That’s what happens when the Right places hide the truth—people sooner or later start looking for the truth elsewhere. I can’t remember where I came across this video, because I never watch MSNBC. It dates back to May 15, 2021 and exhibits that broken clock phenomenon—right twice a day. It may be possible to quibble with a few details, but the overall thrust is undoubtedly correct. For those who need it, it’s a worthwhile antidote to the narrative that’s relentlessly peddled in much of the American and Western media. But, as Velshi says, it’s not a secret. Somebody is trying to hide the ball, that’s all—but you’re free to look at the truth if you want to.
Given the West’s proclivities for ethnic cleansing I can’t see why it should be a problem. The west actively aided the ethic cleaning of Serbs, Armenians and Russians.
Small bites, using lawfare, creating Facts on the Ground. Reminds me of the Chinese in the South China Sea, taking little islands of low intrinsic value and fortifying them or placing radar on them, making Facts, while all the countries of the region filed complaints to 'international bodies.' They took their time, and the US did nothing.
From Zerohedge: IDF Readies For Air, Ground, & Naval Offensive Against Gaza "Very Soon"
Wouldn't this proposed ethnic cleansing and potential mass atrocity against the Gazan Palestinians reduce the Jewish peoples' standing and their claim of the moral high ground consequent to treatment of the Jewish people in WWII and the "Holocaust"?
“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah your God.”
As a neutral observer, I can see only one of two possible solutions to this conflict. The preferred (New Israel) solution would have the following features: 1. Absorb the West Bank and Gaza into the state of New Israel. 2. At the same time, incorporate an amendment to a New Israel constitution establishing full civil, property and religious rights to former Palestinian (now New Israeli) citizens. 3. Establish joint control and development of the Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount location and open it to all. This plan is analogous to the post Civil War amendments in America.
The alternative solution is to go on as now until one side or the other is exterminated.
Very hard to argue with what the guy says. The danger for Israel is that, up till present, their behaviour has been protected by the most powerful nation on Earth. That nation is oozing power every day.
I do not wish to be crude in my comment here. But since last weekend’s events, I keep hearing in my head something my dad would say during the 70’s and 80’s while I was growing up. There would inevitably be some story or another on the TV about unrest in the Middle East. My dad would say, “those damn Jews are going to wind up getting us all killed.” He was an Archie Bunker type, and definitely not nuanced in his approach to the world, but spoke his mind as he saw things. He has since passed, but I do wonder what he would make of today’s situation, and the last few years.
True. And I'm half Jewish. It's no coincidence that the site of Armageddon, the final battle between Good and Evil isn't in Sweden. The Jews have paid a heavy price for being God's Chosen people. That reminds me of an old Jewish joke: A Jewish man dies and goes to heaven. He asks Jehovah, "Is it true that we're the chosen race?" "Yes," Says God. "You are in deed my chosen people, my children, my beloved!" The Jew: "Listen, can you choose someone else next time?"
"On October 5, 2023, 800 Jewish radicals, protected by Israeli military, forced their way into the al Aqsa Mosque and held a Jewish religious service."
'Almost everything is ready for the Third Temple' claims Israeli TV report about red heifers brought to Israel last year
Looks like that Satanic temple won't be built, after all
Not surprised by any of this. Been going on for decades with occasional pauses based on who's in charge in Israel.
Read this morning Egypt is re-reinforcing its closed border to Gaza. Also, no outreach by other Muslim/Arab nations to take on those impacted in Gaza or the West Bank. Pretty hollow response IMO beyond the usual Jihad rhetoric.
Egypt literally can't afford to take in 2m refugees. They are going through a bad time economically. I guess the Israelis will just have to push the Gazans into the sea. With 24 hours warning, of course.
On a lighter note, the US is able to take in 2m refugees a year over our southern border, no problem; we just print a little extra money. Why not 4m? Or, we could send the extra money we print directly to Egypt to keep them in Egypt to reduce the carbon footprint of flying 2m people to Mexico to walk across the southern border. Thinking outside the box! But 4m new people would increase our GDP, would it not? Maybe we need them here.
How about, say, Qatar? Home to all the top Hamas leadership, who live in luxury hotels, all expenses paid. I recall Qatar, Kuwait, and SA --- very rich nations ---- all import guest workers from southeast Asia.
If the Muslim world won't take in Palestinian refugees (and they haven't, as a matter of principle that apparently trumps what we Westerners would think of as humanitarian concerns) then how about Russia? What do they stand to lose? They're not the Great Satan.
Sounds like a great letter, treasure and preserve that artifact. There is more to the story, background to the Balfour Declaration. I cannot remember a good source for that at the moment. The British statesmen of old drew up a lot of borders with bad consequences.
I make no excuse for the monsters of Hamas, but why on Earth should they "want" peace with a nation that stole their homeland? And why should they support a "two-state solution" when they already had a state up till 1948? As for places in the WB being "hostile territory thrust into the heart of Israel", I read it in exactly the opposite way: the settlements are hostile beach-heads thrust into the heart of territory that was given back to Palestinians in internationally approved agreements. These "settlers" are not just kibbutniks trying to protect their families; they are from the same fanatical mold as their Hamas counterparts.
The Palestinians did not have their own state up till 1948. The land was part of the Ottoman empire until the end of WW1. After that, it was part of the British Mandate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
It's worth noting that the creation of the state of Israel has had the effect of generally radicalizing Arab Muslims, which has also had a deleterious effect on Middle East Christians. This hasn't been helped by the US and Israel supporting some of the most blood thirsty jihadis when it has suited their purposes--especially in Syria. The US and Israel appear unperturbed at ISIS slaughter of Christians and other minorities (e.g. Yazidis). Gen. Flynn's expose of our support for ISIS had somewhat predictable results. Also, it's notable that Assad has consistently protected all sects who weren't part of the international Regime Change cabal.
Accepting your premise strictly for the sake of argument, your idea of the smart way to deal with people as you describe them it to go to their country, disposses them, kick them off their land, commit repeated daily injustices against them--and then blame them for reacting? What kind of craziness is that?
Do you believe Israel has always negotiated honestly and in good faith? I’d say Israel came into existence under the pressure of the Rothchild’s who demanded it and the British and French conceded the land in the Balfour Declaration. Howard Zinn and many like him has accused the USA of stolen land when it comes to the lands occupied by Indians and Mexicans that were subsumed in the era of manifest destiny and objections to that characterization by patriotic Americans gets you smeared as a racist and a fascist. Suggesting the creation of modern Israel is stolen land gets you smeared as an antisemite and a fascist or a Nazi.
Sorry, Louis, I cannot agree. You are talking as if both ethnic groups arrived in the land of Israel at the same time and on a level playing field, and failed to thrash out an agreement. This land belonged to the Palestinians and was stolen by Israel. In this light, the Palestinians have negotiated with total honesty: their standpoint has never wavered. This is their land and they refuse to give any of it away to an alien entity trying to take it off them. And your argument about whether the Jews have a right to exist is a strawman. The Jews certainly have a right to exist, as does everyone else. As someone who has read every book ever written on the Holocaust, I'd go even further and say that they most definitely have the right to their homeland. However, what they don't have to the right to is to steal someone else's homeland. You then cap it all off by basically saying that "might is right". Once a more powerful bunch of people steal someone else's land, then the losing party should just shrug its shoulders and take the best deal they can. Rubbish! Did we follow the precept in WW2? Will you behave like that when illegal immigrants take over your neighbourhood, when Bill Gates or Blackrock buy up all the farmland in the area? Of course not! On this blog for the last few years, we've all been railing against the greater powers that have tried to take freedom away from the little people, whether it has been the Covid nazis in Big Pharma, or the MIC killing ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Maybe we should be consistent and remember who the little people, the dispossessed are in this situation too.
Thanks for not claiming that the Israelite scriptures contain some sort of title deed from the Almighty. Also for acknowledging that the state of Israel is not without fault. I take the following to be the heart of your argument:
"The creation of the Jewish state is no more violent or arbitrary than the creation or existence of any state, and it came into existence as it did in large part because of events of both Middle Eastern and European history. It now exists, and as such, has a right to exist."
I see a number of problems.
1. You don't address the advisability of creating the state of Israel in the first place, given the nature of the neighborhood.
2. History is complicated, but even if I grant that there is violence in the founding of any state, it remains that some people or nation--say, Chinese, looking for however you say Lebensraum in Chinese--could conceivably invade and expel all the current inhabitants of Israel/Palestine and have the same rights that you now attribute to the state of Israel. States come into existence but, by the same token, they also go out of existence. So far the Muslim world--a considerable proportion of the world--hasn't conceded Israel's argument and demand that they grant perpetual victory to Israel.
3. That being the case, why should anyone care about the state of Israel? By your argument it appears to be a matter of personal preference. Those who prefer the world to continue in a state of some sort of equilibrium would have a strong bias against initiating new conflicts in a restless part of the world that affects the rest of the world. There would also be those who would not want to take part in or grant approval to conquest and ethnic cleansing--as being a bad precedent for world peace. Granted, wars occur. But prevention seems preferable.
4. Israel receives much of its support from the US. The US has shown itself to be a quite aggressive power in the world, which has contributed substantially to the various problems we're experiencing--disruptive migrant flows, international tensions, bloody attempts at regime change that lead to widespread suffering and disruption, and now a pointless attempt to conquer Russia. Israel and its supporters have injected it/themselves into a number of these conflicts, so peace loving people might well think twice about "standing with Israel" or with Neocons more generally. Or with all ideologies of exceptionalism in geopolitical matters, be they Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
5. A small proportion of Americans who have enormous and disproportionate economic and political power stand behind and finance the US expression of "aggressive power", not only causing "disruptive migrant flows, international tensions, bloody attempts at regime change that lead to widespread suffering and disruption, and now a pointless attempt to conquer Russia," but also stand behind the suppression of traditional American notions of freedom and democracy, as well as Constitutional rights and protections.
You keep saying that Israel has been "established." And yet its "establishment" appears to be an ongoing project rather than a settled fact. Israel doesn't exist within settled boundaries but continues to attempt to expand. Again, there has always been serious opposition to those attempts. So it makes no moral sense as an argument to claim that this is settled.
Re "God's promise to Moses", I thought the promise was made to Abraham. Moreover I do not accept that construct as an historical fact in anything remotely like the same category as the documentable existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Muslim claims are of a third type, which I don't accept. Christian *faith* is founded on reasonable belief based on historic experience and in that respect is fundamentally different than either Jewish or Muslim *religion*. That makes Western "ethno-religious" states also fundamentally different from what Israel has become. It also means that the Zionist project was never truly analogous to Western states that had a Christian component.
If you really want to get an idea of where I'm coming from I recommend reading my voluminous posts from 2008 through 2013, most readily accessible at https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/
Perhaps conceding land occupied by native Palestinians to the Rothchild’s was another of Europe’s many mistakes and the lessons learned from colonialism never seems to deter the old world, yes?
Agreed. The danger is that Bibi was completely blind-sided by the Hamas terror attacks. He was already weakened, so now the only chance he has to stay in power is to "solve" the Gaza situation with maximum force and finality. Danger abounds.
Who had the land first!!!!!!? Chicken or egg. Good luck (insert exasperated emogee face here)
No. Who had the land most continuously and most recently. I highly recommend my pre-2018 posts.
Given the West’s proclivities for ethnic cleansing I can’t see why it should be a problem. The west actively aided the ethic cleaning of Serbs, Armenians and Russians.
Small bites, using lawfare, creating Facts on the Ground. Reminds me of the Chinese in the South China Sea, taking little islands of low intrinsic value and fortifying them or placing radar on them, making Facts, while all the countries of the region filed complaints to 'international bodies.' They took their time, and the US did nothing.
From Zerohedge: IDF Readies For Air, Ground, & Naval Offensive Against Gaza "Very Soon"
Wouldn't this proposed ethnic cleansing and potential mass atrocity against the Gazan Palestinians reduce the Jewish peoples' standing and their claim of the moral high ground consequent to treatment of the Jewish people in WWII and the "Holocaust"?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/hamas-claims-26-hostages-died-israeli-airstrikes-including-foreigners-after-idf-finds
Yes, yes it would
The Jews might pay heed to the Torah.
Leviticus 19:33-34 ASV
“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt: I am Jehovah your God.”
Highly recommended commentary bringing perspective from two erudite individuals.
https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/tkelly6785757/episodes/2023-10-14T09_44_16-07_00
As a neutral observer, I can see only one of two possible solutions to this conflict. The preferred (New Israel) solution would have the following features: 1. Absorb the West Bank and Gaza into the state of New Israel. 2. At the same time, incorporate an amendment to a New Israel constitution establishing full civil, property and religious rights to former Palestinian (now New Israeli) citizens. 3. Establish joint control and development of the Al-Aqsa/Temple Mount location and open it to all. This plan is analogous to the post Civil War amendments in America.
The alternative solution is to go on as now until one side or the other is exterminated.
1). UN won’t allow it
2) Israel won’t allow it
3) Israel and Muslim won’t allow it.
1). The UN is irrelevant; the parties have to decide.
2) 3) The second alternative might soften resistance to compromise.
Very hard to argue with what the guy says. The danger for Israel is that, up till present, their behaviour has been protected by the most powerful nation on Earth. That nation is oozing power every day.
And if US continues to ooze/looze? Then what?
The world will have to chooze
More booze
It will be a doozy.
Time to get woozy with my floozy
Oozing or loozing?
Both, Mark. With an accompanying increase in boozing.
I do not wish to be crude in my comment here. But since last weekend’s events, I keep hearing in my head something my dad would say during the 70’s and 80’s while I was growing up. There would inevitably be some story or another on the TV about unrest in the Middle East. My dad would say, “those damn Jews are going to wind up getting us all killed.” He was an Archie Bunker type, and definitely not nuanced in his approach to the world, but spoke his mind as he saw things. He has since passed, but I do wonder what he would make of today’s situation, and the last few years.
True. And I'm half Jewish. It's no coincidence that the site of Armageddon, the final battle between Good and Evil isn't in Sweden. The Jews have paid a heavy price for being God's Chosen people. That reminds me of an old Jewish joke: A Jewish man dies and goes to heaven. He asks Jehovah, "Is it true that we're the chosen race?" "Yes," Says God. "You are in deed my chosen people, my children, my beloved!" The Jew: "Listen, can you choose someone else next time?"
The nice thing about being 1/2 of any two religions is the ability to switch hats on a dime.
"On October 5, 2023, 800 Jewish radicals, protected by Israeli military, forced their way into the al Aqsa Mosque and held a Jewish religious service."
'Almost everything is ready for the Third Temple' claims Israeli TV report about red heifers brought to Israel last year
Looks like that Satanic temple won't be built, after all
https://open.substack.com/pub/dianabarahona/p/almost-everything-is-ready-for-the
Supports their intent to rebuild the Temple. Not smart move. Antagonistic actually.
Good article, Mark!
Not surprised by any of this. Been going on for decades with occasional pauses based on who's in charge in Israel.
Read this morning Egypt is re-reinforcing its closed border to Gaza. Also, no outreach by other Muslim/Arab nations to take on those impacted in Gaza or the West Bank. Pretty hollow response IMO beyond the usual Jihad rhetoric.
Egypt literally can't afford to take in 2m refugees. They are going through a bad time economically. I guess the Israelis will just have to push the Gazans into the sea. With 24 hours warning, of course.
On a lighter note, the US is able to take in 2m refugees a year over our southern border, no problem; we just print a little extra money. Why not 4m? Or, we could send the extra money we print directly to Egypt to keep them in Egypt to reduce the carbon footprint of flying 2m people to Mexico to walk across the southern border. Thinking outside the box! But 4m new people would increase our GDP, would it not? Maybe we need them here.
That’s not the reason. The rationale is Egypt can’t separate the bad apples from the good apples. They don’t want unrest either.
How about, say, Qatar? Home to all the top Hamas leadership, who live in luxury hotels, all expenses paid. I recall Qatar, Kuwait, and SA --- very rich nations ---- all import guest workers from southeast Asia.
If the Muslim world won't take in Palestinian refugees (and they haven't, as a matter of principle that apparently trumps what we Westerners would think of as humanitarian concerns) then how about Russia? What do they stand to lose? They're not the Great Satan.
How about Qatar.
Sounds like a great letter, treasure and preserve that artifact. There is more to the story, background to the Balfour Declaration. I cannot remember a good source for that at the moment. The British statesmen of old drew up a lot of borders with bad consequences.
I make no excuse for the monsters of Hamas, but why on Earth should they "want" peace with a nation that stole their homeland? And why should they support a "two-state solution" when they already had a state up till 1948? As for places in the WB being "hostile territory thrust into the heart of Israel", I read it in exactly the opposite way: the settlements are hostile beach-heads thrust into the heart of territory that was given back to Palestinians in internationally approved agreements. These "settlers" are not just kibbutniks trying to protect their families; they are from the same fanatical mold as their Hamas counterparts.
The Palestinians did not have their own state up till 1948. The land was part of the Ottoman empire until the end of WW1. After that, it was part of the British Mandate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine
More precisely, Britain had TWO mandates: Palestine and the Emirate of Jordan.
It's worth noting that the creation of the state of Israel has had the effect of generally radicalizing Arab Muslims, which has also had a deleterious effect on Middle East Christians. This hasn't been helped by the US and Israel supporting some of the most blood thirsty jihadis when it has suited their purposes--especially in Syria. The US and Israel appear unperturbed at ISIS slaughter of Christians and other minorities (e.g. Yazidis). Gen. Flynn's expose of our support for ISIS had somewhat predictable results. Also, it's notable that Assad has consistently protected all sects who weren't part of the international Regime Change cabal.
And decades of eroding UN support for Israel as a result.
Accepting your premise strictly for the sake of argument, your idea of the smart way to deal with people as you describe them it to go to their country, disposses them, kick them off their land, commit repeated daily injustices against them--and then blame them for reacting? What kind of craziness is that?
Neo-Nazi Galician kind?
Perhaps more accurately, Khazarian mafia style.
Do you believe Israel has always negotiated honestly and in good faith? I’d say Israel came into existence under the pressure of the Rothchild’s who demanded it and the British and French conceded the land in the Balfour Declaration. Howard Zinn and many like him has accused the USA of stolen land when it comes to the lands occupied by Indians and Mexicans that were subsumed in the era of manifest destiny and objections to that characterization by patriotic Americans gets you smeared as a racist and a fascist. Suggesting the creation of modern Israel is stolen land gets you smeared as an antisemite and a fascist or a Nazi.
Sorry, Louis, I cannot agree. You are talking as if both ethnic groups arrived in the land of Israel at the same time and on a level playing field, and failed to thrash out an agreement. This land belonged to the Palestinians and was stolen by Israel. In this light, the Palestinians have negotiated with total honesty: their standpoint has never wavered. This is their land and they refuse to give any of it away to an alien entity trying to take it off them. And your argument about whether the Jews have a right to exist is a strawman. The Jews certainly have a right to exist, as does everyone else. As someone who has read every book ever written on the Holocaust, I'd go even further and say that they most definitely have the right to their homeland. However, what they don't have to the right to is to steal someone else's homeland. You then cap it all off by basically saying that "might is right". Once a more powerful bunch of people steal someone else's land, then the losing party should just shrug its shoulders and take the best deal they can. Rubbish! Did we follow the precept in WW2? Will you behave like that when illegal immigrants take over your neighbourhood, when Bill Gates or Blackrock buy up all the farmland in the area? Of course not! On this blog for the last few years, we've all been railing against the greater powers that have tried to take freedom away from the little people, whether it has been the Covid nazis in Big Pharma, or the MIC killing ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Maybe we should be consistent and remember who the little people, the dispossessed are in this situation too.
Disagree that the land was stolen.
Nicely put as always Steg.
Thanks for not claiming that the Israelite scriptures contain some sort of title deed from the Almighty. Also for acknowledging that the state of Israel is not without fault. I take the following to be the heart of your argument:
"The creation of the Jewish state is no more violent or arbitrary than the creation or existence of any state, and it came into existence as it did in large part because of events of both Middle Eastern and European history. It now exists, and as such, has a right to exist."
I see a number of problems.
1. You don't address the advisability of creating the state of Israel in the first place, given the nature of the neighborhood.
2. History is complicated, but even if I grant that there is violence in the founding of any state, it remains that some people or nation--say, Chinese, looking for however you say Lebensraum in Chinese--could conceivably invade and expel all the current inhabitants of Israel/Palestine and have the same rights that you now attribute to the state of Israel. States come into existence but, by the same token, they also go out of existence. So far the Muslim world--a considerable proportion of the world--hasn't conceded Israel's argument and demand that they grant perpetual victory to Israel.
3. That being the case, why should anyone care about the state of Israel? By your argument it appears to be a matter of personal preference. Those who prefer the world to continue in a state of some sort of equilibrium would have a strong bias against initiating new conflicts in a restless part of the world that affects the rest of the world. There would also be those who would not want to take part in or grant approval to conquest and ethnic cleansing--as being a bad precedent for world peace. Granted, wars occur. But prevention seems preferable.
4. Israel receives much of its support from the US. The US has shown itself to be a quite aggressive power in the world, which has contributed substantially to the various problems we're experiencing--disruptive migrant flows, international tensions, bloody attempts at regime change that lead to widespread suffering and disruption, and now a pointless attempt to conquer Russia. Israel and its supporters have injected it/themselves into a number of these conflicts, so peace loving people might well think twice about "standing with Israel" or with Neocons more generally. Or with all ideologies of exceptionalism in geopolitical matters, be they Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
And 5 could be: ?
5. A small proportion of Americans who have enormous and disproportionate economic and political power stand behind and finance the US expression of "aggressive power", not only causing "disruptive migrant flows, international tensions, bloody attempts at regime change that lead to widespread suffering and disruption, and now a pointless attempt to conquer Russia," but also stand behind the suppression of traditional American notions of freedom and democracy, as well as Constitutional rights and protections.
Or is that one step/problem too far?
Bravo, Mark! You are spot on.
Perhaps. Putin is certainly sympathetic to Israel, even as he's a friend to Arabs.
You keep saying that Israel has been "established." And yet its "establishment" appears to be an ongoing project rather than a settled fact. Israel doesn't exist within settled boundaries but continues to attempt to expand. Again, there has always been serious opposition to those attempts. So it makes no moral sense as an argument to claim that this is settled.
Re "God's promise to Moses", I thought the promise was made to Abraham. Moreover I do not accept that construct as an historical fact in anything remotely like the same category as the documentable existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Muslim claims are of a third type, which I don't accept. Christian *faith* is founded on reasonable belief based on historic experience and in that respect is fundamentally different than either Jewish or Muslim *religion*. That makes Western "ethno-religious" states also fundamentally different from what Israel has become. It also means that the Zionist project was never truly analogous to Western states that had a Christian component.
If you really want to get an idea of where I'm coming from I recommend reading my voluminous posts from 2008 through 2013, most readily accessible at https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/
Perhaps conceding land occupied by native Palestinians to the Rothchild’s was another of Europe’s many mistakes and the lessons learned from colonialism never seems to deter the old world, yes?
Agreed. The danger is that Bibi was completely blind-sided by the Hamas terror attacks. He was already weakened, so now the only chance he has to stay in power is to "solve" the Gaza situation with maximum force and finality. Danger abounds.