1) Israel should be re-settled along an isolated stretch of the northwest coast of Australia. Some sheep farmer can probably sell off a corner of his ranch. The whole country would fit in this space. Here, they can grow their oranges and build their supercomputers to their heart's content. Sunshine, no natives (anymore), no security problems. What's not to like? They are experienced gardeners of the desert.
2) I hate this shitty little country, cross between Coney Island and the Third Reich. It takes up too much of the world's bandwidth. I don't think people care whether they are Jews or not; they just don't like pushy, tacky, self assertive people. It's about denotation not connotationn. That they then happen to be Jewish, a sort of concentrated exposed Jewishness, all in one place, in control of its destiny, no excuses, no hiding behind more numerous majority nationals of other countries, in other words you could nail it down to Jewsihness and nothing else, is a disturbing problem which Jewish intellectuals have to deal with. Is it because the toughness required to be a survivor amid oppression, becomes, when congregated and unshackled, a bullying oppressiveness?. I think so. Nietszche had a phrase for it: you out a slave upon a throne and he becomes a tyrant.
Is it because they are Jews? Yes. Because it arises out of the Jewish historical experience. Do other countries dislike this behaviour? Yes. Israel is the second most disliked country in the world in a poll of 35,000 people from 40 countries. (Iran is worse.). When the whole world's got a problem, you've got a problem.
Is it anti semitic? No. Because it's not the Jewishness per se that people dislike. It could be people of religion X, or any denoted group whose backstory is unknown, behaving this way and people would still dislike it.
3) I am against boycotts in principle but could be persuaded of it in this case. But is there anything to boycott? I thought Israelis are pretty much shunned in Europe anyway. I never meet Israelis in Brussels, nor see Jews. Israel and Euriope are such polar opposite: Europe is nice, consensual settled, civilised, and a little aristocratic. Israel is a settler society: raw, egalitarian, uncouth, surviivalivist, full of rejects from the old continent - a bit like early settler America, I imagine, which had a problem with the indigenes. I imagine that comonality, as well as the religiosity, is what binds America and Israel togerher.
My hesitation against an Israeli boycott - and I voted against it in the NUJ ballot - is that there are, despite the general awfulness of this country, a lot of good people in Israel, human rights campaigners and historians, who are more sympathetic to the Palestine situation than the Hampstead Jews, whose liberalism goes on holiday when they start to think with the blood. Interestingly American Jews seem to more liberal, more progressive, than British Jews.
But extremism of those who are not at the coalface is common: like this: I remember in the 1990s east European exiles who came back to the Baltic States and Poland from running Ohio car dealerships or working in Washington think tanks in the US were absolute fascists towards the Russian minorities, towards Russia in general, a superpower that meekly did everythingt that was asked of it an unprecedented series of acts of appeasement. Unfortunately they won the ear of the president, through their US lobbying connections - and you see the result today, the outrageous demonisation of Russia, which is a country I do care about
If reasonable Israeli voices were hushedl because of any boycott that would be a setback.
The only way to arm oneself against the charges of anti-semitism is to be a Jew oneself. Unfortunately, since this is not possible, the secone best alternative is to read the Israeli revisionist (ie pro palestinian) historians or the American Jewish intellectuals like Finkelstein, who has written about the extortion racket by the World Jewish congress carried out against the German state and as a result can't win tenure at any US university.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
Saturday, 9 June 2007
palestine
Having read all the comments it seems to me that it is saddam who turned out to be the Palestinians' true friend; and he was after all a self proclaimed pan-Arabist. Another tick in the plus ledger, perhaps. (Along with the healthcare, the infrastructure, the education, and emancipation of women?)
You didn't hear all this when messianic simpletons like Tony Blair, Britain's biggest undeclared zionist, decided to kick over the Middle Eastern antheap.
When Saddam fell it's not surprising the favoured people of the regime suffered. Happened to the Jews, darlings of the habsburg empire, in the 1920s and 30s.
----------
Second, as everyone goes enthusiastic over the Germans' ability to integrate refugees I say: ask any Turk in Kreuzberg,
Wikipedia:
The migrants, mostly male, were allowed to work in Germany for a period of one or two years before returning back to the home country in order to make room for other migrants. However, many migrants decided not to return to their home countries and were joined in Germany by their families. Children born to Gastarbeiters received the right to reside in Germany but were not granted citizenship; this was know as the "Aufenthaltsberechtigung" ("Right to reside").
As they started to settle down and form new ethnic minority communities, the government and others in society ignored the integration of the migrants. This led to educational, religious and social discrimination of the migrants in Germany. A factor contributing to the creation of these problems was Germany's birth laws, which did not automatically grant citizenship to those born in the country; a new born would automatically gain the nationality of his parents
-----
The pro-Israelis are getting the better of the argument today, so Norman Finkelstein provides another perspective.
(Finkelstein is the Jewish writer who exposed the WJC's extortion of the German state)
He says the Israeli intelligence knew the army would cream the Arabs but the Israeli leadership went ahead with scaremongering about another holocaust a) they wanted to finish Nasser. The idea of an Arab leader modernising the Arab world was intolerable to their sense of uniqueness and racist superiority; and they feared a modernised Arab world where they would be outnumbered. b) they were greedy for territory.
So, from 1966, they set in train a number of provocations against the Syrians, shooting down their jets, prompting the latter to ask Nasser for help as protector of the Arab peoples. He pushed the UN troops out of Sinai, but left the door open for diplomatic negotiations, and offered several openings. These Israel ignored because, as Finkelstein puts
it, the Israelis wanted war.
And now they're picking on Iran.
His words, not mine. And you can write to him at
www.normanfinkelstein.com
I feel sorry for the Palestinians. It's hard to do all those nation building things that look so neat on the drawing board when their spirit has been broken, they're walled in like rats in a cage, their territory sectioned off by roads, suffering daily searches. Unlike the zionists, they hadn't been to training school for fascism in Europe (tutor: A Hitler) so they didn't what hit them when these toughened people waded in in the 1940s.
I have just been reading Nicholas Kristof's book on poverty: and the problem is for the African poor is that, in addition to being disadvantaged, their behaviour has also turned self destructive, where drinking and drugs and risky sexual behaviour is only the start of the problem
You didn't hear all this when messianic simpletons like Tony Blair, Britain's biggest undeclared zionist, decided to kick over the Middle Eastern antheap.
When Saddam fell it's not surprising the favoured people of the regime suffered. Happened to the Jews, darlings of the habsburg empire, in the 1920s and 30s.
----------
Second, as everyone goes enthusiastic over the Germans' ability to integrate refugees I say: ask any Turk in Kreuzberg,
Wikipedia:
The migrants, mostly male, were allowed to work in Germany for a period of one or two years before returning back to the home country in order to make room for other migrants. However, many migrants decided not to return to their home countries and were joined in Germany by their families. Children born to Gastarbeiters received the right to reside in Germany but were not granted citizenship; this was know as the "Aufenthaltsberechtigung" ("Right to reside").
As they started to settle down and form new ethnic minority communities, the government and others in society ignored the integration of the migrants. This led to educational, religious and social discrimination of the migrants in Germany. A factor contributing to the creation of these problems was Germany's birth laws, which did not automatically grant citizenship to those born in the country; a new born would automatically gain the nationality of his parents
-----
The pro-Israelis are getting the better of the argument today, so Norman Finkelstein provides another perspective.
(Finkelstein is the Jewish writer who exposed the WJC's extortion of the German state)
He says the Israeli intelligence knew the army would cream the Arabs but the Israeli leadership went ahead with scaremongering about another holocaust a) they wanted to finish Nasser. The idea of an Arab leader modernising the Arab world was intolerable to their sense of uniqueness and racist superiority; and they feared a modernised Arab world where they would be outnumbered. b) they were greedy for territory.
So, from 1966, they set in train a number of provocations against the Syrians, shooting down their jets, prompting the latter to ask Nasser for help as protector of the Arab peoples. He pushed the UN troops out of Sinai, but left the door open for diplomatic negotiations, and offered several openings. These Israel ignored because, as Finkelstein puts
it, the Israelis wanted war.
And now they're picking on Iran.
His words, not mine. And you can write to him at
www.normanfinkelstein.com
I feel sorry for the Palestinians. It's hard to do all those nation building things that look so neat on the drawing board when their spirit has been broken, they're walled in like rats in a cage, their territory sectioned off by roads, suffering daily searches. Unlike the zionists, they hadn't been to training school for fascism in Europe (tutor: A Hitler) so they didn't what hit them when these toughened people waded in in the 1940s.
I have just been reading Nicholas Kristof's book on poverty: and the problem is for the African poor is that, in addition to being disadvantaged, their behaviour has also turned self destructive, where drinking and drugs and risky sexual behaviour is only the start of the problem
Tuesday, 5 June 2007
Moving towards a bipolar world
One of the consequences of America's provocations is that, psychologically at least, we are once again moving towards a bipolar world.
Lots of arguments on this thread about East versus West and the superiority of respective political classes (if not yet social setups) are resurfacing. Deja vu for many. Except this time Russia has a much stronger hand, having conceded its weak points and agreed on many areas where it has been wrong. Now it's America that is exposed.
Good for Russia, a better berth for western refuseniks than Iran or China could ever be.
Seriously, the EU should set up an alliance with Russia.
Technology transfer and investment in return for mineral resources, Russia's nuclear know-hown and the rights for the new Volksdeutsche to settle a Siberia vacated by the Russian inability to procreate.
Lots of arguments on this thread about East versus West and the superiority of respective political classes (if not yet social setups) are resurfacing. Deja vu for many. Except this time Russia has a much stronger hand, having conceded its weak points and agreed on many areas where it has been wrong. Now it's America that is exposed.
Good for Russia, a better berth for western refuseniks than Iran or China could ever be.
Seriously, the EU should set up an alliance with Russia.
Technology transfer and investment in return for mineral resources, Russia's nuclear know-hown and the rights for the new Volksdeutsche to settle a Siberia vacated by the Russian inability to procreate.
Poland's manipulations
adthelad.
Poland manipulated England into going to war with Germany to defend your country to honour its promise committed for sentimental seasons and human rights - God knows why, since Poland was the second most anti semitic country on the planet.
Germany did not want a war with the UK, and would have left the British empire alone. You also boasted about your military strength and exaggerated, we believed this bullshit. You collapsed very quickly of course. The result: we faced a now hostile Germany and our "ally" had disappeared.
Thank you Poland!
No, going to war on Poland's behalf was a big mistake. And your typical history perspective - this is not personal - shows that we haven't one molecule of gratitude for this either.
Poland would have been better off giving up and becoming a satellite state like Hungary.
Servitude or destruction? Your choice. Not our problem. Sometimes history leaves us with two unpleasant choices and it's not our fault Poland is situated it were it is.
It's your responsibility. You deal with it.
And leave out the stuff about Poland sacrificing itself messianically for the rest of Europe.
This may sound callous but maybe Chamberlain allowing himself to be manipulated by the Poles was a big disaster.
I don't happen to think Hitler was determin ed to conquer the world: he might even have left France alone. And if not...well the French are as bad as the Poles when it comes for blaming the Anglo-Saxons for actually saving them
I'd have left the whole damn lot of you for sixty years ans saved British lives...Europe would probably have found peace and ended up more or less as it is today anyway. Except two nations on either side of Germany would probably be a little bit more humble and a little bit better German speakiong.
Poland manipulated England into going to war with Germany to defend your country to honour its promise committed for sentimental seasons and human rights - God knows why, since Poland was the second most anti semitic country on the planet.
Germany did not want a war with the UK, and would have left the British empire alone. You also boasted about your military strength and exaggerated, we believed this bullshit. You collapsed very quickly of course. The result: we faced a now hostile Germany and our "ally" had disappeared.
Thank you Poland!
No, going to war on Poland's behalf was a big mistake. And your typical history perspective - this is not personal - shows that we haven't one molecule of gratitude for this either.
Poland would have been better off giving up and becoming a satellite state like Hungary.
Servitude or destruction? Your choice. Not our problem. Sometimes history leaves us with two unpleasant choices and it's not our fault Poland is situated it were it is.
It's your responsibility. You deal with it.
And leave out the stuff about Poland sacrificing itself messianically for the rest of Europe.
This may sound callous but maybe Chamberlain allowing himself to be manipulated by the Poles was a big disaster.
I don't happen to think Hitler was determin ed to conquer the world: he might even have left France alone. And if not...well the French are as bad as the Poles when it comes for blaming the Anglo-Saxons for actually saving them
I'd have left the whole damn lot of you for sixty years ans saved British lives...Europe would probably have found peace and ended up more or less as it is today anyway. Except two nations on either side of Germany would probably be a little bit more humble and a little bit better German speakiong.
Montecassino was a side issue
Girondist,adthelad.
The Poles were brave at Montecassino argument is irrelevant to the larger issue.
Was it axiomatic that the Poles would be settled by the Volksdeutsche? Isn't this intentionalist idea of history out of date - the idea that Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world. It's possible that he made it all up as he went along, and that Hiommler's barmy ideas became incorporated along the way.
In fact, as AJP Taylor points out, Hitler felt much lessv visceral hostility to the Poles than to the Czechs, as an Austrian. And Poland was in an alliance of sorts with Germany in 1938 - hence's Poland's noble part in the partition of Czechoslovakia as one of Hitler's jackals.
Even if Hitler was unable to find accommodation with the Poles, the Brits should not have allied itself with this busted flush which precluded an alliance with the Soviets, which the Poles vetoed. The Soviet were ready to give the Poles assistance in a way the Brits weren't, in a triple alliance with Britain and Poland, perhaps placing tripwire armies along the German-Polish border. The Poles vetoed this because they said their army was strong enough and, of course, because they didn't want Soviet influence in their country. Well, this happened anyway didn't it, after 6m Polish wardead.
AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War caused a sensation when it came it out - but he was also one of the best and most iconoclastic historians of the century.
All this is relevant to today's debate because once again the west is ignoring Russia's reasonable calls for cooperation for much shriller voices from the less effective Poles.
The Poles were brave at Montecassino argument is irrelevant to the larger issue.
Was it axiomatic that the Poles would be settled by the Volksdeutsche? Isn't this intentionalist idea of history out of date - the idea that Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world. It's possible that he made it all up as he went along, and that Hiommler's barmy ideas became incorporated along the way.
In fact, as AJP Taylor points out, Hitler felt much lessv visceral hostility to the Poles than to the Czechs, as an Austrian. And Poland was in an alliance of sorts with Germany in 1938 - hence's Poland's noble part in the partition of Czechoslovakia as one of Hitler's jackals.
Even if Hitler was unable to find accommodation with the Poles, the Brits should not have allied itself with this busted flush which precluded an alliance with the Soviets, which the Poles vetoed. The Soviet were ready to give the Poles assistance in a way the Brits weren't, in a triple alliance with Britain and Poland, perhaps placing tripwire armies along the German-Polish border. The Poles vetoed this because they said their army was strong enough and, of course, because they didn't want Soviet influence in their country. Well, this happened anyway didn't it, after 6m Polish wardead.
AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War caused a sensation when it came it out - but he was also one of the best and most iconoclastic historians of the century.
All this is relevant to today's debate because once again the west is ignoring Russia's reasonable calls for cooperation for much shriller voices from the less effective Poles.
Russia is a rival
This is not a hot war, it's not really about kilotonnage, those missile interceptors are really just symbolic - literally nothing more than chesspieces - in a cold war diplomatic struggle of influence and reputation.
Russia is a rival - and the game goes like this.
Consider those familiar domestic situations where a woman provokes a man in a thousand invisible needle-stick ways and the man lashes out and goes to prison? Well that is what our duo Poland-America are doing with Russia - which, to its atsonishment, gets the blame among for provocatively wishing to start a cold war among those people who get their geopolitics from the headlines on the commuter train.
If Russia continues to take these provocations lying down - well, it's like the daily psychological humiliations in prison or a borstal that keep people in their place.
The idea is to torpedo Russians' growing self confidence. And if they do respond - they get blamed with starting the new cold war. They're in a terrible bind because the Russians either way they lose, and they lose what reputation they have for being nice guys - the soft power game for diplomatic influence in the rest of Europe.
Someone once said "Poland only wants its freedom so it can go about denying it to others." It's like someone has been in s straitjacket for 300 years and within five minutes of their release you understand what your forefathers' motivation was.
As I say: beware Poland.
Russia is a rival - and the game goes like this.
Consider those familiar domestic situations where a woman provokes a man in a thousand invisible needle-stick ways and the man lashes out and goes to prison? Well that is what our duo Poland-America are doing with Russia - which, to its atsonishment, gets the blame among for provocatively wishing to start a cold war among those people who get their geopolitics from the headlines on the commuter train.
If Russia continues to take these provocations lying down - well, it's like the daily psychological humiliations in prison or a borstal that keep people in their place.
The idea is to torpedo Russians' growing self confidence. And if they do respond - they get blamed with starting the new cold war. They're in a terrible bind because the Russians either way they lose, and they lose what reputation they have for being nice guys - the soft power game for diplomatic influence in the rest of Europe.
Someone once said "Poland only wants its freedom so it can go about denying it to others." It's like someone has been in s straitjacket for 300 years and within five minutes of their release you understand what your forefathers' motivation was.
As I say: beware Poland.
Poland is the Israel of Europe
Poland is the Israel of Europe
Ishouldapologise
You are absolutely right. What we have now is small, determined, utterly self righeous countries taking on Russia with the absent-minded EU "backing them" but not really knowing what's going on.
It's the tail wagging the dog with Poland the tail and the dig the stupid west.
We fought world war II for the same reason. Poland strutted the world stage and made grandiose provocations because it knew had the support of ignorant fuckwits in 10 downing street and the elyseee who found themselves in a postion of responsibility without power visavis Poland of 1939.
It's a dangerous situation and I can see history repeating itself. I can't understand why there is this pro-Polishness in Britain, given that it doesn't have much to offer and plunged this country into a world war.
Here is a parallel: a growing number of conservatives and policy thinkers and America are waking and saying: why are we giving Israel a blank cheque, why are wal ways identifying OUR interests with Israels' when they sometimes diverge; why should it be axiomatic, why are wrecking our relationship with the Arab world when allow ourselves to be seen as a giant led by this evil pygmy country that thumbs its nose at the rest of the arab world because of the support and doesn't even respect us, America, let alone look after our interests.
For Israel and the US, read modern Poland and UK/France.
America must pull the plug on Israel. The EU must pull the loug on the large country which least respects its human rights within the EU. What EU members incidentally must bear in mind in the Russia-Poland dispute is that Poland is the most similar of all EU countries to Russia itself.
Ishouldapologise
You are absolutely right. What we have now is small, determined, utterly self righeous countries taking on Russia with the absent-minded EU "backing them" but not really knowing what's going on.
It's the tail wagging the dog with Poland the tail and the dig the stupid west.
We fought world war II for the same reason. Poland strutted the world stage and made grandiose provocations because it knew had the support of ignorant fuckwits in 10 downing street and the elyseee who found themselves in a postion of responsibility without power visavis Poland of 1939.
It's a dangerous situation and I can see history repeating itself. I can't understand why there is this pro-Polishness in Britain, given that it doesn't have much to offer and plunged this country into a world war.
Here is a parallel: a growing number of conservatives and policy thinkers and America are waking and saying: why are we giving Israel a blank cheque, why are wal ways identifying OUR interests with Israels' when they sometimes diverge; why should it be axiomatic, why are wrecking our relationship with the Arab world when allow ourselves to be seen as a giant led by this evil pygmy country that thumbs its nose at the rest of the arab world because of the support and doesn't even respect us, America, let alone look after our interests.
For Israel and the US, read modern Poland and UK/France.
America must pull the plug on Israel. The EU must pull the loug on the large country which least respects its human rights within the EU. What EU members incidentally must bear in mind in the Russia-Poland dispute is that Poland is the most similar of all EU countries to Russia itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)