I am trying to sell a house, which means posting is a littler harder than I’d like it to be right now, but the news even over the summer holidays is unrelenting.
comments closed to subscribers only because it's not possible to have a reasonable (or in Germany, legal) discussion section on the open internet when the word "Israel" is in the headline.
That's because everyone knows there can never be a solution.
The fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Arabs are the fastest-growing demographics. There aren't any secularists on the Arab side. Jewish and Israeli leftists are hopelessly naive morons and always have been.
No Arab country wants anything to do with its purportedly "Palestinian" brethren. Christian Zionists help fund the more extreme Israelis. Dual American/Israeli citizenship means the craziest settlers never have to pay for their crazy because when things get hot they can run back to Brooklyn etc. No Israeli government has the strength of will to ensure full Army service for the ultra-Orthodox so they get away with making everyone else defend their nonsense.
Diaspora non-observant Jews can't get their heads around the basic fact that Jews are an actual ethnicity and originated in the Middle East and have the same right to acknowledgement of an ethnic homeland as the Japanese and Slovaks do. You never hear them weeping about the ethnic cleansing that created Pakistan and India and Bangladesh.
And they don't have the wit to recognize that Arabs have been the world's pre-eminent settler-colonialists.
Dear eugyppius, thank you for the wise council. I hope Germany gets on with real economic matters which affect every single citizen. Political froth is no substitute for poverty.
Of course I wish the same for the rest of the EU27 and the UK, with many states affected by internal political instability. Mr Starmer is available for employment.
Believe me, it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion in America when the word "Israel" is in the headline, even on a Subscribers only Substack.
I don't understand parliamentary government very well, so I'll ask a "for dummies" question. How can the Chancellor announce a change in policy without consultation with the members. Our President does it as the leader of the party controlling the executive branch. He almost always consults with his own party; at a minimum he leaks before doing.
In this, it's not that different from the US system. This is Merz's government, so long as he's Chancellor, and this is a decision for the executive branch which Merz controls (with many constraints). So, while it's highly advisable to discuss these things internally and secure support, because all that's needed is a majority vote of the parliament to replace Chancellor Merz with somebody else, the decision is his.
Neurological damage is a known side effect of the tiny syringes. Neurologische Schäden sind eine bekannte Nebenwirkung der winzigen Spritzen. (Microsoft translation)
I feel like a Victorian reader of Dickens must have felt after coming to the end of the latest chapter of David Copperfield being serialised in a weekly magazine: Can't wait for next week's installment of 'The Fiasco at the Bundestag'!
Support for Israel's genocidal mania is "high" in centre-right parties in Germany? Have you got polling on that because I am going to say I doubt it. Support for Israel's conduct is "high" nowhere at this point but in Israel and among the more deranged of dispensationalist evangelical Christians.
well, I'm talking specifically about party members and the politicians. as for voters, the polling data is surprisingly bad. CDU/CSU voters skew more than German average for the Israeli side, with about 20-30% rejecting the idea of pressuring Israel or favouring greater Palestinian concessions (these are the way the questions were posed in the most relevant polls).
This is the flimsiest wokery. You drink down the same swill from the media, the NGOs and the UN that you would (presumably) reject on any other issue.
The only starving people in Gaza are Israeli hostages. Look at the pictures of plump terrorist humiliating their emaciated hostages on the few occasions when they've deigned to return a few. Oh but what about the starving children? Again, look at the photos. Starving children have starving mothers, not well-fed mothers. In any part of the world, there are children to be found with wasting diseases. Outside of war, Israel received such children into its hospitals.
Gaza during the whole of this conflict, has been provided with more food than it can actually eat. The current upside-down world propaganda that you so credulously accept is precisely because over 90% of the aid was stolen by Hamas, which then sold it on to its citizens at high prices, in order to fund Hamas's continued terrorism. The US and Israel finally organized a way of distributing aid without it falling into Hamas's hands first. This meant that Hamas had a funding crisis, hence the current pretense that Gazans are starving. The mainstream media that you wouldn't normally trust readily complies with this propaganda campaign and you believe it - because Israel.
Can you name another conflict where one side provided electricity, and allowed for its enemy to remain well fed and supplied with medication? There are indeed people in Gaza who don't receive adequate food and medication, and those are the hostages that Hamas took on October 7, 2023.
It is one of the defining characteristics of wokery to allow yourself to be pumped up with emotion to accept a politically useful narrative, until you are primed to think that anyone who talks about evidence and statistics undermining the narrative must be evil. Ask yourself: what did you think of people who behaved this way in 2020 over masks and 2021 over the "vaccines"? Why are you behaving the same way a few years later?
I accept that you wrote this in good faith, and I am honestly curious as to your sources of information. Really very very genuinely, what are you reading that has lead you to the series of assertions you make here? I’m not asking to have a fight or be dismissive, I am quite sincerely interested in your news diet if you don’t find that an impertinent question.
You make it clear that your only interest in what I have written here is to pathologize it. It is kind of you to attribute to me "good faith" rather than malice, but you are hoping I will offer a source that you can dismiss as "Zionist propaganda".
I read widely, and change my reading often. When I find a source is lying, I ditch it. When I find a source changes its opions substantially or even contradicts what it said previously without any explanation, I ditch it. I do not hold an opinion because I think it will look good to someone else. If I have some evidence for an opinion, but not enough, I hold it tentatively, and keep an eye out for counter-evidence.
If I find someone disagrees with me, there are two common possibilites: they know something I don't know; or I know something they don't know. It can easily be put to the test (one can ask questions of the other). I find, on the subject of Gaza, for example, that those who disagree are unaware of basic recent history of the territory. On any political issue, those lacking knowledge of the relevant basic history are leaving themselves open to manipulation - even to the stage when they believe in a complete inversion of the reality, and close themselves off to anyone offering counterevidence or counterarguments.
I will put a few such questions to you. Do you know what authority was in charge of Gaza between Israel's independence and 1967? Can you explain why there was not a word about Palestinians suffering the occupation of a foreign power during those two decades. Similarly, what entity occupied the "West Bank" during the same period? And again, why was there not a word about Palestinian land begin occupied?
On a related issue, can you find any sentence mentioning a Palestinian nation in UN documents prior to 1969? Even a hint? The UN, after all, has been more industrious in issuing condemnations of Israel than any other country. If you can't answer these, then you have indeed left yourself open to manipulation
Lastly, can you give me a reasoned refutation of a single point I have made in my several comments here. If you have no idea (before consulting the internet) how to answer the questions above, it is unlikely that you will make much headway here.
Stop with the hyperbole. There is no genocide happening. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, they could have floored the whole place already. So why didn't they, because they will be accused of genocide either way?
Agreed. I thought I'd try to answer your parting question:
"So why didn't they, because they will be accused of genocide either way?"
It's in the nature of acting morally that the person (or group) will act this way whatever others say. Certainly, it's a good byproduct if people think better of you that you've done the right thing. But even if they pretend you're doing the opposite, and dishonestly denounce you for this (falsehood), you continue doing the right thing.
The Geneva Convention documents permit siege warfare - there isn't a separate paragraph on the topic, but it is mentioned twice, with guidance on how it should be conducted (i.e. the purpose is not to condemn it categorically). So here, Israel is actually going far beyond what is required for the just conduct of war.
Just War theory (as formulated in the Geneva Convention) also requires that a combatant party should not only never target non-combatants, but should also attempt to mimize the death of non-combatants. In the current conflict, the IDF has sent out millions of SMS messages to Gazans, telling them that a certain building or block will be attacked, and also telling them which nearby area will be safest for them. Additionally, it has been standard practice for the Israeli airforce to drop a warning on the roof of such a building (a non-explosive device that creates a loud noise), so that any remaining non-combatants still have time to clear the building. This, of course, means that Hamas missile crews also have time to descend to safety into their tunnel complex. Again, this is far beyond any measures required by the Geneva Conventions.
there are also divisions within AfD, but as you move away from the Union in either direction (left or right) you will find more Israel-critical voices.
Support for Israel's war against Gaza is certainly high in centre-right mainstream publications including among user comments. Of course, these are by no means representative but they reveal that there is indeed a large number of people especially on the right (and to a lesser degree on the Left) for whom Israel can't fight brutally enough. My impression is that most of them are full of hatred against Muslims because they essentially treat them all as one. Hamas, Palestinian civilians, psychotic knife attackers in Germany, fundamentalists who fight for a global caliphate, the annoying Arab youths in their neighborhood who commit seven deadly sins before breakfast? All the same to them. And it's certainly true that the lines between Hamas and civilians is blurry but that doesn't justify a complete neglect of the latter. And given the way Israel has been conducting itself for decades and especially in the past two years, it's really not surprising that many Palestinians wished it wouldn't exist.
"And given the way Israel has been conducting itself for decades and especially in the past two years..."
How has Israel been conducting itself for decades? In the 90s, by making foolish "peace" agreements that merely facilitated Palestinian terrorist attacks. In the early 2000s by forcibly removing all Israeli citizens from the Gaza strip, and handing over the whole territory, with its infrastructure and industries intact so that they could enjoy prosperity.
So did the "Palestinians" want prosperity? No, of course not. There was no such nation before the mid 1960s, and their national identity is nothing except the eradication of Israel. After being gifted the Gaza strip, they staged a civil war which Hamas won (killing off their PLO opponents). They destroyed the industries, and lived off a global welfare scheme. The Hamas leaders took billions of $ for themselves, and instead of building up industry and tourism, they bought missiles and dug tunnels equivalent to the metro system of a major developed city, but for the purpose of terrorism only (which are indispensible to the war they are waging now, such as hiding Israeli hostages, or appearing out of nowhere to shoot Israeli soldiers).
Since you have such a dark and warped view of Israel, you will be aware that they could have turned the Gaza strip to glass in a day. Why, instead, do they provide electricity, allow in food aid and medicines. Are you even aware that Hamas takes over 90% of the aid, shooting its own people if they try to get it first. They then sell on the aid at whatever price they choose, in order to fund their continued terrorism.
Are you even aware that there was no conflict before Hamas and "Palestinian civilians" went on a rampage of gang rape, torture, burnings, beheadings and shooting. Are you even aware that Hamas has continued attacking every day since October 2023? If your country was under constant attack from an enemy sworn to your destruction, would you find yourself saying at some point "Enough is enough. This looks bad in the international media and the UN. We must surrender now, and let them massacre us."
One thing I find very curious about the "poor Palestinians" is why are no Arab countries willing to take in Palestinian refugees? If their fellow Muslims are in such dire straits, why don't Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc offer them asylum? Everyone blames Israel, but no Islamic country is willing to offer help to these supposedly starving war-torn people. A clear lack of sympathy for their Muslim brothers and sisters. Curious.
Curious indeed that our hordes of wokists (left and right varieties) conveniently overlook this.
Jordan was nearly taken over by the PLO at the beginning of the 70s, and the Jordanian monarchy's successful attempt to crush the revolt was exactly the kind of merciless massacre that Israel is always accused of carrying out (but never does).
The PLO then moved on to Lebanon, and did indeed succeed in destroying that country. Reagan foolishly allowed the PLO leadership to move into exile, and Hizballah took over the fight. Try to find old photos of Beirut - it was a truly elegant capital city once.
The wokists also failed to note Egypt's closure of the border with Gaza at the Rafah crossing (the only crossing to Egypt) at the same time that Israel closed its crossings when they realized that they had handed over control of the strip only to have Hamas take it over as a pad for launching rockets at cities and towns in Israel.
Again, they failed to note Egypt's treatment of the tunnels near its border: Egypt flooded them with sewage, doubtless drowning many Hamas terrorists in the process. Israel, of course, has never done any such thing.
Almost as if the wokists didn't actually care a jot for the "Palestinians" but only for the destruction of Israel - on the left because it is a civilized country that is presented as "colonialist" and locked unwilling in combat with the leftist's beloved Islam; and on the right because of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or some such rubbish under a politer name.
Well put. Wasn't it known as Black September, when Jordan crushed the PLO? It does help to know some history.
It amazes me how nobody on any side seems to notice the way Egypt keeps seriously blockading any Palestinians who try to flee in that direction. It's the classic Elephant In The Living Room -- Islamic countries do not want the Palestinians! We need to pay attention to that.
Yes, and as a result, Arafat's Fatah organization, the leading faction of the PLO, organized a new front organization, called Black September. They assassinated the Jordanian prime minister, failed to assassinate the King, but their best known terrorist action was the torture and murder of the Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics of 1972. Fatah used these "more extreme" organizations partly to cultivate plausible deniability, but also to stop the PLO from splitting, or from overthrowing Fatah leadership. The hottest of the hotheads could be transferred over to the latest front organization, which in this instance was Black September.
Fatah closed Black September down the following year, which is an interesting example of the dynamics of Palestinian terrorism. The Soviet Union agreed to mentor, train and arm the PLO (and later offshoots) because 1967 had proven that several Arab countries under Soviet sponsorship were unable to defeat Israel militarily, even when their attacks were simultaneous and co-ordinated.
As a result, the KGB, with Andropov in charge, formulated a program of terrorism combined with propaganda. The first end other countries' co-operation with Israel. The second was to be attuned to the weaknesses of the Western liberal elites, so that they would gradually see their capitulations to terrorism as a highly moral act.
After Munich in 1972, the terror campaign abroad was proving counter-productive to "Palestinian" and Soviet interests, so Black September in particular was closed down, and terrorist activities were confined to Middle Eastern theatres - chiefly the "West Bank" and Lebanon.
I'm not saying Israel is the only bad actor here and I'm certainly not condoning Hamas terrorism. But your comment does not address anything that happened before the Oslo agreement and paints a very one-sided picture of what happened after. The territory that increasingly many states recognise as Palestine is only a small part of what the original UN partition plan of 1947 assigned to the Arabs. Both Gaza and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Israel in 1967. That Israel returned it (under limited sovereignty) in the 90s may deserve some praise, but ultimately it would be as if Trump and Putin signed a peace deal and Russia returns some of the occupied land, while still controlling the borders and protecting Russian settlers. Just look at how Israel has grown since 1948.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Israel is committing genocide. Maybe what they are doing qualifies as such, but I'm not convinced. Given the power imbalance, they could easily flatten all of Gaza but they don't. Yet, they have restricted food aid again and again, and there are many quotes of Israeli politicians that do sound like they have zero empathy for Palestinan civilians and would be willing to starve them to death. I'm sure Hamas is partly responsible for the famine in Gaza, but Israel also bears responsibility, certainly morally, but even legally as an occupying force. There would be no hunger if they dropped the same amount of food as they dropped bombs.
One should keep in mind that the Middle East isn't really a geographic region. It's actually a vast blood sacrifice and purity cult superstore and there's always going to be a fight on Aisle Three.
Really? A paid subscription grants immunity from legal action?
I have to say, despite my lack of interest in contemporary German politics, I find your writing compelling and entertaining. Maybe it’s because you have skin in the game and that is something I truly respect.
thank you mr. anthony. a paid subscription may not confer immunity, but at least it reduces vastly the number of people who can read what we write down here. which has its advantages and disadvantages.
Well. Can we say "thank God" that the Christian Social Union ain't in the least quaking before the specter of pro-Palestine lunatics running wild in the streets because of their objections and gave Merz a smart smack upside his head?
Considering the political haj currently being performed by Canada, France and Australia this is a mighty interesting counterpoint.
I am ashamed to be Australian at the moment. Our prime minister rents his spine out to what ever cause gets his short attention span and 90,000 terrorist supporter marching on the bridge in Sydney is the latest!
Apart from the style and the dash of your writing I commend your ever inventive neologisms - 'Merzian', 'Upscrewery' and the best 'Trainwreckclowncar'. More please.
"The moderate, sensible, centrist solution – some kind of cooperation between the Union and the AfD to remove the left from power at the federal level – every day recedes further from view. "
Not so sure about this. The more intractable the SDP becomes, the likelier the possibility that a man (and a party) with no actual spine will finally invite the AfD into a coalition. Holy cow, I'd love to see the exploding left wing and mainstream craniums that would result from that. And this arrangement would likely last a decade or more.
The SPD used to be calmer, it's just taking a while to get used to their new rabid incarnation. Also, it simply seemed crazy to me that a failed Bundestag confirmation would occasion this much anger, just weeks of whining and crying. the Union made it clear the sticking point was abortion, just nominate somebody else who hasn't made such public statements about the issue.
He isn't even in contention for second worst, if we assign that based on damage done. However, for "most incompetent", unable to even explain let alone enforce his own agenda, I'd say he's in with a great shout for first place. With the exception of Starmer, few politicians have been so obviously unsuited to the role so quickly.
Truss, whose origins are in the Orange Book/actual properly liberal wing of the Lib Dems, was taken out because of "market-upsetting" remarks that would have been a nothingburger if expressed by the leader of a country that was either economically strong or already totally f'd. As the UK has been on the brink of financial collapse for some decades, saying so, and most especially saying something ought to be done about it, was unacceptable. She only lasted so long because the Queen died on her watch and it would have been unseemly to topple the PM before the funeral.
Ugh, Friedrich Metz. That face. Those eyes. How do such moronic people attain power? It seems that the higher your level of idiocy, stupidity and incompetence, the higher you rise in politics. And for strange reasons I can't explain, they all have a certain identifiable "look".
Psychopaths and sociopaths excel at rising to power because they are willing to do whatever it takes. And that is what you are seeing in the eyes of so many political leaders.
Have you noticed how odd looking the current crop of politicians is worldwide? Perhaps we should vote for or against based on odder or more 'regular' looking people. I see this worldwide, America included.
In addition to demonizing fat, there is also massive and widespread intake of statins, thus denying the brain of needed cholesterol. No wonder so many can't think or reason.
Interesting. I did wonder why he'd done it - makes more sense now.
This political re-ordering seems to be happening in many West European countries of course as they all seem to have made a similar hash of running their countries for the last 20 years or so and are now reaping the whirlwind that follows.
Reading up on the Roman Empire and have been thinking that the threat of the Ceasar solution might be a needed consideration to help prevent or purge from office these lunatic leftoid women and those same with a penis.
I have been thinking that the feminist success at equality and then dominance should provide all the justification for punching them in the face when deserved. Maybe to help prevent the gender unfairness outrage for a man punching a woman, the man should just temporarily claim he is a woman.
Same with the low-T lapdog males they have on a leash.
Yes, the simps do their bit too. Alas the ladies find themselves increasingly drawn to the more disagreeable types. I am convinced it is all a decades-long shit test. A firm NO might be enough.
I don't know which I look forward to more: E's clever updates or the hilariously brilliant comments of my fellow subscribers. The wit never, ever disappoints. I only wish E could write about my own state: California!
comments closed to subscribers only because it's not possible to have a reasonable (or in Germany, legal) discussion section on the open internet when the word "Israel" is in the headline.
Such reminders of the times we're in continue to be horribly sobering.
First, everybody lost their mind over Trump. Now it's Israel/Gaza. You can't have a reasonable discussion with anybody about it.
That's because everyone knows there can never be a solution.
The fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Arabs are the fastest-growing demographics. There aren't any secularists on the Arab side. Jewish and Israeli leftists are hopelessly naive morons and always have been.
No Arab country wants anything to do with its purportedly "Palestinian" brethren. Christian Zionists help fund the more extreme Israelis. Dual American/Israeli citizenship means the craziest settlers never have to pay for their crazy because when things get hot they can run back to Brooklyn etc. No Israeli government has the strength of will to ensure full Army service for the ultra-Orthodox so they get away with making everyone else defend their nonsense.
Diaspora non-observant Jews can't get their heads around the basic fact that Jews are an actual ethnicity and originated in the Middle East and have the same right to acknowledgement of an ethnic homeland as the Japanese and Slovaks do. You never hear them weeping about the ethnic cleansing that created Pakistan and India and Bangladesh.
And they don't have the wit to recognize that Arabs have been the world's pre-eminent settler-colonialists.
I could keep going but...
It’s the new fashion that’s become a bad habit.
Dear eugyppius, thank you for the wise council. I hope Germany gets on with real economic matters which affect every single citizen. Political froth is no substitute for poverty.
Of course I wish the same for the rest of the EU27 and the UK, with many states affected by internal political instability. Mr Starmer is available for employment.
And Mr Albanese from Australia. He has a special line to Mahmoud Abbas to sell!
Pardon me, but I believe he is properly addressed as Sir Starmer. 😉
Nah! He doesn’t deserve it!
Believe me, it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion in America when the word "Israel" is in the headline, even on a Subscribers only Substack.
I don't understand parliamentary government very well, so I'll ask a "for dummies" question. How can the Chancellor announce a change in policy without consultation with the members. Our President does it as the leader of the party controlling the executive branch. He almost always consults with his own party; at a minimum he leaks before doing.
In this, it's not that different from the US system. This is Merz's government, so long as he's Chancellor, and this is a decision for the executive branch which Merz controls (with many constraints). So, while it's highly advisable to discuss these things internally and secure support, because all that's needed is a majority vote of the parliament to replace Chancellor Merz with somebody else, the decision is his.
Thanks for this explanation. I never equated President with Chancellor, because voters vote for parties complicated by coalitions.
Neurological damage is a known side effect of the tiny syringes. Neurologische Schäden sind eine bekannte Nebenwirkung der winzigen Spritzen. (Microsoft translation)
I feel like a Victorian reader of Dickens must have felt after coming to the end of the latest chapter of David Copperfield being serialised in a weekly magazine: Can't wait for next week's installment of 'The Fiasco at the Bundestag'!
As per a famous advert for chocolate: "Chancellor Merz, you spoil us!"
Support for Israel's genocidal mania is "high" in centre-right parties in Germany? Have you got polling on that because I am going to say I doubt it. Support for Israel's conduct is "high" nowhere at this point but in Israel and among the more deranged of dispensationalist evangelical Christians.
well, I'm talking specifically about party members and the politicians. as for voters, the polling data is surprisingly bad. CDU/CSU voters skew more than German average for the Israeli side, with about 20-30% rejecting the idea of pressuring Israel or favouring greater Palestinian concessions (these are the way the questions were posed in the most relevant polls).
Well, you know, people rather sensibly get less of a chill up the spine from a kosher butcher rather than a halal one moving into the neighborhood.
"Support for Israel's genocidal mania" etc. etc.
This is the flimsiest wokery. You drink down the same swill from the media, the NGOs and the UN that you would (presumably) reject on any other issue.
The only starving people in Gaza are Israeli hostages. Look at the pictures of plump terrorist humiliating their emaciated hostages on the few occasions when they've deigned to return a few. Oh but what about the starving children? Again, look at the photos. Starving children have starving mothers, not well-fed mothers. In any part of the world, there are children to be found with wasting diseases. Outside of war, Israel received such children into its hospitals.
Gaza during the whole of this conflict, has been provided with more food than it can actually eat. The current upside-down world propaganda that you so credulously accept is precisely because over 90% of the aid was stolen by Hamas, which then sold it on to its citizens at high prices, in order to fund Hamas's continued terrorism. The US and Israel finally organized a way of distributing aid without it falling into Hamas's hands first. This meant that Hamas had a funding crisis, hence the current pretense that Gazans are starving. The mainstream media that you wouldn't normally trust readily complies with this propaganda campaign and you believe it - because Israel.
Can you name another conflict where one side provided electricity, and allowed for its enemy to remain well fed and supplied with medication? There are indeed people in Gaza who don't receive adequate food and medication, and those are the hostages that Hamas took on October 7, 2023.
It is one of the defining characteristics of wokery to allow yourself to be pumped up with emotion to accept a politically useful narrative, until you are primed to think that anyone who talks about evidence and statistics undermining the narrative must be evil. Ask yourself: what did you think of people who behaved this way in 2020 over masks and 2021 over the "vaccines"? Why are you behaving the same way a few years later?
I accept that you wrote this in good faith, and I am honestly curious as to your sources of information. Really very very genuinely, what are you reading that has lead you to the series of assertions you make here? I’m not asking to have a fight or be dismissive, I am quite sincerely interested in your news diet if you don’t find that an impertinent question.
You make it clear that your only interest in what I have written here is to pathologize it. It is kind of you to attribute to me "good faith" rather than malice, but you are hoping I will offer a source that you can dismiss as "Zionist propaganda".
I read widely, and change my reading often. When I find a source is lying, I ditch it. When I find a source changes its opions substantially or even contradicts what it said previously without any explanation, I ditch it. I do not hold an opinion because I think it will look good to someone else. If I have some evidence for an opinion, but not enough, I hold it tentatively, and keep an eye out for counter-evidence.
If I find someone disagrees with me, there are two common possibilites: they know something I don't know; or I know something they don't know. It can easily be put to the test (one can ask questions of the other). I find, on the subject of Gaza, for example, that those who disagree are unaware of basic recent history of the territory. On any political issue, those lacking knowledge of the relevant basic history are leaving themselves open to manipulation - even to the stage when they believe in a complete inversion of the reality, and close themselves off to anyone offering counterevidence or counterarguments.
I will put a few such questions to you. Do you know what authority was in charge of Gaza between Israel's independence and 1967? Can you explain why there was not a word about Palestinians suffering the occupation of a foreign power during those two decades. Similarly, what entity occupied the "West Bank" during the same period? And again, why was there not a word about Palestinian land begin occupied?
On a related issue, can you find any sentence mentioning a Palestinian nation in UN documents prior to 1969? Even a hint? The UN, after all, has been more industrious in issuing condemnations of Israel than any other country. If you can't answer these, then you have indeed left yourself open to manipulation
Lastly, can you give me a reasoned refutation of a single point I have made in my several comments here. If you have no idea (before consulting the internet) how to answer the questions above, it is unlikely that you will make much headway here.
Stop with the hyperbole. There is no genocide happening. If Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, they could have floored the whole place already. So why didn't they, because they will be accused of genocide either way?
Agreed. I thought I'd try to answer your parting question:
"So why didn't they, because they will be accused of genocide either way?"
It's in the nature of acting morally that the person (or group) will act this way whatever others say. Certainly, it's a good byproduct if people think better of you that you've done the right thing. But even if they pretend you're doing the opposite, and dishonestly denounce you for this (falsehood), you continue doing the right thing.
The Geneva Convention documents permit siege warfare - there isn't a separate paragraph on the topic, but it is mentioned twice, with guidance on how it should be conducted (i.e. the purpose is not to condemn it categorically). So here, Israel is actually going far beyond what is required for the just conduct of war.
Just War theory (as formulated in the Geneva Convention) also requires that a combatant party should not only never target non-combatants, but should also attempt to mimize the death of non-combatants. In the current conflict, the IDF has sent out millions of SMS messages to Gazans, telling them that a certain building or block will be attacked, and also telling them which nearby area will be safest for them. Additionally, it has been standard practice for the Israeli airforce to drop a warning on the roof of such a building (a non-explosive device that creates a loud noise), so that any remaining non-combatants still have time to clear the building. This, of course, means that Hamas missile crews also have time to descend to safety into their tunnel complex. Again, this is far beyond any measures required by the Geneva Conventions.
Correct. But Israel only has a choice of "bad" in terms of ending the Gaza conflict. Which is the least bad option?
Even the AFD supports the embargo.
there are also divisions within AfD, but as you move away from the Union in either direction (left or right) you will find more Israel-critical voices.
Support for Israel's war against Gaza is certainly high in centre-right mainstream publications including among user comments. Of course, these are by no means representative but they reveal that there is indeed a large number of people especially on the right (and to a lesser degree on the Left) for whom Israel can't fight brutally enough. My impression is that most of them are full of hatred against Muslims because they essentially treat them all as one. Hamas, Palestinian civilians, psychotic knife attackers in Germany, fundamentalists who fight for a global caliphate, the annoying Arab youths in their neighborhood who commit seven deadly sins before breakfast? All the same to them. And it's certainly true that the lines between Hamas and civilians is blurry but that doesn't justify a complete neglect of the latter. And given the way Israel has been conducting itself for decades and especially in the past two years, it's really not surprising that many Palestinians wished it wouldn't exist.
"And given the way Israel has been conducting itself for decades and especially in the past two years..."
How has Israel been conducting itself for decades? In the 90s, by making foolish "peace" agreements that merely facilitated Palestinian terrorist attacks. In the early 2000s by forcibly removing all Israeli citizens from the Gaza strip, and handing over the whole territory, with its infrastructure and industries intact so that they could enjoy prosperity.
So did the "Palestinians" want prosperity? No, of course not. There was no such nation before the mid 1960s, and their national identity is nothing except the eradication of Israel. After being gifted the Gaza strip, they staged a civil war which Hamas won (killing off their PLO opponents). They destroyed the industries, and lived off a global welfare scheme. The Hamas leaders took billions of $ for themselves, and instead of building up industry and tourism, they bought missiles and dug tunnels equivalent to the metro system of a major developed city, but for the purpose of terrorism only (which are indispensible to the war they are waging now, such as hiding Israeli hostages, or appearing out of nowhere to shoot Israeli soldiers).
Since you have such a dark and warped view of Israel, you will be aware that they could have turned the Gaza strip to glass in a day. Why, instead, do they provide electricity, allow in food aid and medicines. Are you even aware that Hamas takes over 90% of the aid, shooting its own people if they try to get it first. They then sell on the aid at whatever price they choose, in order to fund their continued terrorism.
Are you even aware that there was no conflict before Hamas and "Palestinian civilians" went on a rampage of gang rape, torture, burnings, beheadings and shooting. Are you even aware that Hamas has continued attacking every day since October 2023? If your country was under constant attack from an enemy sworn to your destruction, would you find yourself saying at some point "Enough is enough. This looks bad in the international media and the UN. We must surrender now, and let them massacre us."
One thing I find very curious about the "poor Palestinians" is why are no Arab countries willing to take in Palestinian refugees? If their fellow Muslims are in such dire straits, why don't Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc offer them asylum? Everyone blames Israel, but no Islamic country is willing to offer help to these supposedly starving war-torn people. A clear lack of sympathy for their Muslim brothers and sisters. Curious.
Curious indeed that our hordes of wokists (left and right varieties) conveniently overlook this.
Jordan was nearly taken over by the PLO at the beginning of the 70s, and the Jordanian monarchy's successful attempt to crush the revolt was exactly the kind of merciless massacre that Israel is always accused of carrying out (but never does).
The PLO then moved on to Lebanon, and did indeed succeed in destroying that country. Reagan foolishly allowed the PLO leadership to move into exile, and Hizballah took over the fight. Try to find old photos of Beirut - it was a truly elegant capital city once.
The wokists also failed to note Egypt's closure of the border with Gaza at the Rafah crossing (the only crossing to Egypt) at the same time that Israel closed its crossings when they realized that they had handed over control of the strip only to have Hamas take it over as a pad for launching rockets at cities and towns in Israel.
Again, they failed to note Egypt's treatment of the tunnels near its border: Egypt flooded them with sewage, doubtless drowning many Hamas terrorists in the process. Israel, of course, has never done any such thing.
Almost as if the wokists didn't actually care a jot for the "Palestinians" but only for the destruction of Israel - on the left because it is a civilized country that is presented as "colonialist" and locked unwilling in combat with the leftist's beloved Islam; and on the right because of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or some such rubbish under a politer name.
Well put. Wasn't it known as Black September, when Jordan crushed the PLO? It does help to know some history.
It amazes me how nobody on any side seems to notice the way Egypt keeps seriously blockading any Palestinians who try to flee in that direction. It's the classic Elephant In The Living Room -- Islamic countries do not want the Palestinians! We need to pay attention to that.
Yes, and as a result, Arafat's Fatah organization, the leading faction of the PLO, organized a new front organization, called Black September. They assassinated the Jordanian prime minister, failed to assassinate the King, but their best known terrorist action was the torture and murder of the Israeli athletes during the Munich Olympics of 1972. Fatah used these "more extreme" organizations partly to cultivate plausible deniability, but also to stop the PLO from splitting, or from overthrowing Fatah leadership. The hottest of the hotheads could be transferred over to the latest front organization, which in this instance was Black September.
Fatah closed Black September down the following year, which is an interesting example of the dynamics of Palestinian terrorism. The Soviet Union agreed to mentor, train and arm the PLO (and later offshoots) because 1967 had proven that several Arab countries under Soviet sponsorship were unable to defeat Israel militarily, even when their attacks were simultaneous and co-ordinated.
As a result, the KGB, with Andropov in charge, formulated a program of terrorism combined with propaganda. The first end other countries' co-operation with Israel. The second was to be attuned to the weaknesses of the Western liberal elites, so that they would gradually see their capitulations to terrorism as a highly moral act.
After Munich in 1972, the terror campaign abroad was proving counter-productive to "Palestinian" and Soviet interests, so Black September in particular was closed down, and terrorist activities were confined to Middle Eastern theatres - chiefly the "West Bank" and Lebanon.
Spot on!
I'm not saying Israel is the only bad actor here and I'm certainly not condoning Hamas terrorism. But your comment does not address anything that happened before the Oslo agreement and paints a very one-sided picture of what happened after. The territory that increasingly many states recognise as Palestine is only a small part of what the original UN partition plan of 1947 assigned to the Arabs. Both Gaza and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Israel in 1967. That Israel returned it (under limited sovereignty) in the 90s may deserve some praise, but ultimately it would be as if Trump and Putin signed a peace deal and Russia returns some of the occupied land, while still controlling the borders and protecting Russian settlers. Just look at how Israel has grown since 1948.
To be clear, I'm not saying that Israel is committing genocide. Maybe what they are doing qualifies as such, but I'm not convinced. Given the power imbalance, they could easily flatten all of Gaza but they don't. Yet, they have restricted food aid again and again, and there are many quotes of Israeli politicians that do sound like they have zero empathy for Palestinan civilians and would be willing to starve them to death. I'm sure Hamas is partly responsible for the famine in Gaza, but Israel also bears responsibility, certainly morally, but even legally as an occupying force. There would be no hunger if they dropped the same amount of food as they dropped bombs.
One should keep in mind that the Middle East isn't really a geographic region. It's actually a vast blood sacrifice and purity cult superstore and there's always going to be a fight on Aisle Three.
Another armchair critic who can't say how he would address the Palestinian problem.
Really? A paid subscription grants immunity from legal action?
I have to say, despite my lack of interest in contemporary German politics, I find your writing compelling and entertaining. Maybe it’s because you have skin in the game and that is something I truly respect.
thank you mr. anthony. a paid subscription may not confer immunity, but at least it reduces vastly the number of people who can read what we write down here. which has its advantages and disadvantages.
As long as none of us shares his copy with some yutz from BILD.
But do keep in mind that "they" own the servers. (cf. Edward Snowden.)
Well. Can we say "thank God" that the Christian Social Union ain't in the least quaking before the specter of pro-Palestine lunatics running wild in the streets because of their objections and gave Merz a smart smack upside his head?
Considering the political haj currently being performed by Canada, France and Australia this is a mighty interesting counterpoint.
I am ashamed to be Australian at the moment. Our prime minister rents his spine out to what ever cause gets his short attention span and 90,000 terrorist supporter marching on the bridge in Sydney is the latest!
Apart from the style and the dash of your writing I commend your ever inventive neologisms - 'Merzian', 'Upscrewery' and the best 'Trainwreckclowncar'. More please.
> Trainwreckclowncar
Isn't that just an ordinary German compound noun, translated literally into English?
;-)
The long form of the word references a dumpster.
"The moderate, sensible, centrist solution – some kind of cooperation between the Union and the AfD to remove the left from power at the federal level – every day recedes further from view. "
Not so sure about this. The more intractable the SDP becomes, the likelier the possibility that a man (and a party) with no actual spine will finally invite the AfD into a coalition. Holy cow, I'd love to see the exploding left wing and mainstream craniums that would result from that. And this arrangement would likely last a decade or more.
Beg pardon, Eugy, But could you explain this phrase?
"...with the left in an unusual, unbalanced rage..."
At least here in America, unbalanced rage seems to be the usual condition of the left. But maybe your progressives are calmer than ours?
The SPD used to be calmer, it's just taking a while to get used to their new rabid incarnation. Also, it simply seemed crazy to me that a failed Bundestag confirmation would occasion this much anger, just weeks of whining and crying. the Union made it clear the sticking point was abortion, just nominate somebody else who hasn't made such public statements about the issue.
"I explained why Freidrich Merz is the most incompetent Chancellor the Federal Republic has ever seen."
Fortunately for him, as the meme has it, the bar for "worst German chancellor ever" is very high.
Fortunately for the rest of us, the field for "most incompetent" is still wide open.
"He is stranded in a political no-man’s land and taking fire from all sides."
As the adage reminds us, if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
He isn't even in contention for second worst, if we assign that based on damage done. However, for "most incompetent", unable to even explain let alone enforce his own agenda, I'd say he's in with a great shout for first place. With the exception of Starmer, few politicians have been so obviously unsuited to the role so quickly.
Wasn't one of Starmer's predecessors prime minister for just a few weeks?
Truss, whose origins are in the Orange Book/actual properly liberal wing of the Lib Dems, was taken out because of "market-upsetting" remarks that would have been a nothingburger if expressed by the leader of a country that was either economically strong or already totally f'd. As the UK has been on the brink of financial collapse for some decades, saying so, and most especially saying something ought to be done about it, was unacceptable. She only lasted so long because the Queen died on her watch and it would have been unseemly to topple the PM before the funeral.
Ugh, Friedrich Metz. That face. Those eyes. How do such moronic people attain power? It seems that the higher your level of idiocy, stupidity and incompetence, the higher you rise in politics. And for strange reasons I can't explain, they all have a certain identifiable "look".
Does Merz have good jeans? (:)) I'll get me coat.
Psychopaths and sociopaths excel at rising to power because they are willing to do whatever it takes. And that is what you are seeing in the eyes of so many political leaders.
It's those people who are placed in positions as puppets by their masters. The puppets can't follow their own convictions, should they ever have any.
Have you noticed how odd looking the current crop of politicians is worldwide? Perhaps we should vote for or against based on odder or more 'regular' looking people. I see this worldwide, America included.
It turns out that limiting animal fat and salt in one's diet doesn't promote the gestation of attractive and intelligent children.
In addition to demonizing fat, there is also massive and widespread intake of statins, thus denying the brain of needed cholesterol. No wonder so many can't think or reason.
And the possible effects of multiple Covid boosters.
Two words: legal pot.
Don't go down Canada's path.
...solely as an explanation for why the left (both the electorate and the elected) can no longer think straight,
Certainly the Democrats in the U.S. are a distinctly weird looking (and acting) bunch. Mutants of some sort?
Think “Invasion of the Body Snatchers. “
What's the record for quickest collapse of a governing coalition?
If you mean worldwide, I think Belgium currently holds the trophy.
Interesting. I did wonder why he'd done it - makes more sense now.
This political re-ordering seems to be happening in many West European countries of course as they all seem to have made a similar hash of running their countries for the last 20 years or so and are now reaping the whirlwind that follows.
I continue to be amazed ar the ineptitude of the leadership of the West.
Reading up on the Roman Empire and have been thinking that the threat of the Ceasar solution might be a needed consideration to help prevent or purge from office these lunatic leftoid women and those same with a penis.
Indeed. How much longer must we be polite. Will we wait until they burn it all to the ground?
I have been thinking that the feminist success at equality and then dominance should provide all the justification for punching them in the face when deserved. Maybe to help prevent the gender unfairness outrage for a man punching a woman, the man should just temporarily claim he is a woman.
Same with the low-T lapdog males they have on a leash.
Yes, the simps do their bit too. Alas the ladies find themselves increasingly drawn to the more disagreeable types. I am convinced it is all a decades-long shit test. A firm NO might be enough.
I don't know which I look forward to more: E's clever updates or the hilariously brilliant comments of my fellow subscribers. The wit never, ever disappoints. I only wish E could write about my own state: California!
Cheers to all.🥂