this family connection doesn't result in a geopolitical alignment.

    On the other hand, it's has been claimed that some of the external policy of the Russian Federation could have been influenced by personal views of politicians, if only in relation to small, and less important countries. It's known that the passions of Igor Sechin (CEO of Rosneft) are his love of Latin America and Africa. And this might have unprofessionally influenced some of the external policy of the Russian Federation. For example, some journalists have claimed that the expensive bromance with Venezuela, could have been influenced by Sechin's personal affection.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    , @gT
    @china-russia-all-the-way

    "Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia”

    Since those Jews left Russia has gotten much better: grain surplus, t-14's and hypersonic missiles. More Jews should depart from Russia.

    , @china-russia-all-the-way
    @china-russia-all-the-way

    Very surprised these excerpts did not get much of a reaction here. They seem hugely significant.

  10. Israel is the global headquarters of the Russian mafia, of which Putin is a part. Odd that you left that part out.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  11. Sounds like deflection, everyone knows it is the Jewish lobby pushing anti Russian policies in the West.

    • Agree: Kent Nationalist
    • Replies: @BlackFlag
    @LondonBob

    I've heard this too. For example, Charles Bausman, from russian-insider, says that from within the news media industry it's apparent that the more Jewish an organization is, the more anti-Russian is its slant.

    What would the explanation for Jewish antipathy towards Russia be? I've heard because Russia is Christian White and because of historical grievances (pogroms, Stalin's purges, Putin's purges). I haven't encountered a geopolitical practical explanation.

    Anyway, is it's true that a significant force behind the West's anti-Russian stance is Jewish influence, would it then make sense for Russia to be less unfriendly toward the state of Israel and more supportive of the Palestinians?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @Dmitry
    @LondonBob

    Government of the last two decades in Russia, has been one of the most pro-Jewish (and to lesser extent also they are pro-Israel) states. And the view has been tilting more towards in the last decade, if the pro-Israel orientation of the television is an indication.

    Two years ago, Putin even hosted the "United Israel Appeal" congress, with Sheldon Adelson and Ronald Lauder (the most powerful Jewish/Zionist philanthropists).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ackxPo0hbrw

    An idea there is some conflict of Putin against global Zionists, is one of the more stranger and delusional views I have read in the Unz/Karlin forum, and this forum does not lack to provide them.

    India, Russia and China are all de facto pro-Israel governments, that have "skin in the game" including financial investments in Israel.

    From an Israeli selfish point of view, the situation that you would worry about is the rising anti-Israel public and official, as well as media positions, in North-West Europe and in the Democrat Party base of the USA (which represents a majority of voters in coastal America).

    North-West Europe and coastal regions of the USA, are vastly more influential and powerful, in many ways, than China, Russia or India. And it's in these areas that the anti-Israel position is becoming the dominant view with the younger generations.

    British television is already in complete opposite position on Israel, from Russian television (hidden pro-Israel bias), if not Fox News (open pro-Israel bias). And some of the influential American television like Daily Show or CNN seemed to be moving to the British media's perspective. Israel will always be supported from the Republican Party in the USA, but the base of the Democrat Party is more of an open question, and the Democrat Party could be the more dominant party in America politics in the next years.

    Replies: @Spisarevski, @Jtgw

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @LondonBob

    What do you mean by "everyone"? A handful of internet obsessives on Unz.com and related media?

    Putin and the Russian security state all clearly disagree with your "everyone".

    It feels so odd to me that you have decided you not only know their job better than them, but that they could not even possibly be right. Your certainty, more than your (mistaken) opinion, is what amazes me.

  12. @Yellowface Anon
    Draw your own conclusions from this fact according to your worldview, but this nearly confirms (along with Putin & Xi going to Davos web conferences and China recently banning cryptos) my suspicion that the Russian-Chinese is the false resistance to the WEF agenda.

    Libertarians are right - any state institution are corrupt at its core since it is pure power.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Anatoly Karlin

    Cryptos are an obvious scam, read about Israeli organised crime groups moving in to them after the world started banning binary options.

    • Agree: anyone with a brain
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @LondonBob

    Is there anything you won't lay at the feet of the Jews...do they even sleep?

  13. @songbird
    Doesn't seem to be much of a strategic advantage in supporting Palestine now that the Arab countries have been peeled off. It is a wonder that Iran still does it. Probably some interesting political dynamic at play.

    If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the revolutionary regime in Iran overused rhetoric as an organizing tool. Anti-Israel/US propaganda became their mantra as much as "diversity is our strength" became America's. It was inescapable and not helped by the hostility of the US.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell, @Menschmaschine

    Well, Iran is a theocracy, and modern cynics tend to forget theocracies, especially revolutionary ones, are based on genuinely held beliefs. They genuinely support Palestine for genuine Islamic and Islamic Social Justice reasons. Tsarist Russia didn’t just want the Balkans for warm water ports. They wanted them because they were Mostly Orthodox Christians and mostly Slavs, and they were being ruled by Muslims. Genuine belief and ethnic solidarity at play there.

    While many things “political” and pragmatic, one should never forget that people and nations are also things of soul and imagination. For better and for worse.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Boomthorkell

    Iran hasn't been a revolutionary state since Khomeini's death, and arguably stopped being so sometime before that due to the exigencies of it's nearly decade-long war with Iraq. Many Shah-era officials and technical personnel were quickly reinstated as Khomeini's early favoured 'human wave' tactics predictably ended in disaster.

    Khomeini was extremely controversial even within the Twelver Shi'ite clerical establishment, he was distrusted by many for his deep interest in unconventional pursuits (for his milieu) like poetry, Sufi mysticism and Greek Philosophy, particularly Plato. He understood virtually nothing about economics however, and left policy in that area entirely to subordinates, simply constantly reassigning posts so no minister became too established in their place. After Khomeini's death, no one even approaching his stature that held similar views to his could be found, and eventually Khameini was settled upon for the next Ayatollah, a figure little-respected but who offended no one.
    Iran's leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border. Incidentally, Iran is incidentally the (not counting microstates) country with the first-to-third (depending on counting) highest percentage of refugees relative to it's native population anywhere in the world.
    Anyway, hardly characteristics of a millenarian, destabilising, revolutionary state.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Boomthorkell, @Not Raul

  14. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    Ha ha, this was well said.

    Really, we should just leave the Middle East alone. Everyone is guilty of something there. The Turkish landlords who sold the land to foreign merchants. The Palestinians for being weak, the Jews for being modern day settlers, and everyone else for…well, all the stuff they’ve done there.

    The Russian position is best. Trade and talk and generally live and let live. What matters is your own country, its immediately borders, and who is trying to influence things within and without said borders.

    • Agree: Not Raul
  15. DNS says:
    @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    …but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    I don’t think this is correct, the Palestinians probably just want to live in their homeland and do not have any grand designs on Europe. But that being said, I do notice that a lot of the pro-Palestine rhetoric comes from the same people who are heavily into anti-European activism. Many of them seem to view Israel as a “European settler colonial state” akin to America, Canada and Australia and thus want it destroyed.

    Their mental contortions are quite funny to witness though, they think they can cow the proudly ethnocentric Israelis onto submission and demographic suicide by using the same tactics they use against the supine Western Europeans (supine for now at least), but they are very confused when it doesn’t work. Left wing criticism of Israel is completely based on Slave Morality, one is meant to take sides in this duel between two desert cults because one of them keep getting rekt by the technologically superior other.

    Also, these left-wingers also avoid discussing the Jewish angle, due to the Political Correctness the disproportionately Jewish elite have imposed on them, so they are always at a disadvantage when discussing these things and try to pin the blame on Evangelicals.

    [MORE]

  16. It would be a good start, if Putin would stop allowing his good buddy Netanjahu to bomb Syria for pleasure – Russia does not even allow the Syrians to use the finally delivered S-300 air defence system to defend themselves. Hopefully, Syria gets more support from Iran once the current “reformist” appeasement government is gone.

    As for China, I am doubtful that its current neutral stance with regard to the Mideast conflict can be maintained much longer. The aggressive turn to Sinophobia in the US would, of course, not have been possible without support, if not instigation, from the Jewish/Zionist lobby (Ron Unz has already commented about the increasing anti-China propaganda of the local Hasbara trolls).

    You could argue that it would be irrational for Jews to antagonise the rising chinese power. But you have to understand the Jewish mentality – they have been spoiled by their control of the US (and therefore the entire “West”) for a long time. Therefore they react to the appearance of any new power center that is not under their control, even if not adversial, with extreme hostility. The evolutionary success of the Jews is predicated upon extreme aggressiveness, paranoia and hostility in regard to outgroups. While this has gotten them quite a few expulsions over the Millenia, you can’t argue with the ultimate success of this strategy. Of course, it just might be that pissing off China might be one provocation too much…

    • Replies: @Sinotibetan
    @Menschmaschine

    Perhaps the appropriate response of both the Chinese and Russians towards the (neverending) Israel-Palestinian conflict should be a generally neutral and pragmatic one. Thankfully, nowadays both countries are quite pragmatic. I have to agree with Anatoly's take on this.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  17. @songbird
    Doesn't seem to be much of a strategic advantage in supporting Palestine now that the Arab countries have been peeled off. It is a wonder that Iran still does it. Probably some interesting political dynamic at play.

    If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that the revolutionary regime in Iran overused rhetoric as an organizing tool. Anti-Israel/US propaganda became their mantra as much as "diversity is our strength" became America's. It was inescapable and not helped by the hostility of the US.

    Replies: @Boomthorkell, @Menschmaschine

    Saudi Arabia and the GCC statelets are of course quasi colonial vassal states of the US (and therefore Israel). The formal recognition of Israel is only a meaningless formality.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @songbird
    @Menschmaschine


    Saudi Arabia and the GCC statelets are of course quasi colonial vassal states of the US
     
    I used to think so, but when Khashoggi was murdered, it was almost like the Saudi tail wagging the US dog. At least if you think of it in the progressive mindset. I suppose it is quite likely that nobody in power really cared.
  18. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    You are obviously a Jewish Hasbara troll and not even a very subtle one.

    For instance, the “There are now more Palestinians than in 1947” is a standard Hasbara talking point (I should know, I regularly squash such vermin on twitter for instance). Of course, the fact that there are more Palestinians does not change anything regarding the fact that they get ethnically cleansed and squeezed together into an ever smaller space.

    • Agree: anyone with a brain
  19. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    Yes, obviously you shouldn’t support Israel who’s Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Stupid fucking comment from another ignoramus from this site, they were and still are mostly simple peasants or artisans.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.

    That’s only part of the story, much of the Lebanese civil war consisted of various Maronite clans fighting each other, whereas many Melchite factions joined forces with Sunni Muslim groups, both against each other or the Maronites. Many Armenians arrived as refugees to Lebanon and Syria fleeing from the Turks, and have almost never been molested for their religious beliefs. The Civil War really went into high gear after Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by another Maronite, with the mutual connivance of Israel and Syria, the former because he refused Israeli vassalage, the latter due to his clan’s hostility to pan-Arabism and Phoenicianist ideology.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    And almost none of them would be here if not Israeli/American foreign policy, or their political control over Europe’s ruling classes. And I suspect architects of such policy know perfectly well the Arabs… they’re not sending their best. A constant background low simmering violence and terrorism naturally grabs the public’s attention to the exclusion of slow, but portentous things like the implementation of financial neo-feudalism, and so on. Obviously a group as blatantly against the public interest as the Republican party could never survive if America was not blessed by the presence of so many joggers, the same social conditions are being manufactured in Europe.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.

    ..Except the Palestinians received practically nothing, most continued to rot in refugee camps (like the ones at Sabra and Shatila where the Maronites massacred hundreds of women and children, under Israeli protection), without citizenship or means of finding a decent living.
    Additionally, Salafist movements barely existed at all amongst the Palestinians at that time, their two main armed political branches, the PLO and the PFLP, were militantly secular. The latter group’s leadership heavily came from Christian backgrounds in it’s early years. Again, you pose as a ‘neutral’ observer, but consciously or not, you’re just reciting Israeli propaganda points.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    It matters in the sense that overwhelming Western sponsorship of Israel has both set the entire region on fire, led to a massive and often violent Islamic revival, in an area bordering the Mediterranean, so the chaos there was bound to have repercussions in Europe sooner or later.

    Akh, I didn’t want to write so much verbiage, and the gist behind your general point is reasonable, but when I see someone claim neutrality, whilst using the rhetoric of trash like Pamella Geller or Mark Stein, it riles me. I suspect you’re American, given your black & white Marvel DC view of the world, but at least you seem to be attempting to address that.

    • Thanks: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Yevardian

    There's a difference between an unstable and divided reality in the Middle East, and then the symbolic level where local politicians can try to appeal to more epic themes of Islam or pan-Arabism.

    Ordinary reality in the Middle East, is one of multiple divisions, and depending on convenience, many different groups can fight and hate each other* (even the Jewish part of the Israeli population is divided enough in risk of a possible future civil conflict in my view).

    On the other hand, in the symbolic space, the politicians will try to appeal to Muslim unity, or (usually on smaller secular level) Arab unity. This is why Israel-Palestine conflict is useful for many politicians in the Near East; the need for unifying causes, is a symptom, of the region's multiple fault-lines.

    -

    Israel-Palestine conflict is important space where politicians operate rhetorically, as a struggle against Israel can be both a unifying rhetoric for pan-Muslim and pan-Arab sentiments; but in terms of the actual power-struggle, it is only one of the many conflicts in the region, some hot, some cold.

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Riots in Jerusalem, are involving smaller numbers of people than fights between football hooligans, and damage to property (e.g. burned tires in the street, and some burned cars, occasionally a bus) is not quite comparable to the BLM riots in the American cities last year, that damaged rows of shop windows.

    Terrorist attacks in West Bank, are included in statistics for murders in Israel, and yet the murder rate for Israel is below average. By comparison, the Mexican drug war, skyrockets Mexico's murder rate. The gang wars in 1990s Russia, have skyrocketed the murder rates for Russia. But 2015 "knife intifada", or recent rioting in Lod or Jerusalem, has less significant effects for Israel's annual murder rates.


    -

    *If you look at Syria's external policy during Lebanese civil war - there is an indication of how divided the region is, when there is instability or breakdown of the balance of power:

    In 1976, Assad (father of the current President in Syria), was fighting with Christian/Maronite militias against the Palestinians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar

    In 1978, Assad is fighting against the same Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_War

    In 1982, Assad is fighting with the Palestinians, against the Israelis and Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    Replies: @Yevardian, @Yevardian, @Menschmaschine

  20. @Caspar von Everec
    The whole notion of boomer anti-imperialists demanding Russia fight Israel to save Palestine just shows how stupid and archaic these people are.

    Even now after decades of Islamic rape gangs, terrorism and bestial violence against their own people in Europe, they salivate and worship the poor ''oppressed Arabs''. They demand that White Russians shed blood and treasure to defend inbred arabs engaged in one of their many perennial religious wars.

    People who simp for the Palestinians seem to forget that in 1948, Christian Lebanon gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of their kind who fled the holy land after being defeated by the Zionists.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.

    They're no different any other Arab or Pakistani and slightly less vile than the Jews.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    The whole notion of boomer anti-imperialists demanding Russia fight Israel to save Palestine just shows how stupid and archaic these people are.

    I’ve never actually seen anyone say anything like that except utu, who I think it’s fair to say has rather.. unique views.
    Every pro-Palestinian leftist I’ve ever met has despised and talked slander about Russia, despite that country being the only realistic chance the Palestinians have at getting a relatively disinterested broker that holds any international weight.

    Incidentally I might mention anecdotally that Palestinians are no exception to general Iranian contempt for Arabs, Iran’s stance purely comes from it’s leadership caste, although the idea that every Iranian would become a secular liberal if the regime collapsed is a fantasy, there’s no doubt the population would prefer to throw Palestine under the bus at the first opportunity.

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    @Yevardian

    Yes. I am 99% sure Iran uses Palestinian and other militants as pawn in Game of Nations.

    The downtrodden fellow Muslims thing seems like a stretch.

    SJW solidarity with Palestinians is an interesting intermittent phenomenon to see though. Dead Palestinian children on the television seems to correlate way over 90%. I wonder what the youtube guidelines are on censorship criteria. They had some pretty gruesome videos being promoted when Syrian children were the collateral damage. The current moaning-whining debate point is human shields. Abby Martin's video is great.

    Does she believe any of it?

    Replies: @Yevardian

  21. @Boomthorkell
    @songbird

    Well, Iran is a theocracy, and modern cynics tend to forget theocracies, especially revolutionary ones, are based on genuinely held beliefs. They genuinely support Palestine for genuine Islamic and Islamic Social Justice reasons. Tsarist Russia didn't just want the Balkans for warm water ports. They wanted them because they were Mostly Orthodox Christians and mostly Slavs, and they were being ruled by Muslims. Genuine belief and ethnic solidarity at play there.

    While many things "political" and pragmatic, one should never forget that people and nations are also things of soul and imagination. For better and for worse.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    Iran hasn’t been a revolutionary state since Khomeini’s death, and arguably stopped being so sometime before that due to the exigencies of it’s nearly decade-long war with Iraq. Many Shah-era officials and technical personnel were quickly reinstated as Khomeini’s early favoured ‘human wave’ tactics predictably ended in disaster.

    Khomeini was extremely controversial even within the Twelver Shi’ite clerical establishment, he was distrusted by many for his deep interest in unconventional pursuits (for his milieu) like poetry, Sufi mysticism and Greek Philosophy, particularly Plato. He understood virtually nothing about economics however, and left policy in that area entirely to subordinates, simply constantly reassigning posts so no minister became too established in their place. After Khomeini’s death, no one even approaching his stature that held similar views to his could be found, and eventually Khameini was settled upon for the next Ayatollah, a figure little-respected but who offended no one.
    Iran’s leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border. Incidentally, Iran is incidentally the (not counting microstates) country with the first-to-third (depending on counting) highest percentage of refugees relative to it’s native population anywhere in the world.
    Anyway, hardly characteristics of a millenarian, destabilising, revolutionary state.

    • Agree: Blinky Bill
    • Thanks: TheTotallyAnonymous
    • Replies: @Blinky Bill
    @Yevardian

    Excellent comments Yevardian. You're effort posts are always welcome!

    As a gesture of support for your top notch work.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1o8GyDVkAAakZd.jpg

    https://twitter.com/andraydomise/status/1393700311332802560?s=20

    Replies: @DNS

    , @Boomthorkell
    @Yevardian

    Oh, I never said they were destabilizing (in a negative sense) or impractical. Just they were revolutionary for the region (at the time) and the existent system. All the stuff you mentioned is true, which is why I did not make any insinuations against them in those areas.

    I just said they aren't in the Palestine cause purely to due to practical reasons, because few countries are 100% "practical" in a sense. They have genuine religious reasons guiding them when a nation that does not would just say, "why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?" Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be "practical" for them.

    Likewise, it would be "practical" for Israel to make peace with Iran, but Israel has its own (I would say, more nefarious in practice) religious and ethno-nationalist logic compelling it. The point is, outsiders shouldn't really care, and it's outsiders who make the situation worse. If it were just between them (the Middle East), they would figure something out or die trying.

    Replies: @songbird, @Yevardian

    , @Not Raul
    @Yevardian

    Great post. I clicked “Agree”; but I had already agreed to five posts lately.

    You make a good point here:


    Iran’s leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border.
     
  22. Son if you’re gonna bring up examples make them worthwhile.

    Like I said before, Russia needs Israel to manage America.

    Putin probably regrets pushing out so many Jewish oligarchs out of post-USSR as the vast majority of investors now hesitate to deposit any large sums of money into Russian banks.

    Israel used to share tech with Iran when it was fighting Saddam. Sharing weapons tech does not equate to good relations. It’s good business.

    It’s sad Iranians can trust Israeli weapon merchants over Lavrov and his flip-flop term-changing sales agreements he’s famous for in regards to nation-states (S-300 anyone? so many term changes Iranians just high-copied it, Chinese did the same with the Su-27/J11; Russians are terrible at business, no one likes to be used as a bargaining chip against the United States so blatantly).

    most Americans hate Russia as it is already

    Exactly, perhaps Russia should stop being a little bitch because that reality will never change. Not for Palestine or for Ukraine or for Bulgaria or for Vodka or Slavic-speakers but for itself in general.

    The country that made the first Covid-19 vaccine in an age of super-vagina hysteria and instead of people giving Russia respect they still shit on it.

    Russia really is a country made up of Yeltsins…

    Israelis will not come back in droves to pump millions into the Russian economy, not as long as New York and California or UK or Netherlands or Germany can offer better/safer returns.

    Also for the low-IQers here that can’t seem to understand… Jerusalem is an important site for Iranians, like most Muslims. How hard is that to understand?

    Iranians in particular have even more importance to these sites (the Iranian blood shed in Iraq and Syria should tell you what they are willing to sacrifice to protect their holy sites).

    I know this is a foreign concept to Israelis but try to understand. Do you think it doesn’t bother religious Iranians that they can’t get into Israel to visit Jerusalem? Even Saudi Arabia lets Iranians go to Mecca.

    Logic, yes it’s a thing.

  23. @One time poster
    @Caspar von Everec

    While I fully agree with your statement re Palestine, I disagree with the statement to be “anti Israel.”.

    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel. First, if a European right winger was an Israeli (I.e., live in a rich civilized country but be surrounded by countries and have a minority within you country which are uncivilized and want to destroy you), he would behave like Israel. In fact, i think a lot of right wingers would love be like Israel: developed and ethno-nationalist. Second, I do not see Israeli leaders being hostile to the west. Remember Netanyahu’s tweet saying how he supports Trump to build a wall as he did the same and it worked to keep illegals out?

    Therefore my position is this: I am against Palestine and I sympathize with Israelis. HOWEVER as a large Jewish elite, including Jewish organizations, who live in the west, is anti western countries, I do not support Israel.

    Let them fight it out themselves.
    Basically the Chinese and Russian position is the best.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel

    If only that were true. In reality, the right wing opposition at least in Europe is very much into Israel bootlicking, usually under the banner of “Anti-Islamism”. An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 Norwegian youths because they had awakened his ire by participating in a demonstration critical of Israel. Or “activist” Tommy Robinson, who, for instance, duped his donors by promising a documentary about the abuse of English girls, but then proceeded to actually make one about the supposed sufferings of a (likely fictional) Jewish man. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands (Who supposedly has some Jewish ancestry himself) is a particular extreme example, but most right wing opposition parties like Sweden Democrats, AfD etc. are at least to some extent into Israel pandering.

    Why should a right winger oppose Israel?

    First of course, common morality and Human decency. If you support murderous wars of aggression, brutal suppression and ethnical cleansing then you have forfeited essentially every bit of morality and humanity.

    Second, logical consistency. It is obviously absurd to whine about the loss of identity of Western countries by mass immigration, but at the same time support the outright ethnical cleansing of an autochthonous population (At least we are not yet so far as to be forcibly expulsed from our land). You could argue that the fate of the Palestinians is the prime example of the dangers of mass immigration…

    These two points alone are already sufficient, as long as you don’t want to declare yourself a raging amoral nihilist.

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don’t need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    Fourth, the wars in the Middle East to destroy enemies of Israel massively contribute to the supply of aliens. There was much whining about the influx of Syrian refugees by right wing parties, but what right did they actually have to oppose them? As great friends of Israel, they certainly would not mind to take on the burden of a war that was waged to weaken Syria, an adversary of Israel, thereby contributing to Israeli “security”. The same logic applies to the Palestinians themselves – the logical endgame for the continuing Israeli campaign of ethnical cleansing that squeezes them into ever smaller spaces is, of course, to expulse them entirely. And where do they go? Certainly those great friends of Israel will not mind taking a few millions unwanted Palestinians?

    Fifth, it is an awesome club to beat leftists with. “Anti-Racists” have the following problem:
    1. They worship the sacred Holocaust and Jews as victim master race and therefore have to endorse Israel. Usually with some mumblings about some stuff that could be a bit less unpleasant, but any fundamental criticism of Israel is impossible.
    2. Israel is the worlds most hyper-racist state.
    What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? The luck of the leftists is that they very rarely get challenged about their breathtaking hypocrisis; The fact that rightwingers don’t use this thermonuclear Wunderwaffe against the Left shows that they are complete morons and totally deserve their political marginalisation. I personally can beat any “anti-racist” leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question “Why do you support Israeli crimes?”

    • Agree: anyone with a brain
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don’t need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.
     
    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there's nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left. Anti-Israel victories are leftist victories, not pro-white victories. (Duh, as if this isn't blindingly obvious.)

    At least taking a "I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel" stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine

    As I stated clearly, I do not think politicians in the west should support Israel (they should be neutral, but know in their head who is worse of Israelis and Palestinians). Therefore, your introduction, your third and fourth points are all straw men - They do not apply to my position.

    To your first point: Note how you are just using left wing buzzwords - which most lefties also use against the west. While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints. In contrast. clearly if Palestinians could, they would engage in those atrocities which you list. Palestinians don’t have the moral high ground only because they fail at killing all Israelis.

    Your second point is actually a good one, but there are two small problems. First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic). Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.

    To your fifth point: I never see this working. Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west. Moreover, those leftist who support Israel are mainly Jewish or boomers which are good at having double standards.

    One more thing to add: you clearly are falling for the leftist narrative when attacking Israel. For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west; or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state ... which only works if you apply two different standards to the west and “shit hole countries”

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @DNS
    @Menschmaschine


    I personally can beat any “anti-racist” leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question “Why do you support Israeli crimes?”
     
    To be fair, very few leftist Gentiles support Israel and advocate for multiculturalism, the people who do this are quite usually Jewish themselves. A good example is the British anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate which has completely ignored the Israel-Palestine conflict and yet has found time to draw attention to "Occupied East Turkestan" while Israel was pounding Gaza with airstrikes.

    https://twitter.com/hopenothate/status/1392017645940137984

    There is also the stunning hypocrisy of the Anti-Defamation League in the USA, who oppose white nationalism but support Zionism, Jewish ethnic nationalism.

    A good way to troll left-wingers on the subject of Israel is to inject anti-Semitism into the debate, such as pointing out Jewish influence on US foreign policy and also how the rhetoric around Palestinians used by Zionists is similar to the rhetoric used by anti-racists against Europeans ("Whites do not exist", "There were no Palestinians before 1948"). There is also the issue of how this entire issue could have been avoided had the British not forced Jewish mass immigration onto Palestine thus changing the demographics and paving the way for what is happening now.

    There is a lot of scope in this conflict for the Right to exploit, they need to hijack the narrative away from the "Israeli white supremacy" to what is really happening.

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1394334211897761800

  24. @LondonBob
    Sounds like deflection, everyone knows it is the Jewish lobby pushing anti Russian policies in the West.

    Replies: @BlackFlag, @Dmitry, @Triteleia Laxa

    I’ve heard this too. For example, Charles Bausman, from russian-insider, says that from within the news media industry it’s apparent that the more Jewish an organization is, the more anti-Russian is its slant.

    What would the explanation for Jewish antipathy towards Russia be? I’ve heard because Russia is Christian White and because of historical grievances (pogroms, Stalin’s purges, Putin’s purges). I haven’t encountered a geopolitical practical explanation.

    Anyway, is it’s true that a significant force behind the West’s anti-Russian stance is Jewish influence, would it then make sense for Russia to be less unfriendly toward the state of Israel and more supportive of the Palestinians?

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @BlackFlag

    Jewish victim historiography/mythology definitely plays some role; Steve Sailer has commented on this, in particular in regard to the film "Fiddler on the roof".

    Besides this I think it is similar to the Jewish position in regard to China that I have commented on in an earlier post; As Karlin once commented, Russia is the only country where the Armenian lobby has more influence than the Jewish one (Which is obviously still not very much, as the recent war showed). While Putin himself might be very judeophile, there is no strong Jewish institutional influence on Russian politics. Which makes Jews that are spoiled by their control of US politics very nervous.

  25. @Yevardian
    @Boomthorkell

    Iran hasn't been a revolutionary state since Khomeini's death, and arguably stopped being so sometime before that due to the exigencies of it's nearly decade-long war with Iraq. Many Shah-era officials and technical personnel were quickly reinstated as Khomeini's early favoured 'human wave' tactics predictably ended in disaster.

    Khomeini was extremely controversial even within the Twelver Shi'ite clerical establishment, he was distrusted by many for his deep interest in unconventional pursuits (for his milieu) like poetry, Sufi mysticism and Greek Philosophy, particularly Plato. He understood virtually nothing about economics however, and left policy in that area entirely to subordinates, simply constantly reassigning posts so no minister became too established in their place. After Khomeini's death, no one even approaching his stature that held similar views to his could be found, and eventually Khameini was settled upon for the next Ayatollah, a figure little-respected but who offended no one.
    Iran's leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border. Incidentally, Iran is incidentally the (not counting microstates) country with the first-to-third (depending on counting) highest percentage of refugees relative to it's native population anywhere in the world.
    Anyway, hardly characteristics of a millenarian, destabilising, revolutionary state.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Boomthorkell, @Not Raul

    Excellent comments Yevardian. You’re effort posts are always welcome!

    As a gesture of support for your top notch work.

    • LOL: silviosilver
    • Replies: @DNS
    @Blinky Bill

    JIO was a mistake

    https://twitter.com/AbsolutGanga/status/1394963839142215684



    https://laughingcolours.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TH-24BU-MUKESH.jpg

  26. @Blinky Bill
    @Yevardian

    Excellent comments Yevardian. You're effort posts are always welcome!

    As a gesture of support for your top notch work.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E1o8GyDVkAAakZd.jpg

    https://twitter.com/andraydomise/status/1393700311332802560?s=20

    Replies: @DNS

  27. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel
     
    If only that were true. In reality, the right wing opposition at least in Europe is very much into Israel bootlicking, usually under the banner of "Anti-Islamism". An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 Norwegian youths because they had awakened his ire by participating in a demonstration critical of Israel. Or "activist" Tommy Robinson, who, for instance, duped his donors by promising a documentary about the abuse of English girls, but then proceeded to actually make one about the supposed sufferings of a (likely fictional) Jewish man. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands (Who supposedly has some Jewish ancestry himself) is a particular extreme example, but most right wing opposition parties like Sweden Democrats, AfD etc. are at least to some extent into Israel pandering.

    Why should a right winger oppose Israel?

    First of course, common morality and Human decency. If you support murderous wars of aggression, brutal suppression and ethnical cleansing then you have forfeited essentially every bit of morality and humanity.

    Second, logical consistency. It is obviously absurd to whine about the loss of identity of Western countries by mass immigration, but at the same time support the outright ethnical cleansing of an autochthonous population (At least we are not yet so far as to be forcibly expulsed from our land). You could argue that the fate of the Palestinians is the prime example of the dangers of mass immigration...

    These two points alone are already sufficient, as long as you don't want to declare yourself a raging amoral nihilist.

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don't need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    Fourth, the wars in the Middle East to destroy enemies of Israel massively contribute to the supply of aliens. There was much whining about the influx of Syrian refugees by right wing parties, but what right did they actually have to oppose them? As great friends of Israel, they certainly would not mind to take on the burden of a war that was waged to weaken Syria, an adversary of Israel, thereby contributing to Israeli "security". The same logic applies to the Palestinians themselves - the logical endgame for the continuing Israeli campaign of ethnical cleansing that squeezes them into ever smaller spaces is, of course, to expulse them entirely. And where do they go? Certainly those great friends of Israel will not mind taking a few millions unwanted Palestinians?

    Fifth, it is an awesome club to beat leftists with. "Anti-Racists" have the following problem:
    1. They worship the sacred Holocaust and Jews as victim master race and therefore have to endorse Israel. Usually with some mumblings about some stuff that could be a bit less unpleasant, but any fundamental criticism of Israel is impossible.
    2. Israel is the worlds most hyper-racist state.
    What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? The luck of the leftists is that they very rarely get challenged about their breathtaking hypocrisis; The fact that rightwingers don't use this thermonuclear Wunderwaffe against the Left shows that they are complete morons and totally deserve their political marginalisation. I personally can beat any "anti-racist" leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question "Why do you support Israeli crimes?"

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster, @DNS

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don’t need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left. Anti-Israel victories are leftist victories, not pro-white victories. (Duh, as if this isn’t blindingly obvious.)

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver


    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.
     
    I have described several very good, I think, reasons for adopting an Anti-Israeli position. Feel free to criticize them.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left.
     
    It is only "owned" by the Left, because extremely few on the right adopt this position - if they are not outright Zionist bootlickers. It could, as I have described, very easily made an issue of the right and turned into a weapon against the left.

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.
     
    So, it seems your position is "The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews." I don't want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern...

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed.

    Replies: @AaronB, @Pumblechook, @silviosilver

  28. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    Palestinians don’t do anything to harm white people. Jews are the greatest enemy of white people. Therefore white people should side with Palestinians against Jews.

    This is the area on which Jews are weakest, as their equivocal posture, obsession with BDS and the worldwide (India and evangelicals excluded) dislike of Israel and sympathy for Palestine shows.

  29. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    “pox on both their houses”

  30. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel
     
    If only that were true. In reality, the right wing opposition at least in Europe is very much into Israel bootlicking, usually under the banner of "Anti-Islamism". An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 Norwegian youths because they had awakened his ire by participating in a demonstration critical of Israel. Or "activist" Tommy Robinson, who, for instance, duped his donors by promising a documentary about the abuse of English girls, but then proceeded to actually make one about the supposed sufferings of a (likely fictional) Jewish man. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands (Who supposedly has some Jewish ancestry himself) is a particular extreme example, but most right wing opposition parties like Sweden Democrats, AfD etc. are at least to some extent into Israel pandering.

    Why should a right winger oppose Israel?

    First of course, common morality and Human decency. If you support murderous wars of aggression, brutal suppression and ethnical cleansing then you have forfeited essentially every bit of morality and humanity.

    Second, logical consistency. It is obviously absurd to whine about the loss of identity of Western countries by mass immigration, but at the same time support the outright ethnical cleansing of an autochthonous population (At least we are not yet so far as to be forcibly expulsed from our land). You could argue that the fate of the Palestinians is the prime example of the dangers of mass immigration...

    These two points alone are already sufficient, as long as you don't want to declare yourself a raging amoral nihilist.

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don't need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    Fourth, the wars in the Middle East to destroy enemies of Israel massively contribute to the supply of aliens. There was much whining about the influx of Syrian refugees by right wing parties, but what right did they actually have to oppose them? As great friends of Israel, they certainly would not mind to take on the burden of a war that was waged to weaken Syria, an adversary of Israel, thereby contributing to Israeli "security". The same logic applies to the Palestinians themselves - the logical endgame for the continuing Israeli campaign of ethnical cleansing that squeezes them into ever smaller spaces is, of course, to expulse them entirely. And where do they go? Certainly those great friends of Israel will not mind taking a few millions unwanted Palestinians?

    Fifth, it is an awesome club to beat leftists with. "Anti-Racists" have the following problem:
    1. They worship the sacred Holocaust and Jews as victim master race and therefore have to endorse Israel. Usually with some mumblings about some stuff that could be a bit less unpleasant, but any fundamental criticism of Israel is impossible.
    2. Israel is the worlds most hyper-racist state.
    What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? The luck of the leftists is that they very rarely get challenged about their breathtaking hypocrisis; The fact that rightwingers don't use this thermonuclear Wunderwaffe against the Left shows that they are complete morons and totally deserve their political marginalisation. I personally can beat any "anti-racist" leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question "Why do you support Israeli crimes?"

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster, @DNS

    As I stated clearly, I do not think politicians in the west should support Israel (they should be neutral, but know in their head who is worse of Israelis and Palestinians). Therefore, your introduction, your third and fourth points are all straw men – They do not apply to my position.

    To your first point: Note how you are just using left wing buzzwords – which most lefties also use against the west. While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints. In contrast. clearly if Palestinians could, they would engage in those atrocities which you list. Palestinians don’t have the moral high ground only because they fail at killing all Israelis.

    Your second point is actually a good one, but there are two small problems. First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic). Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.

    To your fifth point: I never see this working. Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west. Moreover, those leftist who support Israel are mainly Jewish or boomers which are good at having double standards.

    One more thing to add: you clearly are falling for the leftist narrative when attacking Israel. For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west; or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state … which only works if you apply two different standards to the west and “shit hole countries”

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic)
     
    There was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

    Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.
     
    Yes, of course since ethnical cleansing is worse than mere immigration so that argument only works in one direction (Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing - like in Palestine). Doesn't matter - there are enough effective counter immigration arguments.

    While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints.
     
    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

    Given such facts, the only possible way to achieve the Zionist goal was and is ethnical cleansing (or "population transfer", as it is called in Zionist jargon). The necessity of ethnical cleansing was always acknowledged by leading Zionists, starting with Theodor Herzl who wrote 1895 in his diary "We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in transit countries, but denying it employment in our own country...The expropriations as well as the expulsion of the poor needs to be done with caution and care." Some more information:

    https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Israel%20Transfer%20Committee%20Ethnic%20Cleansing%20Nakba.htm

    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now - an Israeli "settler" that throws a Palestinian out of his house "If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9q9PDBsDe8

    Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west
     
    I see two main types of Leftists with regard to their position regarding Israel: First, as a kind of avantgarde the "Antideutschen" (Antigermans) which, as their own designation indicates, combine rabid antigerman racism with fanatical Neoconservatism and Zionism. German foreign minister Heiko Maas might serve as a slightly moderated example of this type.

    Then there are the standard leftwingers which may do some timid criticism of some particular egregious mass killing of Palestinians, but in the same breath point out that this does of course not mean that the undying support for Israel is to be curtailed only by an Iota. Bernie Sanders might serve as an US example of the type. I see only a few fringe leftists that do any fundamental critique of Israel. Perhaps the situation is radically different in Germany than in other Westblock countries because of a particular prominence of the Holocaust narrative, but I don't think so.

    Only look, for instance, at Labour in Britain and how effectively the Pro-Zionist lobby crushed Jeremy Corbyn for his rather mild Pro-Palestinian views and brought the party to heel. So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it? Perhaps you overestimate fringe voices because you are active on fringe sites like Unz? Happens to me sometimes. Or do you only classify hardcore tankie types as leftists?

    For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west;
     
    Yes, which is one reason why rightwingers should oppose Israel and in particular wars that the US wages for Israel, which was the point here. There are other arguments you could employ against the supposed necessity to take in masses of "refugees", but this is not the scope here.

    or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state
     
    Of course, "racist" in the case of Israel means really bad stuff like ethnical cleansing, not some woke silliness like using the wrong gender pronouns or something like that. Yes, it is probably better to avoid this word altogether.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster

  31. @Yellowface Anon
    Draw your own conclusions from this fact according to your worldview, but this nearly confirms (along with Putin & Xi going to Davos web conferences and China recently banning cryptos) my suspicion that the Russian-Chinese is the false resistance to the WEF agenda.

    Libertarians are right - any state institution are corrupt at its core since it is pure power.

    Replies: @LondonBob, @Anatoly Karlin

    Klaus Schwab and most members of the Politburo have an engineering background and practically grounded technocratic-utopian visions of human progress. They probably get along quite well, possibly better than with many Western politicians, who tend to be lawyer-ideologues of various stripes.

    • Replies: @Californian Candidate
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I know you said western and not US, but this seems like a common troupe that gets thrown around casually, even though (at least for the USA) it is somewhat outdated. Lawyers are, surprisingly, a minority in the US Congress now. From 1940 to around 1970, the top occupational backgrounds of US House representatives and US senators were military and law. Then in the 1990's this shifts dramatically towards business, banking, and public service (career politicians) as the top occupational backgrounds of the younger incoming politicians. The private sector pays top lawyers significantly more and there's generally less drama and social exposure involved, so that could be one explanation. Lawyers are still a sizable group, but are no longer ~80% of the US Congress like they used to be in the 1930's and 1940's.

    https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/i_C_SJdNkEVg/v0/-1x-1.png

  32. @Menschmaschine
    @songbird

    Saudi Arabia and the GCC statelets are of course quasi colonial vassal states of the US (and therefore Israel). The formal recognition of Israel is only a meaningless formality.

    Replies: @songbird

    Saudi Arabia and the GCC statelets are of course quasi colonial vassal states of the US

    I used to think so, but when Khashoggi was murdered, it was almost like the Saudi tail wagging the US dog. At least if you think of it in the progressive mindset. I suppose it is quite likely that nobody in power really cared.

  33. @BlackFlag
    @LondonBob

    I've heard this too. For example, Charles Bausman, from russian-insider, says that from within the news media industry it's apparent that the more Jewish an organization is, the more anti-Russian is its slant.

    What would the explanation for Jewish antipathy towards Russia be? I've heard because Russia is Christian White and because of historical grievances (pogroms, Stalin's purges, Putin's purges). I haven't encountered a geopolitical practical explanation.

    Anyway, is it's true that a significant force behind the West's anti-Russian stance is Jewish influence, would it then make sense for Russia to be less unfriendly toward the state of Israel and more supportive of the Palestinians?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Jewish victim historiography/mythology definitely plays some role; Steve Sailer has commented on this, in particular in regard to the film “Fiddler on the roof”.

    Besides this I think it is similar to the Jewish position in regard to China that I have commented on in an earlier post; As Karlin once commented, Russia is the only country where the Armenian lobby has more influence than the Jewish one (Which is obviously still not very much, as the recent war showed). While Putin himself might be very judeophile, there is no strong Jewish institutional influence on Russian politics. Which makes Jews that are spoiled by their control of US politics very nervous.

  34. @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don’t need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.
     
    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there's nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left. Anti-Israel victories are leftist victories, not pro-white victories. (Duh, as if this isn't blindingly obvious.)

    At least taking a "I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel" stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.

    I have described several very good, I think, reasons for adopting an Anti-Israeli position. Feel free to criticize them.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left.

    It is only “owned” by the Left, because extremely few on the right adopt this position – if they are not outright Zionist bootlickers. It could, as I have described, very easily made an issue of the right and turned into a weapon against the left.

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    So, it seems your position is “The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews.” I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Menschmaschine


    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    So, it seems your position is “The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews.” I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…
     

    I think you explain here very well why being anti-Israel can only be an (extremist) left-wing position.

    First, you describe what Israel has, a nationalist home that isn't ashamed to vigorously defend itself, as something only "scum" would want.

    That's an extremist left-wing position. There is a reason BLM is pro-Palestinian.

    At the same time, from the mainstream leftist perspective, Israel is also a refuge for a historically persecuted minority, and a liberal democracy fighting illiberal regimes. Arab society persecutes gays and oppresses women, while Israeli society is visibly more open, liberal, and tolerant than Arab society, which attracts support from the mainstream left.

    However, Israel is ruling over Arabs in the West Bank, which is considered an "indigenous" and disadvantaged people, which complicates the picture for the left. Israel frequently fights even poorer Arabs, against which it is ridiculously dominant, further complicating the picture for the left. Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it's use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.

    So it is a complicated picture for the left, with only the most extremist abd ideological faction being unreservedly anti-Israel.


    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed
     
    But the Jewish narrative is completely different.

    Jews are returning to their ancestral homeland to form a nation, and an alien civilization that has conquered it in the meantime is trying to stop them for imperialist reasons even though they have no material reason to do so.

    Further, Israelis are objectively much more Western than Arabs, both in terms of physical appearance and culturally, so for right-winger to side with Arabs would be to turn against Western civilization on the level of appearance and emotion, at the very least.

    At the same time, Israel is fighting the same group that is increasingly immigrating to Europe and creating hostile communities refusing to assimilate, who periodically attack and kill Europeans. The same group trying to destroy Israel, is the group European nationalists have to contend with, and are perceived generally as a threat to European civilization by the right.

    However, the right-wing perception that Jews are disproportionately involved in supporting non-White immigration makes the picture s bit more complicated for the right as well.

    The American alt-right appear to be the last heirs in Western civilization of "millenarian anti-Semitism" - the belief that the Jews are the eternal enemy of mankind and the millennium will be ushered in by the elimination of the Jews. This belief is rooted in ancient Christian dualism, itself a holdover from Zoroastrianism, and peaked in Nazi Germany. It is a declining force in the West, and it's last holdouts are niche websites like this one. I do not expect this attitude to play any serious role in the future

    Anti-Israeli attitudes on the American alt-right are rooted in this sense of apocalyptic battle with Jews, which is more important to them than achieving their dream of a White nationalist America. It's worth remembering that Hitler similarly diverted war resources towards the extermination of Jews.

    European nationalists are far more sober and sensible. They have long abandoned millenarian anti-semitism and adopted the sensible Hilaire Beloc attitude towards Jews - nothing wrong with Jews, but they are a foreign people who shouldn't play a significant role in the cultural or political life of other nations. Jews should have their own nation and we wish them the best of luck and are willing to trade and have amicable relations with them on this basis.

    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations

    Replies: @silviosilver, @216

    , @Pumblechook
    @Menschmaschine

    The reasons you provided for needing to “pick a side” are not especially good - it is like asking an Arab to “pick a side” in the Northern Ireland sectarian conflict; though he may well emphasise on a human level with the innocent victims of the conflict, he does not feel particularly compelled to root for either side because they have nothing to do with him and his family.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…
     
    That's a healthy suspicion, and I don't hold it against you.

    My own healthy suspicion is that when someone characterizes a reasonable position - not necessarily one you need to agree with, but one grounded in reason - as "preposterous," I suspect I am dealing with some hardcore "nazi" type who prioritizes punishing Jews over promoting white interests. (In their minds, I suppose, these are one and the same thing.)
  35. DNS says:
    @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I do not understand the hate of right wingers of Israel
     
    If only that were true. In reality, the right wing opposition at least in Europe is very much into Israel bootlicking, usually under the banner of "Anti-Islamism". An extreme example is Anders Breivik, who murdered 69 Norwegian youths because they had awakened his ire by participating in a demonstration critical of Israel. Or "activist" Tommy Robinson, who, for instance, duped his donors by promising a documentary about the abuse of English girls, but then proceeded to actually make one about the supposed sufferings of a (likely fictional) Jewish man. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands (Who supposedly has some Jewish ancestry himself) is a particular extreme example, but most right wing opposition parties like Sweden Democrats, AfD etc. are at least to some extent into Israel pandering.

    Why should a right winger oppose Israel?

    First of course, common morality and Human decency. If you support murderous wars of aggression, brutal suppression and ethnical cleansing then you have forfeited essentially every bit of morality and humanity.

    Second, logical consistency. It is obviously absurd to whine about the loss of identity of Western countries by mass immigration, but at the same time support the outright ethnical cleansing of an autochthonous population (At least we are not yet so far as to be forcibly expulsed from our land). You could argue that the fate of the Palestinians is the prime example of the dangers of mass immigration...

    These two points alone are already sufficient, as long as you don't want to declare yourself a raging amoral nihilist.

    Third, there is absolutely nothing to gain. Those right wing partys that declared fealty to Israel got nothing but sneering hate from Jews for their ministrations; Please understand: they don't need you, they have the entire establishment in their pocket.

    Fourth, the wars in the Middle East to destroy enemies of Israel massively contribute to the supply of aliens. There was much whining about the influx of Syrian refugees by right wing parties, but what right did they actually have to oppose them? As great friends of Israel, they certainly would not mind to take on the burden of a war that was waged to weaken Syria, an adversary of Israel, thereby contributing to Israeli "security". The same logic applies to the Palestinians themselves - the logical endgame for the continuing Israeli campaign of ethnical cleansing that squeezes them into ever smaller spaces is, of course, to expulse them entirely. And where do they go? Certainly those great friends of Israel will not mind taking a few millions unwanted Palestinians?

    Fifth, it is an awesome club to beat leftists with. "Anti-Racists" have the following problem:
    1. They worship the sacred Holocaust and Jews as victim master race and therefore have to endorse Israel. Usually with some mumblings about some stuff that could be a bit less unpleasant, but any fundamental criticism of Israel is impossible.
    2. Israel is the worlds most hyper-racist state.
    What happens when an irresistable force hits an immovable object? The luck of the leftists is that they very rarely get challenged about their breathtaking hypocrisis; The fact that rightwingers don't use this thermonuclear Wunderwaffe against the Left shows that they are complete morons and totally deserve their political marginalisation. I personally can beat any "anti-racist" leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question "Why do you support Israeli crimes?"

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster, @DNS

    I personally can beat any “anti-racist” leftist to a bloody pulp by the simple question “Why do you support Israeli crimes?”

    To be fair, very few leftist Gentiles support Israel and advocate for multiculturalism, the people who do this are quite usually Jewish themselves. A good example is the British anti-fascist organisation Hope Not Hate which has completely ignored the Israel-Palestine conflict and yet has found time to draw attention to “Occupied East Turkestan” while Israel was pounding Gaza with airstrikes.

    There is also the stunning hypocrisy of the Anti-Defamation League in the USA, who oppose white nationalism but support Zionism, Jewish ethnic nationalism.

    A good way to troll left-wingers on the subject of Israel is to inject anti-Semitism into the debate, such as pointing out Jewish influence on US foreign policy and also how the rhetoric around Palestinians used by Zionists is similar to the rhetoric used by anti-racists against Europeans (“Whites do not exist”, “There were no Palestinians before 1948”). There is also the issue of how this entire issue could have been avoided had the British not forced Jewish mass immigration onto Palestine thus changing the demographics and paving the way for what is happening now.

    There is a lot of scope in this conflict for the Right to exploit, they need to hijack the narrative away from the “Israeli white supremacy” to what is really happening.

  36. @Caspar von Everec
    The rightoid stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict is stupid in general.

    Yes, obviously you shouldn't support Israel who's Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn't bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.

    Its really embarrassing when you see cuckolds like Keith Woods, Eric Striker and the other Marxnats at TRS don their cock cages and berate you if you don't worship Palestine. These very Palestinians call out ''white supremacy" in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    The correct stance is the following: I am anti Israel but not Pro Palestine.

    Palestine is a human molotov cocktail to be thrown at Jews, nothing more. Jews are trying to deprive everyone else of a homeland by dumping billions of Africans on them so its only fair that they themselves have no ethnostate.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.

    And before some Nazbol loser rides in to say how Jews are genociding Palestinians, in 1948 there wer 1,8 million Arabs in the holy land. Now there are 5.3 million. The Israelis are as good at genociding as Putin is good at being Hitler

    Replies: @One time poster, @Boomthorkell, @DNS, @Menschmaschine, @Yevardian, @Kent Nationalist, @Svevlad, @Bragadocious

    These very Palestinians call out ”white supremacy” in the US and venerate George Floyd.

    So do virtue signalling whites in London and Paris.

  37. @Yevardian
    @Caspar von Everec


    The whole notion of boomer anti-imperialists demanding Russia fight Israel to save Palestine just shows how stupid and archaic these people are.
     
    I've never actually seen anyone say anything like that except utu, who I think it's fair to say has rather.. unique views.
    Every pro-Palestinian leftist I've ever met has despised and talked slander about Russia, despite that country being the only realistic chance the Palestinians have at getting a relatively disinterested broker that holds any international weight.

    Incidentally I might mention anecdotally that Palestinians are no exception to general Iranian contempt for Arabs, Iran's stance purely comes from it's leadership caste, although the idea that every Iranian would become a secular liberal if the regime collapsed is a fantasy, there's no doubt the population would prefer to throw Palestine under the bus at the first opportunity.

    Replies: @Morton's toes

    Yes. I am 99% sure Iran uses Palestinian and other militants as pawn in Game of Nations.

    The downtrodden fellow Muslims thing seems like a stretch.

    SJW solidarity with Palestinians is an interesting intermittent phenomenon to see though. Dead Palestinian children on the television seems to correlate way over 90%. I wonder what the youtube guidelines are on censorship criteria. They had some pretty gruesome videos being promoted when Syrian children were the collateral damage. The current moaning-whining debate point is human shields. Abby Martin’s video is great.

    Does she believe any of it?

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Morton's toes


    The current moaning-whining debate point is human shields. Abby Martin’s video is great.

    Does she believe any of it?
     

    That's an ancient canard at this point.. anyway, as far as Gaza goes, it's not as if there exist any mountains, forests or even any large tracts of empty land for guerillas to set up in. Can't comment since I never watch videos unless a direct recording of an event gives anything new.. I only recall she's one of RT's 'attractive female news anchors', presumably hired on that basis, so why care about her opinions? Practically the only women I can think from the top of my head who have recently had anything interesting to say have been Camille Paglia and Saskia Sassen, both quite elderly at this point. I guess I could respect Tulsi Gabbard or Anne Coulter in the abstract, though I doubt I could stomach anything they wrote, certainly not hearing Coulter speak.

    On the larger scale though.. the whole "conflict" is done with, over, finito, the Palestinians have lost, totally and utterly, Israel only needs to wait for right time to conduct another mass expulsion of the Palestinian territories, in due time. The major Arab nations have all already openly recognised or have implicitly cooperated with Israel for many years now. Of course, the last Arab state of any significance that continued standing up to Israel was Syria, whateva happened there..

    So yeah, from an international perspective, "opposing" Israel on principle makes little sense, the country certainly isn't going anywhere. Russia is certainly the largest restraining influence on Israel anyway, but since things that don't happen are hard to quantify, it's not so obvious. I'm sure Israel would have been far more active in intervening in Syria if not for Russia, for example, instead of mere financing/medical care of Islamist 'opposition' they might have actually established paramilitaries under their direct control, like the "South Lebanese Army" for example. Given the chaos Egypt experienced under the (((Arab Spring))) even a IDF ground invasion wouldn't have been impossible. Probably the main reason it wasn't considered is that Israeli society no longer has the stomach for taking casualties, with a corresponding decline in military performance, see how badly their actual ground troops were embarrassed by Hezbollah under Olmert.

    Went on a tangent again. Do reiner tor, that 'Dacien Soros' handle and German_Reader still comment here? Haven't seen them in a while

  38. It seems like American Jews are significantly more Russophobic than Israelis. In general I feel like the most Russophobic Jews tend to be very Americanized.

  39. @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver


    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.
     
    I have described several very good, I think, reasons for adopting an Anti-Israeli position. Feel free to criticize them.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left.
     
    It is only "owned" by the Left, because extremely few on the right adopt this position - if they are not outright Zionist bootlickers. It could, as I have described, very easily made an issue of the right and turned into a weapon against the left.

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.
     
    So, it seems your position is "The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews." I don't want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern...

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed.

    Replies: @AaronB, @Pumblechook, @silviosilver

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    So, it seems your position is “The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews.” I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…

    I think you explain here very well why being anti-Israel can only be an (extremist) left-wing position.

    First, you describe what Israel has, a nationalist home that isn’t ashamed to vigorously defend itself, as something only “scum” would want.

    That’s an extremist left-wing position. There is a reason BLM is pro-Palestinian.

    At the same time, from the mainstream leftist perspective, Israel is also a refuge for a historically persecuted minority, and a liberal democracy fighting illiberal regimes. Arab society persecutes gays and oppresses women, while Israeli society is visibly more open, liberal, and tolerant than Arab society, which attracts support from the mainstream left.

    However, Israel is ruling over Arabs in the West Bank, which is considered an “indigenous” and disadvantaged people, which complicates the picture for the left. Israel frequently fights even poorer Arabs, against which it is ridiculously dominant, further complicating the picture for the left. Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it’s use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.

    So it is a complicated picture for the left, with only the most extremist abd ideological faction being unreservedly anti-Israel.

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed

    But the Jewish narrative is completely different.

    Jews are returning to their ancestral homeland to form a nation, and an alien civilization that has conquered it in the meantime is trying to stop them for imperialist reasons even though they have no material reason to do so.

    Further, Israelis are objectively much more Western than Arabs, both in terms of physical appearance and culturally, so for right-winger to side with Arabs would be to turn against Western civilization on the level of appearance and emotion, at the very least.

    At the same time, Israel is fighting the same group that is increasingly immigrating to Europe and creating hostile communities refusing to assimilate, who periodically attack and kill Europeans. The same group trying to destroy Israel, is the group European nationalists have to contend with, and are perceived generally as a threat to European civilization by the right.

    However, the right-wing perception that Jews are disproportionately involved in supporting non-White immigration makes the picture s bit more complicated for the right as well.

    The American alt-right appear to be the last heirs in Western civilization of “millenarian anti-Semitism” – the belief that the Jews are the eternal enemy of mankind and the millennium will be ushered in by the elimination of the Jews. This belief is rooted in ancient Christian dualism, itself a holdover from Zoroastrianism, and peaked in Nazi Germany. It is a declining force in the West, and it’s last holdouts are niche websites like this one. I do not expect this attitude to play any serious role in the future

    Anti-Israeli attitudes on the American alt-right are rooted in this sense of apocalyptic battle with Jews, which is more important to them than achieving their dream of a White nationalist America. It’s worth remembering that Hitler similarly diverted war resources towards the extermination of Jews.

    European nationalists are far more sober and sensible. They have long abandoned millenarian anti-semitism and adopted the sensible Hilaire Beloc attitude towards Jews – nothing wrong with Jews, but they are a foreign people who shouldn’t play a significant role in the cultural or political life of other nations. Jews should have their own nation and we wish them the best of luck and are willing to trade and have amicable relations with them on this basis.

    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @AaronB


    Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it’s use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.
     
    Aaron, seriously now, what the fuck is this, have you completely lost your mind?

    You drop the apostrophe of possession on "Israel's" and you add one to "its"?

    The latter is a bad habit of yours I have been meaning to reprimand you for on several occasions, but I have shown restraint - "don't be the grammar nazi," I have told myself. Well, no longer. Let it be known: you are on notice.
    , @216
    @AaronB


    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations
     
    The former is a dead letter, even if some try to beat it like a dead horse. The latter is outside my experience.

    When something has been organizationally dismantled, deplatformed, and several of its leaders in prison; there is no reason to consider it a serious contender for power. It's not 2016 anymore.
  40. @Yevardian
    @Boomthorkell

    Iran hasn't been a revolutionary state since Khomeini's death, and arguably stopped being so sometime before that due to the exigencies of it's nearly decade-long war with Iraq. Many Shah-era officials and technical personnel were quickly reinstated as Khomeini's early favoured 'human wave' tactics predictably ended in disaster.

    Khomeini was extremely controversial even within the Twelver Shi'ite clerical establishment, he was distrusted by many for his deep interest in unconventional pursuits (for his milieu) like poetry, Sufi mysticism and Greek Philosophy, particularly Plato. He understood virtually nothing about economics however, and left policy in that area entirely to subordinates, simply constantly reassigning posts so no minister became too established in their place. After Khomeini's death, no one even approaching his stature that held similar views to his could be found, and eventually Khameini was settled upon for the next Ayatollah, a figure little-respected but who offended no one.
    Iran's leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border. Incidentally, Iran is incidentally the (not counting microstates) country with the first-to-third (depending on counting) highest percentage of refugees relative to it's native population anywhere in the world.
    Anyway, hardly characteristics of a millenarian, destabilising, revolutionary state.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Boomthorkell, @Not Raul

    Oh, I never said they were destabilizing (in a negative sense) or impractical. Just they were revolutionary for the region (at the time) and the existent system. All the stuff you mentioned is true, which is why I did not make any insinuations against them in those areas.

    I just said they aren’t in the Palestine cause purely to due to practical reasons, because few countries are 100% “practical” in a sense. They have genuine religious reasons guiding them when a nation that does not would just say, “why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?” Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be “practical” for them.

    Likewise, it would be “practical” for Israel to make peace with Iran, but Israel has its own (I would say, more nefarious in practice) religious and ethno-nationalist logic compelling it. The point is, outsiders shouldn’t really care, and it’s outsiders who make the situation worse. If it were just between them (the Middle East), they would figure something out or die trying.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Boomthorkell


    The point is, outsiders shouldn’t really care
     
    Probably a safe position for the Japanese, but we might be locked into it because of demographics. Both groups (I count MENA as one) form substantial special interests in the West, with Jews obviously being much more powerful.

    Broadly speaking, neither seem to be potential allies of Euro nationalists. When you get down to it, Palestine and Israel are both tiny strips of dust compared to the jewel of Europe and the possibility of further Westward expansion.

    Short term, I think there are only two possible results of political posturing, neither much to get excited about:
    1.) Pro-Israel: status quo
    2.) Pro-Palestine: continuing Israeli gibs at current levels, with some additional gibs to Palestine.

    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way. I'd like to obviate this scenario, as much as possible by decreasing the bootlicking of Israel by Western pols. Probably, the Palestinians would like to do the same thing - including to the Mizrahim, but they seem more isolated and less capable.

    Replies: @AaronB

    , @Yevardian
    @Boomthorkell


    “why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?” Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be “practical” for them.
     
    I don't think Israel would be willing to go very far, they want regional hegemony. I mean, they have already repeatedly clashed with Turkey since Erdogan developed his own ambitions, after being close partners for decades. So far the status quo seems to be holding in Rojava after a period of brinkmanship, at least.
  41. @Boomthorkell
    @Yevardian

    Oh, I never said they were destabilizing (in a negative sense) or impractical. Just they were revolutionary for the region (at the time) and the existent system. All the stuff you mentioned is true, which is why I did not make any insinuations against them in those areas.

    I just said they aren't in the Palestine cause purely to due to practical reasons, because few countries are 100% "practical" in a sense. They have genuine religious reasons guiding them when a nation that does not would just say, "why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?" Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be "practical" for them.

    Likewise, it would be "practical" for Israel to make peace with Iran, but Israel has its own (I would say, more nefarious in practice) religious and ethno-nationalist logic compelling it. The point is, outsiders shouldn't really care, and it's outsiders who make the situation worse. If it were just between them (the Middle East), they would figure something out or die trying.

    Replies: @songbird, @Yevardian

    The point is, outsiders shouldn’t really care

    Probably a safe position for the Japanese, but we might be locked into it because of demographics. Both groups (I count MENA as one) form substantial special interests in the West, with Jews obviously being much more powerful.

    Broadly speaking, neither seem to be potential allies of Euro nationalists. When you get down to it, Palestine and Israel are both tiny strips of dust compared to the jewel of Europe and the possibility of further Westward expansion.

    Short term, I think there are only two possible results of political posturing, neither much to get excited about:
    1.) Pro-Israel: status quo
    2.) Pro-Palestine: continuing Israeli gibs at current levels, with some additional gibs to Palestine.

    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way. I’d like to obviate this scenario, as much as possible by decreasing the bootlicking of Israel by Western pols. Probably, the Palestinians would like to do the same thing – including to the Mizrahim, but they seem more isolated and less capable.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @songbird


    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way.
     
    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.

    I think it's very unlikely to occur. Certainly as long as America remains the worlds preeminent power and enforcer of the post-war liberal consensus, any population transfer is impossible.

    Perhaps, with the decline of America and the rise of China, with it's own reeducation camps for Muslims, the atmosphere might shift. But we are nowhere near that yet.

    The American alliance with Israel, and Europe's involvement, has in general perpetuated this conflict and made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it. American involvement has been good for the Palestinians, and Europe's more so.

    The liberal consensus is based on the notion that everyone wants to become liberal really and the world is trending towards liberalism. It is a theology of conversion not conquest.

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians. The Palestinians are to be steadily made liberal through economic development, trade, and peace treaties, and when necessary, the judicious application of violence, when they attack.

    They are not to be conquered, crushed, and dispersed, as would be easy to do. Just as much force as is necessary to keep them contained is to be used, in a measured way, until they see the beauties of liberalism.

    As the West achieved the power to conquer and crush nearly any adversary, it began to see this as a relatively trivial goal and developed greater ambitions; the conversion of everyone to liberalism.

    In a way it's a genuinely humane vision and "large minded" - it's really an attemtpt to give others the good things you have - but it is stupid in that it pays no attention to what people actually want, to their actual potential right now, and to what they are capable of. There is also, obviously, a massive narcissistic element here - although a relatively humane one. But people who want to "do good" for you by transforming your life are often the most harmful.

    On the military level, this leads to unsatisfying stalemates. The US could have easily conquered, crushed, and enslaved Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, but hindsight shows, it could not convert them.

    In hindsight, the post-war global strategy of the West was too ambitious, and it's assumptions a form of hubris. Also, it was tone-deaf and blind, not grasping that a life of consumerist materialism is not universally attractive, and that because the characters of men differ, the pluralistic ideal is superior to the unitary ideal.

    Will the Palestinians eventually become liberal? Maybe. The Vietnamese have moved in this direction. And elements of the Palestinians certainly have, and more so the Arab world.

    So will this policy be vindicated in the long run? I don't know.

    Replies: @songbird

  42. @songbird
    @Boomthorkell


    The point is, outsiders shouldn’t really care
     
    Probably a safe position for the Japanese, but we might be locked into it because of demographics. Both groups (I count MENA as one) form substantial special interests in the West, with Jews obviously being much more powerful.

    Broadly speaking, neither seem to be potential allies of Euro nationalists. When you get down to it, Palestine and Israel are both tiny strips of dust compared to the jewel of Europe and the possibility of further Westward expansion.

    Short term, I think there are only two possible results of political posturing, neither much to get excited about:
    1.) Pro-Israel: status quo
    2.) Pro-Palestine: continuing Israeli gibs at current levels, with some additional gibs to Palestine.

    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way. I'd like to obviate this scenario, as much as possible by decreasing the bootlicking of Israel by Western pols. Probably, the Palestinians would like to do the same thing - including to the Mizrahim, but they seem more isolated and less capable.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way.

    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.

    I think it’s very unlikely to occur. Certainly as long as America remains the worlds preeminent power and enforcer of the post-war liberal consensus, any population transfer is impossible.

    Perhaps, with the decline of America and the rise of China, with it’s own reeducation camps for Muslims, the atmosphere might shift. But we are nowhere near that yet.

    The American alliance with Israel, and Europe’s involvement, has in general perpetuated this conflict and made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it. American involvement has been good for the Palestinians, and Europe’s more so.

    The liberal consensus is based on the notion that everyone wants to become liberal really and the world is trending towards liberalism. It is a theology of conversion not conquest.

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians. The Palestinians are to be steadily made liberal through economic development, trade, and peace treaties, and when necessary, the judicious application of violence, when they attack.

    They are not to be conquered, crushed, and dispersed, as would be easy to do. Just as much force as is necessary to keep them contained is to be used, in a measured way, until they see the beauties of liberalism.

    As the West achieved the power to conquer and crush nearly any adversary, it began to see this as a relatively trivial goal and developed greater ambitions; the conversion of everyone to liberalism.

    In a way it’s a genuinely humane vision and “large minded” – it’s really an attemtpt to give others the good things you have – but it is stupid in that it pays no attention to what people actually want, to their actual potential right now, and to what they are capable of. There is also, obviously, a massive narcissistic element here – although a relatively humane one. But people who want to “do good” for you by transforming your life are often the most harmful.

    On the military level, this leads to unsatisfying stalemates. The US could have easily conquered, crushed, and enslaved Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, but hindsight shows, it could not convert them.

    In hindsight, the post-war global strategy of the West was too ambitious, and it’s assumptions a form of hubris. Also, it was tone-deaf and blind, not grasping that a life of consumerist materialism is not universally attractive, and that because the characters of men differ, the pluralistic ideal is superior to the unitary ideal.

    Will the Palestinians eventually become liberal? Maybe. The Vietnamese have moved in this direction. And elements of the Palestinians certainly have, and more so the Arab world.

    So will this policy be vindicated in the long run? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @AaronB


    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.
     
    Open borders means that there will be significant spillover. Venezuelans are still trudging into the US, though they went to neighboring countries first.

    made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it.
     
    And these would be...?

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians.
     
    I think this is certainly true, for the moment. Palestinians, IMO, are social glue for Jews in Israel. They help foment Jewish nationalism, and no doubt help to maintain the respectable TFR of Jews in Israel. One might almost envy Jews for having Arabs hurl rockets ineffectively at them and for them occasionally being forced into air raid shelters.

    Many people theorize election cycles in Palestine and Israel are to blame for the more explosive periods - so in a way the conflict could be perceived as being politically desirable, at least through a certain lens.

    On the Palestinian side of it, they seem pretty contained and manageable. Holding them to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank possibly default urbanizes them, as their population increases. One would expect their TFR to eventually collapse. Of course, this assumes it is a regular urbanization process and the uncertainty of the conflict does not turn them into special breeders.

    Israel, though, I think might be different. (Always more capable) If it is able to maintain its current TFR (seems more likely than Palestinians doing so) than they will run out of land. It becomes a mathematical certainty - at least, if it is maintained. So, I think, under that scenario, we will see either a lot of Jewish emigrants leaving Israel or else local Jewish expansion.

    The Vietnamese have moved in this direction.
     
    I view the Vietnamese as being half-Sinicized. (so in a loose analogy, they might be somewhat more comparable to Southern Europeans, rather than MENA people.) Though North Africa seems to be secularizing, so Palestinians might, though I'm not sure cyclical violence and humiliation will lead it on the path.

    I suppose if one looks at it like Northern Ireland, then both groups will probably end up being the victims of broader secularization of their extraterritorial ethnic groups. In another 50 or 70 years, Jews and Arabs might be vainly complaining to each other about Africans moving into their shared area.

    Replies: @AaronB

  43. @Anatoly Karlin
    Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    On the subject of Israel:

    https://www.rt.com/news/524410-qureshi-cnn-antisemitic-slur/

    A few too many years ago, I had an excellent NYT journo professor, Gerald Eskenazi, who in class once said (without quoting verbatim) that Israel gets a lot of coverage (in part) because of a good number of Jews in media positions with a sympathetic interest in that country.

    At the time, him saying that was somewhat par on when a Black uses a certain N word as opposed to a non-Black using it. That comparison is changing. In an MSNBC segment this week, host Brian Williams said that the political and general landscape in America is changing with a greater number of folks who’re openly more critical of the Jewish state. This criticism includes some Jews as well.

    Brianna Golodryga is a hypocrite, who using her own standard (in the below) is an anti-Russian bigot. I’ve come across numerous people who note how many Jews are fanatically and wrongly anti-Russian. I’ve disagreed with that observation by noting how mass media is prone to getting a certain view represented in media over others. A case in point is how Ukrainian anti-Russian slants get more mass media play than Ukrainian pro-Russian perspectives.

    As a comparison, consider the instances when “Russian” is negatively and flippantly used in situations involving clear bigotry which don’t get rebuked – even by RT.

    Golodryga has former Moldavian SSR Jewish roots along with Slava Malamud and Julie Roginsky. All three being noticeably anti-Russian. Some will get a wrong impression by not taking into consideration what US mass media prefers.

    In totality (stressing what he said from start to finish), the Pakistani diplomat fell short of being bigoted. Given the hypocritical selective sensitivity out there, he should’ve chosen his words more carefully.

    Golodryga’s whataboutism with the Pakistani diplomat on the treatment of Muslims in China is pretty rich, given the permeating Western mass media and body politic double standards on global human rights issues. Alexey Navalny’s arrest gets a much higher profile concern when compared to the Kiev regime apprehending the leading Ukrainian political opposition figure Viktor Medvedchuk. Ditto the overall clear human rights issues in Kiev regime controlled Ukraine when compared to Russia.

    There’s also the ongoing situation with Julian Assange.

    Golodryga is better suited for an AIPAC position than a news host of a TV network truly professing some reasonable sense of objectivity. Isn’t it fair to say that AIPAC has “deep pockets”, when compared to most (perhaps all) US based orgs lobbying for the benefit of a foreign country?

  44. @AaronB
    @songbird


    Longer term, I think is where it changes. TFR seems to predict Israeli expansion, and Jews sending the rest of the Palestinians our way.
     
    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.

    I think it's very unlikely to occur. Certainly as long as America remains the worlds preeminent power and enforcer of the post-war liberal consensus, any population transfer is impossible.

    Perhaps, with the decline of America and the rise of China, with it's own reeducation camps for Muslims, the atmosphere might shift. But we are nowhere near that yet.

    The American alliance with Israel, and Europe's involvement, has in general perpetuated this conflict and made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it. American involvement has been good for the Palestinians, and Europe's more so.

    The liberal consensus is based on the notion that everyone wants to become liberal really and the world is trending towards liberalism. It is a theology of conversion not conquest.

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians. The Palestinians are to be steadily made liberal through economic development, trade, and peace treaties, and when necessary, the judicious application of violence, when they attack.

    They are not to be conquered, crushed, and dispersed, as would be easy to do. Just as much force as is necessary to keep them contained is to be used, in a measured way, until they see the beauties of liberalism.

    As the West achieved the power to conquer and crush nearly any adversary, it began to see this as a relatively trivial goal and developed greater ambitions; the conversion of everyone to liberalism.

    In a way it's a genuinely humane vision and "large minded" - it's really an attemtpt to give others the good things you have - but it is stupid in that it pays no attention to what people actually want, to their actual potential right now, and to what they are capable of. There is also, obviously, a massive narcissistic element here - although a relatively humane one. But people who want to "do good" for you by transforming your life are often the most harmful.

    On the military level, this leads to unsatisfying stalemates. The US could have easily conquered, crushed, and enslaved Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, but hindsight shows, it could not convert them.

    In hindsight, the post-war global strategy of the West was too ambitious, and it's assumptions a form of hubris. Also, it was tone-deaf and blind, not grasping that a life of consumerist materialism is not universally attractive, and that because the characters of men differ, the pluralistic ideal is superior to the unitary ideal.

    Will the Palestinians eventually become liberal? Maybe. The Vietnamese have moved in this direction. And elements of the Palestinians certainly have, and more so the Arab world.

    So will this policy be vindicated in the long run? I don't know.

    Replies: @songbird

    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.

    Open borders means that there will be significant spillover. Venezuelans are still trudging into the US, though they went to neighboring countries first.

    made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it.

    And these would be…?

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians.

    I think this is certainly true, for the moment. Palestinians, IMO, are social glue for Jews in Israel. They help foment Jewish nationalism, and no doubt help to maintain the respectable TFR of Jews in Israel.

    [MORE]
    One might almost envy Jews for having Arabs hurl rockets ineffectively at them and for them occasionally being forced into air raid shelters.

    Many people theorize election cycles in Palestine and Israel are to blame for the more explosive periods – so in a way the conflict could be perceived as being politically desirable, at least through a certain lens.

    On the Palestinian side of it, they seem pretty contained and manageable. Holding them to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank possibly default urbanizes them, as their population increases. One would expect their TFR to eventually collapse. Of course, this assumes it is a regular urbanization process and the uncertainty of the conflict does not turn them into special breeders.

    Israel, though, I think might be different. (Always more capable) If it is able to maintain its current TFR (seems more likely than Palestinians doing so) than they will run out of land. It becomes a mathematical certainty – at least, if it is maintained. So, I think, under that scenario, we will see either a lot of Jewish emigrants leaving Israel or else local Jewish expansion.

    The Vietnamese have moved in this direction.

    I view the Vietnamese as being half-Sinicized. (so in a loose analogy, they might be somewhat more comparable to Southern Europeans, rather than MENA people.) Though North Africa seems to be secularizing, so Palestinians might, though I’m not sure cyclical violence and humiliation will lead it on the path.

    I suppose if one looks at it like Northern Ireland, then both groups will probably end up being the victims of broader secularization of their extraterritorial ethnic groups. In another 50 or 70 years, Jews and Arabs might be vainly complaining to each other about Africans moving into their shared area.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @songbird


    Open borders means that there will be significant spillover. Venezuelans are still trudging into the US, though they went to neighboring countries first.
     
    I think the specifics here are different. Palestinians are Arabs, no different in culture or religion than the other Arabs of the region, and it seems to me likely they would be integrated into the region.

    Plus, if Palestinians were transferred, I would imagine it either as part of some kind of major regional war started by Iran, or with the agreement of surrounding Arab states.

    But I find it very hard to imagine, to be honest.

    made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it.

    And these would be…?
     
    In order to deal Hamas a crushing blow, for instance, Israel would have to inflict far more collateral damage than the liberal rules of the game allow. So the conflict drags on inconclusively. Which may be a good thing.

    Or, in 1967 for instance, Israel could easily have made a humane population transfer. For many reasons, Israel didn't.

    There was a sense, shared by both liberals in Israel and the West, that it would be better not to completely crush the Arabs or expel them, but rather convert them to liberalism. So they showed them generosity, even so far as letting them keep control of the Temple Mount.

    There was at the time, and there still exists today, a kind of boundless optimism about the ability of the West to transform the world in its own image.

    The jury is still out on this. The policy may yet vindicated itself. Israeli Arabs are increasingly integrated into society, and even Palestinians are quieting down.

    In many ways, this conflict is the attempt by extremists to assert their relevance.

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians.

    I think this is certainly true, for the moment. Palestinians, IMO, are social glue for Jews in Israel. They help foment Jewish nationalism, and no doubt help to maintain the respectable TFR of Jews in Israel.
     
    You make a good point. This is why the Arab strategy to "wear Israel down" has proven such a failure.

    Conflict, unless it is extremely severe, tends to stiffen resolve, and intensify identity and cohesion. Identity thrives on resistance.

    I have always thought, that the more the Arabs fight Israel, the stronger they become, and if they truly wanted to destroy Israel - they should embrace it :)

    However, what I meant above, is something different. If Israel and the West want to convert Arabs to liberalism and not conquer them or crush them, a decisive victory is counterproductive.

    On the Palestinian side of it, they seem pretty contained and manageable. Holding them to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank possibly default urbanizes them, as their population increases. One would expect their TFR to eventually collapse. Of course, this assumes it is a regular urbanization process and the uncertainty of the conflict does not turn them into special breeders.
     
    Yes, they are not a serious threat. And time is not on their side.

    Israel, though, I think might be different. (Always more capable) If it is able to maintain its current TFR (seems more likely than Palestinians doing so) than they will run out of land. It becomes a mathematical certainty – at least, if it is maintained. So, I think, under that scenario, we will see either a lot of Jewish emigrants leaving Israel or else local Jewish expansion.
     
    This is an interesting point. I do wonder. I am not sure they are close to that point yet. There is still a lot of available land and no sense of running out of space just yet.
  45. One Russia-Israel shared predilection is for measured, temperate behavior. (As I have said before, I have played chess with hundreds of Russians, and they favor what chess players call “quiet moves”; US players are more reckless. Even Putin’s relationship with that gold medalist gymnast is quiet.) Putin remains an enigma to me in many ways, but I believe that he is measured and self-controlled. Biden is a different story. At the medal of honor ceremony yesterday, he couldn’t resist taking a gratuitous shot at the postal service.

  46. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Yellowface Anon

    Klaus Schwab and most members of the Politburo have an engineering background and practically grounded technocratic-utopian visions of human progress. They probably get along quite well, possibly better than with many Western politicians, who tend to be lawyer-ideologues of various stripes.

    Replies: @Californian Candidate

    I know you said western and not US, but this seems like a common troupe that gets thrown around casually, even though (at least for the USA) it is somewhat outdated. Lawyers are, surprisingly, a minority in the US Congress now. From 1940 to around 1970, the top occupational backgrounds of US House representatives and US senators were military and law. Then in the 1990’s this shifts dramatically towards business, banking, and public service (career politicians) as the top occupational backgrounds of the younger incoming politicians. The private sector pays top lawyers significantly more and there’s generally less drama and social exposure involved, so that could be one explanation. Lawyers are still a sizable group, but are no longer ~80% of the US Congress like they used to be in the 1930’s and 1940’s.

  47. Putin’s mother Shelomova Maria Ivanovna was Jewish, which Putin officially denies. Of course he has a soft spot for Israel.

    As for the Chinese, they seem to have swallowed the Jewish victim propaganda hook, line and sinker. Criticizing Jews will get you instantly banned on most Chinese forums. Anti-Chinese activity is always blamed on “racist Anglos” or more broadly “racist Whites”.

    • Replies: @songbird
    @Feuerbach

    I'm not sure it is about propaganda. I don't think the Chinese confer special victimhood status to Jews. (they don't value this) Rather, they view them as rich and successful, and the Chinese have a scale where, for the most part (some history aside, regarding Bolsheviks), they don't face the Jewish question as a domestic issue.

    Would most Chinese even notice if the Ashkenazim moved to China in their entirety? I think it is an interesting question. If they were distributed evenly by proportion to every city over a million people (in 2017, by "urban area" that was 102), I'm sure they would even notice them, other than as a curiosity. Top three cities, maybe?

  48. @Morton's toes
    @Yevardian

    Yes. I am 99% sure Iran uses Palestinian and other militants as pawn in Game of Nations.

    The downtrodden fellow Muslims thing seems like a stretch.

    SJW solidarity with Palestinians is an interesting intermittent phenomenon to see though. Dead Palestinian children on the television seems to correlate way over 90%. I wonder what the youtube guidelines are on censorship criteria. They had some pretty gruesome videos being promoted when Syrian children were the collateral damage. The current moaning-whining debate point is human shields. Abby Martin's video is great.

    Does she believe any of it?

    Replies: @Yevardian

    The current moaning-whining debate point is human shields. Abby Martin’s video is great.

    Does she believe any of it?

    That’s an ancient canard at this point.. anyway, as far as Gaza goes, it’s not as if there exist any mountains, forests or even any large tracts of empty land for guerillas to set up in. Can’t comment since I never watch videos unless a direct recording of an event gives anything new.. I only recall she’s one of RT’s ‘attractive female news anchors’, presumably hired on that basis, so why care about her opinions? Practically the only women I can think from the top of my head who have recently had anything interesting to say have been Camille Paglia and Saskia Sassen, both quite elderly at this point. I guess I could respect Tulsi Gabbard or Anne Coulter in the abstract, though I doubt I could stomach anything they wrote, certainly not hearing Coulter speak.

    On the larger scale though.. the whole “conflict” is done with, over, finito, the Palestinians have lost, totally and utterly, Israel only needs to wait for right time to conduct another mass expulsion of the Palestinian territories, in due time. The major Arab nations have all already openly recognised or have implicitly cooperated with Israel for many years now. Of course, the last Arab state of any significance that continued standing up to Israel was Syria, whateva happened there..

    So yeah, from an international perspective, “opposing” Israel on principle makes little sense, the country certainly isn’t going anywhere. Russia is certainly the largest restraining influence on Israel anyway, but since things that don’t happen are hard to quantify, it’s not so obvious. I’m sure Israel would have been far more active in intervening in Syria if not for Russia, for example, instead of mere financing/medical care of Islamist ‘opposition’ they might have actually established paramilitaries under their direct control, like the “South Lebanese Army” for example. Given the chaos Egypt experienced under the (((Arab Spring))) even a IDF ground invasion wouldn’t have been impossible. Probably the main reason it wasn’t considered is that Israeli society no longer has the stomach for taking casualties, with a corresponding decline in military performance, see how badly their actual ground troops were embarrassed by Hezbollah under Olmert.

    Went on a tangent again. Do reiner tor, that ‘Dacien Soros’ handle and German_Reader still comment here? Haven’t seen them in a while

  49. @LondonBob
    Sounds like deflection, everyone knows it is the Jewish lobby pushing anti Russian policies in the West.

    Replies: @BlackFlag, @Dmitry, @Triteleia Laxa

    Government of the last two decades in Russia, has been one of the most pro-Jewish (and to lesser extent also they are pro-Israel) states. And the view has been tilting more towards in the last decade, if the pro-Israel orientation of the television is an indication.

    Two years ago, Putin even hosted the “United Israel Appeal” congress, with Sheldon Adelson and Ronald Lauder (the most powerful Jewish/Zionist philanthropists).

    An idea there is some conflict of Putin against global Zionists, is one of the more stranger and delusional views I have read in the Unz/Karlin forum, and this forum does not lack to provide them.

    India, Russia and China are all de facto pro-Israel governments, that have “skin in the game” including financial investments in Israel.

    From an Israeli selfish point of view, the situation that you would worry about is the rising anti-Israel public and official, as well as media positions, in North-West Europe and in the Democrat Party base of the USA (which represents a majority of voters in coastal America).

    North-West Europe and coastal regions of the USA, are vastly more influential and powerful, in many ways, than China, Russia or India. And it’s in these areas that the anti-Israel position is becoming the dominant view with the younger generations.

    British television is already in complete opposite position on Israel, from Russian television (hidden pro-Israel bias), if not Fox News (open pro-Israel bias). And some of the influential American television like Daily Show or CNN seemed to be moving to the British media’s perspective. Israel will always be supported from the Republican Party in the USA, but the base of the Democrat Party is more of an open question, and the Democrat Party could be the more dominant party in America politics in the next years.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Spisarevski
    @Dmitry

    That video...The crosses in the background behind Putin are erased................
    I remember how indignant I was when Time magazine did that stupid cover with St Basil cathedral and the White House and the crosses on the cathedral were erased, but here is Putin himself speaking with such a background behind him.
    Absolutely fucking disgusting.
    This is ritual humiliation for Russia.

    , @Jtgw
    @Dmitry

    It’s interesting how long the realignment has taken on the US left, which I attribute to the historically leftist tendencies of American Jews. Israel became a pariah on the international left already in the 1960s; only in America was it still possible to be politically progressive and Zionist. But even here there has been very slow shift over the decades. Add to this that support for Israel itself is waning among American Jews; more and more it is only the most religious ones that make Zionism central to their worldview. So of course “reactionary” regimes with Judeo-Christian basis like Putins Russia turn out to be the most pro Israel now.

  50. @Boomthorkell
    @Yevardian

    Oh, I never said they were destabilizing (in a negative sense) or impractical. Just they were revolutionary for the region (at the time) and the existent system. All the stuff you mentioned is true, which is why I did not make any insinuations against them in those areas.

    I just said they aren't in the Palestine cause purely to due to practical reasons, because few countries are 100% "practical" in a sense. They have genuine religious reasons guiding them when a nation that does not would just say, "why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?" Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be "practical" for them.

    Likewise, it would be "practical" for Israel to make peace with Iran, but Israel has its own (I would say, more nefarious in practice) religious and ethno-nationalist logic compelling it. The point is, outsiders shouldn't really care, and it's outsiders who make the situation worse. If it were just between them (the Middle East), they would figure something out or die trying.

    Replies: @songbird, @Yevardian

    “why not trade with Israel and be a good boy?” Not that abandoning the Palestinian cause would necessarily be “practical” for them.

    I don’t think Israel would be willing to go very far, they want regional hegemony. I mean, they have already repeatedly clashed with Turkey since Erdogan developed his own ambitions, after being close partners for decades. So far the status quo seems to be holding in Rojava after a period of brinkmanship, at least.

    • Agree: Boomthorkell
  51. @Feuerbach
    Putin's mother Shelomova Maria Ivanovna was Jewish, which Putin officially denies. Of course he has a soft spot for Israel.

    As for the Chinese, they seem to have swallowed the Jewish victim propaganda hook, line and sinker. Criticizing Jews will get you instantly banned on most Chinese forums. Anti-Chinese activity is always blamed on "racist Anglos" or more broadly "racist Whites".

    Replies: @songbird

    I’m not sure it is about propaganda. I don’t think the Chinese confer special victimhood status to Jews. (they don’t value this) Rather, they view them as rich and successful, and the Chinese have a scale where, for the most part (some history aside, regarding Bolsheviks), they don’t face the Jewish question as a domestic issue.

    Would most Chinese even notice if the Ashkenazim moved to China in their entirety? I think it is an interesting question. If they were distributed evenly by proportion to every city over a million people (in 2017, by “urban area” that was 102), I’m sure they would even notice them, other than as a curiosity. Top three cities, maybe?

  52. @china-russia-all-the-way
    What do you think of the assessments?


    Over the years, I’ve heard an array of explanations from Russian Jews about Putin’s apparent friendliness. There were those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg (then known as Leningrad). There are apocryphal stories of his hanging out as a kid largely with Jewish friends, even of them all breaking into a local synagogue around Passover to gorge on matzot.

    ...

    But it’s not only nostalgia that formed Putin’s views on Jews.

    “Putin has spent decades analyzing why the Soviet Union collapsed,” a senior Jewish-Russian official, who has had many conversations with the president, once explained to me. “He is convinced that one of the mistakes of the Soviet leadership was to have made enemies of the Jews. Not only did that work against the U.S.S.R. on the global stage, but it caused Russian Jews to hate their country. And Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia.”
     
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-is-vladimir-putin-an-anti-semite-or-friend-of-the-jews-1.5890733

    Anna Borshchevskaya notes that in this, as in other things, Putin is driven by pragmatism rather than emotion: “If you treat the Jews well, from his perspective, that plays well in the West.” As she notes, if you think like a KGB officer who observed the passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, it was the power of Western Jewish elites that drove Western decision-making.
     
    https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/krasna2018.pdf

    Replies: @Dmitry, @gT, @china-russia-all-the-way

    Most of the postsoviet states and politicians have gone in pro-Israel direction, apart from the some small ones like perhaps Armenia (which is friendly with Iran, from lack of options), and Kadyrov (who is in reality said that Chechny should learn from Israel, but outwardly tries to appeal to the Islamic world).

    This is partly because Israel can be viewed as a development model for postsoviet states. It’s half-way between East and West, the economy is a mixed state/freemarket, and it managed to succeed with the multivector foreign policy that many postsoviet leaders would like to use.

    It’s also a reflection that the Soviet conflict with Israel, had been an artificial product of the geopolitical alignment of that time.

    There’s finally a more cynical situation that Israel, like Cyprus, is one of the useful part of the political class’s “walking route” for moving into tax havens, and was a place for investing outside of the postsoviet space. For example of politicians and wealthy people sometimes use Israel, as with Cyprus – e.g. Lavrov’s family (Foreign Minister in Russia), which lives in Monaco and London, but seem to use Israeli citizenships .

    those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg

    On a personal level (which has to be separated from the professional point of view) Putin has said he was a fan of Israel since the 1990s.

    He said that he fell in love with Israel in his first visit in the 1990s when he was working in municipality of Saint-Petersburg, and then subsequently borrowed a car drove his family all over Israel. There’s an interview in YouTube of the early 2000s where he explained this.

    But the personal attitude of the politician doesn’t necessarily influence politics, at least for larger countries. Putin is also a significant fan of Germany, where he lived and worked when he was in the KGB. But Germanophile sentiments of Putin, isn’t enough to produce a geopolitical alignment with Federal Republic of Germany, or even much rapport with Angela Merkel.

    Similarly, it’s known that Putin’s family owns properties in France; but this family connection doesn’t result in a geopolitical alignment.

    On the other hand, it’s has been claimed that some of the external policy of the Russian Federation could have been influenced by personal views of politicians, if only in relation to small, and less important countries. It’s known that the passions of Igor Sechin (CEO of Rosneft) are his love of Latin America and Africa. And this might have unprofessionally influenced some of the external policy of the Russian Federation. For example, some journalists have claimed that the expensive bromance with Venezuela, could have been influenced by Sechin’s personal affection.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Dmitry


    But Germanophile sentiments of Putin, isn’t enough to produce a geopolitical alignment with Federal Republic of Germany, or even much rapport with Angela Merkel.
     
    I don't think that's from lack of effort on his (or Russia's) part, unfortunately Germany has almost no room for independent policy. He's been close friends with the ex-chancellor Schroeder for many years anyway. Funny, Russia has a long history of Germanophilia, but it's probably even more unrequited than Russian Americanophilia.

    Most of the postsoviet states and politicians have gone in pro-Israel direction, apart from the some small ones like perhaps Armenia (which is friendly with Iran, from lack of options)
     
    Israel has been actively hostile (supporting Caucasus-Turks, blocking genocide recognition, etc) to Armenia since it's second modern independence, keeping in with it's formerly very close partnership with Turkey. Understandable, perhaps, but still pretty vile, given the Jews' own history. Iran has always been friendly.
  53. @Yevardian
    @Caspar von Everec


    Yes, obviously you shouldn’t support Israel who’s Jewish elite are genociding you but you also shouldn’t bat for Palestinian arabs who also hate you and want to murder and enslave you.
     
    Stupid fucking comment from another ignoramus from this site, they were and still are mostly simple peasants or artisans.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.
     
    That's only part of the story, much of the Lebanese civil war consisted of various Maronite clans fighting each other, whereas many Melchite factions joined forces with Sunni Muslim groups, both against each other or the Maronites. Many Armenians arrived as refugees to Lebanon and Syria fleeing from the Turks, and have almost never been molested for their religious beliefs. The Civil War really went into high gear after Bashir Gemayel was assassinated by another Maronite, with the mutual connivance of Israel and Syria, the former because he refused Israeli vassalage, the latter due to his clan's hostility to pan-Arabism and Phoenicianist ideology.

    But simping for Palestine is just stupid. They are the semitic cousins of the Jews and they are every bit as ethnocentric, violent and malicious as Jews. Look at the rape gangs, terrorists and gang beatings in the West. These are violent tribal people who want to take European lands and rape their women.
     
    And almost none of them would be here if not Israeli/American foreign policy, or their political control over Europe's ruling classes. And I suspect architects of such policy know perfectly well the Arabs... they're not sending their best. A constant background low simmering violence and terrorism naturally grabs the public's attention to the exclusion of slow, but portentous things like the implementation of financial neo-feudalism, and so on. Obviously a group as blatantly against the public interest as the Republican party could never survive if America was not blessed by the presence of so many joggers, the same social conditions are being manufactured in Europe.

    How did they repay the nation that gave them refuge, food and shelter? In typical muslim fashion. They engaged in violence, terror and joined Islamic supremacist groups in order to persecute and destory the Christian population of Lebanon.
     
    ..Except the Palestinians received practically nothing, most continued to rot in refugee camps (like the ones at Sabra and Shatila where the Maronites massacred hundreds of women and children, under Israeli protection), without citizenship or means of finding a decent living.
    Additionally, Salafist movements barely existed at all amongst the Palestinians at that time, their two main armed political branches, the PLO and the PFLP, were militantly secular. The latter group's leadership heavily came from Christian backgrounds in it's early years. Again, you pose as a 'neutral' observer, but consciously or not, you're just reciting Israeli propaganda points.

    The Israel-Palestine thing should be seen as just another tribal conflict. There are hudnreds of such land disputes and conflicts going on across the world in Africa and Asia. No one gives a shit about them.
     
    It matters in the sense that overwhelming Western sponsorship of Israel has both set the entire region on fire, led to a massive and often violent Islamic revival, in an area bordering the Mediterranean, so the chaos there was bound to have repercussions in Europe sooner or later.

    Akh, I didn't want to write so much verbiage, and the gist behind your general point is reasonable, but when I see someone claim neutrality, whilst using the rhetoric of trash like Pamella Geller or Mark Stein, it riles me. I suspect you're American, given your black & white Marvel DC view of the world, but at least you seem to be attempting to address that.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    There’s a difference between an unstable and divided reality in the Middle East, and then the symbolic level where local politicians can try to appeal to more epic themes of Islam or pan-Arabism.

    Ordinary reality in the Middle East, is one of multiple divisions, and depending on convenience, many different groups can fight and hate each other* (even the Jewish part of the Israeli population is divided enough in risk of a possible future civil conflict in my view).

    On the other hand, in the symbolic space, the politicians will try to appeal to Muslim unity, or (usually on smaller secular level) Arab unity. This is why Israel-Palestine conflict is useful for many politicians in the Near East; the need for unifying causes, is a symptom, of the region’s multiple fault-lines.

    Israel-Palestine conflict is important space where politicians operate rhetorically, as a struggle against Israel can be both a unifying rhetoric for pan-Muslim and pan-Arab sentiments; but in terms of the actual power-struggle, it is only one of the many conflicts in the region, some hot, some cold.

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Riots in Jerusalem, are involving smaller numbers of people than fights between football hooligans, and damage to property (e.g. burned tires in the street, and some burned cars, occasionally a bus) is not quite comparable to the BLM riots in the American cities last year, that damaged rows of shop windows.

    Terrorist attacks in West Bank, are included in statistics for murders in Israel, and yet the murder rate for Israel is below average. By comparison, the Mexican drug war, skyrockets Mexico’s murder rate. The gang wars in 1990s Russia, have skyrocketed the murder rates for Russia. But 2015 “knife intifada”, or recent rioting in Lod or Jerusalem, has less significant effects for Israel’s annual murder rates.

    *If you look at Syria’s external policy during Lebanese civil war – there is an indication of how divided the region is, when there is instability or breakdown of the balance of power:

    In 1976, Assad (father of the current President in Syria), was fighting with Christian/Maronite militias against the Palestinians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar

    In 1978, Assad is fighting against the same Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_War

    In 1982, Assad is fighting with the Palestinians, against the Israelis and Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Dmitry


    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.
     

    Well yes, I was thinking of demonstrating this with a point earlier, but just checking now, the total casualties of the Israel-Gaza conflict over the past decade have only just surpassed the number of Palestinians killed in Jordan's 1970-1 "Black September" operation against the PLO, of which the main violence spanned less than a month.

    Of course, in another sense, given overwhelming Jewish preponderance in Western media and politics, it also makes sense that both local Israeli problems, and the occasional pangs of conscience from them would be given disproportionate weight as well.

    Finally, even if Israel never existed, how likely is it the Arab states wouldn't be squabbling over it anyway, exactly as Lebanon has been a free-for-all skirmish zone?

    Replies: @Dmitry

    , @Yevardian
    @Dmitry

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps
     

    And now his son supports the Shia militias, partially in support of the Palestinians, but mostly against various Sunni extremists, funded by the Israelis.. who also want to exterminate the Christians, so now the remaining Maronites overwhelmingly support Hezbollah and oppose Israel... go figure.
    , @Menschmaschine
    @Dmitry


    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.
     
    This assumes that the Syrian "Civil" War is somehow separate from the Israel-Palestine Conflict when of course it is not. The war was initiated by the US to cripple Syria as an enemy of Israel; similar with Iraq. The Yemen war is also supported by the US because of this reason - a victory of the Houthis would result in Yemen joining the Axis of Resistance against Israel.
  54. @Dmitry
    @china-russia-all-the-way

    Most of the postsoviet states and politicians have gone in pro-Israel direction, apart from the some small ones like perhaps Armenia (which is friendly with Iran, from lack of options), and Kadyrov (who is in reality said that Chechny should learn from Israel, but outwardly tries to appeal to the Islamic world).

    This is partly because Israel can be viewed as a development model for postsoviet states. It's half-way between East and West, the economy is a mixed state/freemarket, and it managed to succeed with the multivector foreign policy that many postsoviet leaders would like to use.

    It's also a reflection that the Soviet conflict with Israel, had been an artificial product of the geopolitical alignment of that time.

    There's finally a more cynical situation that Israel, like Cyprus, is one of the useful part of the political class's "walking route" for moving into tax havens, and was a place for investing outside of the postsoviet space. For example of politicians and wealthy people sometimes use Israel, as with Cyprus - e.g. Lavrov's family (Foreign Minister in Russia), which lives in Monaco and London, but seem to use Israeli citizenships .


    those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg

     

    On a personal level (which has to be separated from the professional point of view) Putin has said he was a fan of Israel since the 1990s.

    He said that he fell in love with Israel in his first visit in the 1990s when he was working in municipality of Saint-Petersburg, and then subsequently borrowed a car drove his family all over Israel. There's an interview in YouTube of the early 2000s where he explained this.

    But the personal attitude of the politician doesn't necessarily influence politics, at least for larger countries. Putin is also a significant fan of Germany, where he lived and worked when he was in the KGB. But Germanophile sentiments of Putin, isn't enough to produce a geopolitical alignment with Federal Republic of Germany, or even much rapport with Angela Merkel.

    Similarly, it's known that Putin's family owns properties in France; but this family connection doesn't result in a geopolitical alignment.

    On the other hand, it's has been claimed that some of the external policy of the Russian Federation could have been influenced by personal views of politicians, if only in relation to small, and less important countries. It's known that the passions of Igor Sechin (CEO of Rosneft) are his love of Latin America and Africa. And this might have unprofessionally influenced some of the external policy of the Russian Federation. For example, some journalists have claimed that the expensive bromance with Venezuela, could have been influenced by Sechin's personal affection.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    But Germanophile sentiments of Putin, isn’t enough to produce a geopolitical alignment with Federal Republic of Germany, or even much rapport with Angela Merkel.

    I don’t think that’s from lack of effort on his (or Russia’s) part, unfortunately Germany has almost no room for independent policy. He’s been close friends with the ex-chancellor Schroeder for many years anyway. Funny, Russia has a long history of Germanophilia, but it’s probably even more unrequited than Russian Americanophilia.

    Most of the postsoviet states and politicians have gone in pro-Israel direction, apart from the some small ones like perhaps Armenia (which is friendly with Iran, from lack of options)

    Israel has been actively hostile (supporting Caucasus-Turks, blocking genocide recognition, etc) to Armenia since it’s second modern independence, keeping in with it’s formerly very close partnership with Turkey. Understandable, perhaps, but still pretty vile, given the Jews’ own history. Iran has always been friendly.

  55. @Dmitry
    @Yevardian

    There's a difference between an unstable and divided reality in the Middle East, and then the symbolic level where local politicians can try to appeal to more epic themes of Islam or pan-Arabism.

    Ordinary reality in the Middle East, is one of multiple divisions, and depending on convenience, many different groups can fight and hate each other* (even the Jewish part of the Israeli population is divided enough in risk of a possible future civil conflict in my view).

    On the other hand, in the symbolic space, the politicians will try to appeal to Muslim unity, or (usually on smaller secular level) Arab unity. This is why Israel-Palestine conflict is useful for many politicians in the Near East; the need for unifying causes, is a symptom, of the region's multiple fault-lines.

    -

    Israel-Palestine conflict is important space where politicians operate rhetorically, as a struggle against Israel can be both a unifying rhetoric for pan-Muslim and pan-Arab sentiments; but in terms of the actual power-struggle, it is only one of the many conflicts in the region, some hot, some cold.

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Riots in Jerusalem, are involving smaller numbers of people than fights between football hooligans, and damage to property (e.g. burned tires in the street, and some burned cars, occasionally a bus) is not quite comparable to the BLM riots in the American cities last year, that damaged rows of shop windows.

    Terrorist attacks in West Bank, are included in statistics for murders in Israel, and yet the murder rate for Israel is below average. By comparison, the Mexican drug war, skyrockets Mexico's murder rate. The gang wars in 1990s Russia, have skyrocketed the murder rates for Russia. But 2015 "knife intifada", or recent rioting in Lod or Jerusalem, has less significant effects for Israel's annual murder rates.


    -

    *If you look at Syria's external policy during Lebanese civil war - there is an indication of how divided the region is, when there is instability or breakdown of the balance of power:

    In 1976, Assad (father of the current President in Syria), was fighting with Christian/Maronite militias against the Palestinians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar

    In 1978, Assad is fighting against the same Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_War

    In 1982, Assad is fighting with the Palestinians, against the Israelis and Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    Replies: @Yevardian, @Yevardian, @Menschmaschine

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Well yes, I was thinking of demonstrating this with a point earlier, but just checking now, the total casualties of the Israel-Gaza conflict over the past decade have only just surpassed the number of Palestinians killed in Jordan’s 1970-1 “Black September” operation against the PLO, of which the main violence spanned less than a month.

    Of course, in another sense, given overwhelming Jewish preponderance in Western media and politics, it also makes sense that both local Israeli problems, and the occasional pangs of conscience from them would be given disproportionate weight as well.

    Finally, even if Israel never existed, how likely is it the Arab states wouldn’t be squabbling over it anyway, exactly as Lebanon has been a free-for-all skirmish zone?

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @Yevardian


    likely is it the Arab states wouldn’t be squabbling over it anyway, exactly as Lebanon has been a free-for-all skirmish
     
    I think that in parts of Southern Israel, there is a natural conflict zone - as it is a desert transit zone that is the bridge between Africa and Eurasia.

    Almost all the way between Jerusalem (below the forests that surround it) and Cairo is desert, with only Bedouins naturally suited to live from the land - so this is probably an area that is natural for smuggling and insurgency.

    I'm not knowledgeable about geography, but I assume these deserts are quite natural regions for insurgencies and smuggling, and that the Bedouins will turn to this as a way to live.


    Egypt is currently fighting a significant war against insurgents in the Sinai, but it doesn't receive media attention, as such a conflict doesn't provide an interesting narrative for journalists, or emotional response that could be sold to non-Egyptian audeicnes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency


    -

    Northern Israel I assume would have been part of Syria today (in the alternative history without Zionist settlement), and it's a multiethnic/multireligious region (with Druze, Bedouins, Sunni Muslim Arabs, Catholic Christians and Circassians), so it could probably be part of the multiethnic Syria.

    Syria should be the main power of the Levant, but in reality has difficulty in power-projecting to Lebanon even before 2011 (Syria withdraws from Lebanon in 2005, five years after Israel withdraws from Southern Lebanon in 2000).


    his son supports the Shia militias, partially in support of the Palestinians, but mostly against various Sunni
     
    Switching between love and hate, and hate and love, seems to be more a reality of the region, than just a racist stereotype against Middle Eastern nationalities.

    In 2010, Israel assassinated a Hamas leader in Dubai, that resulted in extreme condemnation of Israel by Dubai. But in 2020, Dubai and Israel were openly falling in love with each other, as new best friends.

    10 years is perhaps sufficient for such political realignments in the rest of the world, but usually when there could be a leadership or ideology. But in this switch, Israel was led by the same as Netanyahu in 2010, as in 2020, and Dubai also has the same ruler (Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum) in 2010 and 2020, and neither of their policies had changed before this outward switch between hate and love.

    -
    In Lebanon, we can see that current president of Lebanon Michel Aoun, was formerly one of the greatest enemies of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, and yet today became a friendly ally dependent on them.

    Even hardcore Maronite politician Samir Geagea had been part of the coalition government with Hezbollah until 2019 - the same politician been one of the key allies of Ariel Sharon (Israel's defense minister) in 1982.

  56. @Dmitry
    @Yevardian

    There's a difference between an unstable and divided reality in the Middle East, and then the symbolic level where local politicians can try to appeal to more epic themes of Islam or pan-Arabism.

    Ordinary reality in the Middle East, is one of multiple divisions, and depending on convenience, many different groups can fight and hate each other* (even the Jewish part of the Israeli population is divided enough in risk of a possible future civil conflict in my view).

    On the other hand, in the symbolic space, the politicians will try to appeal to Muslim unity, or (usually on smaller secular level) Arab unity. This is why Israel-Palestine conflict is useful for many politicians in the Near East; the need for unifying causes, is a symptom, of the region's multiple fault-lines.

    -

    Israel-Palestine conflict is important space where politicians operate rhetorically, as a struggle against Israel can be both a unifying rhetoric for pan-Muslim and pan-Arab sentiments; but in terms of the actual power-struggle, it is only one of the many conflicts in the region, some hot, some cold.

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Riots in Jerusalem, are involving smaller numbers of people than fights between football hooligans, and damage to property (e.g. burned tires in the street, and some burned cars, occasionally a bus) is not quite comparable to the BLM riots in the American cities last year, that damaged rows of shop windows.

    Terrorist attacks in West Bank, are included in statistics for murders in Israel, and yet the murder rate for Israel is below average. By comparison, the Mexican drug war, skyrockets Mexico's murder rate. The gang wars in 1990s Russia, have skyrocketed the murder rates for Russia. But 2015 "knife intifada", or recent rioting in Lod or Jerusalem, has less significant effects for Israel's annual murder rates.


    -

    *If you look at Syria's external policy during Lebanese civil war - there is an indication of how divided the region is, when there is instability or breakdown of the balance of power:

    In 1976, Assad (father of the current President in Syria), was fighting with Christian/Maronite militias against the Palestinians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar

    In 1978, Assad is fighting against the same Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_War

    In 1982, Assad is fighting with the Palestinians, against the Israelis and Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    Replies: @Yevardian, @Yevardian, @Menschmaschine

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    And now his son supports the Shia militias, partially in support of the Palestinians, but mostly against various Sunni extremists, funded by the Israelis.. who also want to exterminate the Christians, so now the remaining Maronites overwhelmingly support Hezbollah and oppose Israel… go figure.

  57. @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine

    As I stated clearly, I do not think politicians in the west should support Israel (they should be neutral, but know in their head who is worse of Israelis and Palestinians). Therefore, your introduction, your third and fourth points are all straw men - They do not apply to my position.

    To your first point: Note how you are just using left wing buzzwords - which most lefties also use against the west. While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints. In contrast. clearly if Palestinians could, they would engage in those atrocities which you list. Palestinians don’t have the moral high ground only because they fail at killing all Israelis.

    Your second point is actually a good one, but there are two small problems. First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic). Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.

    To your fifth point: I never see this working. Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west. Moreover, those leftist who support Israel are mainly Jewish or boomers which are good at having double standards.

    One more thing to add: you clearly are falling for the leftist narrative when attacking Israel. For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west; or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state ... which only works if you apply two different standards to the west and “shit hole countries”

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic)

    There was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

    Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.

    Yes, of course since ethnical cleansing is worse than mere immigration so that argument only works in one direction (Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing – like in Palestine). Doesn’t matter – there are enough effective counter immigration arguments.

    While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints.

    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

    Given such facts, the only possible way to achieve the Zionist goal was and is ethnical cleansing (or “population transfer”, as it is called in Zionist jargon). The necessity of ethnical cleansing was always acknowledged by leading Zionists, starting with Theodor Herzl who wrote 1895 in his diary “We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in transit countries, but denying it employment in our own country…The expropriations as well as the expulsion of the poor needs to be done with caution and care.” Some more information:

    https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Israel%20Transfer%20Committee%20Ethnic%20Cleansing%20Nakba.htm

    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now – an Israeli “settler” that throws a Palestinian out of his house “If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.”

    Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west

    I see two main types of Leftists with regard to their position regarding Israel: First, as a kind of avantgarde the “Antideutschen” (Antigermans) which, as their own designation indicates, combine rabid antigerman racism with fanatical Neoconservatism and Zionism. German foreign minister Heiko Maas might serve as a slightly moderated example of this type.

    Then there are the standard leftwingers which may do some timid criticism of some particular egregious mass killing of Palestinians, but in the same breath point out that this does of course not mean that the undying support for Israel is to be curtailed only by an Iota. Bernie Sanders might serve as an US example of the type. I see only a few fringe leftists that do any fundamental critique of Israel. Perhaps the situation is radically different in Germany than in other Westblock countries because of a particular prominence of the Holocaust narrative, but I don’t think so.

    Only look, for instance, at Labour in Britain and how effectively the Pro-Zionist lobby crushed Jeremy Corbyn for his rather mild Pro-Palestinian views and brought the party to heel. So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it? Perhaps you overestimate fringe voices because you are active on fringe sites like Unz? Happens to me sometimes. Or do you only classify hardcore tankie types as leftists?

    For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west;

    Yes, which is one reason why rightwingers should oppose Israel and in particular wars that the US wages for Israel, which was the point here. There are other arguments you could employ against the supposed necessity to take in masses of “refugees”, but this is not the scope here.

    or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state

    Of course, “racist” in the case of Israel means really bad stuff like ethnical cleansing, not some woke silliness like using the wrong gender pronouns or something like that. Yes, it is probably better to avoid this word altogether.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now – an Israeli “settler” that throws a Palestinian out of his house “If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.”
     
    This is an easy and fun criticism to make, and I don't really resent anyone who wants to make it.

    The nuance I'm going to add in this post isn't to justify what's happening in that case, but as a way of making a larger point.

    Firstly, check it out, the settler dude is actually correct. The house in question was ruled by the Israeli courts to be an illegal addition to an existing property. The court then confiscated that property and sold it off. It was bought by a Jewish real estate company who then leased it out to that particular settler. So the settler's correct that if it's not him who's going to live there, it'll just be another settler. And either way, the Palestinian former owners are not going to get custody of the property again, because that was decided in court.

    An injustice? By any contemporary moral standard, you bet!

    So fine, you can pressure Israel to stop these evictions, and pressure them to make other reforms and so on. But even if Israel does all this, for the anti-Israel position, it's still not going to be enough. That's because Israel's "original sin" is to have come into existence at all - something which was impossible except at the cost of displacing and dispossessing Palestinians. So ultimately, the anti-Israel position amounts to a demand that Israelis cut their own throats.

    Is that realistic? Is it realistic to think that, bit by bit, we're going to pressure Israel so much that eventually we'll achieve its completely dismantlement? I don't think so. I don't think it's remotely realistic. (Israelis aren't South Africans.) In the meantime, you are going to be expending what are, for pro-whites, very limited resources and getting nothing in return. Pragmatically, it's a big loser.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

     

    Terms as ethnic cleansing can be misleading as people think that that involves Palestinians being killed in massive numbers – which has not happened.
    Let’s be precise what is going on in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Jews took some territory in which Palestinians lived (but never controlled). I can understand that Palestinians are not happy with this. As a consequence, Israelis and Palestinians had multiple wars, mainly started by Palestinians/Arabs. Palestinians lost all the wars. As a consequence, Israelis took additional territory (specifically, strategically important areas) and demands a demilitarized Palestine. I can understand that Israel here. Palestinians have two options: they either accept the reality of living in a smaller, demilitarized territory, or they could continue fighting. I can understand if they take either option. Palestinians choose to continue fighting with the goal of wiping out all Israelis from that region. Consequently, Israel uses various measures which can be considered “oppressive”. I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground.

    So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it?
     
    I am taking about the base. In 2018, democrats had divided support for Israelis and Palestinians (see pew research on this). This is probably driven by Boomers and Jewish democrats. In Europe, the base probably overwhelmingly sympathizes with Palestinians.


    But my biggest issues with supporting Palestine in this conflict have not been addressed:
    First, I do not see how sucking in the left-wing framework (like you do) helps. Instead, I rather see it resulting into losing a lot of other debates (e.g., immigration).
    Second, Palestinians are not angels. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “ethnically cleanse” and “suppress minorities” more than Israelis. Moreover, if Palestinians were in the “position of power” of Israelis, what they would do would be much worse…
  58. Personally I support Israel over Palestine as the people in the west who support Israel tend to be cowards on average whereas those who support the Palestinians tend to be evil, morally it is worse to be evil than to be a coward.

  59. @songbird
    @AaronB


    If such a thing were to occur, it is almost certain Palestinians will end up in Jordan, Egypt, and Syria, and not America.
     
    Open borders means that there will be significant spillover. Venezuelans are still trudging into the US, though they went to neighboring countries first.

    made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it.
     
    And these would be...?

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians.
     
    I think this is certainly true, for the moment. Palestinians, IMO, are social glue for Jews in Israel. They help foment Jewish nationalism, and no doubt help to maintain the respectable TFR of Jews in Israel. One might almost envy Jews for having Arabs hurl rockets ineffectively at them and for them occasionally being forced into air raid shelters.

    Many people theorize election cycles in Palestine and Israel are to blame for the more explosive periods - so in a way the conflict could be perceived as being politically desirable, at least through a certain lens.

    On the Palestinian side of it, they seem pretty contained and manageable. Holding them to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank possibly default urbanizes them, as their population increases. One would expect their TFR to eventually collapse. Of course, this assumes it is a regular urbanization process and the uncertainty of the conflict does not turn them into special breeders.

    Israel, though, I think might be different. (Always more capable) If it is able to maintain its current TFR (seems more likely than Palestinians doing so) than they will run out of land. It becomes a mathematical certainty - at least, if it is maintained. So, I think, under that scenario, we will see either a lot of Jewish emigrants leaving Israel or else local Jewish expansion.

    The Vietnamese have moved in this direction.
     
    I view the Vietnamese as being half-Sinicized. (so in a loose analogy, they might be somewhat more comparable to Southern Europeans, rather than MENA people.) Though North Africa seems to be secularizing, so Palestinians might, though I'm not sure cyclical violence and humiliation will lead it on the path.

    I suppose if one looks at it like Northern Ireland, then both groups will probably end up being the victims of broader secularization of their extraterritorial ethnic groups. In another 50 or 70 years, Jews and Arabs might be vainly complaining to each other about Africans moving into their shared area.

    Replies: @AaronB

    Open borders means that there will be significant spillover. Venezuelans are still trudging into the US, though they went to neighboring countries first.

    I think the specifics here are different. Palestinians are Arabs, no different in culture or religion than the other Arabs of the region, and it seems to me likely they would be integrated into the region.

    Plus, if Palestinians were transferred, I would imagine it either as part of some kind of major regional war started by Iran, or with the agreement of surrounding Arab states.

    But I find it very hard to imagine, to be honest.

    made it impossible to resolve by preventing Israel from the steps needed to end it.

    And these would be…?

    In order to deal Hamas a crushing blow, for instance, Israel would have to inflict far more collateral damage than the liberal rules of the game allow. So the conflict drags on inconclusively. Which may be a good thing.

    Or, in 1967 for instance, Israel could easily have made a humane population transfer. For many reasons, Israel didn’t.

    There was a sense, shared by both liberals in Israel and the West, that it would be better not to completely crush the Arabs or expel them, but rather convert them to liberalism. So they showed them generosity, even so far as letting them keep control of the Temple Mount.

    There was at the time, and there still exists today, a kind of boundless optimism about the ability of the West to transform the world in its own image.

    The jury is still out on this. The policy may yet vindicated itself. Israeli Arabs are increasingly integrated into society, and even Palestinians are quieting down.

    In many ways, this conflict is the attempt by extremists to assert their relevance.

    In this context, it is counterproductive for the Israelis to achieve a decisive victory, or expel the Palestinians.

    I think this is certainly true, for the moment. Palestinians, IMO, are social glue for Jews in Israel. They help foment Jewish nationalism, and no doubt help to maintain the respectable TFR of Jews in Israel.

    You make a good point. This is why the Arab strategy to “wear Israel down” has proven such a failure.

    Conflict, unless it is extremely severe, tends to stiffen resolve, and intensify identity and cohesion. Identity thrives on resistance.

    I have always thought, that the more the Arabs fight Israel, the stronger they become, and if they truly wanted to destroy Israel – they should embrace it 🙂

    However, what I meant above, is something different. If Israel and the West want to convert Arabs to liberalism and not conquer them or crush them, a decisive victory is counterproductive.

    On the Palestinian side of it, they seem pretty contained and manageable. Holding them to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank possibly default urbanizes them, as their population increases. One would expect their TFR to eventually collapse. Of course, this assumes it is a regular urbanization process and the uncertainty of the conflict does not turn them into special breeders.

    Yes, they are not a serious threat. And time is not on their side.

    Israel, though, I think might be different. (Always more capable) If it is able to maintain its current TFR (seems more likely than Palestinians doing so) than they will run out of land. It becomes a mathematical certainty – at least, if it is maintained. So, I think, under that scenario, we will see either a lot of Jewish emigrants leaving Israel or else local Jewish expansion.

    This is an interesting point. I do wonder. I am not sure they are close to that point yet. There is still a lot of available land and no sense of running out of space just yet.

    • Thanks: songbird
  60. @Dmitry
    @Yevardian

    There's a difference between an unstable and divided reality in the Middle East, and then the symbolic level where local politicians can try to appeal to more epic themes of Islam or pan-Arabism.

    Ordinary reality in the Middle East, is one of multiple divisions, and depending on convenience, many different groups can fight and hate each other* (even the Jewish part of the Israeli population is divided enough in risk of a possible future civil conflict in my view).

    On the other hand, in the symbolic space, the politicians will try to appeal to Muslim unity, or (usually on smaller secular level) Arab unity. This is why Israel-Palestine conflict is useful for many politicians in the Near East; the need for unifying causes, is a symptom, of the region's multiple fault-lines.

    -

    Israel-Palestine conflict is important space where politicians operate rhetorically, as a struggle against Israel can be both a unifying rhetoric for pan-Muslim and pan-Arab sentiments; but in terms of the actual power-struggle, it is only one of the many conflicts in the region, some hot, some cold.

    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    Riots in Jerusalem, are involving smaller numbers of people than fights between football hooligans, and damage to property (e.g. burned tires in the street, and some burned cars, occasionally a bus) is not quite comparable to the BLM riots in the American cities last year, that damaged rows of shop windows.

    Terrorist attacks in West Bank, are included in statistics for murders in Israel, and yet the murder rate for Israel is below average. By comparison, the Mexican drug war, skyrockets Mexico's murder rate. The gang wars in 1990s Russia, have skyrocketed the murder rates for Russia. But 2015 "knife intifada", or recent rioting in Lod or Jerusalem, has less significant effects for Israel's annual murder rates.


    -

    *If you look at Syria's external policy during Lebanese civil war - there is an indication of how divided the region is, when there is instability or breakdown of the balance of power:

    In 1976, Assad (father of the current President in Syria), was fighting with Christian/Maronite militias against the Palestinians.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tel_al-Zaatar

    In 1978, Assad is fighting against the same Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days%27_War

    In 1982, Assad is fighting with the Palestinians, against the Israelis and Christian militias.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War

    In 1985, Assad is fighting against Shia militias, and against the Palestinians.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Camps

    Replies: @Yevardian, @Yevardian, @Menschmaschine

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.

    This assumes that the Syrian “Civil” War is somehow separate from the Israel-Palestine Conflict when of course it is not. The war was initiated by the US to cripple Syria as an enemy of Israel; similar with Iraq. The Yemen war is also supported by the US because of this reason – a victory of the Houthis would result in Yemen joining the Axis of Resistance against Israel.

  61. @Yevardian
    @Dmitry


    Israel-Palestine violence is also often smaller in reality, than it appears in the media.

    Total casualties of the Israel-Palestine conflict over 70 years, can be smaller than in a single year of the Syrian Civil War.
     

    Well yes, I was thinking of demonstrating this with a point earlier, but just checking now, the total casualties of the Israel-Gaza conflict over the past decade have only just surpassed the number of Palestinians killed in Jordan's 1970-1 "Black September" operation against the PLO, of which the main violence spanned less than a month.

    Of course, in another sense, given overwhelming Jewish preponderance in Western media and politics, it also makes sense that both local Israeli problems, and the occasional pangs of conscience from them would be given disproportionate weight as well.

    Finally, even if Israel never existed, how likely is it the Arab states wouldn't be squabbling over it anyway, exactly as Lebanon has been a free-for-all skirmish zone?

    Replies: @Dmitry

    likely is it the Arab states wouldn’t be squabbling over it anyway, exactly as Lebanon has been a free-for-all skirmish

    I think that in parts of Southern Israel, there is a natural conflict zone – as it is a desert transit zone that is the bridge between Africa and Eurasia.

    Almost all the way between Jerusalem (below the forests that surround it) and Cairo is desert, with only Bedouins naturally suited to live from the land – so this is probably an area that is natural for smuggling and insurgency.

    I’m not knowledgeable about geography, but I assume these deserts are quite natural regions for insurgencies and smuggling, and that the Bedouins will turn to this as a way to live.

    Egypt is currently fighting a significant war against insurgents in the Sinai, but it doesn’t receive media attention, as such a conflict doesn’t provide an interesting narrative for journalists, or emotional response that could be sold to non-Egyptian audeicnes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinai_insurgency

    Northern Israel I assume would have been part of Syria today (in the alternative history without Zionist settlement), and it’s a multiethnic/multireligious region (with Druze, Bedouins, Sunni Muslim Arabs, Catholic Christians and Circassians), so it could probably be part of the multiethnic Syria.

    Syria should be the main power of the Levant, but in reality has difficulty in power-projecting to Lebanon even before 2011 (Syria withdraws from Lebanon in 2005, five years after Israel withdraws from Southern Lebanon in 2000).

    his son supports the Shia militias, partially in support of the Palestinians, but mostly against various Sunni

    Switching between love and hate, and hate and love, seems to be more a reality of the region, than just a racist stereotype against Middle Eastern nationalities.

    In 2010, Israel assassinated a Hamas leader in Dubai, that resulted in extreme condemnation of Israel by Dubai. But in 2020, Dubai and Israel were openly falling in love with each other, as new best friends.

    10 years is perhaps sufficient for such political realignments in the rest of the world, but usually when there could be a leadership or ideology. But in this switch, Israel was led by the same as Netanyahu in 2010, as in 2020, and Dubai also has the same ruler (Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum) in 2010 and 2020, and neither of their policies had changed before this outward switch between hate and love.


    In Lebanon, we can see that current president of Lebanon Michel Aoun, was formerly one of the greatest enemies of Hezbollah, Iran and Syria, and yet today became a friendly ally dependent on them.

    Even hardcore Maronite politician Samir Geagea had been part of the coalition government with Hezbollah until 2019 – the same politician been one of the key allies of Ariel Sharon (Israel’s defense minister) in 1982.

  62. The reason why US behaves the way it does towards Russia is because ZIONIST JEWS, who run American foreign policy, consider it a relatively safe way to express their tribal grievances against our country. Jewish elite in West believes that antagonising Russia carries no risk for them personally, since they can always hide behind the backs of dumb Western goyim, even as they work to destroy Western goyim from within.

    Israel is much more careful in its handling Russia, because of the pragmatic understanding that poking bear with a stick will can turn very badly for the Jewish settlers. Israel’s exposure to Russian power is a weakness, that can be expoited by Russia to gain leverage over Western Jewry.

    If collective West had a body, Israel would be its scrotum. Crushing the enemy’s scrotum seems like a bright idea to me.

    PS: I’m still wanting for Karlin to provide explanation for Roman Yuneman, who appears to be a “friend of Israel” posing as a Russian nationalist, and who really wants to be Duma deputy.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Felix Keverich


    The reason why US behaves the way it does towards Russia is because ZIONIST JEWS, who run American foreign policy...
     
    Those well known Zionist Jews - Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.

    Zionist Jews don't tend to like Russia, but the main object of their obsessions is Iran. (For reasons which are understandable from a Zionist perspective).

    I’m still wanting for Karlin to provide explanation for Roman Yuneman, who appears to be a “friend of Israel” posing as a Russian nationalist, and who really wants to be Duma deputy.
     
    I am not his spokesman or associated with his movements, nor do I even know about his actual position on Israel - so far as I know, he's never talked about the issue (disregarding the fake news you maliciously spammed my blog with).

    He is a half-German, half-Russian Cossack with zero or insignificant Jewish ancestry (fantasies of a few Russian rightoids on Twitter aside).

    He made some political decisions which I consider bad (protesting against Navalny's imprisonment, though he did that in a personal capacity, not from the name of his organization), all the more so given that Navalny had rugpulled his campaign in favor of a Communist.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

  63. @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver


    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.
     
    I have described several very good, I think, reasons for adopting an Anti-Israeli position. Feel free to criticize them.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left.
     
    It is only "owned" by the Left, because extremely few on the right adopt this position - if they are not outright Zionist bootlickers. It could, as I have described, very easily made an issue of the right and turned into a weapon against the left.

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.
     
    So, it seems your position is "The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews." I don't want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern...

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed.

    Replies: @AaronB, @Pumblechook, @silviosilver

    The reasons you provided for needing to “pick a side” are not especially good – it is like asking an Arab to “pick a side” in the Northern Ireland sectarian conflict; though he may well emphasise on a human level with the innocent victims of the conflict, he does not feel particularly compelled to root for either side because they have nothing to do with him and his family.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Pumblechook

    Your assertion that people don't care about justice and morality is clearly wrong. Most people do, it is how an orderly society is able to function. This is why the Left is so successful, it taps into these natural instincts and twists them to serve their goals. The Left always couches its message in a moral framework, even if it is fake.

    Rightwingers generally don't do that, which is why they are losing. They love to sport a thuggish "might makes right" attitude and think they are cool - when I talked about "raging amoral nihilist", well, unfortunately most of them are quite comfortable with that.

    This comment section is a good example of this attitude, and the mostly negative/not getting the point answers I received do not surprise me. Of course, the comment section only reflects the host, which also generally likes to exhude a cynical, indifferent attitude. When he sometimes - like when this Russian gun loving chick was imprisoned - tries to project moral outrage it comes over as quite jarring and fake.

    Rightwingers will have to learn that moral positions matter or they are doomed to continue to lose to the Left.

    Replies: @Pumblechook, @Triteleia Laxa

  64. @AaronB
    @Menschmaschine


    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    So, it seems your position is “The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews.” I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…
     

    I think you explain here very well why being anti-Israel can only be an (extremist) left-wing position.

    First, you describe what Israel has, a nationalist home that isn't ashamed to vigorously defend itself, as something only "scum" would want.

    That's an extremist left-wing position. There is a reason BLM is pro-Palestinian.

    At the same time, from the mainstream leftist perspective, Israel is also a refuge for a historically persecuted minority, and a liberal democracy fighting illiberal regimes. Arab society persecutes gays and oppresses women, while Israeli society is visibly more open, liberal, and tolerant than Arab society, which attracts support from the mainstream left.

    However, Israel is ruling over Arabs in the West Bank, which is considered an "indigenous" and disadvantaged people, which complicates the picture for the left. Israel frequently fights even poorer Arabs, against which it is ridiculously dominant, further complicating the picture for the left. Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it's use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.

    So it is a complicated picture for the left, with only the most extremist abd ideological faction being unreservedly anti-Israel.


    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed
     
    But the Jewish narrative is completely different.

    Jews are returning to their ancestral homeland to form a nation, and an alien civilization that has conquered it in the meantime is trying to stop them for imperialist reasons even though they have no material reason to do so.

    Further, Israelis are objectively much more Western than Arabs, both in terms of physical appearance and culturally, so for right-winger to side with Arabs would be to turn against Western civilization on the level of appearance and emotion, at the very least.

    At the same time, Israel is fighting the same group that is increasingly immigrating to Europe and creating hostile communities refusing to assimilate, who periodically attack and kill Europeans. The same group trying to destroy Israel, is the group European nationalists have to contend with, and are perceived generally as a threat to European civilization by the right.

    However, the right-wing perception that Jews are disproportionately involved in supporting non-White immigration makes the picture s bit more complicated for the right as well.

    The American alt-right appear to be the last heirs in Western civilization of "millenarian anti-Semitism" - the belief that the Jews are the eternal enemy of mankind and the millennium will be ushered in by the elimination of the Jews. This belief is rooted in ancient Christian dualism, itself a holdover from Zoroastrianism, and peaked in Nazi Germany. It is a declining force in the West, and it's last holdouts are niche websites like this one. I do not expect this attitude to play any serious role in the future

    Anti-Israeli attitudes on the American alt-right are rooted in this sense of apocalyptic battle with Jews, which is more important to them than achieving their dream of a White nationalist America. It's worth remembering that Hitler similarly diverted war resources towards the extermination of Jews.

    European nationalists are far more sober and sensible. They have long abandoned millenarian anti-semitism and adopted the sensible Hilaire Beloc attitude towards Jews - nothing wrong with Jews, but they are a foreign people who shouldn't play a significant role in the cultural or political life of other nations. Jews should have their own nation and we wish them the best of luck and are willing to trade and have amicable relations with them on this basis.

    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations

    Replies: @silviosilver, @216

    Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it’s use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.

    Aaron, seriously now, what the fuck is this, have you completely lost your mind?

    You drop the apostrophe of possession on “Israel’s” and you add one to “its”?

    The latter is a bad habit of yours I have been meaning to reprimand you for on several occasions, but I have shown restraint – “don’t be the grammar nazi,” I have told myself. Well, no longer. Let it be known: you are on notice.

    • Agree: Triteleia Laxa
    • LOL: AaronB
  65. Arne says:

    Can’t you see, Karlin, that ‘blood and soil’ Israeli elites are playing good cop to the transnational Jewish elites bad cop?

    Israel is nothing without the latter, the financial aid, the military edge, the apologist media complex and the Jewish bourgeoisie will probably be nothing without Israel at some point. Sovereign nuclear weapons and a nasty, overactive intelligence service are the best insurance card they will ever have. Fanaticism about keeping Zionism alive and kicking, a deeply anachronistic idea for generations already is neither about unusually strong nationalist or even religious qualities. Certainly not for people calling the shots. But instead a chance, the best chance, to keep the racket going. All that Jews ever accomplished in the Levant is really a big nothing burger compared to their globe-spanning feats. Don’t miss the forest for the tree.

  66. @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver


    The same is true of being anti-Israel: there’s nothing to gain for pro-whites there either.
     
    I have described several very good, I think, reasons for adopting an Anti-Israeli position. Feel free to criticize them.

    The anti-Israel position is completely owned by the left.
     
    It is only "owned" by the Left, because extremely few on the right adopt this position - if they are not outright Zionist bootlickers. It could, as I have described, very easily made an issue of the right and turned into a weapon against the left.

    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.
     
    So, it seems your position is "The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews." I don't want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern...

    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed.

    Replies: @AaronB, @Pumblechook, @silviosilver

    I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…

    That’s a healthy suspicion, and I don’t hold it against you.

    My own healthy suspicion is that when someone characterizes a reasonable position – not necessarily one you need to agree with, but one grounded in reason – as “preposterous,” I suspect I am dealing with some hardcore “nazi” type who prioritizes punishing Jews over promoting white interests. (In their minds, I suppose, these are one and the same thing.)

  67. @Menschmaschine
    It would be a good start, if Putin would stop allowing his good buddy Netanjahu to bomb Syria for pleasure - Russia does not even allow the Syrians to use the finally delivered S-300 air defence system to defend themselves. Hopefully, Syria gets more support from Iran once the current "reformist" appeasement government is gone.

    As for China, I am doubtful that its current neutral stance with regard to the Mideast conflict can be maintained much longer. The aggressive turn to Sinophobia in the US would, of course, not have been possible without support, if not instigation, from the Jewish/Zionist lobby (Ron Unz has already commented about the increasing anti-China propaganda of the local Hasbara trolls).

    You could argue that it would be irrational for Jews to antagonise the rising chinese power. But you have to understand the Jewish mentality - they have been spoiled by their control of the US (and therefore the entire "West") for a long time. Therefore they react to the appearance of any new power center that is not under their control, even if not adversial, with extreme hostility. The evolutionary success of the Jews is predicated upon extreme aggressiveness, paranoia and hostility in regard to outgroups. While this has gotten them quite a few expulsions over the Millenia, you can't argue with the ultimate success of this strategy. Of course, it just might be that pissing off China might be one provocation too much...

    Replies: @Sinotibetan

    Perhaps the appropriate response of both the Chinese and Russians towards the (neverending) Israel-Palestinian conflict should be a generally neutral and pragmatic one. Thankfully, nowadays both countries are quite pragmatic. I have to agree with Anatoly’s take on this.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Sinotibetan

    Actually, this is also my position: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/autistic-obsessions/#comment-4673043

  68. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic)
     
    There was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

    Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.
     
    Yes, of course since ethnical cleansing is worse than mere immigration so that argument only works in one direction (Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing - like in Palestine). Doesn't matter - there are enough effective counter immigration arguments.

    While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints.
     
    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

    Given such facts, the only possible way to achieve the Zionist goal was and is ethnical cleansing (or "population transfer", as it is called in Zionist jargon). The necessity of ethnical cleansing was always acknowledged by leading Zionists, starting with Theodor Herzl who wrote 1895 in his diary "We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in transit countries, but denying it employment in our own country...The expropriations as well as the expulsion of the poor needs to be done with caution and care." Some more information:

    https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Israel%20Transfer%20Committee%20Ethnic%20Cleansing%20Nakba.htm

    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now - an Israeli "settler" that throws a Palestinian out of his house "If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9q9PDBsDe8

    Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west
     
    I see two main types of Leftists with regard to their position regarding Israel: First, as a kind of avantgarde the "Antideutschen" (Antigermans) which, as their own designation indicates, combine rabid antigerman racism with fanatical Neoconservatism and Zionism. German foreign minister Heiko Maas might serve as a slightly moderated example of this type.

    Then there are the standard leftwingers which may do some timid criticism of some particular egregious mass killing of Palestinians, but in the same breath point out that this does of course not mean that the undying support for Israel is to be curtailed only by an Iota. Bernie Sanders might serve as an US example of the type. I see only a few fringe leftists that do any fundamental critique of Israel. Perhaps the situation is radically different in Germany than in other Westblock countries because of a particular prominence of the Holocaust narrative, but I don't think so.

    Only look, for instance, at Labour in Britain and how effectively the Pro-Zionist lobby crushed Jeremy Corbyn for his rather mild Pro-Palestinian views and brought the party to heel. So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it? Perhaps you overestimate fringe voices because you are active on fringe sites like Unz? Happens to me sometimes. Or do you only classify hardcore tankie types as leftists?

    For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west;
     
    Yes, which is one reason why rightwingers should oppose Israel and in particular wars that the US wages for Israel, which was the point here. There are other arguments you could employ against the supposed necessity to take in masses of "refugees", but this is not the scope here.

    or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state
     
    Of course, "racist" in the case of Israel means really bad stuff like ethnical cleansing, not some woke silliness like using the wrong gender pronouns or something like that. Yes, it is probably better to avoid this word altogether.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster

    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now – an Israeli “settler” that throws a Palestinian out of his house “If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.”

    This is an easy and fun criticism to make, and I don’t really resent anyone who wants to make it.

    The nuance I’m going to add in this post isn’t to justify what’s happening in that case, but as a way of making a larger point.

    Firstly, check it out, the settler dude is actually correct. The house in question was ruled by the Israeli courts to be an illegal addition to an existing property. The court then confiscated that property and sold it off. It was bought by a Jewish real estate company who then leased it out to that particular settler. So the settler’s correct that if it’s not him who’s going to live there, it’ll just be another settler. And either way, the Palestinian former owners are not going to get custody of the property again, because that was decided in court.

    An injustice? By any contemporary moral standard, you bet!

    So fine, you can pressure Israel to stop these evictions, and pressure them to make other reforms and so on. But even if Israel does all this, for the anti-Israel position, it’s still not going to be enough. That’s because Israel’s “original sin” is to have come into existence at all – something which was impossible except at the cost of displacing and dispossessing Palestinians. So ultimately, the anti-Israel position amounts to a demand that Israelis cut their own throats.

    Is that realistic? Is it realistic to think that, bit by bit, we’re going to pressure Israel so much that eventually we’ll achieve its completely dismantlement? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s remotely realistic. (Israelis aren’t South Africans.) In the meantime, you are going to be expending what are, for pro-whites, very limited resources and getting nothing in return. Pragmatically, it’s a big loser.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver

    My post was about what should be the position for activist discussion, not about what should be done in the hypothetical case of attaining a grip on state power. For the record, my policy in this case would be a strict hands off attitude with regards to Israel and the region in general. So no more political support and subsidies for Israel (Including the collaborationist Palestinian Authority), cease any military and intelligence ties, no more wars, subversion and sanctions against the enemies of Israel. I do not propose any active measures against Israel.

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can't be true - governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel. Biden for instance proclaimed his unconditional support for the bombing of the Gaza strip and he most certainly has not made any attempt to cut any support for Israel.

    It is also certainly not my experience, I can remember very few left wingers who really were prepared to really turn on Israel. Usually it is something like well this might be not so nice, but we can't possibly withdraw our support of Israel because of the Holocaust and stuff. Which then gives me opportunity for much fun when I quote with relish extensively out of the voluminous file of Israeli crimes while the self styled "Anti-Racist" turns like a worm boiled in hot oil while he desperately tries to relativise and downplay them.

    Replies: @216, @silviosilver

  69. @Pumblechook
    @Menschmaschine

    The reasons you provided for needing to “pick a side” are not especially good - it is like asking an Arab to “pick a side” in the Northern Ireland sectarian conflict; though he may well emphasise on a human level with the innocent victims of the conflict, he does not feel particularly compelled to root for either side because they have nothing to do with him and his family.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Your assertion that people don’t care about justice and morality is clearly wrong. Most people do, it is how an orderly society is able to function. This is why the Left is so successful, it taps into these natural instincts and twists them to serve their goals. The Left always couches its message in a moral framework, even if it is fake.

    Rightwingers generally don’t do that, which is why they are losing. They love to sport a thuggish “might makes right” attitude and think they are cool – when I talked about “raging amoral nihilist”, well, unfortunately most of them are quite comfortable with that.

    This comment section is a good example of this attitude, and the mostly negative/not getting the point answers I received do not surprise me. Of course, the comment section only reflects the host, which also generally likes to exhude a cynical, indifferent attitude. When he sometimes – like when this Russian gun loving chick was imprisoned – tries to project moral outrage it comes over as quite jarring and fake.

    Rightwingers will have to learn that moral positions matter or they are doomed to continue to lose to the Left.

    • Replies: @Pumblechook
    @Menschmaschine

    Well, I’m not positing a 180 of your viewpoint; I agree that a wholly callous and cynical ideology is not one which will attract many hearts and minds, nor does it deserve to.

    What I meant is what I said though; though I feel for any innocents and in particular children (as the father of a newborn myself) caught up in the violence, I’m not going to larp as a Jew nor Arab, living vicariously through their own conflict. It feels a bit disrespectful to be perfectly honest.

    As a general point, though Palestinians have definitely been done very dirty, I have some sympathy for the situation of the Mizrahi Jews formerly from countries across the Middle East; unwanted by their host countries in the 60’s and airshipped out to Israel, they are now caught in the crosshairs once again.

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    All ideologies claim justice on their side. The rub is in which ideology do the justice-minded pick for their own.

    Eventually people notice that the answer is never because it is right. It is because it stands in for some personal issue of the believer - at least among the people who say they really care.

    They may claim to be rational, but is it ever rational? Sacrificing your sanity when you have no power to eventuate an outcome?

    So if not rational, what is it?

  70. @LondonBob
    Sounds like deflection, everyone knows it is the Jewish lobby pushing anti Russian policies in the West.

    Replies: @BlackFlag, @Dmitry, @Triteleia Laxa

    What do you mean by “everyone”? A handful of internet obsessives on Unz.com and related media?

    Putin and the Russian security state all clearly disagree with your “everyone”.

    It feels so odd to me that you have decided you not only know their job better than them, but that they could not even possibly be right. Your certainty, more than your (mistaken) opinion, is what amazes me.

  71. @LondonBob
    @Yellowface Anon

    Cryptos are an obvious scam, read about Israeli organised crime groups moving in to them after the world started banning binary options.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    Is there anything you won’t lay at the feet of the Jews…do they even sleep?

  72. @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now – an Israeli “settler” that throws a Palestinian out of his house “If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it.”
     
    This is an easy and fun criticism to make, and I don't really resent anyone who wants to make it.

    The nuance I'm going to add in this post isn't to justify what's happening in that case, but as a way of making a larger point.

    Firstly, check it out, the settler dude is actually correct. The house in question was ruled by the Israeli courts to be an illegal addition to an existing property. The court then confiscated that property and sold it off. It was bought by a Jewish real estate company who then leased it out to that particular settler. So the settler's correct that if it's not him who's going to live there, it'll just be another settler. And either way, the Palestinian former owners are not going to get custody of the property again, because that was decided in court.

    An injustice? By any contemporary moral standard, you bet!

    So fine, you can pressure Israel to stop these evictions, and pressure them to make other reforms and so on. But even if Israel does all this, for the anti-Israel position, it's still not going to be enough. That's because Israel's "original sin" is to have come into existence at all - something which was impossible except at the cost of displacing and dispossessing Palestinians. So ultimately, the anti-Israel position amounts to a demand that Israelis cut their own throats.

    Is that realistic? Is it realistic to think that, bit by bit, we're going to pressure Israel so much that eventually we'll achieve its completely dismantlement? I don't think so. I don't think it's remotely realistic. (Israelis aren't South Africans.) In the meantime, you are going to be expending what are, for pro-whites, very limited resources and getting nothing in return. Pragmatically, it's a big loser.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    My post was about what should be the position for activist discussion, not about what should be done in the hypothetical case of attaining a grip on state power. For the record, my policy in this case would be a strict hands off attitude with regards to Israel and the region in general. So no more political support and subsidies for Israel (Including the collaborationist Palestinian Authority), cease any military and intelligence ties, no more wars, subversion and sanctions against the enemies of Israel. I do not propose any active measures against Israel.

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can’t be true – governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel. Biden for instance proclaimed his unconditional support for the bombing of the Gaza strip and he most certainly has not made any attempt to cut any support for Israel.

    It is also certainly not my experience, I can remember very few left wingers who really were prepared to really turn on Israel. Usually it is something like well this might be not so nice, but we can’t possibly withdraw our support of Israel because of the Holocaust and stuff. Which then gives me opportunity for much fun when I quote with relish extensively out of the voluminous file of Israeli crimes while the self styled “Anti-Racist” turns like a worm boiled in hot oil while he desperately tries to relativise and downplay them.

    • Replies: @216
    @Menschmaschine


    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with.
     
    No, there are no double standards: Only the Liberal Standard.

    The left only appeals to principles when it is out of power, once in power they no longer need to care about consistency.

    Debate does not work with them for the fundamental reason that they control the Culture Industry and you do not.
    , @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can’t be true – governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel.
     
    I doubt any remaining leftist support for Israel is particularly principled. More like they prefer to dodge accusations of "anti-semitism" (eg the Corbyn fiasco) and like taking Jewish donations.

    In any case, "exposing" their hypocrisy on Israel only encourages them to denounce Israel for the same reasons they denounce whites - privilege, supremacy etc. How does that help the pro-white cause?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  73. @Felix Keverich
    The reason why US behaves the way it does towards Russia is because ZIONIST JEWS, who run American foreign policy, consider it a relatively safe way to express their tribal grievances against our country. Jewish elite in West believes that antagonising Russia carries no risk for them personally, since they can always hide behind the backs of dumb Western goyim, even as they work to destroy Western goyim from within.

    Israel is much more careful in its handling Russia, because of the pragmatic understanding that poking bear with a stick will can turn very badly for the Jewish settlers. Israel's exposure to Russian power is a weakness, that can be expoited by Russia to gain leverage over Western Jewry.

    If collective West had a body, Israel would be its scrotum. Crushing the enemy's scrotum seems like a bright idea to me.

    PS: I'm still wanting for Karlin to provide explanation for Roman Yuneman, who appears to be a "friend of Israel" posing as a Russian nationalist, and who really wants to be Duma deputy.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The reason why US behaves the way it does towards Russia is because ZIONIST JEWS, who run American foreign policy…

    Those well known Zionist Jews – Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.

    Zionist Jews don’t tend to like Russia, but the main object of their obsessions is Iran. (For reasons which are understandable from a Zionist perspective).

    I’m still wanting for Karlin to provide explanation for Roman Yuneman, who appears to be a “friend of Israel” posing as a Russian nationalist, and who really wants to be Duma deputy.

    I am not his spokesman or associated with his movements, nor do I even know about his actual position on Israel – so far as I know, he’s never talked about the issue (disregarding the fake news you maliciously spammed my blog with).

    He is a half-German, half-Russian Cossack with zero or insignificant Jewish ancestry (fantasies of a few Russian rightoids on Twitter aside).

    He made some political decisions which I consider bad (protesting against Navalny’s imprisonment, though he did that in a personal capacity, not from the name of his organization), all the more so given that Navalny had rugpulled his campaign in favor of a Communist.

    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Those well known Zionist Jews – Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.
     
    Don't be silly. Brennan and Comey don't make American foreign policy. Blinken and Nudelman do. State Department and the Treasury (that dishes out sanctions) are basically Jewish institutions at this point, occasional Shabbos-goy notwithstanding.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  74. 216 says: • Website
    @AaronB
    @Menschmaschine


    At least taking a “I want for my people what Jews have for themselves in Israel” stance allows you to advance your own interests. And you can still criticize Jews for their double standards in denying it to you.

    So, it seems your position is “The Jews are scum, but White people are also scum and should therefore not criticize the Jews.” I don’t want to throw around the Hasbara label lightly, but this is a quite suspicious argumentation pattern…
     

    I think you explain here very well why being anti-Israel can only be an (extremist) left-wing position.

    First, you describe what Israel has, a nationalist home that isn't ashamed to vigorously defend itself, as something only "scum" would want.

    That's an extremist left-wing position. There is a reason BLM is pro-Palestinian.

    At the same time, from the mainstream leftist perspective, Israel is also a refuge for a historically persecuted minority, and a liberal democracy fighting illiberal regimes. Arab society persecutes gays and oppresses women, while Israeli society is visibly more open, liberal, and tolerant than Arab society, which attracts support from the mainstream left.

    However, Israel is ruling over Arabs in the West Bank, which is considered an "indigenous" and disadvantaged people, which complicates the picture for the left. Israel frequently fights even poorer Arabs, against which it is ridiculously dominant, further complicating the picture for the left. Israels excruciating attempts to moderate it's use of force further confuses the left-wing, resisting any attempt to frame it in a simplistic good vs bad manner.

    So it is a complicated picture for the left, with only the most extremist abd ideological faction being unreservedly anti-Israel.


    To somehow equalize our situation, in that we want no more mass immigration into our home lands and that of Zionist Jews that have occupied the homeland of another people and now ethnically cleanse them is preposterous. If at all the situation is reversed
     
    But the Jewish narrative is completely different.

    Jews are returning to their ancestral homeland to form a nation, and an alien civilization that has conquered it in the meantime is trying to stop them for imperialist reasons even though they have no material reason to do so.

    Further, Israelis are objectively much more Western than Arabs, both in terms of physical appearance and culturally, so for right-winger to side with Arabs would be to turn against Western civilization on the level of appearance and emotion, at the very least.

    At the same time, Israel is fighting the same group that is increasingly immigrating to Europe and creating hostile communities refusing to assimilate, who periodically attack and kill Europeans. The same group trying to destroy Israel, is the group European nationalists have to contend with, and are perceived generally as a threat to European civilization by the right.

    However, the right-wing perception that Jews are disproportionately involved in supporting non-White immigration makes the picture s bit more complicated for the right as well.

    The American alt-right appear to be the last heirs in Western civilization of "millenarian anti-Semitism" - the belief that the Jews are the eternal enemy of mankind and the millennium will be ushered in by the elimination of the Jews. This belief is rooted in ancient Christian dualism, itself a holdover from Zoroastrianism, and peaked in Nazi Germany. It is a declining force in the West, and it's last holdouts are niche websites like this one. I do not expect this attitude to play any serious role in the future

    Anti-Israeli attitudes on the American alt-right are rooted in this sense of apocalyptic battle with Jews, which is more important to them than achieving their dream of a White nationalist America. It's worth remembering that Hitler similarly diverted war resources towards the extermination of Jews.

    European nationalists are far more sober and sensible. They have long abandoned millenarian anti-semitism and adopted the sensible Hilaire Beloc attitude towards Jews - nothing wrong with Jews, but they are a foreign people who shouldn't play a significant role in the cultural or political life of other nations. Jews should have their own nation and we wish them the best of luck and are willing to trade and have amicable relations with them on this basis.

    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations

    Replies: @silviosilver, @216

    The American alt-right are ideological, the European nationalists pragmatic. The American are motivated by a destructive urge, the European by the desire to build up their nations

    The former is a dead letter, even if some try to beat it like a dead horse. The latter is outside my experience.

    When something has been organizationally dismantled, deplatformed, and several of its leaders in prison; there is no reason to consider it a serious contender for power. It’s not 2016 anymore.

  75. 216 says: • Website
    @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver

    My post was about what should be the position for activist discussion, not about what should be done in the hypothetical case of attaining a grip on state power. For the record, my policy in this case would be a strict hands off attitude with regards to Israel and the region in general. So no more political support and subsidies for Israel (Including the collaborationist Palestinian Authority), cease any military and intelligence ties, no more wars, subversion and sanctions against the enemies of Israel. I do not propose any active measures against Israel.

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can't be true - governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel. Biden for instance proclaimed his unconditional support for the bombing of the Gaza strip and he most certainly has not made any attempt to cut any support for Israel.

    It is also certainly not my experience, I can remember very few left wingers who really were prepared to really turn on Israel. Usually it is something like well this might be not so nice, but we can't possibly withdraw our support of Israel because of the Holocaust and stuff. Which then gives me opportunity for much fun when I quote with relish extensively out of the voluminous file of Israeli crimes while the self styled "Anti-Racist" turns like a worm boiled in hot oil while he desperately tries to relativise and downplay them.

    Replies: @216, @silviosilver

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with.

    No, there are no double standards: Only the Liberal Standard.

    The left only appeals to principles when it is out of power, once in power they no longer need to care about consistency.

    Debate does not work with them for the fundamental reason that they control the Culture Industry and you do not.

  76. @Sinotibetan
    @Menschmaschine

    Perhaps the appropriate response of both the Chinese and Russians towards the (neverending) Israel-Palestinian conflict should be a generally neutral and pragmatic one. Thankfully, nowadays both countries are quite pragmatic. I have to agree with Anatoly's take on this.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  77. @china-russia-all-the-way
    What do you think of the assessments?


    Over the years, I’ve heard an array of explanations from Russian Jews about Putin’s apparent friendliness. There were those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg (then known as Leningrad). There are apocryphal stories of his hanging out as a kid largely with Jewish friends, even of them all breaking into a local synagogue around Passover to gorge on matzot.

    ...

    But it’s not only nostalgia that formed Putin’s views on Jews.

    “Putin has spent decades analyzing why the Soviet Union collapsed,” a senior Jewish-Russian official, who has had many conversations with the president, once explained to me. “He is convinced that one of the mistakes of the Soviet leadership was to have made enemies of the Jews. Not only did that work against the U.S.S.R. on the global stage, but it caused Russian Jews to hate their country. And Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia.”
     
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-is-vladimir-putin-an-anti-semite-or-friend-of-the-jews-1.5890733

    Anna Borshchevskaya notes that in this, as in other things, Putin is driven by pragmatism rather than emotion: “If you treat the Jews well, from his perspective, that plays well in the West.” As she notes, if you think like a KGB officer who observed the passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, it was the power of Western Jewish elites that drove Western decision-making.
     
    https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/krasna2018.pdf

    Replies: @Dmitry, @gT, @china-russia-all-the-way

    “Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia”

    Since those Jews left Russia has gotten much better: grain surplus, t-14’s and hypersonic missiles. More Jews should depart from Russia.

  78. @Yevardian
    @Boomthorkell

    Iran hasn't been a revolutionary state since Khomeini's death, and arguably stopped being so sometime before that due to the exigencies of it's nearly decade-long war with Iraq. Many Shah-era officials and technical personnel were quickly reinstated as Khomeini's early favoured 'human wave' tactics predictably ended in disaster.

    Khomeini was extremely controversial even within the Twelver Shi'ite clerical establishment, he was distrusted by many for his deep interest in unconventional pursuits (for his milieu) like poetry, Sufi mysticism and Greek Philosophy, particularly Plato. He understood virtually nothing about economics however, and left policy in that area entirely to subordinates, simply constantly reassigning posts so no minister became too established in their place. After Khomeini's death, no one even approaching his stature that held similar views to his could be found, and eventually Khameini was settled upon for the next Ayatollah, a figure little-respected but who offended no one.
    Iran's leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border. Incidentally, Iran is incidentally the (not counting microstates) country with the first-to-third (depending on counting) highest percentage of refugees relative to it's native population anywhere in the world.
    Anyway, hardly characteristics of a millenarian, destabilising, revolutionary state.

    Replies: @Blinky Bill, @Boomthorkell, @Not Raul

    Great post. I clicked “Agree”; but I had already agreed to five posts lately.

    You make a good point here:

    Iran’s leaders have been very cautious in state policy since the 90s, it had many opportunities for grand adventurism, as nearly all its neighbours underwent extreme crises and weakness, in Azerbaijan, Iraq, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Nonetheless, Iran has respected the territorial integrity of all of them, even in Afghanistan, where a large Farsi/Persian-proper population still lives along the border.

  79. @Menschmaschine
    @Pumblechook

    Your assertion that people don't care about justice and morality is clearly wrong. Most people do, it is how an orderly society is able to function. This is why the Left is so successful, it taps into these natural instincts and twists them to serve their goals. The Left always couches its message in a moral framework, even if it is fake.

    Rightwingers generally don't do that, which is why they are losing. They love to sport a thuggish "might makes right" attitude and think they are cool - when I talked about "raging amoral nihilist", well, unfortunately most of them are quite comfortable with that.

    This comment section is a good example of this attitude, and the mostly negative/not getting the point answers I received do not surprise me. Of course, the comment section only reflects the host, which also generally likes to exhude a cynical, indifferent attitude. When he sometimes - like when this Russian gun loving chick was imprisoned - tries to project moral outrage it comes over as quite jarring and fake.

    Rightwingers will have to learn that moral positions matter or they are doomed to continue to lose to the Left.

    Replies: @Pumblechook, @Triteleia Laxa

    Well, I’m not positing a 180 of your viewpoint; I agree that a wholly callous and cynical ideology is not one which will attract many hearts and minds, nor does it deserve to.

    What I meant is what I said though; though I feel for any innocents and in particular children (as the father of a newborn myself) caught up in the violence, I’m not going to larp as a Jew nor Arab, living vicariously through their own conflict. It feels a bit disrespectful to be perfectly honest.

    As a general point, though Palestinians have definitely been done very dirty, I have some sympathy for the situation of the Mizrahi Jews formerly from countries across the Middle East; unwanted by their host countries in the 60’s and airshipped out to Israel, they are now caught in the crosshairs once again.

  80. Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies.

    You seem to follow a pattern here, since it’s the second time I point out a similar behavior in you. You seem puzzled by some “strange” notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers — perhaps the majority of them even — on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it’s also common among some sinophile writers. I have often been puzzled along the same lines as you on the stark difference of that discourse aimed at foreign audiences and the behavior of the government of Russia itself. As for the government of China, I am not completely sure; e.g. the CGTN coverage of recent conflicts seems to have been pretty critical of Israel, unless I misperceived them.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Brás Cubas


    You seem puzzled by some “strange” notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers — perhaps the majority of them even — on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it’s also common among some sinophile writers.
     
    You believe that a significant proportion of Russian and Chinese-friendly writers share your obsessions?
    , @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas


    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir
     
    The first writes overwhelmingly for an Anglophone audience, the latter exclusively so, as far as I can tell. To get an idea of regular Russian political pundits you can check out Nikolai Starikov, Colonel Kassad, or Yuri Podolyaka. None of them have particularly strong opinions about Israel, other than acknowledging it's large Russophone population and regional hegemony, all laugh at America's slavish devotion to it.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas

    Whoah. It's almost as if I'm not The Saker (based in Florida) or Israel Shamir (a Jewish emigre from the USSR who went to fight for the IDF), and have nothing to do with them. Whodathunk?

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    , @Jayce
    @Brás Cubas

    These people mostly utilize Russia as a unifying plot device in what's basically geopolitical fanfic for their (largely) American audience. "Pro-Russia" attitudes among them are conditional and based on a mixture of spite and wishful thinking. (See, for example, how quickly MAGA became "Dems R the REAL Russians" or how certain alt-right "thought leaders" went from hailing Putin to perceiving Russia as a threat to their gay VNITED EVROPA fantasies.) Obviously it spreads a lot of odd misimpressions, as if there weren't enough about Russia in the Anglosphere already.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  81. @Menschmaschine
    @Pumblechook

    Your assertion that people don't care about justice and morality is clearly wrong. Most people do, it is how an orderly society is able to function. This is why the Left is so successful, it taps into these natural instincts and twists them to serve their goals. The Left always couches its message in a moral framework, even if it is fake.

    Rightwingers generally don't do that, which is why they are losing. They love to sport a thuggish "might makes right" attitude and think they are cool - when I talked about "raging amoral nihilist", well, unfortunately most of them are quite comfortable with that.

    This comment section is a good example of this attitude, and the mostly negative/not getting the point answers I received do not surprise me. Of course, the comment section only reflects the host, which also generally likes to exhude a cynical, indifferent attitude. When he sometimes - like when this Russian gun loving chick was imprisoned - tries to project moral outrage it comes over as quite jarring and fake.

    Rightwingers will have to learn that moral positions matter or they are doomed to continue to lose to the Left.

    Replies: @Pumblechook, @Triteleia Laxa

    All ideologies claim justice on their side. The rub is in which ideology do the justice-minded pick for their own.

    Eventually people notice that the answer is never because it is right. It is because it stands in for some personal issue of the believer – at least among the people who say they really care.

    They may claim to be rational, but is it ever rational? Sacrificing your sanity when you have no power to eventuate an outcome?

    So if not rational, what is it?

  82. @Brás Cubas

    Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies.
     
    You seem to follow a pattern here, since it's the second time I point out a similar behavior in you. You seem puzzled by some "strange" notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers -- perhaps the majority of them even -- on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it's also common among some sinophile writers. I have often been puzzled along the same lines as you on the stark difference of that discourse aimed at foreign audiences and the behavior of the government of Russia itself. As for the government of China, I am not completely sure; e.g. the CGTN coverage of recent conflicts seems to have been pretty critical of Israel, unless I misperceived them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian, @Anatoly Karlin, @Jayce

    You seem puzzled by some “strange” notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers — perhaps the majority of them even — on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it’s also common among some sinophile writers.

    You believe that a significant proportion of Russian and Chinese-friendly writers share your obsessions?

  83. @Dmitry
    @LondonBob

    Government of the last two decades in Russia, has been one of the most pro-Jewish (and to lesser extent also they are pro-Israel) states. And the view has been tilting more towards in the last decade, if the pro-Israel orientation of the television is an indication.

    Two years ago, Putin even hosted the "United Israel Appeal" congress, with Sheldon Adelson and Ronald Lauder (the most powerful Jewish/Zionist philanthropists).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ackxPo0hbrw

    An idea there is some conflict of Putin against global Zionists, is one of the more stranger and delusional views I have read in the Unz/Karlin forum, and this forum does not lack to provide them.

    India, Russia and China are all de facto pro-Israel governments, that have "skin in the game" including financial investments in Israel.

    From an Israeli selfish point of view, the situation that you would worry about is the rising anti-Israel public and official, as well as media positions, in North-West Europe and in the Democrat Party base of the USA (which represents a majority of voters in coastal America).

    North-West Europe and coastal regions of the USA, are vastly more influential and powerful, in many ways, than China, Russia or India. And it's in these areas that the anti-Israel position is becoming the dominant view with the younger generations.

    British television is already in complete opposite position on Israel, from Russian television (hidden pro-Israel bias), if not Fox News (open pro-Israel bias). And some of the influential American television like Daily Show or CNN seemed to be moving to the British media's perspective. Israel will always be supported from the Republican Party in the USA, but the base of the Democrat Party is more of an open question, and the Democrat Party could be the more dominant party in America politics in the next years.

    Replies: @Spisarevski, @Jtgw

    That video…The crosses in the background behind Putin are erased…………….
    I remember how indignant I was when Time magazine did that stupid cover with St Basil cathedral and the White House and the crosses on the cathedral were erased, but here is Putin himself speaking with such a background behind him.
    Absolutely fucking disgusting.
    This is ritual humiliation for Russia.

  84. It is the US, of course, that behaves highly abnormally with respect to Israel, sending it billions of dollars and providing diplomatic cover for behavior that would get a country like Russia sanctioned to hell and high water.

    You start by saying that Russia has acted with “studied indifference” regarding “Palestine” and has issued “anodyne” statements on the Gaza conflicts; you then end by saying that the U.S. acts “abnormally” by “providing diplomatic cover” for Israel’s behavior. What kind of diplomatic cover is that? Insofar as anodyne statements are concerned, both countries are on a par with each other, it seems.

    Aside from that, people want to understand what goes on in the geopolitical angle. Syria is obviously important to Russia, who backs Assad. Now Assad had never recognized Israel and only recently the two countries have tried a reconciliation. Why does this matter not seem to affect Russia-Israel relations as much as it affects U.S.-relations?

    It might seem that the demands that Israel places on Russia are a lot less than those it places on the U.S. There is the question of Iran too. Israel does not seem to mind Russia’s alliance with Iran, but pressures the U.S. against a U.S.-Iran alliance. Why? Those things, combined with the strange phenomena which I described in my previous comment, are very mysterious to me.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    They answer is really quite simple.
    Israel knows it could upset public or governmental opinion in Russia by making exorbitant demands on it, whereas there's absolutely no limit to the depths of self-abasement the American people and its rulers will stoop to, in order to please their Greatest Ally.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas, @Dmitry

  85. @Brás Cubas

    Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies.
     
    You seem to follow a pattern here, since it's the second time I point out a similar behavior in you. You seem puzzled by some "strange" notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers -- perhaps the majority of them even -- on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it's also common among some sinophile writers. I have often been puzzled along the same lines as you on the stark difference of that discourse aimed at foreign audiences and the behavior of the government of Russia itself. As for the government of China, I am not completely sure; e.g. the CGTN coverage of recent conflicts seems to have been pretty critical of Israel, unless I misperceived them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian, @Anatoly Karlin, @Jayce

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir

    The first writes overwhelmingly for an Anglophone audience, the latter exclusively so, as far as I can tell. To get an idea of regular Russian political pundits you can check out Nikolai Starikov, Colonel Kassad, or Yuri Podolyaka. None of them have particularly strong opinions about Israel, other than acknowledging it’s large Russophone population and regional hegemony, all laugh at America’s slavish devotion to it.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Yevardian

    You simply repeated my question as though it were an answer.

    Replies: @Yevardian

  86. @Brás Cubas

    Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies.
     
    You seem to follow a pattern here, since it's the second time I point out a similar behavior in you. You seem puzzled by some "strange" notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers -- perhaps the majority of them even -- on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it's also common among some sinophile writers. I have often been puzzled along the same lines as you on the stark difference of that discourse aimed at foreign audiences and the behavior of the government of Russia itself. As for the government of China, I am not completely sure; e.g. the CGTN coverage of recent conflicts seems to have been pretty critical of Israel, unless I misperceived them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian, @Anatoly Karlin, @Jayce

    Whoah. It’s almost as if I’m not The Saker (based in Florida) or Israel Shamir (a Jewish emigre from the USSR who went to fight for the IDF), and have nothing to do with them. Whodathunk?

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I know perfectly well that you are not those persons and adopt a somewhat different discourse. But your answer simply does not justify calling everyone else "autistic". In fact, you seem to be the autistic one, by ignoring or pretending to ignore (and thus abstaining from explaining) that anti-zionism is quite frequent in russiophile circles outside of Russia, and in fact the overwhelming ideological impring of the very website you publish in.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Yevardian

  87. @Brás Cubas

    It is the US, of course, that behaves highly abnormally with respect to Israel, sending it billions of dollars and providing diplomatic cover for behavior that would get a country like Russia sanctioned to hell and high water.
     
    You start by saying that Russia has acted with "studied indifference" regarding "Palestine" and has issued "anodyne" statements on the Gaza conflicts; you then end by saying that the U.S. acts "abnormally" by "providing diplomatic cover" for Israel's behavior. What kind of diplomatic cover is that? Insofar as anodyne statements are concerned, both countries are on a par with each other, it seems.

    Aside from that, people want to understand what goes on in the geopolitical angle. Syria is obviously important to Russia, who backs Assad. Now Assad had never recognized Israel and only recently the two countries have tried a reconciliation. Why does this matter not seem to affect Russia-Israel relations as much as it affects U.S.-relations?

    It might seem that the demands that Israel places on Russia are a lot less than those it places on the U.S. There is the question of Iran too. Israel does not seem to mind Russia's alliance with Iran, but pressures the U.S. against a U.S.-Iran alliance. Why? Those things, combined with the strange phenomena which I described in my previous comment, are very mysterious to me.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    They answer is really quite simple.
    Israel knows it could upset public or governmental opinion in Russia by making exorbitant demands on it, whereas there’s absolutely no limit to the depths of self-abasement the American people and its rulers will stoop to, in order to please their Greatest Ally.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Yevardian

    It seems the answer may be around that. But the situation is quite strange. I keep imagining how a conversation between Putin and Netanyahu (or their respective representatives) might develop.

    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn't that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I'm putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I'm famished.

    I just can't make sense of it.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    , @Dmitry
    @Yevardian

    Public opinion in Russia is almost not important even for Russian government policy, let alone for international countries to care about.

    Important public opinions, that determine international fashions, are mostly located in coastal parts of North America, North-West Europe.

    Coastal North America and North-West Europe, are where there is the money, influence and cultural power, and this is an important public opinion that can determine the direction of the world. It's the case that individual celebrities like Dua Lipa, seem to have more softpower than all the people in Russia, or India, or Brazil, today.

    -

    For Israel (despite the that it has good relations with India, China, and Russia) there is seriously bad news in terms of public opinion, as they have lost, or are losing, support of the young people in the influential, wealthy, glamorous, regions of the world (Coastal North America and North West Europe) - and partly it's related to internal American politics (where Israel became too associated with the unfashionable Republican Party, that represented older voters in "flyover America"), and partly due to a systematic opposition to Zionism in the Western European culture (that seems to invert the more positive attitudes that was adopted this century in the postsoviet zone).

    As for Russian media. Television promotion of Israel in Russia (and also in Ukraine and Belarus, and possibly other postsoviet countries), is of a kind that would be impossible in Western Europe. For example, if the BBC promoted Israel like in Russian television (without talking about the wall, Gaza, settlers, colonization, etc) ,* there would tens of thousands of complaints, and protesters in London.

    But Russian media has no voice in the world, unlike the BBC or the New York Times. The position of Russian politics in the West, at best a white screen upon which various ideas might be projected.


    -


    *E.g.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdWVSsMqjrY


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5a1nN8mZ3E

  88. Every American politician has to take into account all his philo-Semitic constituents. Losing their votes can get him turned out if Congress real quick.

    This doesn’t necessarily apply to Congresscritters with large Muslim voting blocs.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @kerdasi amaq

    I doubt that votes are much of a factor. Jews themselves are only about 2% of the US population and while philosemitism and pro-Zionism is a poignant Evangelical trait, they are essentially vote cattle for the Republican party.

    The key is money - the majority of the large contributions both for the Democrats and the Republicans comes from Jewish donors.

  89. It is the US, of course, that behaves highly abnormally with respect to Israel, sending it billions of dollars and providing diplomatic cover for behavior that would get a country like Russia sanctioned to hell and high water.

    Which other country has an organization of assassins lobbing artillery over its borders (assisted by an international agency set up in 1949)? Just asking for a friend.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what "border" are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don't mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Art Deco, @Triteleia Laxa, @Philip Owen

  90. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Felix Keverich


    The reason why US behaves the way it does towards Russia is because ZIONIST JEWS, who run American foreign policy...
     
    Those well known Zionist Jews - Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.

    Zionist Jews don't tend to like Russia, but the main object of their obsessions is Iran. (For reasons which are understandable from a Zionist perspective).

    I’m still wanting for Karlin to provide explanation for Roman Yuneman, who appears to be a “friend of Israel” posing as a Russian nationalist, and who really wants to be Duma deputy.
     
    I am not his spokesman or associated with his movements, nor do I even know about his actual position on Israel - so far as I know, he's never talked about the issue (disregarding the fake news you maliciously spammed my blog with).

    He is a half-German, half-Russian Cossack with zero or insignificant Jewish ancestry (fantasies of a few Russian rightoids on Twitter aside).

    He made some political decisions which I consider bad (protesting against Navalny's imprisonment, though he did that in a personal capacity, not from the name of his organization), all the more so given that Navalny had rugpulled his campaign in favor of a Communist.

    Replies: @Felix Keverich

    Those well known Zionist Jews – Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.

    Don’t be silly. Brennan and Comey don’t make American foreign policy. Blinken and Nudelman do. State Department and the Treasury (that dishes out sanctions) are basically Jewish institutions at this point, occasional Shabbos-goy notwithstanding.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Felix Keverich

    Well, ironically, the heavily Jewish Biden administration is less anti-Russian than the late Trump administration (Russiagate having outlived its usefulness). While the confrontation with China has been further stepped up.

    But in any case your argument is self-refuting. If the US really is run (as opposed to just strongly influenced) by a literal ZOG, then taking a principled "anti-Zionist" position will just lead to vastly stepped up American aggression against Russia. This might be good for someone like Israel Shamir, who seems to be governed by personal complexes about his identity (from ultranationalist Jew who emigrated to fight in the IDF to Holocaust revisionist and champion of Palestine... who nonetheless travels in and out of Israel without legal trouble), not clear how it would be good for Russia.

    Replies: @Mikhail

  91. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas

    Whoah. It's almost as if I'm not The Saker (based in Florida) or Israel Shamir (a Jewish emigre from the USSR who went to fight for the IDF), and have nothing to do with them. Whodathunk?

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    I know perfectly well that you are not those persons and adopt a somewhat different discourse. But your answer simply does not justify calling everyone else “autistic”. In fact, you seem to be the autistic one, by ignoring or pretending to ignore (and thus abstaining from explaining) that anti-zionism is quite frequent in russiophile circles outside of Russia, and in fact the overwhelming ideological impring of the very website you publish in.

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas

    Once again, I =/= The Unz Review (which has no editorial policy).

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    , @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    Our fearless overlord actually publishes or republishes quite a lot of writers which he openly opines to be "complete nonsense" or "utterly incompetent", and has since this site's inception. I mean, he even had a massive 'Moon-Landing Hoax' screed posted here as a 'containment board' for such cranks, with the first comment there being Unz stating he thought the article was utterly worthless trash. I'm pretty sure Ron will publish virtually any bizarre opinion here, provided it has some morbid interest, I think the only thing he won't publish is this tranny/homo/pedo madness, but that insanity has long gone mainstream anyway, and you have to have *some* moral lines you don't cross.
    Anyway, the example of 4chan's /pol/ might give an idea how "powerful" such a containment strategy is likely to be.

  92. @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas


    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir
     
    The first writes overwhelmingly for an Anglophone audience, the latter exclusively so, as far as I can tell. To get an idea of regular Russian political pundits you can check out Nikolai Starikov, Colonel Kassad, or Yuri Podolyaka. None of them have particularly strong opinions about Israel, other than acknowledging it's large Russophone population and regional hegemony, all laugh at America's slavish devotion to it.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    You simply repeated my question as though it were an answer.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    Oh, now I read it again, you're right, I missed your nuance. Well, there's no point in throwing unsubstantiated accusations on the man's own blog, but I can only say Akarlin is certainly not popular amongst actual Russians in Russia. Anyway, if no actual Russian nationalist takes Saker seriously, Karlin is very much hated, usually as some sort of ersatz nationalist, as ISIS was ertsatz Islamism. Personally I think that's too conspiratorial and it's simply because he grew up in the West, but whatever.
    Only the very best comments on his blog though, say hi to Oliver Smith!

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

  93. @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    They answer is really quite simple.
    Israel knows it could upset public or governmental opinion in Russia by making exorbitant demands on it, whereas there's absolutely no limit to the depths of self-abasement the American people and its rulers will stoop to, in order to please their Greatest Ally.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas, @Dmitry

    It seems the answer may be around that. But the situation is quite strange. I keep imagining how a conversation between Putin and Netanyahu (or their respective representatives) might develop.

    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn’t that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I’m putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I’m famished.

    I just can’t make sense of it.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    If you're referring to Syria, they've never attacked Israel except in self-defence, with the exception of the Yom Kippur war, which was fought to regain the Golan Heights. Hezbollah again was formed to protect Shiites from constant attacks from extremely vicious Israeli-funded militias like "Guardians of the Cedars" and the like, not mention the SLA and IDF themselves.



    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn’t that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I’m putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I’m famished.
     
    This sort of relaxed, civilised discourse between two warring states was actually norm throughout Europe, from since the Wars of Religion ended until the First World War. Nationalism and most especially Democracy then made this sort of cold-headed, rational discussion between governments almost impossible.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

  94. @Art Deco
    It is the US, of course, that behaves highly abnormally with respect to Israel, sending it billions of dollars and providing diplomatic cover for behavior that would get a country like Russia sanctioned to hell and high water.

    Which other country has an organization of assassins lobbing artillery over its borders (assisted by an international agency set up in 1949)? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what “border” are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don’t mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.
     
    Most of the western hemisphere fits that description.

    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

    Replies: @DNS

    , @Art Deco
    @Menschmaschine

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more 'atochthonous' in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.

    While we're at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Anatoly Karlin

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.
     
    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    No people spring up out of the ground, so I know you don't mean it literally. I see you also don't mean that the individuals were born there. So what is it?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @Philip Owen
    @Menschmaschine

    On a time scale of the last 400 or 500 years; Eastern USA post Jackson, Argentina (according to Argentines - others suspect a few Indios may have survived), Australia, large parts of Turkey, the colonization of the Lower Volga previously inhabited by Mordavians by Imperial Russia, substantial tracts of Siberia, Northern Ireland, removal of the Hugenots from France. It's currently happening on Irian Jaya. Canada is more arguable. Actual ethnic cleansing was not part of the process for France or Britain. Largely done by treaty.

    Going further back, the Neolithic population of Europe was almost entirely removed by Steppe invaders.

  95. @kerdasi amaq
    Every American politician has to take into account all his philo-Semitic constituents. Losing their votes can get him turned out if Congress real quick.

    This doesn't necessarily apply to Congresscritters with large Muslim voting blocs.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I doubt that votes are much of a factor. Jews themselves are only about 2% of the US population and while philosemitism and pro-Zionism is a poignant Evangelical trait, they are essentially vote cattle for the Republican party.

    The key is money – the majority of the large contributions both for the Democrats and the Republicans comes from Jewish donors.

  96. @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver

    My post was about what should be the position for activist discussion, not about what should be done in the hypothetical case of attaining a grip on state power. For the record, my policy in this case would be a strict hands off attitude with regards to Israel and the region in general. So no more political support and subsidies for Israel (Including the collaborationist Palestinian Authority), cease any military and intelligence ties, no more wars, subversion and sanctions against the enemies of Israel. I do not propose any active measures against Israel.

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can't be true - governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel. Biden for instance proclaimed his unconditional support for the bombing of the Gaza strip and he most certainly has not made any attempt to cut any support for Israel.

    It is also certainly not my experience, I can remember very few left wingers who really were prepared to really turn on Israel. Usually it is something like well this might be not so nice, but we can't possibly withdraw our support of Israel because of the Holocaust and stuff. Which then gives me opportunity for much fun when I quote with relish extensively out of the voluminous file of Israeli crimes while the self styled "Anti-Racist" turns like a worm boiled in hot oil while he desperately tries to relativise and downplay them.

    Replies: @216, @silviosilver

    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can’t be true – governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel.

    I doubt any remaining leftist support for Israel is particularly principled. More like they prefer to dodge accusations of “anti-semitism” (eg the Corbyn fiasco) and like taking Jewish donations.

    In any case, “exposing” their hypocrisy on Israel only encourages them to denounce Israel for the same reasons they denounce whites – privilege, supremacy etc. How does that help the pro-white cause?

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @silviosilver


    I doubt any remaining leftist support for Israel is particularly principled. More like they prefer to dodge accusations of “anti-semitism” (eg the Corbyn fiasco) and like taking Jewish donations.
     
    It doesn't matter much whether the leftist support for Israel is principled or not, it is only important that they do. In any case what principles besides acknowledging full-bore Zionism could that be? That there are no principles that could possibly justify their support for Israel is why it is such an effective club to beat them with.

    In any case, “exposing” their hypocrisy on Israel only encourages them to denounce Israel for the same reasons they denounce whites – privilege, supremacy etc. How does that help the pro-white cause?
     
    But this glaring contrast is exactly why it is such an effective accusation against the Left: the Left denounces Whites for silly woke reasons like "privilege" while at the same time in the case of Israel excusing real, heavy duty crimes like ethnical cleansing, war of aggression, killing of unarmed civilians, torture, assasination etc.
  97. @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what "border" are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don't mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Art Deco, @Triteleia Laxa, @Philip Owen

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    Most of the western hemisphere fits that description.

    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

    • Replies: @DNS
    @silviosilver


    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

     

    There is also the issue of the Nakba occuring after the "horrors of the Holocaust", and incidentally in the same year as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was supposed to bring about a new era of peace.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  98. @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what "border" are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don't mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Art Deco, @Triteleia Laxa, @Philip Owen

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more ‘atochthonous’ in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.

    While we’re at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco


    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?
     
    Reading comprehension problems?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more ‘atochthonous’ in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.
     
    It is of course entirely irrelevant whether one calls them "Palestinians" or "Arabs", ethnical cleansing remains a crime.

    While we’re at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.
     
    That a crime was committed previously somewhere else does of course not make it any less of a crime.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Art Deco

    Seethe harder, xoxol.

    Replies: @demografie

  99. DNS says:
    @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.
     
    Most of the western hemisphere fits that description.

    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

    Replies: @DNS

    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

    There is also the issue of the Nakba occuring after the “horrors of the Holocaust”, and incidentally in the same year as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was supposed to bring about a new era of peace.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @DNS

    700,000 people being forced from (at least) returning to their homes after a war, is only news decades later, because they weren't allowed to settle by their neighbouring countries and they had a lot of kids.

    That statement isn't to insert moral judgement, it is an observation of what makes news.



    Rulers of countries, and other serious people, don't tend to be intensely moralistic (really just fighting their own demons by projecting them onto others). Instead, they tend to be practical.

    Many political obsessives can't see this and so they think that if they just "prove" that some action crosses some unconscionable line that their entire programme will need to be enacted, but that never happens. Never.

    Even the Holocaust only has power because it was seen as the greatest crime of the losing side in the greatest war that has ever happened (and quite possibly will ever happen.)

    Practical people want to avoid such huge wars, especially to be on the losing side of them, and they are less concerned by obtuse, thinly rational, really just emotionally incontinent, internet arguments.

  100. @Art Deco
    @Menschmaschine

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more 'atochthonous' in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.

    While we're at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Anatoly Karlin

    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?

    Reading comprehension problems?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more ‘atochthonous’ in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.

    It is of course entirely irrelevant whether one calls them “Palestinians” or “Arabs”, ethnical cleansing remains a crime.

    While we’re at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.

    That a crime was committed previously somewhere else does of course not make it any less of a crime.

  101. @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what "border" are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don't mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Art Deco, @Triteleia Laxa, @Philip Owen

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    No people spring up out of the ground, so I know you don’t mean it literally. I see you also don’t mean that the individuals were born there. So what is it?

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don't beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian

  102. @silviosilver
    @Menschmaschine


    As I explained, challenging Leftists about their hypocrisis with regard to Israel is a wonderful club to beat them with. I get constantly told here that this would not work since Leftists are now supposedly all so rabidly anti-Israel, but this prima facie can’t be true – governments formed by left-leaning parties in the West are still solidly pro-Israel.
     
    I doubt any remaining leftist support for Israel is particularly principled. More like they prefer to dodge accusations of "anti-semitism" (eg the Corbyn fiasco) and like taking Jewish donations.

    In any case, "exposing" their hypocrisy on Israel only encourages them to denounce Israel for the same reasons they denounce whites - privilege, supremacy etc. How does that help the pro-white cause?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I doubt any remaining leftist support for Israel is particularly principled. More like they prefer to dodge accusations of “anti-semitism” (eg the Corbyn fiasco) and like taking Jewish donations.

    It doesn’t matter much whether the leftist support for Israel is principled or not, it is only important that they do. In any case what principles besides acknowledging full-bore Zionism could that be? That there are no principles that could possibly justify their support for Israel is why it is such an effective club to beat them with.

    In any case, “exposing” their hypocrisy on Israel only encourages them to denounce Israel for the same reasons they denounce whites – privilege, supremacy etc. How does that help the pro-white cause?

    But this glaring contrast is exactly why it is such an effective accusation against the Left: the Left denounces Whites for silly woke reasons like “privilege” while at the same time in the case of Israel excusing real, heavy duty crimes like ethnical cleansing, war of aggression, killing of unarmed civilians, torture, assasination etc.

  103. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.
     
    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    No people spring up out of the ground, so I know you don't mean it literally. I see you also don't mean that the individuals were born there. So what is it?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don’t beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    I asked you a question about your beliefs. You can't seem to answer it. I will assume it is because they are incoherent and actually just an outgrowth of your own psychological problems, and so not something I can learn about the world from, but only about you.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don’t beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.
     
    If forcibly removing the Israelis from the West Bank would lead to permanent peace then I would be tempted to offer my (meaningless) support to it. The same holds true for me as regards removing the Palestinians from there.

    I don't know if this fits your definition of "ethnic cleansing " or "ok", but I am finding it difficult to engage with what seems like hysteria.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    , @Yevardian
    @Menschmaschine

    That's also my position. For example, there's an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who first got famous for publishing Israeli warcrimes in 1947-8 for the first time, working from the state archives. For a while he was the darling of the Israeli left, until he turned around and argued that the ethnic cleansings and massacres were a perfectly rational state policy, and that Israel should never soften its attitude towards the Palestinians, and get more brutal if anything.

    At least you know exactly where such people stand, without hypocrisy, unlike Wiesels like Elie.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  104. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don't beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian

    I asked you a question about your beliefs. You can’t seem to answer it. I will assume it is because they are incoherent and actually just an outgrowth of your own psychological problems, and so not something I can learn about the world from, but only about you.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Sorry, I was not able to make any sense of your convoluted text.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  105. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don't beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don’t beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    If forcibly removing the Israelis from the West Bank would lead to permanent peace then I would be tempted to offer my (meaningless) support to it. The same holds true for me as regards removing the Palestinians from there.

    I don’t know if this fits your definition of “ethnic cleansing ” or “ok”, but I am finding it difficult to engage with what seems like hysteria.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I am of course concerned with the whole territory of Palestine, not only the Westbank. How about the following nice plan:
    - One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
    - All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.

    As a good Jewish fan of diversity and multiculturalism you certainly wont have any reservations about such a plan, would you? Well, in practice the situation would likely look more like those of the 'Israeli Arabs' now which live almost totally separated from the Jewish population, not to mention that probably a large part, if not the majority of Jews would decide that living in the Holy Land is not so fun if you are not boss and leave...

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  106. @Felix Keverich
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Those well known Zionist Jews – Clapper, Brennan, Comey, McCabe, etc.
     
    Don't be silly. Brennan and Comey don't make American foreign policy. Blinken and Nudelman do. State Department and the Treasury (that dishes out sanctions) are basically Jewish institutions at this point, occasional Shabbos-goy notwithstanding.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, ironically, the heavily Jewish Biden administration is less anti-Russian than the late Trump administration (Russiagate having outlived its usefulness). While the confrontation with China has been further stepped up.

    But in any case your argument is self-refuting. If the US really is run (as opposed to just strongly influenced) by a literal ZOG, then taking a principled “anti-Zionist” position will just lead to vastly stepped up American aggression against Russia. This might be good for someone like Israel Shamir, who seems to be governed by personal complexes about his identity (from ultranationalist Jew who emigrated to fight in the IDF to Holocaust revisionist and champion of Palestine… who nonetheless travels in and out of Israel without legal trouble), not clear how it would be good for Russia.

    • Replies: @Mikhail
    @Anatoly Karlin


    Well, ironically, the heavily Jewish Biden administration is less anti-Russian than the late Trump administration (Russiagate having outlived its usefulness). While the confrontation with China has been further stepped up.
     
    Debatable when considering Rojansky getting nixed for a State Dept. slot, along with the continued sanctions on numerous Russians and Russian based venues. Biden's dropping of sanctions regarding Nord Stream 2, was for a German company that had donated to his campaign, according to Fox News.

    Regardless, the differences on Trump and Biden admin Russia policy appear limited. Blinken's blow-harding against Belarus is something to consider as well, given the noticeable improved Russia-Belarus relationship.

    Convinced that Trump has sought better relations with Russia, albeit facing staunch opposition. His not too distant feature with Hannity gives credence to that view.

    Related:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/22/bbc-limits-and-related-censorship-on-russia-coverage/

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/24/western-outrage-over-belarus-force-landing-plane-how-dare-you-copy-us/
  107. @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I know perfectly well that you are not those persons and adopt a somewhat different discourse. But your answer simply does not justify calling everyone else "autistic". In fact, you seem to be the autistic one, by ignoring or pretending to ignore (and thus abstaining from explaining) that anti-zionism is quite frequent in russiophile circles outside of Russia, and in fact the overwhelming ideological impring of the very website you publish in.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Yevardian

    Once again, I =/= The Unz Review (which has no editorial policy).

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, at this point I already have a somewhat clearer understanding of the situation, not thanks to you. According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel (you being the exception), and the discourse directed at domestic audiences is pro-Israel or neutral.

    I replied that he simply restated my question, but in fact there is information in his comment.

    (1) that there is a dual discourse.

    (2) that Russians do not understand American devotion to Israel

    By simple logic, adding (1) and (2), we infer that Russians feel compelled to awaken the U.S. from that devotion sleep.

    After that awakening occurs, and Israel loses his devoted friend, I suppose Israel, who is already a good friend of Russia, will become an excellent, perhaps a devoted friend of Russia.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry

  108. @Art Deco
    @Menschmaschine

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    About which other countries do you have these poisonous fantasies?

    That aside, the Arabs on the West Bank, Gaza, and on the UNRWA doles are no more 'atochthonous' in those three Ottoman subprefectures than any other population in the fertile crescent, and no more foreign to Damascus than anyone in Aleppo.

    While we're at it, when does Germany get Kaliningrad back? Just asking for a friend.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Anatoly Karlin

    Seethe harder, xoxol.

    • Replies: @demografie
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Sometimes, common sense get people insane. Judging by comments. Russia have working relationship with Israel and it is a good thing. Israel helped Russia with the some UAV technology. Russia helped Israel with some submarine tech (rumours). It benefited both countries, why not go along. Jews are not responsible for everything happen to world.
    Similarly, Russia have working relationship with Turkey. Yes, there are some hiccups (shot down jet or killed 50 special forces), but overall it is net positive.
    Another example, Russia cooperation with Germany. Russia sell gas, Germany helps with trains, build ships etc. Both countries are happy. Yes, it is not without problems.

  109. If you look at his in laws then Trump is more Jewish than Biden is, and blood relatives are thicker than cabinet appointments that serve at the president’s pleasure. Plus does Biden have a lot of close Jewish friends.

  110. Maybe it will be useful to have the people at Giraldi’s debate the people here? OTOH, if one does not like Jewish power, then it makes sense to try to limit its power and try to undermine it at its very source, if one has that view.

  111. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas

    Once again, I =/= The Unz Review (which has no editorial policy).

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    Well, at this point I already have a somewhat clearer understanding of the situation, not thanks to you. According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel (you being the exception), and the discourse directed at domestic audiences is pro-Israel or neutral.

    I replied that he simply restated my question, but in fact there is information in his comment.

    (1) that there is a dual discourse.

    (2) that Russians do not understand American devotion to Israel

    By simple logic, adding (1) and (2), we infer that Russians feel compelled to awaken the U.S. from that devotion sleep.

    After that awakening occurs, and Israel loses his devoted friend, I suppose Israel, who is already a good friend of Russia, will become an excellent, perhaps a devoted friend of Russia.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Brás Cubas


    By simple logic
     
    Or maybe you are ignorant? As you get close to admitting in your own post...

    There's nothing wrong with knowing little about a subject - I am ignorant on the vast majority of subjects too!

    There isn't a dual discourse. There's a couple of internet eccentrics (literally two individuals) and the completely misnamed Russian Insider.

    One of the many problems for people who are obsessed with Jews is that they have to assume that other powers are equally obsessed by them or actually controlled by them. In the case of the EU, Russia, India and China, this is respectively more and more ridiculous.

    One way around this is to go full wacko and "deep dive" into Rothschild and multi-millenia conspiracy theories so Presidrnt Xi and Modi are crypto-Jews. The other is to extrapolate from a handful of internet eccentrics, who play to the wacko crowd, as representative of opinion in their supposed home countries.

    Shamir and the Saker are highly unusual individuals who represent Russian state opinion as much as Giraldi does US state opinion. Surely you can see their shtick?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas


    According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel...
     
    The Saker, Israel Shamir, etc. /= RT. You have a weird habit of conflating bloggers who have minimal to zero relation to Russian state structures, one of whom is an emigre based in the US and the other who is a Bolshevik Jew who splits his time between Russia, Israel, and Sweden, with some "discourse" aimed at "foreign audiences."

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    , @Dmitry
    @Brás Cubas

    RT (Russia Today) receives funding, for its ability to undermine the support of viewers in Western countries for their own governments.

    That is, it is a kind of trolling operation against mainly America and UK, but also some Latin American governments. Although, as it looks ineffective and bad publicity, the real victims are the taxpayers who fund it.

    RT would have been more successful as propaganda, if they had tried to be like BBC or Al Jazeera International (that tries to pretend to be like an objective source of information).

    The position of RT on Israel, will depend on their audience. If RT's audience opposes Israel, then RT will oppose Israel, and vice-versa. Israel can be a useful wedge issue, especially for using on an American audience.

    One way you can inspire anger among Americans (who dislike Israel) against their government, is to focus on the relation of Washington to Israel.

    -

    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the "real estate" it uses in peoples' minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.

    Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is another example of a small conflict in the world. Yet, you can compare Israel-Palestine conflict with the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, and the latter is still a lot larger than the former, where in October 2020 around 8000 people were killed in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict (which would be equivalent to an average of around half a century of deaths in the less deadly Israel-Palestine conflict). But Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict received not much media attention even in the other postsoviet countries.

    Replies: @AaronB

  112. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Art Deco

    Seethe harder, xoxol.

    Replies: @demografie

    Sometimes, common sense get people insane. Judging by comments. Russia have working relationship with Israel and it is a good thing. Israel helped Russia with the some UAV technology. Russia helped Israel with some submarine tech (rumours). It benefited both countries, why not go along. Jews are not responsible for everything happen to world.
    Similarly, Russia have working relationship with Turkey. Yes, there are some hiccups (shot down jet or killed 50 special forces), but overall it is net positive.
    Another example, Russia cooperation with Germany. Russia sell gas, Germany helps with trains, build ships etc. Both countries are happy. Yes, it is not without problems.

  113. @Menschmaschine
    @Art Deco

    Which other country consists almost entirely of territory ethnically cleansed from the autochthonous population? Just asking for myself.

    And what "border" are you talking about? Fun fact: Israel does not have recognized borders; with that I don't mean internationally recognized but by the Israeli government itself. The reason is, of course, to leave the door open to further conquest once the Palestinians have been dealt with.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @Art Deco, @Triteleia Laxa, @Philip Owen

    On a time scale of the last 400 or 500 years; Eastern USA post Jackson, Argentina (according to Argentines – others suspect a few Indios may have survived), Australia, large parts of Turkey, the colonization of the Lower Volga previously inhabited by Mordavians by Imperial Russia, substantial tracts of Siberia, Northern Ireland, removal of the Hugenots from France. It’s currently happening on Irian Jaya. Canada is more arguable. Actual ethnic cleansing was not part of the process for France or Britain. Largely done by treaty.

    Going further back, the Neolithic population of Europe was almost entirely removed by Steppe invaders.

  114. @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, at this point I already have a somewhat clearer understanding of the situation, not thanks to you. According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel (you being the exception), and the discourse directed at domestic audiences is pro-Israel or neutral.

    I replied that he simply restated my question, but in fact there is information in his comment.

    (1) that there is a dual discourse.

    (2) that Russians do not understand American devotion to Israel

    By simple logic, adding (1) and (2), we infer that Russians feel compelled to awaken the U.S. from that devotion sleep.

    After that awakening occurs, and Israel loses his devoted friend, I suppose Israel, who is already a good friend of Russia, will become an excellent, perhaps a devoted friend of Russia.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry

    By simple logic

    Or maybe you are ignorant? As you get close to admitting in your own post…

    There’s nothing wrong with knowing little about a subject – I am ignorant on the vast majority of subjects too!

    There isn’t a dual discourse. There’s a couple of internet eccentrics (literally two individuals) and the completely misnamed Russian Insider.

    One of the many problems for people who are obsessed with Jews is that they have to assume that other powers are equally obsessed by them or actually controlled by them. In the case of the EU, Russia, India and China, this is respectively more and more ridiculous.

    One way around this is to go full wacko and “deep dive” into Rothschild and multi-millenia conspiracy theories so Presidrnt Xi and Modi are crypto-Jews. The other is to extrapolate from a handful of internet eccentrics, who play to the wacko crowd, as representative of opinion in their supposed home countries.

    Shamir and the Saker are highly unusual individuals who represent Russian state opinion as much as Giraldi does US state opinion. Surely you can see their shtick?

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Triteleia Laxa


    There’s a couple of internet eccentrics (literally two individuals) and the completely misnamed Russian Insider.
     
    Run by another person who no longer lives in Russia.

    https://twitter.com/akarlin88/status/1153934904780046337
  115. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Felix Keverich

    Well, ironically, the heavily Jewish Biden administration is less anti-Russian than the late Trump administration (Russiagate having outlived its usefulness). While the confrontation with China has been further stepped up.

    But in any case your argument is self-refuting. If the US really is run (as opposed to just strongly influenced) by a literal ZOG, then taking a principled "anti-Zionist" position will just lead to vastly stepped up American aggression against Russia. This might be good for someone like Israel Shamir, who seems to be governed by personal complexes about his identity (from ultranationalist Jew who emigrated to fight in the IDF to Holocaust revisionist and champion of Palestine... who nonetheless travels in and out of Israel without legal trouble), not clear how it would be good for Russia.

    Replies: @Mikhail

    Well, ironically, the heavily Jewish Biden administration is less anti-Russian than the late Trump administration (Russiagate having outlived its usefulness). While the confrontation with China has been further stepped up.

    Debatable when considering Rojansky getting nixed for a State Dept. slot, along with the continued sanctions on numerous Russians and Russian based venues. Biden’s dropping of sanctions regarding Nord Stream 2, was for a German company that had donated to his campaign, according to Fox News.

    Regardless, the differences on Trump and Biden admin Russia policy appear limited. Blinken’s blow-harding against Belarus is something to consider as well, given the noticeable improved Russia-Belarus relationship.

    Convinced that Trump has sought better relations with Russia, albeit facing staunch opposition. His not too distant feature with Hannity gives credence to that view.

    Related:

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/22/bbc-limits-and-related-censorship-on-russia-coverage/

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/05/24/western-outrage-over-belarus-force-landing-plane-how-dare-you-copy-us/

  116. @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, at this point I already have a somewhat clearer understanding of the situation, not thanks to you. According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel (you being the exception), and the discourse directed at domestic audiences is pro-Israel or neutral.

    I replied that he simply restated my question, but in fact there is information in his comment.

    (1) that there is a dual discourse.

    (2) that Russians do not understand American devotion to Israel

    By simple logic, adding (1) and (2), we infer that Russians feel compelled to awaken the U.S. from that devotion sleep.

    After that awakening occurs, and Israel loses his devoted friend, I suppose Israel, who is already a good friend of Russia, will become an excellent, perhaps a devoted friend of Russia.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry

    According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel…

    The Saker, Israel Shamir, etc. /= RT. You have a weird habit of conflating bloggers who have minimal to zero relation to Russian state structures, one of whom is an emigre based in the US and the other who is a Bolshevik Jew who splits his time between Russia, Israel, and Sweden, with some “discourse” aimed at “foreign audiences.”

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, of course I cannot be sure that any of them has a relation to Russian state structures, but I wonder how you could be sure that they don't.

  117. @DNS
    @silviosilver


    The difference is that countries like America have gone to exorbitant lengths to make up for past wrongs, unlike Israel, which refuses even to acknowledge any wrongdoing, much less make amends for it.

     

    There is also the issue of the Nakba occuring after the "horrors of the Holocaust", and incidentally in the same year as the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which was supposed to bring about a new era of peace.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    700,000 people being forced from (at least) returning to their homes after a war, is only news decades later, because they weren’t allowed to settle by their neighbouring countries and they had a lot of kids.

    That statement isn’t to insert moral judgement, it is an observation of what makes news.

    [MORE]

    Rulers of countries, and other serious people, don’t tend to be intensely moralistic (really just fighting their own demons by projecting them onto others). Instead, they tend to be practical.

    Many political obsessives can’t see this and so they think that if they just “prove” that some action crosses some unconscionable line that their entire programme will need to be enacted, but that never happens. Never.

    Even the Holocaust only has power because it was seen as the greatest crime of the losing side in the greatest war that has ever happened (and quite possibly will ever happen.)

    Practical people want to avoid such huge wars, especially to be on the losing side of them, and they are less concerned by obtuse, thinly rational, really just emotionally incontinent, internet arguments.

  118. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Brás Cubas


    By simple logic
     
    Or maybe you are ignorant? As you get close to admitting in your own post...

    There's nothing wrong with knowing little about a subject - I am ignorant on the vast majority of subjects too!

    There isn't a dual discourse. There's a couple of internet eccentrics (literally two individuals) and the completely misnamed Russian Insider.

    One of the many problems for people who are obsessed with Jews is that they have to assume that other powers are equally obsessed by them or actually controlled by them. In the case of the EU, Russia, India and China, this is respectively more and more ridiculous.

    One way around this is to go full wacko and "deep dive" into Rothschild and multi-millenia conspiracy theories so Presidrnt Xi and Modi are crypto-Jews. The other is to extrapolate from a handful of internet eccentrics, who play to the wacko crowd, as representative of opinion in their supposed home countries.

    Shamir and the Saker are highly unusual individuals who represent Russian state opinion as much as Giraldi does US state opinion. Surely you can see their shtick?

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    There’s a couple of internet eccentrics (literally two individuals) and the completely misnamed Russian Insider.

    Run by another person who no longer lives in Russia.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
  119. @Brás Cubas

    Now many of the Jew obsessed people here have this strange idea that Russia has some kind of duty or obligation to denounce and attack Israel to satisfy their personal fantasies.
     
    You seem to follow a pattern here, since it's the second time I point out a similar behavior in you. You seem puzzled by some "strange" notions held by your readers while ignoring or pretending to ignore the role of other pro-Russia writers -- perhaps the majority of them even -- on propagating those very notions.

    This anti-zionist slant is a strong characteristic of russiophile writers like The Saker and Israel Shamir, and others; it's also common among some sinophile writers. I have often been puzzled along the same lines as you on the stark difference of that discourse aimed at foreign audiences and the behavior of the government of Russia itself. As for the government of China, I am not completely sure; e.g. the CGTN coverage of recent conflicts seems to have been pretty critical of Israel, unless I misperceived them.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian, @Anatoly Karlin, @Jayce

    These people mostly utilize Russia as a unifying plot device in what’s basically geopolitical fanfic for their (largely) American audience. “Pro-Russia” attitudes among them are conditional and based on a mixture of spite and wishful thinking. (See, for example, how quickly MAGA became “Dems R the REAL Russians” or how certain alt-right “thought leaders” went from hailing Putin to perceiving Russia as a threat to their gay VNITED EVROPA fantasies.) Obviously it spreads a lot of odd misimpressions, as if there weren’t enough about Russia in the Anglosphere already.

    • Thanks: Triteleia Laxa
    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Jayce


    basically geopolitical fanfic
     
    I love this phrase. Never heard it before. It gets to exactly the way in which I enjoy Shamir's work.
  120. @Jayce
    @Brás Cubas

    These people mostly utilize Russia as a unifying plot device in what's basically geopolitical fanfic for their (largely) American audience. "Pro-Russia" attitudes among them are conditional and based on a mixture of spite and wishful thinking. (See, for example, how quickly MAGA became "Dems R the REAL Russians" or how certain alt-right "thought leaders" went from hailing Putin to perceiving Russia as a threat to their gay VNITED EVROPA fantasies.) Obviously it spreads a lot of odd misimpressions, as if there weren't enough about Russia in the Anglosphere already.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    basically geopolitical fanfic

    I love this phrase. Never heard it before. It gets to exactly the way in which I enjoy Shamir’s work.

  121. How many people on this blog can beat Giraldi in a straight debate? As an aside? You can even have Unz himself to act as the referee.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Znzn

    Debate on what, and what are the conventions to be used?

    , @Anatoly Karlin
    @Znzn

    And about what? I have certainly never disputed there's a strong Jewish Lobby in the US, in fact I have been deplatformed partly on account of that.

    Giraldi goes on and on about it (and little else so far as I know). It's not a level of obsession I share.

  122. @Znzn
    How many people on this blog can beat Giraldi in a straight debate? As an aside? You can even have Unz himself to act as the referee.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin

    Debate on what, and what are the conventions to be used?

  123. I wonder what is the Venn diagram between those who think that Jews do not have too much power and influence, and those who have no problem with Zionism, and those think that Jews tend to have too much power and influence, and those who tend to take a dim view of Zionism, just like the Venn diagram between those with anti-US views and pro-Russia and pro-China views?

  124. @Znzn
    How many people on this blog can beat Giraldi in a straight debate? As an aside? You can even have Unz himself to act as the referee.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin

    And about what? I have certainly never disputed there’s a strong Jewish Lobby in the US, in fact I have been deplatformed partly on account of that.

    Giraldi goes on and on about it (and little else so far as I know). It’s not a level of obsession I share.

  125. If someone is not too fond of Jews it will make quite some sense why that person will take a dim view of Israel’s actions also.

  126. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Brás Cubas


    According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel...
     
    The Saker, Israel Shamir, etc. /= RT. You have a weird habit of conflating bloggers who have minimal to zero relation to Russian state structures, one of whom is an emigre based in the US and the other who is a Bolshevik Jew who splits his time between Russia, Israel, and Sweden, with some "discourse" aimed at "foreign audiences."

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    Well, of course I cannot be sure that any of them has a relation to Russian state structures, but I wonder how you could be sure that they don’t.

    • LOL: Triteleia Laxa
  127. So J Street are crypto-Nazis for opposing further expansion of Jewish settlements?

  128. Audacious Epigone showed that support for Israel’s actions is largely a function of age and ethnicity.
    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-israel-and-palestine-by-demographic/#comment-4666782

  129. @Brás Cubas
    @Yevardian

    You simply repeated my question as though it were an answer.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    Oh, now I read it again, you’re right, I missed your nuance. Well, there’s no point in throwing unsubstantiated accusations on the man’s own blog, but I can only say Akarlin is certainly not popular amongst actual Russians in Russia. Anyway, if no actual Russian nationalist takes Saker seriously, Karlin is very much hated, usually as some sort of ersatz nationalist, as ISIS was ertsatz Islamism. Personally I think that’s too conspiratorial and it’s simply because he grew up in the West, but whatever.
    Only the very best comments on his blog though, say hi to Oliver Smith!

    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    @Yevardian

    The opinions of an Armenoid who doesn't live in Russia or even Armenia are certainly very valuable.

    Replies: @Yevardian

  130. @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I know perfectly well that you are not those persons and adopt a somewhat different discourse. But your answer simply does not justify calling everyone else "autistic". In fact, you seem to be the autistic one, by ignoring or pretending to ignore (and thus abstaining from explaining) that anti-zionism is quite frequent in russiophile circles outside of Russia, and in fact the overwhelming ideological impring of the very website you publish in.

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin, @Yevardian

    Our fearless overlord actually publishes or republishes quite a lot of writers which he openly opines to be “complete nonsense” or “utterly incompetent”, and has since this site’s inception. I mean, he even had a massive ‘Moon-Landing Hoax’ screed posted here as a ‘containment board’ for such cranks, with the first comment there being Unz stating he thought the article was utterly worthless trash. I’m pretty sure Ron will publish virtually any bizarre opinion here, provided it has some morbid interest, I think the only thing he won’t publish is this tranny/homo/pedo madness, but that insanity has long gone mainstream anyway, and you have to have *some* moral lines you don’t cross.
    Anyway, the example of 4chan’s /pol/ might give an idea how “powerful” such a containment strategy is likely to be.

  131. @Brás Cubas
    @Yevardian

    It seems the answer may be around that. But the situation is quite strange. I keep imagining how a conversation between Putin and Netanyahu (or their respective representatives) might develop.

    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn't that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I'm putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I'm famished.

    I just can't make sense of it.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    If you’re referring to Syria, they’ve never attacked Israel except in self-defence, with the exception of the Yom Kippur war, which was fought to regain the Golan Heights. Hezbollah again was formed to protect Shiites from constant attacks from extremely vicious Israeli-funded militias like “Guardians of the Cedars” and the like, not mention the SLA and IDF themselves.

    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn’t that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I’m putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I’m famished.

    This sort of relaxed, civilised discourse between two warring states was actually norm throughout Europe, from since the Wars of Religion ended until the First World War. Nationalism and most especially Democracy then made this sort of cold-headed, rational discussion between governments almost impossible.

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @Yevardian

    Thank you for all your replies. I will only make a small observation about this one:


    This sort of relaxed, civilised discourse between two warring states was actually norm throughout Europe, from since the Wars of Religion ended until the First World War.
     
    Something else that was actually norm throughout Europe and everywhere else was the existence of foreign agents.
  132. @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    Oh, now I read it again, you're right, I missed your nuance. Well, there's no point in throwing unsubstantiated accusations on the man's own blog, but I can only say Akarlin is certainly not popular amongst actual Russians in Russia. Anyway, if no actual Russian nationalist takes Saker seriously, Karlin is very much hated, usually as some sort of ersatz nationalist, as ISIS was ertsatz Islamism. Personally I think that's too conspiratorial and it's simply because he grew up in the West, but whatever.
    Only the very best comments on his blog though, say hi to Oliver Smith!

    Replies: @Anatoly Karlin

    The opinions of an Armenoid who doesn’t live in Russia or even Armenia are certainly very valuable.

    • Replies: @Yevardian
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well it's good my posts don't around Armenian nationalism then. Judging by the various Balkan commentators here, indulging in fanatic nationalism for small, defeated nations doesn't look like much fun at all.
    Anyway, I myself don't even have particularly strong opinions on your blog, I was just answering that Brás Cubas commenter with neutral observations.

  133. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don't beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Triteleia Laxa, @Yevardian

    That’s also my position. For example, there’s an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who first got famous for publishing Israeli warcrimes in 1947-8 for the first time, working from the state archives. For a while he was the darling of the Israeli left, until he turned around and argued that the ethnic cleansings and massacres were a perfectly rational state policy, and that Israel should never soften its attitude towards the Palestinians, and get more brutal if anything.

    At least you know exactly where such people stand, without hypocrisy, unlike Wiesels like Elie.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Yevardian

    Yes, that is also the reason why I did not engage with the commenter AaronB; he is honest about the whole thing, so there is nothing to refute.

  134. @Anatoly Karlin
    @Yevardian

    The opinions of an Armenoid who doesn't live in Russia or even Armenia are certainly very valuable.

    Replies: @Yevardian

    Well it’s good my posts don’t around Armenian nationalism then. Judging by the various Balkan commentators here, indulging in fanatic nationalism for small, defeated nations doesn’t look like much fun at all.
    Anyway, I myself don’t even have particularly strong opinions on your blog, I was just answering that Brás Cubas commenter with neutral observations.

  135. @Yevardian
    @Menschmaschine

    That's also my position. For example, there's an Israeli historian, Benny Morris, who first got famous for publishing Israeli warcrimes in 1947-8 for the first time, working from the state archives. For a while he was the darling of the Israeli left, until he turned around and argued that the ethnic cleansings and massacres were a perfectly rational state policy, and that Israel should never soften its attitude towards the Palestinians, and get more brutal if anything.

    At least you know exactly where such people stand, without hypocrisy, unlike Wiesels like Elie.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Yes, that is also the reason why I did not engage with the commenter AaronB; he is honest about the whole thing, so there is nothing to refute.

  136. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    Please, if you want to lay out some scheme why it is OK to ethnically cleanse Palestinians then do so and don’t beat around the bush. Or simply acknowledge the fact that there is no possible moral justification outside of Jewish ethnosupremacism.
     
    If forcibly removing the Israelis from the West Bank would lead to permanent peace then I would be tempted to offer my (meaningless) support to it. The same holds true for me as regards removing the Palestinians from there.

    I don't know if this fits your definition of "ethnic cleansing " or "ok", but I am finding it difficult to engage with what seems like hysteria.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I am of course concerned with the whole territory of Palestine, not only the Westbank. How about the following nice plan:
    – One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
    – All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.

    As a good Jewish fan of diversity and multiculturalism you certainly wont have any reservations about such a plan, would you? Well, in practice the situation would likely look more like those of the ‘Israeli Arabs’ now which live almost totally separated from the Jewish population, not to mention that probably a large part, if not the majority of Jews would decide that living in the Holy Land is not so fun if you are not boss and leave…

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    How about the following nice plan:
    – One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
     
    It is obvious to all, except sheltered Western liberals, that this plan is intended to create the conditions for the forcible ethnic cleansing of all Jews from that land.

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Menschmaschine

  137. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    I asked you a question about your beliefs. You can't seem to answer it. I will assume it is because they are incoherent and actually just an outgrowth of your own psychological problems, and so not something I can learn about the world from, but only about you.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    Sorry, I was not able to make any sense of your convoluted text.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

  138. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I am of course concerned with the whole territory of Palestine, not only the Westbank. How about the following nice plan:
    - One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
    - All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.

    As a good Jewish fan of diversity and multiculturalism you certainly wont have any reservations about such a plan, would you? Well, in practice the situation would likely look more like those of the 'Israeli Arabs' now which live almost totally separated from the Jewish population, not to mention that probably a large part, if not the majority of Jews would decide that living in the Holy Land is not so fun if you are not boss and leave...

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    How about the following nice plan:
    – One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews

    It is obvious to all, except sheltered Western liberals, that this plan is intended to create the conditions for the forcible ethnic cleansing of all Jews from that land.

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I will add my analysis of where the two sides currently sit; with the caveat that the two sides are actually many sides, making this is a simplification.

    Israel is playing its hand well, as its position improves every year. The more time passes, the more legitimacy they have, but also they are constantly working to improve the facts on the ground for themselves. Those in continually improving positions, with only minor disruptions, are not generally minded to make large concessions for peace.

    The Palestinians have a bunch of plans, but all of them are impossible to achieve. While dreaming of a total victory, their hand is weakening and weakening. Their latest idea of, (via a miracle of PR and double standards), somehow persuading the West to boycott Israel and force them to accept a one state solution, is self-defeating. It is only Israeli attachment to Western liberal norms that keeps Palestinians in the game.

    Were the West to boycott Israel, the Israeli hard right would take power and there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.

    This might make Israel an international pariah, but the facts on the ground would be resolved one hundred percent in their favour. They would then need only wait out some years before the West would re-open up - see what is happening with Assad, even with the Arab League.

    I'd suggest that the Palestinians instead seek independence in line with the walls and try and get as much money as possible as part of the deal. The faster they do this, the more likely they are to achieve it.

    The problem is that their leadership and pro-Palestinian Western media have enabled the Palestinian people's delusions, that they are constantly winning, and such winning people will never accept this defeat.

    This means that the dismal situation continues, but Israel continually improves its position, trading meaningless Western media goodwill, for favourable facts on the ground; while the Palestinians celebrate getting the reverse. They are therefore celebrating their own route to total defeat.

    The Arab nations have realised this and just want to move on. The Israelis have realised this and are content. The sooner the Palestinian people realise this, the better for them, but they won't, so it is a true tragedy.

    It isn't my fault. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

    , @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Again:


    – All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.
     
    To be deprieved of Land that was stolen before is obviously not ethnical cleansing

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?
     
    This, of course, would only be possible by military pressure. However, what ought to be done and the measures to do it are two different questions.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  139. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Sorry, I was not able to make any sense of your convoluted text.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    • Replies: @Znzn
    @Triteleia Laxa

    So J Street and Boris Johnson and Merkel are closet Nazis because they support a moratorium on further expansion of settlements?

    , @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa


    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?
     
    From your description it sounded like you referred to this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/autistic-obsessions/#comment-4673877

    Anyway, the term "autochtonous" is well defined, look it up in a dictionary. If you want to make up some Clintonesque mental gymnastics why the Palestinians are not "not really autochthonous", I am not going to do your work for you
  140. was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

    Sure, but lefties would argue that minorities are still being oppressed in the West and that what happened in the past matters for today.

    Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing – like in Palestine

    While I think that you can make this “immigration argument”, a lot of people are not going to agree with that take. Lefties argue that it is not immigration as Palestine was colonized when Jews arrived and because the Jewish immigrants came “from a position of power”. Right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration as Jews “developed the country”. Israeli right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration, instead it is “returning home to the ancestral homeland”. Moreover, they would also point out that Jews have been kicked out of Arab countries.

    Somehow I have trouble posting … so a second reply will follow.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    but lefties would argue that minorities are still being oppressed in the West
     
    Which is of course objective nonsense and can be squashed as such.

    While I think that you can make this “immigration argument”, a lot of people are not going to agree with that take
     
    This was more of a throw away comment, I certain would not rely on it in an anti-immigration discussion.

    Israeli right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration, instead it is “returning home to the ancestral homeland”
     
    Which of course is rubbish. That some of your ancestors might have come from a certain territory thousands of years ago of course does not give you the right to ethnically cleanse the present population. The European part of Ashkenazi genome seems to be mostly Italian - why don't they go and ethnically cleanse Italy?

    Moreover, they would also point out that Jews have been kicked out of Arab countries.
     
    Which is simply not true. Jews left because of Zionist propaganda, general crises and because of the fact that most Jews do not have much of a bond to the host countries they reside in. In some cases there were also some terrorist acts by unknown parties (which have been suspected to be carried out by Zionist operatives to "encourage" emigration). But in no case was there something like forced expulsion.

    Terms as ethnic cleansing can be misleading as people think that that involves Palestinians being killed in massive numbers – which has not happened.
     
    So what? Ethnical cleansing even with only "reasonable" number of killings is bad enough.

    Palestinians have two options: they either accept the reality of living in a smaller, demilitarized territory, or they could continue fighting.
     
    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the "Two-State Solution" was all about: "We accept that you ethnically cleansed us from more than two thirds of our land, but please, pretty please let us keep the pathetic rest". Guess what? The Israelis simply merrily continued their ethnical cleansing, if at all at an accelerated pace since they now had the PA police to do much of the dirty work of suppressing the Palestinians for them.

    I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground.
     
    Sorry, but this is raging nonsense, the aggressor role in this conflict is so clear as can be.

    I am taking about the base. In 2018, democrats had divided support for Israelis and Palestinians (see pew research on this). This is probably driven by Boomers and Jewish democrats. In Europe, the base probably overwhelmingly sympathizes with Palestinians.
     
    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations. Speaking from a German perspective, radical Zionism on the political correct left has, if at all, increased.

    First, I do not see how sucking in the left-wing framework (like you do) helps.
     
    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is "left-wing"? Well, let's just say that your idea of "left-wing" and "right-wing" does not seem to match at all with mine.

    Second, Palestinians are not angels. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “ethnically cleanse” and “suppress minorities” more than Israelis.

     

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

    Replies: @One time poster

  141. @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    If you're referring to Syria, they've never attacked Israel except in self-defence, with the exception of the Yom Kippur war, which was fought to regain the Golan Heights. Hezbollah again was formed to protect Shiites from constant attacks from extremely vicious Israeli-funded militias like "Guardians of the Cedars" and the like, not mention the SLA and IDF themselves.



    Russian rep: Hello, how are you? Today my allies bombed your country. Isn’t that nice?
    Israeli rep: Hahaha, it was hi-la-rious. Later today, I’m putting some pressure on the U.S.
    Russian rep: Oh you will? How about telling me about it over lunch?
    Israeli rep: Excelent idea. I’m famished.
     
    This sort of relaxed, civilised discourse between two warring states was actually norm throughout Europe, from since the Wars of Religion ended until the First World War. Nationalism and most especially Democracy then made this sort of cold-headed, rational discussion between governments almost impossible.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    Thank you for all your replies. I will only make a small observation about this one:

    This sort of relaxed, civilised discourse between two warring states was actually norm throughout Europe, from since the Wars of Religion ended until the First World War.

    Something else that was actually norm throughout Europe and everywhere else was the existence of foreign agents.

  142. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    First, if we apply that logic we would also have to criticize European Australians and European Americans (which the left is doing using your logic)
     
    There was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

    Second, the left will say what Israelis did was colonization and not immigration. Therefore you cannot compare Israel and immigration to the west.
     
    Yes, of course since ethnical cleansing is worse than mere immigration so that argument only works in one direction (Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing - like in Palestine). Doesn't matter - there are enough effective counter immigration arguments.

    While Israelis are no angels, they are clearly not engaging in such things as ethnic cleansing. Israel has the power to do such atrocities but they don’t as they show some restraints.
     
    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

    Given such facts, the only possible way to achieve the Zionist goal was and is ethnical cleansing (or "population transfer", as it is called in Zionist jargon). The necessity of ethnical cleansing was always acknowledged by leading Zionists, starting with Theodor Herzl who wrote 1895 in his diary "We shall endeavour to expel the poor population across the border unnoticed, procuring employment for it in transit countries, but denying it employment in our own country...The expropriations as well as the expulsion of the poor needs to be done with caution and care." Some more information:

    https://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story694.html

    http://www.thehypertexts.com/Israel%20Transfer%20Committee%20Ethnic%20Cleansing%20Nakba.htm

    The ethnical cleansing is going on piecemeal right now - an Israeli "settler" that throws a Palestinian out of his house "If I don’t steal it, someone else is going to steal it."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9q9PDBsDe8

    Most leftist support Palestinians and minorities in the west
     
    I see two main types of Leftists with regard to their position regarding Israel: First, as a kind of avantgarde the "Antideutschen" (Antigermans) which, as their own designation indicates, combine rabid antigerman racism with fanatical Neoconservatism and Zionism. German foreign minister Heiko Maas might serve as a slightly moderated example of this type.

    Then there are the standard leftwingers which may do some timid criticism of some particular egregious mass killing of Palestinians, but in the same breath point out that this does of course not mean that the undying support for Israel is to be curtailed only by an Iota. Bernie Sanders might serve as an US example of the type. I see only a few fringe leftists that do any fundamental critique of Israel. Perhaps the situation is radically different in Germany than in other Westblock countries because of a particular prominence of the Holocaust narrative, but I don't think so.

    Only look, for instance, at Labour in Britain and how effectively the Pro-Zionist lobby crushed Jeremy Corbyn for his rather mild Pro-Palestinian views and brought the party to heel. So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it? Perhaps you overestimate fringe voices because you are active on fringe sites like Unz? Happens to me sometimes. Or do you only classify hardcore tankie types as leftists?

    For example, your fourth point is the typical excuse for immigration to the west;
     
    Yes, which is one reason why rightwingers should oppose Israel and in particular wars that the US wages for Israel, which was the point here. There are other arguments you could employ against the supposed necessity to take in masses of "refugees", but this is not the scope here.

    or you say Israel is the most hyper racist state
     
    Of course, "racist" in the case of Israel means really bad stuff like ethnical cleansing, not some woke silliness like using the wrong gender pronouns or something like that. Yes, it is probably better to avoid this word altogether.

    Replies: @silviosilver, @One time poster

    You really seem not to have bothered to look beyond the mainstream pro-Israel propaganda. Zionism is defined as the creation of a Jewish ethnonationalist state, which means a state that, if not purely Jewish, at least has a large Jewish population majority. Just think: in 1946 there were 630.000 Jews, but 1.324 million Palestinians with the latter owning about 94% of the land.

    Terms as ethnic cleansing can be misleading as people think that that involves Palestinians being killed in massive numbers – which has not happened.
    Let’s be precise what is going on in the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Jews took some territory in which Palestinians lived (but never controlled). I can understand that Palestinians are not happy with this. As a consequence, Israelis and Palestinians had multiple wars, mainly started by Palestinians/Arabs. Palestinians lost all the wars. As a consequence, Israelis took additional territory (specifically, strategically important areas) and demands a demilitarized Palestine. I can understand that Israel here. Palestinians have two options: they either accept the reality of living in a smaller, demilitarized territory, or they could continue fighting. I can understand if they take either option. Palestinians choose to continue fighting with the goal of wiping out all Israelis from that region. Consequently, Israel uses various measures which can be considered “oppressive”. I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground.

    So I am sceptical about a supposed widespread substantial Anti-Israel stance on the Left. Where do you see it?

    I am taking about the base. In 2018, democrats had divided support for Israelis and Palestinians (see pew research on this). This is probably driven by Boomers and Jewish democrats. In Europe, the base probably overwhelmingly sympathizes with Palestinians.

    But my biggest issues with supporting Palestine in this conflict have not been addressed:
    First, I do not see how sucking in the left-wing framework (like you do) helps. Instead, I rather see it resulting into losing a lot of other debates (e.g., immigration).
    Second, Palestinians are not angels. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “ethnically cleanse” and “suppress minorities” more than Israelis. Moreover, if Palestinians were in the “position of power” of Israelis, what they would do would be much worse…

  143. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

    So J Street and Boris Johnson and Merkel are closet Nazis because they support a moratorium on further expansion of settlements?

  144. So J Street and Boris Johnson and Merkel are closet Nazis because they support a moratorium on further expansion of settlements? So you are accusing people who oppose Jewish settlements of being Nazis?

  145. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    How about the following nice plan:
    – One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
     
    It is obvious to all, except sheltered Western liberals, that this plan is intended to create the conditions for the forcible ethnic cleansing of all Jews from that land.

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Menschmaschine

    I will add my analysis of where the two sides currently sit; with the caveat that the two sides are actually many sides, making this is a simplification.

    [MORE]

    Israel is playing its hand well, as its position improves every year. The more time passes, the more legitimacy they have, but also they are constantly working to improve the facts on the ground for themselves. Those in continually improving positions, with only minor disruptions, are not generally minded to make large concessions for peace.

    The Palestinians have a bunch of plans, but all of them are impossible to achieve. While dreaming of a total victory, their hand is weakening and weakening. Their latest idea of, (via a miracle of PR and double standards), somehow persuading the West to boycott Israel and force them to accept a one state solution, is self-defeating. It is only Israeli attachment to Western liberal norms that keeps Palestinians in the game.

    Were the West to boycott Israel, the Israeli hard right would take power and there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.

    This might make Israel an international pariah, but the facts on the ground would be resolved one hundred percent in their favour. They would then need only wait out some years before the West would re-open up – see what is happening with Assad, even with the Arab League.

    I’d suggest that the Palestinians instead seek independence in line with the walls and try and get as much money as possible as part of the deal. The faster they do this, the more likely they are to achieve it.

    The problem is that their leadership and pro-Palestinian Western media have enabled the Palestinian people’s delusions, that they are constantly winning, and such winning people will never accept this defeat.

    This means that the dismal situation continues, but Israel continually improves its position, trading meaningless Western media goodwill, for favourable facts on the ground; while the Palestinians celebrate getting the reverse. They are therefore celebrating their own route to total defeat.

    The Arab nations have realised this and just want to move on. The Israelis have realised this and are content. The sooner the Palestinian people realise this, the better for them, but they won’t, so it is a true tragedy.

    It isn’t my fault. Please don’t shoot the messenger.

    • Agree: AaronB
    • Replies: @Znzn
    @Triteleia Laxa

    What are you talking about, the mainstream left in Europe, as represented by the Guardian, is only talking about halting further settlement expansion.

    , @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa


    there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.
     
    Ahh, so no more beating around the bush but open gloating about ethnical cleansing like your Ziothug comrade @AaronB?

    Were the West to boycott Israel
     
    You are utterly delusional about what would happen if the West stopped throwing around its entire military, political and economic might in the service of Israel, leave alone if it would turn hostile.
  146. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I will add my analysis of where the two sides currently sit; with the caveat that the two sides are actually many sides, making this is a simplification.

    Israel is playing its hand well, as its position improves every year. The more time passes, the more legitimacy they have, but also they are constantly working to improve the facts on the ground for themselves. Those in continually improving positions, with only minor disruptions, are not generally minded to make large concessions for peace.

    The Palestinians have a bunch of plans, but all of them are impossible to achieve. While dreaming of a total victory, their hand is weakening and weakening. Their latest idea of, (via a miracle of PR and double standards), somehow persuading the West to boycott Israel and force them to accept a one state solution, is self-defeating. It is only Israeli attachment to Western liberal norms that keeps Palestinians in the game.

    Were the West to boycott Israel, the Israeli hard right would take power and there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.

    This might make Israel an international pariah, but the facts on the ground would be resolved one hundred percent in their favour. They would then need only wait out some years before the West would re-open up - see what is happening with Assad, even with the Arab League.

    I'd suggest that the Palestinians instead seek independence in line with the walls and try and get as much money as possible as part of the deal. The faster they do this, the more likely they are to achieve it.

    The problem is that their leadership and pro-Palestinian Western media have enabled the Palestinian people's delusions, that they are constantly winning, and such winning people will never accept this defeat.

    This means that the dismal situation continues, but Israel continually improves its position, trading meaningless Western media goodwill, for favourable facts on the ground; while the Palestinians celebrate getting the reverse. They are therefore celebrating their own route to total defeat.

    The Arab nations have realised this and just want to move on. The Israelis have realised this and are content. The sooner the Palestinian people realise this, the better for them, but they won't, so it is a true tragedy.

    It isn't my fault. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

    What are you talking about, the mainstream left in Europe, as represented by the Guardian, is only talking about halting further settlement expansion.

  147. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine


    How about the following nice plan:
    – One state solution with equal rights to Jews and Non-Jews
     
    It is obvious to all, except sheltered Western liberals, that this plan is intended to create the conditions for the forcible ethnic cleansing of all Jews from that land.

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Menschmaschine

    Again:

    – All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.

    To be deprieved of Land that was stolen before is obviously not ethnical cleansing

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?

    This, of course, would only be possible by military pressure. However, what ought to be done and the measures to do it are two different questions.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    There's not much to answer in your posts. You start with your aim, then you try to force definitions suitable for your aim onto emotionally resonant words, before accusing anyone who questions you of moral crimes for not agreeing with your aims, definitions or moralistic judgements. You are therefore only in conversation with yourself.

    You are like a satirical used car salesman. You need to sell your car to anyone who stumbles in, so you declare that your car is, "essential" for "humans", which means that if anyone refuses, you can declare them "a monster, not even human".

    This is a very poor sales technique. It will work on no one. It will just cause people to find some way to leave the conversation and consider you an idiot.

    Also, I am not looking to be sold anything, but to understand. What trauma did you personally suffer that you now try to resolve by seeing it through the prism of Israel-Palestine? Only children argue like you, so I can infer that your wounded inner child takes control on this topic.

    This forum is, weirdly, a safe place, you can speak freely.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Menschmaschine

  148. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

    You call this convoluted?

    How do you define autochtonous as regards population?

    From your description it sounded like you referred to this:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/autistic-obsessions/#comment-4673877

    Anyway, the term “autochtonous” is well defined, look it up in a dictionary. If you want to make up some Clintonesque mental gymnastics why the Palestinians are not “not really autochthonous”, I am not going to do your work for you

    • Troll: Triteleia Laxa
  149. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Triteleia Laxa

    I will add my analysis of where the two sides currently sit; with the caveat that the two sides are actually many sides, making this is a simplification.

    Israel is playing its hand well, as its position improves every year. The more time passes, the more legitimacy they have, but also they are constantly working to improve the facts on the ground for themselves. Those in continually improving positions, with only minor disruptions, are not generally minded to make large concessions for peace.

    The Palestinians have a bunch of plans, but all of them are impossible to achieve. While dreaming of a total victory, their hand is weakening and weakening. Their latest idea of, (via a miracle of PR and double standards), somehow persuading the West to boycott Israel and force them to accept a one state solution, is self-defeating. It is only Israeli attachment to Western liberal norms that keeps Palestinians in the game.

    Were the West to boycott Israel, the Israeli hard right would take power and there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.

    This might make Israel an international pariah, but the facts on the ground would be resolved one hundred percent in their favour. They would then need only wait out some years before the West would re-open up - see what is happening with Assad, even with the Arab League.

    I'd suggest that the Palestinians instead seek independence in line with the walls and try and get as much money as possible as part of the deal. The faster they do this, the more likely they are to achieve it.

    The problem is that their leadership and pro-Palestinian Western media have enabled the Palestinian people's delusions, that they are constantly winning, and such winning people will never accept this defeat.

    This means that the dismal situation continues, but Israel continually improves its position, trading meaningless Western media goodwill, for favourable facts on the ground; while the Palestinians celebrate getting the reverse. They are therefore celebrating their own route to total defeat.

    The Arab nations have realised this and just want to move on. The Israelis have realised this and are content. The sooner the Palestinian people realise this, the better for them, but they won't, so it is a true tragedy.

    It isn't my fault. Please don't shoot the messenger.

    Replies: @Znzn, @Menschmaschine

    there would be nothing to stop them clearing the West Bank, and possibly the Gaza Strip, of residents.

    Ahh, so no more beating around the bush but open gloating about ethnical cleansing like your Ziothug comrade ?

    Were the West to boycott Israel

    You are utterly delusional about what would happen if the West stopped throwing around its entire military, political and economic might in the service of Israel, leave alone if it would turn hostile.

    • Troll: Triteleia Laxa
  150. @One time poster

    was injustice, but it was a long time ago, Indians are not and have not been suppressed for a long time. In contrast, what Israel does is happening now.

     

    Sure, but lefties would argue that minorities are still being oppressed in the West and that what happened in the past matters for today.

    Even though of course immigration may lead to ethnical cleansing – like in Palestine

     

    While I think that you can make this “immigration argument”, a lot of people are not going to agree with that take. Lefties argue that it is not immigration as Palestine was colonized when Jews arrived and because the Jewish immigrants came “from a position of power”. Right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration as Jews “developed the country”. Israeli right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration, instead it is “returning home to the ancestral homeland”. Moreover, they would also point out that Jews have been kicked out of Arab countries.

    Somehow I have trouble posting ... so a second reply will follow.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    but lefties would argue that minorities are still being oppressed in the West

    Which is of course objective nonsense and can be squashed as such.

    While I think that you can make this “immigration argument”, a lot of people are not going to agree with that take

    This was more of a throw away comment, I certain would not rely on it in an anti-immigration discussion.

    Israeli right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration, instead it is “returning home to the ancestral homeland”

    Which of course is rubbish. That some of your ancestors might have come from a certain territory thousands of years ago of course does not give you the right to ethnically cleanse the present population. The European part of Ashkenazi genome seems to be mostly Italian – why don’t they go and ethnically cleanse Italy?

    Moreover, they would also point out that Jews have been kicked out of Arab countries.

    Which is simply not true. Jews left because of Zionist propaganda, general crises and because of the fact that most Jews do not have much of a bond to the host countries they reside in. In some cases there were also some terrorist acts by unknown parties (which have been suspected to be carried out by Zionist operatives to “encourage” emigration). But in no case was there something like forced expulsion.

    Terms as ethnic cleansing can be misleading as people think that that involves Palestinians being killed in massive numbers – which has not happened.

    So what? Ethnical cleansing even with only “reasonable” number of killings is bad enough.

    Palestinians have two options: they either accept the reality of living in a smaller, demilitarized territory, or they could continue fighting.

    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the “Two-State Solution” was all about: “We accept that you ethnically cleansed us from more than two thirds of our land, but please, pretty please let us keep the pathetic rest”. Guess what? The Israelis simply merrily continued their ethnical cleansing, if at all at an accelerated pace since they now had the PA police to do much of the dirty work of suppressing the Palestinians for them.

    I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground.

    Sorry, but this is raging nonsense, the aggressor role in this conflict is so clear as can be.

    I am taking about the base. In 2018, democrats had divided support for Israelis and Palestinians (see pew research on this). This is probably driven by Boomers and Jewish democrats. In Europe, the base probably overwhelmingly sympathizes with Palestinians.

    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations. Speaking from a German perspective, radical Zionism on the political correct left has, if at all, increased.

    First, I do not see how sucking in the left-wing framework (like you do) helps.

    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is “left-wing”? Well, let’s just say that your idea of “left-wing” and “right-wing” does not seem to match at all with mine.

    Second, Palestinians are not angels. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “ethnically cleanse” and “suppress minorities” more than Israelis.

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

    • Replies: @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    Which is simply not true.
     
    Of course, there is overwhelming evidence of Arab countries kicking out minorities (look for example what happened to the French in Algeria or Spanish in Marocco), but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen...

    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the “Two-State Solution” was all about
     
    That is false. Israel has been pushing in the past for the two-state solution while the Palestinians did not take it seriously. Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza. This was a good first step for Palestinians to have an independent state... instead they voted for Hamas and started shooting rockets into Israel.

    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations
     
    It will be interesting how this develops over time when Boomers die off and when the muslim voting bloc gets larger in the West. Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass). Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.

    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is “left-wing”?
     
    No, it is not "ethnical cleansing" and "oppression" unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is "ethnically cleansing" blacks and that Europe is "ethnically cleansing" by not letting in migrants come into Europe.

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

     

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries. You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis. Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey (I know not an Arab country but its close to Israel) treated their Christian minorities in the past (dont forget to ask the Armenians and Greeks. Also contemplate on the following: Turkey turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque... how do you think Palestinians would have re-acted if Israel would turn the Dome of Rock into a Synagogue?) and how they are currently treating the Kurds. Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too. Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  151. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    but lefties would argue that minorities are still being oppressed in the West
     
    Which is of course objective nonsense and can be squashed as such.

    While I think that you can make this “immigration argument”, a lot of people are not going to agree with that take
     
    This was more of a throw away comment, I certain would not rely on it in an anti-immigration discussion.

    Israeli right-wingers would argue that it is not immigration, instead it is “returning home to the ancestral homeland”
     
    Which of course is rubbish. That some of your ancestors might have come from a certain territory thousands of years ago of course does not give you the right to ethnically cleanse the present population. The European part of Ashkenazi genome seems to be mostly Italian - why don't they go and ethnically cleanse Italy?

    Moreover, they would also point out that Jews have been kicked out of Arab countries.
     
    Which is simply not true. Jews left because of Zionist propaganda, general crises and because of the fact that most Jews do not have much of a bond to the host countries they reside in. In some cases there were also some terrorist acts by unknown parties (which have been suspected to be carried out by Zionist operatives to "encourage" emigration). But in no case was there something like forced expulsion.

    Terms as ethnic cleansing can be misleading as people think that that involves Palestinians being killed in massive numbers – which has not happened.
     
    So what? Ethnical cleansing even with only "reasonable" number of killings is bad enough.

    Palestinians have two options: they either accept the reality of living in a smaller, demilitarized territory, or they could continue fighting.
     
    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the "Two-State Solution" was all about: "We accept that you ethnically cleansed us from more than two thirds of our land, but please, pretty please let us keep the pathetic rest". Guess what? The Israelis simply merrily continued their ethnical cleansing, if at all at an accelerated pace since they now had the PA police to do much of the dirty work of suppressing the Palestinians for them.

    I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground.
     
    Sorry, but this is raging nonsense, the aggressor role in this conflict is so clear as can be.

    I am taking about the base. In 2018, democrats had divided support for Israelis and Palestinians (see pew research on this). This is probably driven by Boomers and Jewish democrats. In Europe, the base probably overwhelmingly sympathizes with Palestinians.
     
    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations. Speaking from a German perspective, radical Zionism on the political correct left has, if at all, increased.

    First, I do not see how sucking in the left-wing framework (like you do) helps.
     
    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is "left-wing"? Well, let's just say that your idea of "left-wing" and "right-wing" does not seem to match at all with mine.

    Second, Palestinians are not angels. Palestinians and their Arab neighbors “ethnically cleanse” and “suppress minorities” more than Israelis.

     

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

    Replies: @One time poster

    Which is simply not true.

    Of course, there is overwhelming evidence of Arab countries kicking out minorities (look for example what happened to the French in Algeria or Spanish in Marocco), but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen…

    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the “Two-State Solution” was all about

    That is false. Israel has been pushing in the past for the two-state solution while the Palestinians did not take it seriously. Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza. This was a good first step for Palestinians to have an independent state… instead they voted for Hamas and started shooting rockets into Israel.

    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations

    It will be interesting how this develops over time when Boomers die off and when the muslim voting bloc gets larger in the West. Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass). Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.

    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is “left-wing”?

    No, it is not “ethnical cleansing” and “oppression” unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is “ethnically cleansing” blacks and that Europe is “ethnically cleansing” by not letting in migrants come into Europe.

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries. You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis. Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey (I know not an Arab country but its close to Israel) treated their Christian minorities in the past (dont forget to ask the Armenians and Greeks. Also contemplate on the following: Turkey turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque… how do you think Palestinians would have re-acted if Israel would turn the Dome of Rock into a Synagogue?) and how they are currently treating the Kurds. Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too. Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen…
     
    Show the historical evidence.

    Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza.
     
    The withdrawal from the Gaza strip was simply a cost/benefit decision, for the time being it was considered to be not worth it to invest a lot of troops to control such a small area, at least not until the juicier West Bank had been finished.

    instead they voted for Hamas
     
    Yes, they voted for Hamas because the Israelis not only did not stop the ethnical cleansing but accelerated it and the corrupt PA aided them in that.

    Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass).
     
    Yes, criticism of Israel, little and feeble as it is, today comes mostly from the Left. That is what I propose to change.

    Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.
     
    Recognizing the Palestinian state of course does not in any way preclude the ethnical cleansing of Palestinians on the ground, so is essentially meaningless. Actually, as already mentioned, the current Palestinian Authority collaborates with the Israeli ethnical cleansers.

    No, it is not “ethnical cleansing” and “oppression” unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is “ethnically cleansing” blacks and that Europe is “ethnically cleansing” by not letting in migrants come into Europe.
     
    This is so obviously absurd that I refuse to believe that you wrote that in good faith.

    You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis.
     
    Muslim and Christian Palestinians get equal opportunity ethnically cleansed by the Israelis. Zionism is an ethnosupremacist ideology, not a religious one. As for Christian visitors to Israel, they get spat upon by religious Jews.

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries.
     

    Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.
     
    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist "freedom fighters"

    Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey
     
    Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel,( with the current criticism by Erdogan purely rethorical and likely to soon return to its default position) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause

    Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too.
     
    Yes, the recent war was really funny, this color revolution hatched Armenian president established diplomatic relations with Israel to pander to the West, with Israel then supplying Azerbaidjan with arms during the war. LOL.

    Replies: @One time poster

  152. @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    Which is simply not true.
     
    Of course, there is overwhelming evidence of Arab countries kicking out minorities (look for example what happened to the French in Algeria or Spanish in Marocco), but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen...

    Actually, the Palestinians did take the first option, that was what the “Two-State Solution” was all about
     
    That is false. Israel has been pushing in the past for the two-state solution while the Palestinians did not take it seriously. Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza. This was a good first step for Palestinians to have an independent state... instead they voted for Hamas and started shooting rockets into Israel.

    If so, then it did not have any detectable influence on actual political stances of parties and other organisations
     
    It will be interesting how this develops over time when Boomers die off and when the muslim voting bloc gets larger in the West. Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass). Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.

    So you think that opposition to things like ethnical cleansing is “left-wing”?
     
    No, it is not "ethnical cleansing" and "oppression" unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is "ethnically cleansing" blacks and that Europe is "ethnically cleansing" by not letting in migrants come into Europe.

    Oh really? Care to expound on that curious claim?

     

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries. You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis. Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey (I know not an Arab country but its close to Israel) treated their Christian minorities in the past (dont forget to ask the Armenians and Greeks. Also contemplate on the following: Turkey turned Hagia Sophia into a mosque... how do you think Palestinians would have re-acted if Israel would turn the Dome of Rock into a Synagogue?) and how they are currently treating the Kurds. Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too. Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen…

    Show the historical evidence.

    Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza.

    The withdrawal from the Gaza strip was simply a cost/benefit decision, for the time being it was considered to be not worth it to invest a lot of troops to control such a small area, at least not until the juicier West Bank had been finished.

    instead they voted for Hamas

    Yes, they voted for Hamas because the Israelis not only did not stop the ethnical cleansing but accelerated it and the corrupt PA aided them in that.

    Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass).

    Yes, criticism of Israel, little and feeble as it is, today comes mostly from the Left. That is what I propose to change.

    Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.

    Recognizing the Palestinian state of course does not in any way preclude the ethnical cleansing of Palestinians on the ground, so is essentially meaningless. Actually, as already mentioned, the current Palestinian Authority collaborates with the Israeli ethnical cleansers.

    No, it is not “ethnical cleansing” and “oppression” unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is “ethnically cleansing” blacks and that Europe is “ethnically cleansing” by not letting in migrants come into Europe.

    This is so obviously absurd that I refuse to believe that you wrote that in good faith.

    You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis.

    Muslim and Christian Palestinians get equal opportunity ethnically cleansed by the Israelis. Zionism is an ethnosupremacist ideology, not a religious one. As for Christian visitors to Israel, they get spat upon by religious Jews.

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries.

    Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.

    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist “freedom fighters”

    Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey

    Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel,( with the current criticism by Erdogan purely rethorical and likely to soon return to its default position) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause

    Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too.

    Yes, the recent war was really funny, this color revolution hatched Armenian president established diplomatic relations with Israel to pander to the West, with Israel then supplying Azerbaidjan with arms during the war. LOL.

    • Replies: @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine

    Come on what you are writing is getting absurd. Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks). Reminds me a bit of lefties who blame *everything* on “white People” (e.g. African countries are not succeeding because of colonialism and discrimination).

    Unfortunately, you did not use Google.
    When Israel got independent, 34K Christians remained in Israel and 110K remained in Palestine. In Israel the Christian population grew to 180K in 2019. In percentage terms it declined slightly from 2.6% to 2%. In Palestine the Christian population declined to 50K (from 10% to less than 2%). Just recently in Gaza, the Christian population declined from 3K in 2006 and to less than 1.5k in 2011.
    Oh and in Israel the Christian population is the most educated, has the lowest poverty rates and unemployment rates of all groups in Israel.
    But hey the spitting on Christian visitors by Jews is very bad and is something Arab Muslims would never do!

    Finally, Israel is at least able to do any sort of cost benefit analysis. Palestinians cannot: Jews leave Gaza... instead of building on this towards an independent state, they throw rockets

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  153. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    Again:


    – All land that was robbed from Palestinians (Reminder: In 1946 94% of all Land was owned by Non-Jews) has to be returned to its respective owner or legal successor. If the owner wants to accept a compensation instead then OK, but if he insists then it has to be given back.
     
    To be deprieved of Land that was stolen before is obviously not ethnical cleansing

    How would you have the Israelis agree to it?
     
    This, of course, would only be possible by military pressure. However, what ought to be done and the measures to do it are two different questions.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    There’s not much to answer in your posts. You start with your aim, then you try to force definitions suitable for your aim onto emotionally resonant words, before accusing anyone who questions you of moral crimes for not agreeing with your aims, definitions or moralistic judgements. You are therefore only in conversation with yourself.

    You are like a satirical used car salesman. You need to sell your car to anyone who stumbles in, so you declare that your car is, “essential” for “humans”, which means that if anyone refuses, you can declare them “a monster, not even human”.

    This is a very poor sales technique. It will work on no one. It will just cause people to find some way to leave the conversation and consider you an idiot.

    Also, I am not looking to be sold anything, but to understand. What trauma did you personally suffer that you now try to resolve by seeing it through the prism of Israel-Palestine? Only children argue like you, so I can infer that your wounded inner child takes control on this topic.

    This forum is, weirdly, a safe place, you can speak freely.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK, since there is nothing concrete to answer in your confused rant, we may conclude the discussion here.

    , @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK, on second thought, maybe the following answer might be in order: I don't want to sell you anything; I know fully well that there is no common base. European people have evolved a code of universalist justice and honor that, while of course often not followed as scrupulously as it should be, is at least upheld as an ideal. Your mind, in contrast, is molded by the strictures of Jewish Ethnosupremacism, which knows absolutely no moral obligations in regard to outgroups and which allows to commit any crime against them - the only yardstick of "moral" is "Is it good for the Jews?". Naturally, with such fundamental differences in "moral" standards it would be completely pointless for me to try to convince you of anything based on my moral standard.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  154. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    but somehow when it comes to jews it did not happen…
     
    Show the historical evidence.

    Take Gaza for example, Israelis forcefully kicked out all jewish settlers from Gaza.
     
    The withdrawal from the Gaza strip was simply a cost/benefit decision, for the time being it was considered to be not worth it to invest a lot of troops to control such a small area, at least not until the juicier West Bank had been finished.

    instead they voted for Hamas
     
    Yes, they voted for Hamas because the Israelis not only did not stop the ethnical cleansing but accelerated it and the corrupt PA aided them in that.

    Btw if I see criticism of Israel it comes from the left (e.g., Corbyn, Günter Grass).
     
    Yes, criticism of Israel, little and feeble as it is, today comes mostly from the Left. That is what I propose to change.

    Moreover, the most SJW country, Sweden, does recognize Palestine.
     
    Recognizing the Palestinian state of course does not in any way preclude the ethnical cleansing of Palestinians on the ground, so is essentially meaningless. Actually, as already mentioned, the current Palestinian Authority collaborates with the Israeli ethnical cleansers.

    No, it is not “ethnical cleansing” and “oppression” unless you adopt a left wing view. The reality is that it is war between two parties (I posted before what exactly is going on in the Israel-Palestine conflict). Of course going down your road will also result in saying that the US police is “ethnically cleansing” blacks and that Europe is “ethnically cleansing” by not letting in migrants come into Europe.
     
    This is so obviously absurd that I refuse to believe that you wrote that in good faith.

    You can also google how Christian Palestinians are doing compared to Christian Israelis.
     
    Muslim and Christian Palestinians get equal opportunity ethnically cleansed by the Israelis. Zionism is an ethnosupremacist ideology, not a religious one. As for Christian visitors to Israel, they get spat upon by religious Jews.

    Google how the christian population has been doing in Arab countries.
     

    Also don´t forget how ISIS treated their minorities.
     
    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist "freedom fighters"

    Moreover, you can read up on how Turkey
     
    Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel,( with the current criticism by Erdogan purely rethorical and likely to soon return to its default position) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause

    Similarly, the Azeri history with Armenians is interesting, too.
     
    Yes, the recent war was really funny, this color revolution hatched Armenian president established diplomatic relations with Israel to pander to the West, with Israel then supplying Azerbaidjan with arms during the war. LOL.

    Replies: @One time poster

    Come on what you are writing is getting absurd. Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks). Reminds me a bit of lefties who blame *everything* on “white People” (e.g. African countries are not succeeding because of colonialism and discrimination).

    Unfortunately, you did not use Google.
    When Israel got independent, 34K Christians remained in Israel and 110K remained in Palestine. In Israel the Christian population grew to 180K in 2019. In percentage terms it declined slightly from 2.6% to 2%. In Palestine the Christian population declined to 50K (from 10% to less than 2%). Just recently in Gaza, the Christian population declined from 3K in 2006 and to less than 1.5k in 2011.
    Oh and in Israel the Christian population is the most educated, has the lowest poverty rates and unemployment rates of all groups in Israel.
    But hey the spitting on Christian visitors by Jews is very bad and is something Arab Muslims would never do!

    Finally, Israel is at least able to do any sort of cost benefit analysis. Palestinians cannot: Jews leave Gaza… instead of building on this towards an independent state, they throw rockets

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster

    I note that you have finally abandoned your "Dear Fellow Rightwingers" LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.


    Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks).
     
    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.

    instead of building on this towards an independent state
     
    A state without any territory? LOL.

    they throw rockets
     
    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

    Replies: @One time poster

  155. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    There's not much to answer in your posts. You start with your aim, then you try to force definitions suitable for your aim onto emotionally resonant words, before accusing anyone who questions you of moral crimes for not agreeing with your aims, definitions or moralistic judgements. You are therefore only in conversation with yourself.

    You are like a satirical used car salesman. You need to sell your car to anyone who stumbles in, so you declare that your car is, "essential" for "humans", which means that if anyone refuses, you can declare them "a monster, not even human".

    This is a very poor sales technique. It will work on no one. It will just cause people to find some way to leave the conversation and consider you an idiot.

    Also, I am not looking to be sold anything, but to understand. What trauma did you personally suffer that you now try to resolve by seeing it through the prism of Israel-Palestine? Only children argue like you, so I can infer that your wounded inner child takes control on this topic.

    This forum is, weirdly, a safe place, you can speak freely.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Menschmaschine

    OK, since there is nothing concrete to answer in your confused rant, we may conclude the discussion here.

  156. @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine

    Come on what you are writing is getting absurd. Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks). Reminds me a bit of lefties who blame *everything* on “white People” (e.g. African countries are not succeeding because of colonialism and discrimination).

    Unfortunately, you did not use Google.
    When Israel got independent, 34K Christians remained in Israel and 110K remained in Palestine. In Israel the Christian population grew to 180K in 2019. In percentage terms it declined slightly from 2.6% to 2%. In Palestine the Christian population declined to 50K (from 10% to less than 2%). Just recently in Gaza, the Christian population declined from 3K in 2006 and to less than 1.5k in 2011.
    Oh and in Israel the Christian population is the most educated, has the lowest poverty rates and unemployment rates of all groups in Israel.
    But hey the spitting on Christian visitors by Jews is very bad and is something Arab Muslims would never do!

    Finally, Israel is at least able to do any sort of cost benefit analysis. Palestinians cannot: Jews leave Gaza... instead of building on this towards an independent state, they throw rockets

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I note that you have finally abandoned your “Dear Fellow Rightwingers” LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.

    Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks).

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.

    instead of building on this towards an independent state

    A state without any territory? LOL.

    they throw rockets

    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

    • Replies: @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    I note that you have finally abandoned your “Dear Fellow Rightwingers” LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.
     
    Its ridiculous that you call me a Zionist partisan. I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that "I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground" and I said that the policy stance of Western countries should be neutrality.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views and simply disregard any facts and reason. For example, I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact. But you ignore the evidence (e.g., successful christian Israelis and persecution of Christians in the Middle East) and simply blame the jews (e.g. "Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (...) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause" - this statement is just LOL). Therefore, in your eyes, even a moderate like me is a "Zionist partisan".

    A state without any territory? LOL.

     

    This makes no sense. The state would have territory, it would just be smaller. Moreover, at first it would be demilitarised and there would be foreign troops stationed at strategically important locations. That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.

    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

     

    I never said that. I told you before that I understand if Palestinians continue to fight. However, I do not find this rational. Moreover, I am not duped by the Palestinians. If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences. In contrast, left-wingers get duped because Palestinians are weaker so they give them a pass. Palestinians also trick you.

    To conclude: You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as "brutalisation and ethnical cleansing", which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words "Nazi" and "racist")). I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  157. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    There's not much to answer in your posts. You start with your aim, then you try to force definitions suitable for your aim onto emotionally resonant words, before accusing anyone who questions you of moral crimes for not agreeing with your aims, definitions or moralistic judgements. You are therefore only in conversation with yourself.

    You are like a satirical used car salesman. You need to sell your car to anyone who stumbles in, so you declare that your car is, "essential" for "humans", which means that if anyone refuses, you can declare them "a monster, not even human".

    This is a very poor sales technique. It will work on no one. It will just cause people to find some way to leave the conversation and consider you an idiot.

    Also, I am not looking to be sold anything, but to understand. What trauma did you personally suffer that you now try to resolve by seeing it through the prism of Israel-Palestine? Only children argue like you, so I can infer that your wounded inner child takes control on this topic.

    This forum is, weirdly, a safe place, you can speak freely.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine, @Menschmaschine

    OK, on second thought, maybe the following answer might be in order: I don’t want to sell you anything; I know fully well that there is no common base. European people have evolved a code of universalist justice and honor that, while of course often not followed as scrupulously as it should be, is at least upheld as an ideal. Your mind, in contrast, is molded by the strictures of Jewish Ethnosupremacism, which knows absolutely no moral obligations in regard to outgroups and which allows to commit any crime against them – the only yardstick of “moral” is “Is it good for the Jews?”. Naturally, with such fundamental differences in “moral” standards it would be completely pointless for me to try to convince you of anything based on my moral standard.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    You know nothing about me and don't understand me at all, but I am not offended, you also know nothing about yourself.

    To help: my understanding of life on this planet is that everyone would be fine if they could find the perspicacity and courage to just do what is in their heart.

    The problem is that the vast majority of people cannot come close to doing this; which leaves the dual questions: how to help them, and how to deal with them while they are like this?

    I am practicing answers for both while engaging with you, and my accompanying political beliefs may be reduced to trying to see where people are, what the possibilities are, and how peace and order might be established, from those facts, to allow the living to work on developing their perspicacity and courage.

    Are you able to understand now?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

  158. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    OK, on second thought, maybe the following answer might be in order: I don't want to sell you anything; I know fully well that there is no common base. European people have evolved a code of universalist justice and honor that, while of course often not followed as scrupulously as it should be, is at least upheld as an ideal. Your mind, in contrast, is molded by the strictures of Jewish Ethnosupremacism, which knows absolutely no moral obligations in regard to outgroups and which allows to commit any crime against them - the only yardstick of "moral" is "Is it good for the Jews?". Naturally, with such fundamental differences in "moral" standards it would be completely pointless for me to try to convince you of anything based on my moral standard.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    You know nothing about me and don’t understand me at all, but I am not offended, you also know nothing about yourself.

    To help: my understanding of life on this planet is that everyone would be fine if they could find the perspicacity and courage to just do what is in their heart.

    The problem is that the vast majority of people cannot come close to doing this; which leaves the dual questions: how to help them, and how to deal with them while they are like this?

    I am practicing answers for both while engaging with you, and my accompanying political beliefs may be reduced to trying to see where people are, what the possibilities are, and how peace and order might be established, from those facts, to allow the living to work on developing their perspicacity and courage.

    Are you able to understand now?

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The jarring contrast between your new agey, spiritual counseller style posts with your hardheaded Ziothug let's ethnically cleanse the Westbank and Gaza strip type ones is quite amusing. Anyway, the facts have been clarified, the moral points of view are incompatible in principle, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

  159. @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    You know nothing about me and don't understand me at all, but I am not offended, you also know nothing about yourself.

    To help: my understanding of life on this planet is that everyone would be fine if they could find the perspicacity and courage to just do what is in their heart.

    The problem is that the vast majority of people cannot come close to doing this; which leaves the dual questions: how to help them, and how to deal with them while they are like this?

    I am practicing answers for both while engaging with you, and my accompanying political beliefs may be reduced to trying to see where people are, what the possibilities are, and how peace and order might be established, from those facts, to allow the living to work on developing their perspicacity and courage.

    Are you able to understand now?

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    The jarring contrast between your new agey, spiritual counseller style posts with your hardheaded Ziothug let’s ethnically cleanse the Westbank and Gaza strip type ones is quite amusing. Anyway, the facts have been clarified, the moral points of view are incompatible in principle, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.

    • Replies: @Triteleia Laxa
    @Menschmaschine

    I don't believe that your "point of view" is based on "morals". Like all charlatans, you dissemble incoherently while affecting to rectitude.

    I knew a man who acted like you, but in his personal life. His girlfriend suffered for it, before she sensibly left him.

    He would layer thin "moral" arguments into disagreements so as to control her. When she pointed out inconsistencies within those, he would respond with hysterical insults, implying that she was sinful, and bad, for refusing his control of her.

    Over time, she was beaten down because, while he saw his pain, the pain he would only acknowledge as a weapon, she felt she could help; but she could not. Eventually she ended her self-sacrifice and learned her limits.

    Now she is happy, while he continues to dwell in his delusions and fear. He argued about politics exactly as you do. Everyone was always against him and out to get him, at least after they knew him for a while. His paranoia was his self-fulfilling prophecy.

  160. @Menschmaschine
    @Triteleia Laxa

    The jarring contrast between your new agey, spiritual counseller style posts with your hardheaded Ziothug let's ethnically cleanse the Westbank and Gaza strip type ones is quite amusing. Anyway, the facts have been clarified, the moral points of view are incompatible in principle, so there is absolutely no point in continuing this discussion.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa

    I don’t believe that your “point of view” is based on “morals”. Like all charlatans, you dissemble incoherently while affecting to rectitude.

    I knew a man who acted like you, but in his personal life. His girlfriend suffered for it, before she sensibly left him.

    He would layer thin “moral” arguments into disagreements so as to control her. When she pointed out inconsistencies within those, he would respond with hysterical insults, implying that she was sinful, and bad, for refusing his control of her.

    Over time, she was beaten down because, while he saw his pain, the pain he would only acknowledge as a weapon, she felt she could help; but she could not. Eventually she ended her self-sacrifice and learned her limits.

    Now she is happy, while he continues to dwell in his delusions and fear. He argued about politics exactly as you do. Everyone was always against him and out to get him, at least after they knew him for a while. His paranoia was his self-fulfilling prophecy.

    • LOL: Menschmaschine
  161. @Yevardian
    @Brás Cubas

    They answer is really quite simple.
    Israel knows it could upset public or governmental opinion in Russia by making exorbitant demands on it, whereas there's absolutely no limit to the depths of self-abasement the American people and its rulers will stoop to, in order to please their Greatest Ally.

    Replies: @Brás Cubas, @Dmitry

    Public opinion in Russia is almost not important even for Russian government policy, let alone for international countries to care about.

    Important public opinions, that determine international fashions, are mostly located in coastal parts of North America, North-West Europe.

    Coastal North America and North-West Europe, are where there is the money, influence and cultural power, and this is an important public opinion that can determine the direction of the world. It’s the case that individual celebrities like Dua Lipa, seem to have more softpower than all the people in Russia, or India, or Brazil, today.

    For Israel (despite the that it has good relations with India, China, and Russia) there is seriously bad news in terms of public opinion, as they have lost, or are losing, support of the young people in the influential, wealthy, glamorous, regions of the world (Coastal North America and North West Europe) – and partly it’s related to internal American politics (where Israel became too associated with the unfashionable Republican Party, that represented older voters in “flyover America”), and partly due to a systematic opposition to Zionism in the Western European culture (that seems to invert the more positive attitudes that was adopted this century in the postsoviet zone).

    As for Russian media. Television promotion of Israel in Russia (and also in Ukraine and Belarus, and possibly other postsoviet countries), is of a kind that would be impossible in Western Europe. For example, if the BBC promoted Israel like in Russian television (without talking about the wall, Gaza, settlers, colonization, etc) ,* there would tens of thousands of complaints, and protesters in London.

    But Russian media has no voice in the world, unlike the BBC or the New York Times. The position of Russian politics in the West, at best a white screen upon which various ideas might be projected.

    *E.g.

  162. china-russia-all-the-way says:
    @china-russia-all-the-way
    What do you think of the assessments?


    Over the years, I’ve heard an array of explanations from Russian Jews about Putin’s apparent friendliness. There were those who rooted it in his childhood growing up in St. Petersburg (then known as Leningrad). There are apocryphal stories of his hanging out as a kid largely with Jewish friends, even of them all breaking into a local synagogue around Passover to gorge on matzot.

    ...

    But it’s not only nostalgia that formed Putin’s views on Jews.

    “Putin has spent decades analyzing why the Soviet Union collapsed,” a senior Jewish-Russian official, who has had many conversations with the president, once explained to me. “He is convinced that one of the mistakes of the Soviet leadership was to have made enemies of the Jews. Not only did that work against the U.S.S.R. on the global stage, but it caused Russian Jews to hate their country. And Putin believes the 2 million Jews who emigrated to Israel and the West when the Soviet Union collapsed were a strategic loss for Russia.”
     
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-is-vladimir-putin-an-anti-semite-or-friend-of-the-jews-1.5890733

    Anna Borshchevskaya notes that in this, as in other things, Putin is driven by pragmatism rather than emotion: “If you treat the Jews well, from his perspective, that plays well in the West.” As she notes, if you think like a KGB officer who observed the passage of the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, it was the power of Western Jewish elites that drove Western decision-making.
     
    https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/krasna2018.pdf

    Replies: @Dmitry, @gT, @china-russia-all-the-way

    Very surprised these excerpts did not get much of a reaction here. They seem hugely significant.

  163. @Brás Cubas
    @Anatoly Karlin

    Well, at this point I already have a somewhat clearer understanding of the situation, not thanks to you. According to Yevardian in comment #85, the discourse directed at foreign audiences is anti-Israel (you being the exception), and the discourse directed at domestic audiences is pro-Israel or neutral.

    I replied that he simply restated my question, but in fact there is information in his comment.

    (1) that there is a dual discourse.

    (2) that Russians do not understand American devotion to Israel

    By simple logic, adding (1) and (2), we infer that Russians feel compelled to awaken the U.S. from that devotion sleep.

    After that awakening occurs, and Israel loses his devoted friend, I suppose Israel, who is already a good friend of Russia, will become an excellent, perhaps a devoted friend of Russia.

    Replies: @Triteleia Laxa, @Anatoly Karlin, @Dmitry

    RT (Russia Today) receives funding, for its ability to undermine the support of viewers in Western countries for their own governments.

    That is, it is a kind of trolling operation against mainly America and UK, but also some Latin American governments. Although, as it looks ineffective and bad publicity, the real victims are the taxpayers who fund it.

    RT would have been more successful as propaganda, if they had tried to be like BBC or Al Jazeera International (that tries to pretend to be like an objective source of information).

    The position of RT on Israel, will depend on their audience. If RT’s audience opposes Israel, then RT will oppose Israel, and vice-versa. Israel can be a useful wedge issue, especially for using on an American audience.

    One way you can inspire anger among Americans (who dislike Israel) against their government, is to focus on the relation of Washington to Israel.

    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the “real estate” it uses in peoples’ minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.

    Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is another example of a small conflict in the world. Yet, you can compare Israel-Palestine conflict with the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, and the latter is still a lot larger than the former, where in October 2020 around 8000 people were killed in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict (which would be equivalent to an average of around half a century of deaths in the less deadly Israel-Palestine conflict). But Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict received not much media attention even in the other postsoviet countries.

    • Thanks: Brás Cubas
    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Dmitry


    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the “real estate” it uses in peoples’ minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.
     
    It's basically a non-conflict.

    My friend just got back from Israel. He was in Jerusalem the whole time, and he said everyday life went on as normal.

    It is a feature of the modern world, as life has gotten safer and safer, to magnify trivial dangers. We see this with Covid. The level of panic, was not commensurate with the threat (I am not questioning official opinion on its lethality).

    Israel has the misfortune - or perhaps good fortune -to occupy mythical space for people.

    Replies: @Dmitry

  164. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster

    I note that you have finally abandoned your "Dear Fellow Rightwingers" LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.


    Somehow it is Israel’s/the Jews fault for everything that is going wrong in the Middle East (including genocide against Armenians and Greeks).
     
    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.

    instead of building on this towards an independent state
     
    A state without any territory? LOL.

    they throw rockets
     
    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

    Replies: @One time poster

    I note that you have finally abandoned your “Dear Fellow Rightwingers” LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.

    Its ridiculous that you call me a Zionist partisan. I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that “I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground” and I said that the policy stance of Western countries should be neutrality.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views and simply disregard any facts and reason. For example, I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact. But you ignore the evidence (e.g., successful christian Israelis and persecution of Christians in the Middle East) and simply blame the jews (e.g. “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause” – this statement is just LOL). Therefore, in your eyes, even a moderate like me is a “Zionist partisan”.

    A state without any territory? LOL.

    This makes no sense. The state would have territory, it would just be smaller. Moreover, at first it would be demilitarised and there would be foreign troops stationed at strategically important locations. That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.

    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

    I never said that. I told you before that I understand if Palestinians continue to fight. However, I do not find this rational. Moreover, I am not duped by the Palestinians. If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences. In contrast, left-wingers get duped because Palestinians are weaker so they give them a pass. Palestinians also trick you.

    To conclude: You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as “brutalisation and ethnical cleansing”, which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words “Nazi” and “racist”)). I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.

    • Replies: @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that “I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground”
     
    The problem is that the two sides are in no way equivalent; the Israelis are according to the facts clearly and unequivocally at fault.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views
     
    I don't care whether my views are "moderate" or "radical" (According to what yardstick?), I only care whether they are correct

    I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact.
     
    You state but fail to provide any evidence of your "fact".

    e.g., successful christian Israelis
     
    The fact that a minority of Palestinians was not ethnically cleansed of course in no way excuses the fate of the vast majority that were. Or should a bankrobber that murders 9 of 10 people present in a bank but lets 1 man alive now be considered as blamelesss? Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the "Israeli Arabs" will soon share the fate of the others.

    and persecution of Christians in the Middle East
     
    As usual you don't seem to read my answers, so here again:

    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist “freedom fighters”
     

    simply blame the jews (e.g. “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause” – this statement is just LOL
     
    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, since of course I did not "blame the Jews" in this specific case . You also don't seem to read what I write since I already answered once to this:

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.
     

    That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.
     
    As I have already explained, I don't accept an amoral "might makes right" ideology.

    If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences.
     
    If Israelis ethnically cleanse, they should live with the consequences.

    You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as “brutalisation and ethnical cleansing”, which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words “Nazi” and “racist”))
     
    That words might be thrown around in cases were they are not applicable, does of course not change the fact that in this case they are correct.

    I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.
     
    LOL

    Replies: @One time poster

  165. @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    I note that you have finally abandoned your “Dear Fellow Rightwingers” LARPing and have now fully embraced your real identity as a Zionist partisan.
     
    Its ridiculous that you call me a Zionist partisan. I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that "I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground" and I said that the policy stance of Western countries should be neutrality.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views and simply disregard any facts and reason. For example, I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact. But you ignore the evidence (e.g., successful christian Israelis and persecution of Christians in the Middle East) and simply blame the jews (e.g. "Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (...) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause" - this statement is just LOL). Therefore, in your eyes, even a moderate like me is a "Zionist partisan".

    A state without any territory? LOL.

     

    This makes no sense. The state would have territory, it would just be smaller. Moreover, at first it would be demilitarised and there would be foreign troops stationed at strategically important locations. That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.

    So you think that Palestinians have no right of resistance but have to submit like sheep to Israeli brutalization and ethnical cleansing?

     

    I never said that. I told you before that I understand if Palestinians continue to fight. However, I do not find this rational. Moreover, I am not duped by the Palestinians. If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences. In contrast, left-wingers get duped because Palestinians are weaker so they give them a pass. Palestinians also trick you.

    To conclude: You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as "brutalisation and ethnical cleansing", which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words "Nazi" and "racist")). I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.

    Replies: @Menschmaschine

    I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that “I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground”

    The problem is that the two sides are in no way equivalent; the Israelis are according to the facts clearly and unequivocally at fault.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views

    I don’t care whether my views are “moderate” or “radical” (According to what yardstick?), I only care whether they are correct

    I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact.

    You state but fail to provide any evidence of your “fact”.

    e.g., successful christian Israelis

    The fact that a minority of Palestinians was not ethnically cleansed of course in no way excuses the fate of the vast majority that were. Or should a bankrobber that murders 9 of 10 people present in a bank but lets 1 man alive now be considered as blamelesss? Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the “Israeli Arabs” will soon share the fate of the others.

    and persecution of Christians in the Middle East

    As usual you don’t seem to read my answers, so here again:

    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist “freedom fighters”

    simply blame the jews (e.g. “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause” – this statement is just LOL

    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, since of course I did not “blame the Jews” in this specific case . You also don’t seem to read what I write since I already answered once to this:

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.

    That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.

    As I have already explained, I don’t accept an amoral “might makes right” ideology.

    If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences.

    If Israelis ethnically cleanse, they should live with the consequences.

    You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as “brutalisation and ethnical cleansing”, which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words “Nazi” and “racist”))

    That words might be thrown around in cases were they are not applicable, does of course not change the fact that in this case they are correct.

    I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.

    LOL

    • Replies: @One time poster
    @Menschmaschine


    The problem is that the two sides are in no way equivalent; the Israelis are according to the facts clearly and unequivocally at fault.
     
    Correct the sides are not totally equivalent. One side (palestinians) wants to wipe out Israelis but fails; the other side (Isrealis) can wipe out all Palestinians but chooses not to. One side (arabs and turks) has a history of wiping out all minorities, the other side (Jews) does not.

    The fact that a minority of Palestinians was not ethnically cleansed of course in no way excuses the fate of the vast majority that were. Or should a bankrobber that murders 9 of 10 people present in a bank but lets 1 man alive now be considered as blamelesss? Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the “Israeli Arabs” will soon share the fate of the others.
     
    You lack basic reading comprehension skills. The point is not that Christian Palestinians "did not get ethnically cleansed", the point is that they are thriving. Meanwhile, in all other Arab countries Christians are not thriving.

    Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the “Israeli Arabs” will soon share the fate of the others.
     
    Now you just make shit up as Israeli Arabs have been thriving. Instead it is more likely that Christian Arabs will be wiped out from other Arab countries as Christian Arabs have been suffering in other Arab countries.

    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, since of course I did not “blame the Jews” in this specific case
     
    Nope, we are talking about the current crimes of Turkey (not past genocides which you later clarified). Again, you wrote: “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause”. This clearly implies that Israel is partly to blame for Turkey´s (current) sins (since they are "allied").

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions
     
    It is not undeniable... it is unverifiable. Nevertheless, crimes against Christians minorities have been committed well before the arrival of the "Jewish/Zionist". Moreover, in regions which are well out of reach of the "Jewish/Zionist", Christian minorities are suffering, too. Hence, blaming current crimes on the "Jewish/Zionist" is *extremely unlikely* (or you could say dumb).

    As I have already explained, I don’t accept an amoral “might makes right” ideology.

     

    This has nothing to do with "might makes right". It is rather common sense. I will explain it to you in very simple terms. Party A wants to kill you but you prevent party A from killing you. Party A still wants to kill you. Are you now going to give party A power, so that party A can try to kill you again? Of course not.

    That words might be thrown around in cases were they are not applicable, does of course not change the fact that in this case they are correct.
     
    In your case they are incorrect as I explained before. In contrast, you were not able to make any case for "ethnic cleansing" (which is typical for lefties).
  166. @Dmitry
    @Brás Cubas

    RT (Russia Today) receives funding, for its ability to undermine the support of viewers in Western countries for their own governments.

    That is, it is a kind of trolling operation against mainly America and UK, but also some Latin American governments. Although, as it looks ineffective and bad publicity, the real victims are the taxpayers who fund it.

    RT would have been more successful as propaganda, if they had tried to be like BBC or Al Jazeera International (that tries to pretend to be like an objective source of information).

    The position of RT on Israel, will depend on their audience. If RT's audience opposes Israel, then RT will oppose Israel, and vice-versa. Israel can be a useful wedge issue, especially for using on an American audience.

    One way you can inspire anger among Americans (who dislike Israel) against their government, is to focus on the relation of Washington to Israel.

    -

    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the "real estate" it uses in peoples' minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.

    Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict is another example of a small conflict in the world. Yet, you can compare Israel-Palestine conflict with the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, and the latter is still a lot larger than the former, where in October 2020 around 8000 people were killed in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict (which would be equivalent to an average of around half a century of deaths in the less deadly Israel-Palestine conflict). But Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict received not much media attention even in the other postsoviet countries.

    Replies: @AaronB

    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the “real estate” it uses in peoples’ minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.

    It’s basically a non-conflict.

    My friend just got back from Israel. He was in Jerusalem the whole time, and he said everyday life went on as normal.

    It is a feature of the modern world, as life has gotten safer and safer, to magnify trivial dangers. We see this with Covid. The level of panic, was not commensurate with the threat (I am not questioning official opinion on its lethality).

    Israel has the misfortune – or perhaps good fortune -to occupy mythical space for people.

    • Replies: @Dmitry
    @AaronB

    Coronavirus has killed many millions of people, and shut down much of the world. It was a disaster.

    Whereas the riots in Jerusalem, and "attacks on al-Aqsa Mosque" killed 0 people, and seriously injured 0 people.

    It is not much comparison.

    -

    But I guess there is a causal connection between coronavirus and the violence in Israel. Because there had been months of lockdown in Israel, to prevent spread of coronavirus, and this had also prevented normal Ramadan of the year earlier.

    During this time, many people became unemployed, and Arab cities and East Jerusalem were particularly damaged economically, with rising crime rates and unemployed Arab youth.

    This has continued with lack of government formation, low state capacity in the Arab sector of Israel, and the appearance that the Islamist political party would not join Netanyahu's coalition government.

    After vaccination, there was sudden end of the lockdown in Israel, and this resulted in release of the energies of the previous year of frustration.

    The release of lockdown, had earlier resulted in a mass crush of Haredi pilgrims (which killed many people), and riots in Jerusalem during Ramadan (which killed 0 people) was in similar genre.

    By firing rockets on Israel in response to what was then very minor riots in al-Aqsa Mosque, Hamas has viewed it as an opportunity to connect their territorial conflict with Israel, to resonate with the Muslim world (as al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam, and only one in addition to Hebron, that is under non-Muslim rule).

    Replies: @AaronB

  167. @Menschmaschine
    @One time poster


    I said multiple times that I understand both sides, I stated that “I do not see how any party in this conflict has any moral high ground”
     
    The problem is that the two sides are in no way equivalent; the Israelis are according to the facts clearly and unequivocally at fault.

    While I am a moderate, you have radical views
     
    I don't care whether my views are "moderate" or "radical" (According to what yardstick?), I only care whether they are correct

    I state that arabs treat their minorities worse. This is a fact.
     
    You state but fail to provide any evidence of your "fact".

    e.g., successful christian Israelis
     
    The fact that a minority of Palestinians was not ethnically cleansed of course in no way excuses the fate of the vast majority that were. Or should a bankrobber that murders 9 of 10 people present in a bank but lets 1 man alive now be considered as blamelesss? Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the "Israeli Arabs" will soon share the fate of the others.

    and persecution of Christians in the Middle East
     
    As usual you don't seem to read my answers, so here again:

    Yes, Christian Arabs have been doing quite badly in the murderous wars launched by Western states to support Zionist interests by takfirist “freedom fighters”
     

    simply blame the jews (e.g. “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause” – this statement is just LOL
     
    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, since of course I did not "blame the Jews" in this specific case . You also don't seem to read what I write since I already answered once to this:

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions, in particular via their influence on US foreign policy which allows them to use the full military, political and economic might of the US (and its allies/vassals) to subvert, sanction, or outright bomb or invade countries that might be a danger to Israeli dominance.
     

    That happens if you loose a war. This is normal. This is common sense. Just look at Germany after it lost its war.
     
    As I have already explained, I don't accept an amoral "might makes right" ideology.

    If Palestinians throw rockets, they should live with the consequences.
     
    If Israelis ethnically cleanse, they should live with the consequences.

    You adopt radical left-wing views (again, you used left-wing buzzwords such as “brutalisation and ethnical cleansing”, which due to their overuse & wrong use lost all meaning (this is similar to the words “Nazi” and “racist”))
     
    That words might be thrown around in cases were they are not applicable, does of course not change the fact that in this case they are correct.

    I also start getting the feeling that you would not mind the complete destruction of the West as long as Israel/Jews are destroyed, too.
     
    LOL

    Replies: @One time poster

    The problem is that the two sides are in no way equivalent; the Israelis are according to the facts clearly and unequivocally at fault.

    Correct the sides are not totally equivalent. One side (palestinians) wants to wipe out Israelis but fails; the other side (Isrealis) can wipe out all Palestinians but chooses not to. One side (arabs and turks) has a history of wiping out all minorities, the other side (Jews) does not.

    The fact that a minority of Palestinians was not ethnically cleansed of course in no way excuses the fate of the vast majority that were. Or should a bankrobber that murders 9 of 10 people present in a bank but lets 1 man alive now be considered as blamelesss? Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the “Israeli Arabs” will soon share the fate of the others.

    You lack basic reading comprehension skills. The point is not that Christian Palestinians “did not get ethnically cleansed”, the point is that they are thriving. Meanwhile, in all other Arab countries Christians are not thriving.

    Of course, given the ever progressing radicalization and brutalization of Israeli politics it it is quite likely that the “Israeli Arabs” will soon share the fate of the others.

    Now you just make shit up as Israeli Arabs have been thriving. Instead it is more likely that Christian Arabs will be wiped out from other Arab countries as Christian Arabs have been suffering in other Arab countries.

    You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills, since of course I did not “blame the Jews” in this specific case

    Nope, we are talking about the current crimes of Turkey (not past genocides which you later clarified). Again, you wrote: “Given the status of Turkey as a traditional ally of Israel (…) referring to the sins of Turkey does not really help your cause”. This clearly implies that Israel is partly to blame for Turkey´s (current) sins (since they are “allied”).

    Of course I did not do this, at least not in respect to the historical Turkish crimes. In general however it is entirely undeniable that most of the sad state of the region is due to Jewish/Zionist actions

    It is not undeniable… it is unverifiable. Nevertheless, crimes against Christians minorities have been committed well before the arrival of the “Jewish/Zionist”. Moreover, in regions which are well out of reach of the “Jewish/Zionist”, Christian minorities are suffering, too. Hence, blaming current crimes on the “Jewish/Zionist” is *extremely unlikely* (or you could say dumb).

    As I have already explained, I don’t accept an amoral “might makes right” ideology.

    This has nothing to do with “might makes right”. It is rather common sense. I will explain it to you in very simple terms. Party A wants to kill you but you prevent party A from killing you. Party A still wants to kill you. Are you now going to give party A power, so that party A can try to kill you again? Of course not.

    That words might be thrown around in cases were they are not applicable, does of course not change the fact that in this case they are correct.

    In your case they are incorrect as I explained before. In contrast, you were not able to make any case for “ethnic cleansing” (which is typical for lefties).

  168. @AaronB
    @Dmitry


    As for the position of Israel in relation to various countries. Israel is generally far less important, than its position in symbolic space, or the “real estate” it uses in peoples’ minds.

    Even the Israel-Palestine conflict, seems smaller the closer you go to it.

    So that if you were in streets of Jerusalem during recent riots, they have used up far less space than the images projected on televisions screens in the rest of the world.
     
    It's basically a non-conflict.

    My friend just got back from Israel. He was in Jerusalem the whole time, and he said everyday life went on as normal.

    It is a feature of the modern world, as life has gotten safer and safer, to magnify trivial dangers. We see this with Covid. The level of panic, was not commensurate with the threat (I am not questioning official opinion on its lethality).

    Israel has the misfortune - or perhaps good fortune -to occupy mythical space for people.

    Replies: @Dmitry

    Coronavirus has killed many millions of people, and shut down much of the world. It was a disaster.

    Whereas the riots in Jerusalem, and “attacks on al-Aqsa Mosque” killed 0 people, and seriously injured 0 people.

    It is not much comparison.

    But I guess there is a causal connection between coronavirus and the violence in Israel. Because there had been months of lockdown in Israel, to prevent spread of coronavirus, and this had also prevented normal Ramadan of the year earlier.

    During this time, many people became unemployed, and Arab cities and East Jerusalem were particularly damaged economically, with rising crime rates and unemployed Arab youth.

    This has continued with lack of government formation, low state capacity in the Arab sector of Israel, and the appearance that the Islamist political party would not join Netanyahu’s coalition government.

    After vaccination, there was sudden end of the lockdown in Israel, and this resulted in release of the energies of the previous year of frustration.

    The release of lockdown, had earlier resulted in a mass crush of Haredi pilgrims (which killed many people), and riots in Jerusalem during Ramadan (which killed 0 people) was in similar genre.

    By firing rockets on Israel in response to what was then very minor riots in al-Aqsa Mosque, Hamas has viewed it as an opportunity to connect their territorial conflict with Israel, to resonate with the Muslim world (as al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam, and only one in addition to Hebron, that is under non-Muslim rule).

    • Replies: @AaronB
    @Dmitry

    Yes, I think people were mainly bored after the Covid lockdowns. Probably more wars were started by boredom than is generally acknowledged by historians, whose job it is to make up reasons for things. Bertrand Russell thought WW1 happened because people were bored.

    I also agree Covid was certainly worse than this minor skirmish in Israel. Covid certainly killed more people. Still, the level of panic was too high for what in historical terms, was such a trivial pandemic.

    But such is the modern world.

  169. @Dmitry
    @AaronB

    Coronavirus has killed many millions of people, and shut down much of the world. It was a disaster.

    Whereas the riots in Jerusalem, and "attacks on al-Aqsa Mosque" killed 0 people, and seriously injured 0 people.

    It is not much comparison.

    -

    But I guess there is a causal connection between coronavirus and the violence in Israel. Because there had been months of lockdown in Israel, to prevent spread of coronavirus, and this had also prevented normal Ramadan of the year earlier.

    During this time, many people became unemployed, and Arab cities and East Jerusalem were particularly damaged economically, with rising crime rates and unemployed Arab youth.

    This has continued with lack of government formation, low state capacity in the Arab sector of Israel, and the appearance that the Islamist political party would not join Netanyahu's coalition government.

    After vaccination, there was sudden end of the lockdown in Israel, and this resulted in release of the energies of the previous year of frustration.

    The release of lockdown, had earlier resulted in a mass crush of Haredi pilgrims (which killed many people), and riots in Jerusalem during Ramadan (which killed 0 people) was in similar genre.

    By firing rockets on Israel in response to what was then very minor riots in al-Aqsa Mosque, Hamas has viewed it as an opportunity to connect their territorial conflict with Israel, to resonate with the Muslim world (as al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam, and only one in addition to Hebron, that is under non-Muslim rule).

    Replies: @AaronB

    Yes, I think people were mainly bored after the Covid lockdowns. Probably more wars were started by boredom than is generally acknowledged by historians, whose job it is to make up reasons for things. Bertrand Russell thought WW1 happened because people were bored.

    I also agree Covid was certainly worse than this minor skirmish in Israel. Covid certainly killed more people. Still, the level of panic was too high for what in historical terms, was such a trivial pandemic.

    But such is the modern world.

  170. @Dmitry
    @LondonBob

    Government of the last two decades in Russia, has been one of the most pro-Jewish (and to lesser extent also they are pro-Israel) states. And the view has been tilting more towards in the last decade, if the pro-Israel orientation of the television is an indication.

    Two years ago, Putin even hosted the "United Israel Appeal" congress, with Sheldon Adelson and Ronald Lauder (the most powerful Jewish/Zionist philanthropists).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ackxPo0hbrw

    An idea there is some conflict of Putin against global Zionists, is one of the more stranger and delusional views I have read in the Unz/Karlin forum, and this forum does not lack to provide them.

    India, Russia and China are all de facto pro-Israel governments, that have "skin in the game" including financial investments in Israel.

    From an Israeli selfish point of view, the situation that you would worry about is the rising anti-Israel public and official, as well as media positions, in North-West Europe and in the Democrat Party base of the USA (which represents a majority of voters in coastal America).

    North-West Europe and coastal regions of the USA, are vastly more influential and powerful, in many ways, than China, Russia or India. And it's in these areas that the anti-Israel position is becoming the dominant view with the younger generations.

    British television is already in complete opposite position on Israel, from Russian television (hidden pro-Israel bias), if not Fox News (open pro-Israel bias). And some of the influential American television like Daily Show or CNN seemed to be moving to the British media's perspective. Israel will always be supported from the Republican Party in the USA, but the base of the Democrat Party is more of an open question, and the Democrat Party could be the more dominant party in America politics in the next years.

    Replies: @Spisarevski, @Jtgw

    It’s interesting how long the realignment has taken on the US left, which I attribute to the historically leftist tendencies of American Jews. Israel became a pariah on the international left already in the 1960s; only in America was it still possible to be politically progressive and Zionist. But even here there has been very slow shift over the decades. Add to this that support for Israel itself is waning among American Jews; more and more it is only the most religious ones that make Zionism central to their worldview. So of course “reactionary” regimes with Judeo-Christian basis like Putins Russia turn out to be the most pro Israel now.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS