Julian and Karl you are two great analysts - I always feel more educated after I've read your writings. Julian, I really enjoy how your mind sees things from different angles; Karl, I am _always_ amazed at the breadth and depth of your writing. Superb.
Good piece, Julian. I read your comment at Larry Johnson's blog, agreed, and came here to share as I'm blocked at his site for unknown reasons. The Hamas Charter is a remarkable document I hadn't seen before. I disagree with Johnson that it proclaims Palestine to be only for Muslims as proven by point #8:
" 8. By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas – provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. ***It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety***. Hamas also believes that Palestine has always been and will always be a model of coexistence, tolerance and civilizational innovation."
Zionism and the Western Imperialism that spawned it 200 years ago are the problem at the root of the crisis. Both are at the end of their lifecycles and thus in crisis. The desire by Zionist zealots to finish the Zionist Project has built up over the last 20-30 years watered first by Sharon and followed by Netanyahu. The Zionist attempt to Divide and Rule is failing and is having the opposite effect globally. It will thus die by its own hand.
I've seen your posts elsewhere, on Moon of Alabama, for example , an VK – and they are always insightful. I can't imagine why Johnson has blocked you. In the case of Hamas. He seems to be thinking of Hamas's original charter – which was Islamicist. The 2017 charter is quite different. In the blueprint, for a better, more inclusive Palestine, friendly to all faiths.
That said, Johnson publishes every day and writing that way he doesn't seem to have time to always think things through. – so he relies too much on the opinions of others--without proper review.
By contrast, when I write, it takes much longer – with multiple rewrites – as I identify my own inconsistencies and contradictions and mistakes (which are many). , And I still don't get it right – or as right as I would like it to be.
Like my friend Sander here, I think in pictures – that eidetic thing-- so putting together an article is really a jigsaw puzzle.
I discover many "foundational" topics to inform about as Russia, China and others go about the formation of their Civilization States; and all too often, those topics get backlogged because of ongoing events related to the various crises. In the Palestinian Crisis case, the source of the problem is easy to see, but developing a solution isn't at all simple, nor is it likely to be peaceful given the Zionist's fanaticism. What I find excellent is the weekly interviews of Alastair Crooke by Judge Napolitano along with Crooke's writings. IMO, RFKjr would have a very good chance if his policy approach to Palestine differed from the Duopoly, but it doesn't which renders his overall foreign policy goal into a huge double standard--you can't end forever wars by supporting the longest standing forever war.
This pretence is formidable with coloured people holding positions of power yet segregation in the heart remains but the subjugation carries on for those who sign into this wielded club.
Like most everyone else, I've had my opinions......until being convinced by EVIDENCE that what I thought I knew.....ain't so.
Just as many may be shocked by the intricacies of Judaism, so was I years ago when I discovered that it was not Old Testament religion. For a Bible student like myself, that was a seriously delayed discovery, and I assume is also the case with millions of Christian Jew worshippers as God's chosen nation. This has become for me a whole study in itself in the last few years and continues to this day.
And if you're interested in dealing with your own ignorance - which I had to face 20 years ago - you can start here - www.crushlimbraw.com - the work begins and never stops. There's an entire library at your disposal.
Very simply, you will not learn much sitting in a classroom or church pew only. Jesus was very clear on that. The journey with Him is not endless repetition - Hebrews 5:11-6:2 - get to work!
Shaked has gotten attention mostly because she's cute but not the kind of attention she deserves. People chuckle and say, "she's cute, but she's an outlier" when in fact she represents the opinions of a lot of Zionists—not, of course, Jews – but Zionists—who are actually in conflict with modern Jewish humanism. She's the face of mainstream racism. Which is always helped by makeup and a good stylist.
+--+
CUTE? Come on, man, end the hormone, mainstream, Holly-Dirt, Vogue-preening crap about women being cute, pretty.
You can see her ugliness, through the skin of her monster outfit? Her eyes are evil. Her face is the face of a white ghost, a devil. Cute?
These people are human stain, actually, triple human stain since they have their millions stashed away while Goyim goes and pays for their lies: Gadot has stated that she was brought up in a "very Jewish, Israeli family environment". Growing up in Israel, she learned and danced jazz and hip-hop for 12 years, and her first jobs were working at a local Burger King as well as babysitting.
But long before she was an action star, Gadot served two mandatory years in the Israel Defense Forces as a combat fitness instructor. The actress sat down with FOX 32 Entertainment Reporter Jake Hamilton about how her time in the military taught her valuable life lessons that became valuable as an actress.
Wonder WOman? This dirty thinking looking at these monsters because of their XX?
+--+
Learn that Talmud . . .
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic:
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
J
alkut Rubeni gadol 12b
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
+--+
The Lobby, four parts: Al Jazeera goes undercover inside the Israel Lobby in Britain. We expose a campaign to infiltrate and influence youth groups, including the National Union of Students, whose president faces a smear campaign coordinated by her own deputy and supported by the Israel Embassy.
Thanks for making the point about "cuteness". Of course, I meant "cute" as sarcasm. The Talmud is indeed racist and hateful. My mentor Jacob was supposed to be a Rabbi. He rejected that because of the Talmud. "I preferred Shakespeare", he said. And: "God is not a Jew".
I get it, and while you seem to be safe from direct Jewish bombs and now they want fucking nerve gas for the "tunnels," so I guess you are safe from that, as I am, I tire of the bizarre queerness of Holly-Dirt and Madison Avenue and Edward Bernays and all the other purveyors of what makes for a beauty. Watch Netflix, or any other shit service, and you can see what "they" consider cute and pretty and beautiful, but in the end, the THEY are the billionaires and culture psychopaths, turning the little minds of little people to see little things as imporant when they grow up to be adults with little minds.
Fucking Gaza needs food, water, electricity, lights, blankets, morgues, ovens, heat, medicine, doctors, housing, and now over at another Substack, the freaks with the mouse pads and laptops are valorizing Musk, that military industrial complex piece of shit, for "giving" Starlink to Gaza?
While the Jewish Isra-Hellions prep for nerve gas in the tunnels.
Fuck any Hollywood of Vogue fucking sense of what constitutes beauty. On the surface, one thing, deep down, just more Faustian prostitutes for Benjamins.
I am among the millions who grew up with sanitized Bible stories--perhaps no greater example than the story of Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho with his troops marching around it and God delivery the city to the Hebrews. I also know way too many happy-clappy Christians who cherrypick the verses from the prophets that they think predict this or that. Somehow to them they completely miss the weight of the prophets writing that condemns over and over and over the unjust rule of the powerful--most especially their own kings, judges and priests.
I have to wonder how many "Christians" have actually read the entire book of Joshua. One should be horrified to glorify the warmonger, Joshua. But we do like our warmongers, "in the name Jesus," of course.
As the good Carpenter said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!"
In bipartisan consensus, Biden and Speaker Johnson (among so many others) have once again declared other countries as the "axis of evil." I think MLK, Jr. addressed such hypocrisy well in his Vietnam speech.
"And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, 'You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.'"
The ppl who profess to follow a religion are for the most part liars. Who among them follows . US is a nation of war mongers. As if carnage is just another football game. And you get to choose sides. Woohoo
"You cannot kick out people who have settled in Israel for almost a century now".
I don't accept that for a moment. Why on earth should criminals - or their descendants - be allowed to remain in possession of their ill-gotten gains? Ill-gotten not just by robbery or fraud, but by mass murder.
Alleged Nazis from WW2 are still being dragged in front of courts and consigned to prison for what remains of their shaky, befuddled lives. Yet even the Nazis' crimes were slightly less, in some respects, than those of Israel. The Germans sought to extend their territory, in search of "Lebensraum", but driving out or killing the people who lived to the east. But the Israelis had no original territory in Palestine! They came in from outher continents, mostly, and drove out the people who had lived there not just for "almost a century" but for many centuries.
Why is it that having lived in a given place for nearly a century, or for millennia, gives a right to remain to some people but not to others? One has to be very careful to avoid giving any particular people a special status. The Jews already do that for themselves; others should not allow themselves to be conned into falling into line.
You have a point. From a strictly logical point of view, at least.
But we are all descendents of criminals of one kind or another. If we take this point to its logical conclusion, then most of the people in the United States should leave and give the continent back to its original inhabitants. American expansion was its search for lebensraum.
In other words, as you say – and I also maintain – no particular people should have a special status. In my opinion
When you think about that a bit more deeply, we should be going all back to Africa, where we all came from and rebuild the Neanderthal Gnome and populate the rest of the world with it... And Oh i forgot the Denisovans...
Isn't that what we're doing now? Except for the Africa part. The Neanderthals and Denisovans have made a comeback in the rest of the world. They are now called "Americans".
The time scales matter a lot. What "most civilised people" accepted as natural and good in 1900 or 1930 was already unacceptable by 1948. Actually I do not think that morality changes much. What people think is very liable to change, but I believe that it is always wrong to invade a country and kill or drive out the inhabitants. That applies especially to those who consider themselves "civilised" and "ethical". But then, I make a strong distinction between "is" and "ought". What prehistoric people did is now a matter of record - inasmuch as we know about it - but ethical condemnations are rather pointless. When the Romans, the Saxons, the Norsemen, and the Normans invaded England they all committed what we would consider terrible crimes, but for us it seems enough to record the facts and refrain from judgment.
What happens today, and happened in our lifetimes, is on the contrary a subject that has great ethical importance for us. We don't want to be horrible hypocrites like the rulers of the West and Israel.
As far as the realm of "is" rather than "ought", I believe that the Melian Dialogue of 416 BC was the last word in human affairs. Thucydides reports (perhaps imaginatively) that the Athenian envoy told the Melians: "...[Y]ou know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
That rule has obtained throughout history, and still is decisive today. That is why the Americans and the Israelis are so frustrated; they have been accustomed to doing whatever they wanted, believing they had no equals in power. Any pretence of negotiation or diplomacy was only ever a shallow masquerade, to be dropped as soon as it seemed advantageous. But today they are finding out that there are others who have at least equal military power, which in Thucydides' view should force them to resort to the level of "right" (law). They are intensely reluctant to do so, and they are getting battered as a consequence. And serve them right.
Using the correct words can be crucial so, for the record, this is from the Introduction:
"in 2006 Sir Ivor Roberts, on retiring as British Ambassador to Italy, in his valedictory telegram quoted ‘The strong do what they can: the weak suffer what they must’"
and this is from the text:
"You know as well as we do that when we are talking on the human plane questions of justice only arise when there is equal power to compel: in terms of practicality the dominant exact what they can and the weak concede what they must."
Of course i posted my above extreme reply not seriously.
When you read my original post carefully, you will find that the tools of POWER in my experience are WORDS. (Manipulating Perception, or "Managing Perception", as it is called using "Neurolinguistic Programming" technology.)
The tools to manipulate people, using automatic reactions (instincts, feelings) that were and still are required in the power-fight between families, tribes, and any other form of human groups as in religion, nobility, royalty, nationalism and ideology.
That is why i introduced the 4th Power. The key to everlasting peace.
The last part of my original post was to clarify the urgency of an attempt to use this critical phase in our civilization, with an increasing chance on our termination in a Nuclear Armageddon, to fundamentally change the behaviour between groups, leaving them to have as much freedom of choosing a "unique identity", like individuals have within a group. "Respect".
Sander
PS. Sometimes i think one of my handicaps as an Autistic person is my inability to follow the social/group rules that other people have as a base-program after birth and i have to try to Reverse Engineer it...
The inability to follow social / group rules is not in my opinion a handicap, but rather a gift. As is the ability to reverse engineer. Among the very small set of genetic factors that distinguish us from Neanderthals and previous hominids, including chimpanzees- with whom we share a lot of genes-- are a few and give us the ability to do what you do to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the individual. This is what makes us human. And this is what allowed us to supplant previous hominids. It's creative perception. In my opinion, this is also why you do not think in words – but rather in "pictures" – in other words, gestalts – which means you don't think "binary" but rather "quantum". Social and group rules are necessarily binary. Linear. Linguistic.
I did my best to prevent the impression that my talents surpass those of neurotypicals, because they are programmed for their ego (social secret agent) to jump in aggression-mode on that...
So i keep it on "a handicap".
For us it is simple... Words that lie cannot hide the reality below it, as you correctly noted.
Sander
PS. Thank you for recalling the concept of "Gestalt", being a structured whole whose properties cannot be reduced to the sum of the properties of its constituent parts.
That gives more depth to the "3D sensorimotor space plus feelings" definition of (non-verbal / wordless) "reality" i used up until now.
'Artism' ;-) seems to me to offer a distinct advantage when it comes to dispassionate analysis: I can sleep better knowing I sought to better know physical reality than be swung by social ephemera!
While I don't think I am "autistic" (I have never been examined, let alone diagnosed) I do have quite strong views about the terminology.
I prefer Professor Baron-Cohen's idea of a "spectrum" between extreme empathisers and extreme systemisers. All those types evolved because they all have some advantages under certain conditions. Having the full range of genetic types helps the human species to survive and prosper. (Arguably it has been prospering too much of late, but that's another topic).
People who are designated "autistic" or "Asperger's" are right down the "systemiser" end of the spectrum, with little or no focus on social activities, but often with exceptional ability in analysing and solving problems. Obviously such people are critically important to the species - think, for instance, of Newton and Einstein.
Of course there are those who are actually incapacitated and cannot function in society. I don't know whether their condition is the extreme end of the spectrum, or an actual illness that has no adaptive advantage. It may be significant that such a condition seems to have been very rare until quite recently.
In a Liveable Human society, when some amount of democracy is working, there are laws which are maintained more or less.
The Majority rules, but minorities are not overruled. They are respected.
There are always individuals and even groups that do not follow some of those laws.
Against that there is a more or less honest legal system and a strong arm to enforce it.
They try to keep the number of free running around criminals on a low level.
A society calls some of those criminals Sociopaths and tries to keep them out of it until they are "safe to let loose".
OK.
In a Multipolar world their will be Laws too and instead of individuals and groups who oppose them their will be "states".
International Laws decided upon by all Nations with respect for their differences will be made to all interactions between states, NOT about the states themselves that is up to each state and should be respected.
The behaviour towards other states will be the area where international Law will have to be made.
The New to be constructed United Nations should NOT have Veto's.
It should be safeguarded against corruption and instead of a vote per country, each member will get as much votes as it counts inhabitants. A state can be a member, or small states can join together in one member that represents a group, like "West-Africa", "East-Europe" or "Arab Union". The total of inhabitants of the group of nations is the weight of the vote of the group-member.
OK.
Members (states or groups) that do NOT follow the International Laws must face a juridical process that can limit their freedom in the international global society, "Humanity".
And now my latest:
A member who will NOT behave towards other member states or groups, following International Laws, should be given room to explain WHY to the world, but when there is NO majority in the New UN for that behaviour, that Nation should be isolated, taking care that everything that is needed to let that state internally function, will be supplied one way or another. This can be for a number of years, or until the nation is cured (like in a mental hospital).
A Nation that tries to eliminate others because they are somehow less valuable than themselves should be cured until that idea is gone completely.
With pain in my heart,
Sander.
PS. Why this is important for humanity.
There is this question from scientific research which says us:
"The Universe is extremely old.
Chaos theory and "Evolution" create more and more complex forms of what we call "life".
There should be millions of civilizations in the cosmos relatively near us and within reach of us.
They can have technology like and even surpassing ours. The question is: WHERE ARE THEY ??"
My answer to that is:
Evolution will create life that mutates in a high rate and ultimately one species will turn the planet into one biotope. But the same laws of evolution work within that species. Groups will be formed and groups will grow. Tools, Fire, Language, Science, Industry, Group-Thinking, Ideologies, Narratives....
And the groups that have a leading edge will take over other groups (or eliminate them). Until...
In the endgame there will be two groups left and they still are driven by the genetic rules that made them great, probably by tools to handle large groups, like language, believes, group-thinking, narratives and ideologies...
And at the same time they reached the Nuclear Technology age...
OK...
When over 1 billion years the one and only civilisation that survived this doom is visiting earth...
"The Majority rules, but minorities are not overruled. They are respected".
Nice try, but no coconut. I absolutely defy anyone to come up with a practical constitution that enshrines both those principles at once.
Democracy utterly excludes all human rights, and vice versa. In democracy the people rule supreme, and can do whatever they choose. No rights for those whom the people wish to harm.
If you want a form of democracy in which the people do not have ultimate power, what do you get? A watered-down oligarchy, like all the Western nations today. The UK claims to be a democracy, but as Aristotle predicted, the rich use their wealth to buy control. The UK is actually an oligarchy in which only the great corporations and their owners are first-class citizens.
Any so-called "democracy" that relies on a party system with people voting for representatives in some kind of Parliament or Congress ends up at the mercy of oligarchs who can manipulate public opinion. In the end, you end up with the situation like you now have in the UK and the US and Canada – where all the parties represent corporate interests. This is what you might call "subtle fascism". A better system could only evolve if legislatures were chosen as juries are supposed to be. Every citizen should have the right and duty to serve. An important legislation should be submitted to vote as referenda. Modern technologies make referenda much easier. Of course, you also need to democratize the mainstream media , which currently represent the opinions of their corporate owners.
I was writing about the new Multipolar world. NOT about the organisation of states, except in my introduction, to have a means to explain the new concepts a bit.
I think not in words, but in what you may call "pictures". Reality, NOT the virtual reality of words that are used to confuse us.
In my opinion, the gathering of ownerships (assets, money, power) into few hands is an illness called GREED and EGO-building and should be made impossible by tax-laws.
Another important factor is the 4th Power of a state: next to "Trias Politica" the 3 political powers: executive power, legislature and legal power.
What is missing is the Opinion-shaping power. It should be organised like the Juridical Power and have a central organ to check the oaths given and kept, without no one may be advertiser or Journalist / publisher.
But that is internal for states. I tried to define a new way to organise UN, ICC, etc.
Thank you, Sander. I should explain that I very much appreciate your writing, and my replies are always intended as constructive criticism. I usually criticise only writing that I value highly; the rest I just ignore. I'm afraid I am not a very constructive person. I cling to the hope that negative feedback, in reasonable quantities, also has its value!
Yes i appreciate what you call negative feedback. When i have time and the value of the subject is high, i do reply constructively which can also be called destructively, it is just how you look at it... ;-)
Real dialogue is not negative – just the presentation of alternative pictures of the world. The mind is like a camera. A lot depends upon lighting and angle. Take a look at my profile picture. It's untouched. But do you see the wrinkles? LOL.
In reality, I look like one of those reconstructions of Neanderthalis.
It seems odd that after hundreds of years of white settler-colonialism and experiencing the downside of a genocide of indigenous people that the US would want to have anything to do with a similar nation state. But it does! So perhaps that explains why the US gives so much money to Israel...sort of like a parent supporting a child. Two white settler-colonizing projects that have done so much wrong in the world and support each other in their genocidal ways. Two that need to be taken out before they can do even more harm in the world. #FreePalestine !
Fear not. The half-life of all civilizations to date has been an average 200 years. That means the US is as geriatric as Joe. As for Israel , it was born deformed
I see it the other way round. Americans, like Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and others, are uneasily aware that their ancestors drove out the indigenous peoples, killing those who resisted, just as the Israelis did to the Palestinians. The only difference is that the Israelis did it after 1945, whereas the other colonialists did it at least a century earlier.
Logically, the passage of any amount of time cannot alter what is right and what is wrong. So all the people currently living on land that was stolen by violence must feel a certain kinship with the Israelis. Perhaps some of the more unregenerate among them think, in their heart of hearts, "Well, those Israelis are doing what I and my people are no longer permitted to do: drive out the savages and take their place. Well, good luck to them". Others, more generously, may reflect that it would be unjust for them to condemn the Israelis.
There is an insoluble issue here: human ethics have evolved, so that what all "white" people thought permissible and indeed good in, say, 1930 had become quite wrong by 1945. Ironically, the main reason why so many of us see the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as utterly wrong is that the Nazi treatment of Jews changed the world's moral perceptions.
The fact remains that, as of 1947, the world had just become far safer for Jews than it had been for centuries - perhaps ever. That was exactly the wrong time for the Zionist project to be carried out. The notion that the Jews are a "people", a genetically homogenous tribe, united by blood, which requires its own "soil", is outdated, unscientific, and essentially barbarous. If Israel is a legitimate state, why cannot the Cherokee or the Dakota claim back their original "homelands"? The only conceivable answer is that Israel has modern weapons, and the Native Americans don't.
Native Americans have claimed back their original homelands... through the courts. The white colonizers made treaties that were broken. Nowadays, courts are beginning to uphold their claims. The main difference here is that we don't have to resort to bloodshed to get our lands from the current white regime. And we were fortunate that bombing raids and nukes didn't exist in the 19th century.
There certainly are strong similarities... and big differences. For instance, North America is so big that (I assume) Native Americans could find places to retreat to, if not hide. To begin with, there weren't enough European colonists to fill all the space. Palestine, of course, is very different in that respect.
If, as your comment implies, you are of Native American descent, I am glad to hear that your people are making progress and regaining some of what was lost. I was born in Argentina, where (as in most of Latin America) many people are of "Indio" ancestry - and some look very much pure-blooded. I gather that in Mexico and nearby lands the Maya are still recognisably present.
Native Americans – what we call "First Nations" in Canada-- have made progress in the courts. My uncle, who was is a Supreme Court judge, wrote the first major judgment advancing tribal rights to the juridical process in British Columbia. All well and good – but frankly, it didn't make much difference to the Wet’suwet’en.
The two state solution cannot work because the Israelis want to extend their borders - not concede some of their land to Gentiles.
The one state solution cannot work because Israelis are precisely those Jews who were unwilling to share territory with Gentiles, instead absolutely insisting on their own separate land.
In the very nature of israel and Zionism, neither solution has a hope in hell of succeeding.
"For Israel to mend its ways, the US may first need to burn..."
Yes. This is so painful, having to acknowledge that more destruction is necessary to clear up what has already taken place. Clearly, a simplistic view of "violence" and "non-violence" needs rethinking.
Julian and Karl you are two great analysts - I always feel more educated after I've read your writings. Julian, I really enjoy how your mind sees things from different angles; Karl, I am _always_ amazed at the breadth and depth of your writing. Superb.
QK
Good piece, Julian. I read your comment at Larry Johnson's blog, agreed, and came here to share as I'm blocked at his site for unknown reasons. The Hamas Charter is a remarkable document I hadn't seen before. I disagree with Johnson that it proclaims Palestine to be only for Muslims as proven by point #8:
" 8. By virtue of its justly balanced middle way and moderate spirit, Islam – for Hamas – provides a comprehensive way of life and an order that is fit for purpose at all times and in all places. Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. ***It provides an umbrella for the followers of other creeds and religions who can practice their beliefs in security and safety***. Hamas also believes that Palestine has always been and will always be a model of coexistence, tolerance and civilizational innovation."
Zionism and the Western Imperialism that spawned it 200 years ago are the problem at the root of the crisis. Both are at the end of their lifecycles and thus in crisis. The desire by Zionist zealots to finish the Zionist Project has built up over the last 20-30 years watered first by Sharon and followed by Netanyahu. The Zionist attempt to Divide and Rule is failing and is having the opposite effect globally. It will thus die by its own hand.
I've seen your posts elsewhere, on Moon of Alabama, for example , an VK – and they are always insightful. I can't imagine why Johnson has blocked you. In the case of Hamas. He seems to be thinking of Hamas's original charter – which was Islamicist. The 2017 charter is quite different. In the blueprint, for a better, more inclusive Palestine, friendly to all faiths.
That said, Johnson publishes every day and writing that way he doesn't seem to have time to always think things through. – so he relies too much on the opinions of others--without proper review.
By contrast, when I write, it takes much longer – with multiple rewrites – as I identify my own inconsistencies and contradictions and mistakes (which are many). , And I still don't get it right – or as right as I would like it to be.
Like my friend Sander here, I think in pictures – that eidetic thing-- so putting together an article is really a jigsaw puzzle.
I discover many "foundational" topics to inform about as Russia, China and others go about the formation of their Civilization States; and all too often, those topics get backlogged because of ongoing events related to the various crises. In the Palestinian Crisis case, the source of the problem is easy to see, but developing a solution isn't at all simple, nor is it likely to be peaceful given the Zionist's fanaticism. What I find excellent is the weekly interviews of Alastair Crooke by Judge Napolitano along with Crooke's writings. IMO, RFKjr would have a very good chance if his policy approach to Palestine differed from the Duopoly, but it doesn't which renders his overall foreign policy goal into a huge double standard--you can't end forever wars by supporting the longest standing forever war.
So apt!
So haiku.
This pretence is formidable with coloured people holding positions of power yet segregation in the heart remains but the subjugation carries on for those who sign into this wielded club.
Usually the only game in town!
Coercion of meaning with violence.
It isn’t racist this subjugation in America.
You summed it up plainly!
Time to change the tune of two separate states.
Don’t hear another rallying cry for sanity yet!
Zionists and the Ukrainian OUN Nazis are very much alike you’ve noticed!
They are the same people
Like most everyone else, I've had my opinions......until being convinced by EVIDENCE that what I thought I knew.....ain't so.
Just as many may be shocked by the intricacies of Judaism, so was I years ago when I discovered that it was not Old Testament religion. For a Bible student like myself, that was a seriously delayed discovery, and I assume is also the case with millions of Christian Jew worshippers as God's chosen nation. This has become for me a whole study in itself in the last few years and continues to this day.
If you wish to dig in, start here - https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/03/in-essenceit-always-wasand-still-isa.html?m=0
Furthermore, the other question that needs to be answered is: Who exactly are the Jews?
Again, what we assume to know.....ain't so -
https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-future-of-israel-re-examined.html?m=0 - and that is just one post from my library on that subject. In fact, DaLimbraw Library can be word searched on that and many other subjects related to Government, Religion, Politics and Culture.
And if you're interested in dealing with your own ignorance - which I had to face 20 years ago - you can start here - www.crushlimbraw.com - the work begins and never stops. There's an entire library at your disposal.
Very simply, you will not learn much sitting in a classroom or church pew only. Jesus was very clear on that. The journey with Him is not endless repetition - Hebrews 5:11-6:2 - get to work!
Go to work.......time's a wasting!
Glad to hear of your studies in the slow lane of discovery!
That’s where it happens here. No relation to be thought as dumb either.
Things go slow for what’s real in coming to mind.
Who are the Jews but views of a ancient people found in the ruins of Ugarit Syria 3500 years ago.
God I’d say isn’t a Jew . It could be anyone as you think of him as found in Christ.
It works in a mysterious way as you know and works beyond what we understand as thinking .
No less for being real.
It’s this manifestation of the eternal within our human biology/ mind scape experienced over a billion years of life on earth is my view.
What greater faith is there than having the sun rise in the morning as a experience?
Luck to your realizations .
I think the last 75 years speaks to it too.
Segregation in America ?
.All the talk about being inclusive means they don’t understand the issue or meaning.
Too cosmic a topic!
De-segregation did not mean de-subjugation.
Shaked has gotten attention mostly because she's cute but not the kind of attention she deserves. People chuckle and say, "she's cute, but she's an outlier" when in fact she represents the opinions of a lot of Zionists—not, of course, Jews – but Zionists—who are actually in conflict with modern Jewish humanism. She's the face of mainstream racism. Which is always helped by makeup and a good stylist.
+--+
CUTE? Come on, man, end the hormone, mainstream, Holly-Dirt, Vogue-preening crap about women being cute, pretty.
You can see her ugliness, through the skin of her monster outfit? Her eyes are evil. Her face is the face of a white ghost, a devil. Cute?
These people are human stain, actually, triple human stain since they have their millions stashed away while Goyim goes and pays for their lies: Gadot has stated that she was brought up in a "very Jewish, Israeli family environment". Growing up in Israel, she learned and danced jazz and hip-hop for 12 years, and her first jobs were working at a local Burger King as well as babysitting.
But long before she was an action star, Gadot served two mandatory years in the Israel Defense Forces as a combat fitness instructor. The actress sat down with FOX 32 Entertainment Reporter Jake Hamilton about how her time in the military taught her valuable life lessons that became valuable as an actress.
Wonder WOman? This dirty thinking looking at these monsters because of their XX?
+--+
Learn that Talmud . . .
The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. We will now list some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic:
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
J
alkut Rubeni gadol 12b
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
+--+
The Lobby, four parts: Al Jazeera goes undercover inside the Israel Lobby in Britain. We expose a campaign to infiltrate and influence youth groups, including the National Union of Students, whose president faces a smear campaign coordinated by her own deputy and supported by the Israel Embassy.
+--+
Cute? As ugly as a baboon's ass!
https://youtu.be/ceCOhdgRBoc?si=Nw7TvN_bV3J7kwvh
Thanks for making the point about "cuteness". Of course, I meant "cute" as sarcasm. The Talmud is indeed racist and hateful. My mentor Jacob was supposed to be a Rabbi. He rejected that because of the Talmud. "I preferred Shakespeare", he said. And: "God is not a Jew".
I get it, and while you seem to be safe from direct Jewish bombs and now they want fucking nerve gas for the "tunnels," so I guess you are safe from that, as I am, I tire of the bizarre queerness of Holly-Dirt and Madison Avenue and Edward Bernays and all the other purveyors of what makes for a beauty. Watch Netflix, or any other shit service, and you can see what "they" consider cute and pretty and beautiful, but in the end, the THEY are the billionaires and culture psychopaths, turning the little minds of little people to see little things as imporant when they grow up to be adults with little minds.
Fucking Gaza needs food, water, electricity, lights, blankets, morgues, ovens, heat, medicine, doctors, housing, and now over at another Substack, the freaks with the mouse pads and laptops are valorizing Musk, that military industrial complex piece of shit, for "giving" Starlink to Gaza?
While the Jewish Isra-Hellions prep for nerve gas in the tunnels.
Fuck any Hollywood of Vogue fucking sense of what constitutes beauty. On the surface, one thing, deep down, just more Faustian prostitutes for Benjamins.
Thank you Julian, I read all those you cited, in particular Scott Ritter has reassessed his position the last few days:
https://www.scottritterextra.com/p/why-i-no-longer-stand-with-israel
Yes, I noticed that. A lot of people are doing that.
I am among the millions who grew up with sanitized Bible stories--perhaps no greater example than the story of Joshua bringing down the walls of Jericho with his troops marching around it and God delivery the city to the Hebrews. I also know way too many happy-clappy Christians who cherrypick the verses from the prophets that they think predict this or that. Somehow to them they completely miss the weight of the prophets writing that condemns over and over and over the unjust rule of the powerful--most especially their own kings, judges and priests.
I have to wonder how many "Christians" have actually read the entire book of Joshua. One should be horrified to glorify the warmonger, Joshua. But we do like our warmongers, "in the name Jesus," of course.
As the good Carpenter said, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were unwilling!"
In bipartisan consensus, Biden and Speaker Johnson (among so many others) have once again declared other countries as the "axis of evil." I think MLK, Jr. addressed such hypocrisy well in his Vietnam speech.
"And don't let anybody make you think that God chose America as his divine, messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with judgment, and it seems that I can hear God saying to America, 'You're too arrogant! And if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I'll place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God.'"
The ppl who profess to follow a religion are for the most part liars. Who among them follows . US is a nation of war mongers. As if carnage is just another football game. And you get to choose sides. Woohoo
"You cannot kick out people who have settled in Israel for almost a century now".
I don't accept that for a moment. Why on earth should criminals - or their descendants - be allowed to remain in possession of their ill-gotten gains? Ill-gotten not just by robbery or fraud, but by mass murder.
Alleged Nazis from WW2 are still being dragged in front of courts and consigned to prison for what remains of their shaky, befuddled lives. Yet even the Nazis' crimes were slightly less, in some respects, than those of Israel. The Germans sought to extend their territory, in search of "Lebensraum", but driving out or killing the people who lived to the east. But the Israelis had no original territory in Palestine! They came in from outher continents, mostly, and drove out the people who had lived there not just for "almost a century" but for many centuries.
Why is it that having lived in a given place for nearly a century, or for millennia, gives a right to remain to some people but not to others? One has to be very careful to avoid giving any particular people a special status. The Jews already do that for themselves; others should not allow themselves to be conned into falling into line.
You have a point. From a strictly logical point of view, at least.
But we are all descendents of criminals of one kind or another. If we take this point to its logical conclusion, then most of the people in the United States should leave and give the continent back to its original inhabitants. American expansion was its search for lebensraum.
In other words, as you say – and I also maintain – no particular people should have a special status. In my opinion
When you think about that a bit more deeply, we should be going all back to Africa, where we all came from and rebuild the Neanderthal Gnome and populate the rest of the world with it... And Oh i forgot the Denisovans...
->https://youtu.be/54zB8FOlFcE?si=N8rWjLmRRZlSDkEC&t=80
Sander
Isn't that what we're doing now? Except for the Africa part. The Neanderthals and Denisovans have made a comeback in the rest of the world. They are now called "Americans".
The time scales matter a lot. What "most civilised people" accepted as natural and good in 1900 or 1930 was already unacceptable by 1948. Actually I do not think that morality changes much. What people think is very liable to change, but I believe that it is always wrong to invade a country and kill or drive out the inhabitants. That applies especially to those who consider themselves "civilised" and "ethical". But then, I make a strong distinction between "is" and "ought". What prehistoric people did is now a matter of record - inasmuch as we know about it - but ethical condemnations are rather pointless. When the Romans, the Saxons, the Norsemen, and the Normans invaded England they all committed what we would consider terrible crimes, but for us it seems enough to record the facts and refrain from judgment.
What happens today, and happened in our lifetimes, is on the contrary a subject that has great ethical importance for us. We don't want to be horrible hypocrites like the rulers of the West and Israel.
As far as the realm of "is" rather than "ought", I believe that the Melian Dialogue of 416 BC was the last word in human affairs. Thucydides reports (perhaps imaginatively) that the Athenian envoy told the Melians: "...[Y]ou know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must”.
That rule has obtained throughout history, and still is decisive today. That is why the Americans and the Israelis are so frustrated; they have been accustomed to doing whatever they wanted, believing they had no equals in power. Any pretence of negotiation or diplomacy was only ever a shallow masquerade, to be dropped as soon as it seemed advantageous. But today they are finding out that there are others who have at least equal military power, which in Thucydides' view should force them to resort to the level of "right" (law). They are intensely reluctant to do so, and they are getting battered as a consequence. And serve them right.
Using the correct words can be crucial so, for the record, this is from the Introduction:
"in 2006 Sir Ivor Roberts, on retiring as British Ambassador to Italy, in his valedictory telegram quoted ‘The strong do what they can: the weak suffer what they must’"
and this is from the text:
"You know as well as we do that when we are talking on the human plane questions of justice only arise when there is equal power to compel: in terms of practicality the dominant exact what they can and the weak concede what they must."
(see https://www.academia.edu/43631276/THUCYDIDES_The_Peloponnesian_War)
The distinction seems to me between force and leverage.
Humphrey, the Introduction to what book? An edition of Thucydides, do you mean? (There are several).
Der, I must read to the end of a comment before replying... 8-)
In my defence, it's early here and I haven't yet had ANY coffee. Surely a sufficient defence. 8-}
Thank you...
Of course i posted my above extreme reply not seriously.
When you read my original post carefully, you will find that the tools of POWER in my experience are WORDS. (Manipulating Perception, or "Managing Perception", as it is called using "Neurolinguistic Programming" technology.)
The tools to manipulate people, using automatic reactions (instincts, feelings) that were and still are required in the power-fight between families, tribes, and any other form of human groups as in religion, nobility, royalty, nationalism and ideology.
That is why i introduced the 4th Power. The key to everlasting peace.
The last part of my original post was to clarify the urgency of an attempt to use this critical phase in our civilization, with an increasing chance on our termination in a Nuclear Armageddon, to fundamentally change the behaviour between groups, leaving them to have as much freedom of choosing a "unique identity", like individuals have within a group. "Respect".
Sander
PS. Sometimes i think one of my handicaps as an Autistic person is my inability to follow the social/group rules that other people have as a base-program after birth and i have to try to Reverse Engineer it...
The inability to follow social / group rules is not in my opinion a handicap, but rather a gift. As is the ability to reverse engineer. Among the very small set of genetic factors that distinguish us from Neanderthals and previous hominids, including chimpanzees- with whom we share a lot of genes-- are a few and give us the ability to do what you do to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the individual. This is what makes us human. And this is what allowed us to supplant previous hominids. It's creative perception. In my opinion, this is also why you do not think in words – but rather in "pictures" – in other words, gestalts – which means you don't think "binary" but rather "quantum". Social and group rules are necessarily binary. Linear. Linguistic.
Hush...
I did my best to prevent the impression that my talents surpass those of neurotypicals, because they are programmed for their ego (social secret agent) to jump in aggression-mode on that...
So i keep it on "a handicap".
For us it is simple... Words that lie cannot hide the reality below it, as you correctly noted.
Sander
PS. Thank you for recalling the concept of "Gestalt", being a structured whole whose properties cannot be reduced to the sum of the properties of its constituent parts.
That gives more depth to the "3D sensorimotor space plus feelings" definition of (non-verbal / wordless) "reality" i used up until now.
'Artism' ;-) seems to me to offer a distinct advantage when it comes to dispassionate analysis: I can sleep better knowing I sought to better know physical reality than be swung by social ephemera!
Yep.
You must be Autistic too.
Sometimes i think Humanity can only be prevented to destroy itself by Autistics leading the way...
"Lies Written in Ink,
can Never conceal the Truth written in Blood..."
The virtual Narrative reality is like "The Matrix" holding Humanity prisoner by those Psycho's who control the Media.
Sander
PS.Try Caitlin Johnstone from Australia (X: @caitoz), she is Autistic too.
YouTube->https://www.youtube.com/@CaitlinJohnstone
While I don't think I am "autistic" (I have never been examined, let alone diagnosed) I do have quite strong views about the terminology.
I prefer Professor Baron-Cohen's idea of a "spectrum" between extreme empathisers and extreme systemisers. All those types evolved because they all have some advantages under certain conditions. Having the full range of genetic types helps the human species to survive and prosper. (Arguably it has been prospering too much of late, but that's another topic).
People who are designated "autistic" or "Asperger's" are right down the "systemiser" end of the spectrum, with little or no focus on social activities, but often with exceptional ability in analysing and solving problems. Obviously such people are critically important to the species - think, for instance, of Newton and Einstein.
Of course there are those who are actually incapacitated and cannot function in society. I don't know whether their condition is the extreme end of the spectrum, or an actual illness that has no adaptive advantage. It may be significant that such a condition seems to have been very rare until quite recently.
So as Julian Assange. There are a lot more autistic people out there than care to admit it
I have been thinking about this deeply.
In a Liveable Human society, when some amount of democracy is working, there are laws which are maintained more or less.
The Majority rules, but minorities are not overruled. They are respected.
There are always individuals and even groups that do not follow some of those laws.
Against that there is a more or less honest legal system and a strong arm to enforce it.
They try to keep the number of free running around criminals on a low level.
A society calls some of those criminals Sociopaths and tries to keep them out of it until they are "safe to let loose".
OK.
In a Multipolar world their will be Laws too and instead of individuals and groups who oppose them their will be "states".
International Laws decided upon by all Nations with respect for their differences will be made to all interactions between states, NOT about the states themselves that is up to each state and should be respected.
The behaviour towards other states will be the area where international Law will have to be made.
The New to be constructed United Nations should NOT have Veto's.
It should be safeguarded against corruption and instead of a vote per country, each member will get as much votes as it counts inhabitants. A state can be a member, or small states can join together in one member that represents a group, like "West-Africa", "East-Europe" or "Arab Union". The total of inhabitants of the group of nations is the weight of the vote of the group-member.
OK.
Members (states or groups) that do NOT follow the International Laws must face a juridical process that can limit their freedom in the international global society, "Humanity".
And now my latest:
A member who will NOT behave towards other member states or groups, following International Laws, should be given room to explain WHY to the world, but when there is NO majority in the New UN for that behaviour, that Nation should be isolated, taking care that everything that is needed to let that state internally function, will be supplied one way or another. This can be for a number of years, or until the nation is cured (like in a mental hospital).
A Nation that tries to eliminate others because they are somehow less valuable than themselves should be cured until that idea is gone completely.
With pain in my heart,
Sander.
PS. Why this is important for humanity.
There is this question from scientific research which says us:
"The Universe is extremely old.
Chaos theory and "Evolution" create more and more complex forms of what we call "life".
There should be millions of civilizations in the cosmos relatively near us and within reach of us.
They can have technology like and even surpassing ours. The question is: WHERE ARE THEY ??"
My answer to that is:
Evolution will create life that mutates in a high rate and ultimately one species will turn the planet into one biotope. But the same laws of evolution work within that species. Groups will be formed and groups will grow. Tools, Fire, Language, Science, Industry, Group-Thinking, Ideologies, Narratives....
And the groups that have a leading edge will take over other groups (or eliminate them). Until...
In the endgame there will be two groups left and they still are driven by the genetic rules that made them great, probably by tools to handle large groups, like language, believes, group-thinking, narratives and ideologies...
And at the same time they reached the Nuclear Technology age...
OK...
When over 1 billion years the one and only civilisation that survived this doom is visiting earth...
->https://i0.wp.com/whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_deadworld.jpg
Love that image
"The Majority rules, but minorities are not overruled. They are respected".
Nice try, but no coconut. I absolutely defy anyone to come up with a practical constitution that enshrines both those principles at once.
Democracy utterly excludes all human rights, and vice versa. In democracy the people rule supreme, and can do whatever they choose. No rights for those whom the people wish to harm.
If you want a form of democracy in which the people do not have ultimate power, what do you get? A watered-down oligarchy, like all the Western nations today. The UK claims to be a democracy, but as Aristotle predicted, the rich use their wealth to buy control. The UK is actually an oligarchy in which only the great corporations and their owners are first-class citizens.
Any so-called "democracy" that relies on a party system with people voting for representatives in some kind of Parliament or Congress ends up at the mercy of oligarchs who can manipulate public opinion. In the end, you end up with the situation like you now have in the UK and the US and Canada – where all the parties represent corporate interests. This is what you might call "subtle fascism". A better system could only evolve if legislatures were chosen as juries are supposed to be. Every citizen should have the right and duty to serve. An important legislation should be submitted to vote as referenda. Modern technologies make referenda much easier. Of course, you also need to democratize the mainstream media , which currently represent the opinions of their corporate owners.
Thank You Tom.
I was writing about the new Multipolar world. NOT about the organisation of states, except in my introduction, to have a means to explain the new concepts a bit.
I think not in words, but in what you may call "pictures". Reality, NOT the virtual reality of words that are used to confuse us.
In my opinion, the gathering of ownerships (assets, money, power) into few hands is an illness called GREED and EGO-building and should be made impossible by tax-laws.
Another important factor is the 4th Power of a state: next to "Trias Politica" the 3 political powers: executive power, legislature and legal power.
What is missing is the Opinion-shaping power. It should be organised like the Juridical Power and have a central organ to check the oaths given and kept, without no one may be advertiser or Journalist / publisher.
But that is internal for states. I tried to define a new way to organise UN, ICC, etc.
Sander.
Thank you, Sander. I should explain that I very much appreciate your writing, and my replies are always intended as constructive criticism. I usually criticise only writing that I value highly; the rest I just ignore. I'm afraid I am not a very constructive person. I cling to the hope that negative feedback, in reasonable quantities, also has its value!
Hi Tom !
Yes i appreciate what you call negative feedback. When i have time and the value of the subject is high, i do reply constructively which can also be called destructively, it is just how you look at it... ;-)
Real dialogue is not negative – just the presentation of alternative pictures of the world. The mind is like a camera. A lot depends upon lighting and angle. Take a look at my profile picture. It's untouched. But do you see the wrinkles? LOL.
In reality, I look like one of those reconstructions of Neanderthalis.
It seems odd that after hundreds of years of white settler-colonialism and experiencing the downside of a genocide of indigenous people that the US would want to have anything to do with a similar nation state. But it does! So perhaps that explains why the US gives so much money to Israel...sort of like a parent supporting a child. Two white settler-colonizing projects that have done so much wrong in the world and support each other in their genocidal ways. Two that need to be taken out before they can do even more harm in the world. #FreePalestine !
Fear not. The half-life of all civilizations to date has been an average 200 years. That means the US is as geriatric as Joe. As for Israel , it was born deformed
I see it the other way round. Americans, like Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and others, are uneasily aware that their ancestors drove out the indigenous peoples, killing those who resisted, just as the Israelis did to the Palestinians. The only difference is that the Israelis did it after 1945, whereas the other colonialists did it at least a century earlier.
Logically, the passage of any amount of time cannot alter what is right and what is wrong. So all the people currently living on land that was stolen by violence must feel a certain kinship with the Israelis. Perhaps some of the more unregenerate among them think, in their heart of hearts, "Well, those Israelis are doing what I and my people are no longer permitted to do: drive out the savages and take their place. Well, good luck to them". Others, more generously, may reflect that it would be unjust for them to condemn the Israelis.
There is an insoluble issue here: human ethics have evolved, so that what all "white" people thought permissible and indeed good in, say, 1930 had become quite wrong by 1945. Ironically, the main reason why so many of us see the Israeli treatment of Palestinians as utterly wrong is that the Nazi treatment of Jews changed the world's moral perceptions.
The fact remains that, as of 1947, the world had just become far safer for Jews than it had been for centuries - perhaps ever. That was exactly the wrong time for the Zionist project to be carried out. The notion that the Jews are a "people", a genetically homogenous tribe, united by blood, which requires its own "soil", is outdated, unscientific, and essentially barbarous. If Israel is a legitimate state, why cannot the Cherokee or the Dakota claim back their original "homelands"? The only conceivable answer is that Israel has modern weapons, and the Native Americans don't.
Native Americans have claimed back their original homelands... through the courts. The white colonizers made treaties that were broken. Nowadays, courts are beginning to uphold their claims. The main difference here is that we don't have to resort to bloodshed to get our lands from the current white regime. And we were fortunate that bombing raids and nukes didn't exist in the 19th century.
There certainly are strong similarities... and big differences. For instance, North America is so big that (I assume) Native Americans could find places to retreat to, if not hide. To begin with, there weren't enough European colonists to fill all the space. Palestine, of course, is very different in that respect.
If, as your comment implies, you are of Native American descent, I am glad to hear that your people are making progress and regaining some of what was lost. I was born in Argentina, where (as in most of Latin America) many people are of "Indio" ancestry - and some look very much pure-blooded. I gather that in Mexico and nearby lands the Maya are still recognisably present.
Native Americans – what we call "First Nations" in Canada-- have made progress in the courts. My uncle, who was is a Supreme Court judge, wrote the first major judgment advancing tribal rights to the juridical process in British Columbia. All well and good – but frankly, it didn't make much difference to the Wet’suwet’en.
One state solution is the path and well explained by Bolsen on Middle Nation and why.
Two insane political states ?
At the social level for peace in Israel, politics has proven its a failure
Let’s call a “ spade a spade “is about time or let’s not take the truth as something personal.
It has nothing to do with you. It ought to be a comfort!
The two state solution cannot work because the Israelis want to extend their borders - not concede some of their land to Gentiles.
The one state solution cannot work because Israelis are precisely those Jews who were unwilling to share territory with Gentiles, instead absolutely insisting on their own separate land.
In the very nature of israel and Zionism, neither solution has a hope in hell of succeeding.
I've always felt the two state solution could only perpetuate the animosity between peoples. It is neither equal nor just.
"For Israel to mend its ways, the US may first need to burn..."
Yes. This is so painful, having to acknowledge that more destruction is necessary to clear up what has already taken place. Clearly, a simplistic view of "violence" and "non-violence" needs rethinking.
It's more like karma.
Waiting for change in a Western democracy is waiting for Godot