We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – Rudyard Kipling’s journalist guidance edition “I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who. I send them over land and sea, I send them east and west; But after they have worked for me, I give them all a rest.
>I let them rest from nine till five, For I am busy then, As well as breakfast, lunch, and tea, For they are hungry men. But different folk have different views; I know a person small— She keeps ten million serving-men, Who get no rest at all!
She sends’em abroad on her own affairs, From the second she opens her eyes— One million Hows, two million Wheres, And seven million Whys!”
– Rudyard Kipling, Just So Stories (1902)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I always thought that poem was the original plan for “Doctor Who.” Teaching history via a pedagogue with a time machine.
Roue,
It kinda was… The first two assistants were teachers – one science, the other history. Of course things changed (and I don’t just mean the current “Woke Lecture” but well before that). OK, the history angle was a player but the science has always been best bollocks. I am actually struggling to think of any SF that actually has pedagolical value in teaching science at all…
… Except loads of it inspires kids. The First Movie I ever saw on the big screen was Star Wars in 1977. I wound-up studying physics, maths and astrophysics.
Sadly there are not many such real journalists now. Although, YES, some still exist.
For example, of the reasons that President Trump has to repeat things (in speeches or in answering questions – is because, otherwise, the media will never report them.
Left to the official journalists the public would only get information that was in establishment interests for the public to know. The other side of the argument (even basic things such as the use of the autopen which means that “Biden” legal documents are not valid, because Mr Biden was the official President and he did NOT sign these documents – the autopen did and the autopen was not under the control of Mr Biden, – or that the 2020 election was rigged) would be unknown to much of the public.
Even basic “facts” reported by the media are often not facts at all – such as the regular claims that such and such a day is the hottest ever, when one checks the leather bound record books one finds this is NOT so. Ditto the decline of arctic or antarctic ice, and so on.
I think most Americans have learned not to trust anything the media says – I am not so sure about many British people.
Paul,
It is an oddity that the quality of journalism has declined as more and more parts of the media* require a journalism degree.
*The media. It sounds like a convention of spiritualists -Tom Stoppard
Paul:
I feel the autopen was the key feature of the Biden administration. He was a puppet and a figurehead, who apparently was only vaguely compos mentis for a few hours in the afternoon. Apart from that it was naps and warm milky drinks. Whoever controlled the autopen was, de facto, president. Was it Mrs Biden? Was it Obama? I don’t know, but I do know it wasn’t Joe Biden.
Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your view, I think the existence and wording of our 25th Amendment is going to shut down all of the “was he really mentally there” issues that are arising.
What the Amendment really establishes is that there is a binary solution set to the question of the Prez’s mental health, and that set consists of “the Prez is mentally unable to be Prez because, by following the process set out in the 25th, he has been properly declared to be out of it”, or “since no one has followed the process of the 25th A, the Prez is by definition mentally fit.”
There is no room for intermediate questioning of his mental abilities. He’s Prez until someone successfully invokes the 25th. The 25th gave us certainty.
No one invoked the 25th A process, and so whatever was done in his name is, I think, presumed to be valid.
(BUT . . . the pardon-signing requirements that are set out in the relevant statutes are fairly exact, and so those pardon signatures might well be found to be, not the product of an ill mind, but not done according to statute. Big difference.)
Johnk – yes indeed. We have no idea who was in control of the autopen – but we do know it was not Mr Biden (the official President).
bobby b – if I sign a legal document with YOUR name, via an autopen, is that legal document valid?
It is NOT valid.
It is not a matter of whether or not Mr Biden was of right mind when he signed various documents, such as Executive Orders and even Statutes.
Mr Biden did NOT sign the documents – so they are not valid.
This, for example, includes the open ended pardons.
Even leaving aside the “little” problem – that a pardon that says “you are pardoned – for whatever you did” is not a pardon for a specific offense, Mr Biden did not sign the pardons – so the pardons are not valid.
By the way the idea for blanket pardons seems to be from the book “The Three Musketeers” – Cardinal Richelieu writes such a document for “M’Lady” – his agent, pardoning her (in advance) for whatever crimes she may commit.
Ironically the pardon is so loosely written (it just says “the bearer” is pardoned for whatever they have done – because the crimes were committed in the interests of the state) that the people (the four heroes) who kill “M’Lady” use it to pardon themselves for that crime.
But Cardinal Richelieu did sign it himself – it was not some unknown person using an autopen.
“Paul the Cardinal had no legal power to issue such a pardon” – well that is another can of worms.
bobby b
No one invoked the 25th A process, and so whatever was done in his name is, I think, presumed to be valid.
Off topic but something to consider. In the US Constitution the Vice President has exactly one duty assigned to them. Not border czar, not mouthpiece of the administration, not some special project they take on. No they have exactly one duty namely to monitor the mental capacity of the President and determine if he has lost his marbles as per the 25th. The one think Kamala had a duty to do she clearly utterly failed to do.
It is shocking that anybody thought that woman was qualified to be POTUS.
@Paul Marks
bobby b – if I sign a legal document with YOUR name, via an autopen, is that legal document valid?
The key is not the tool used but the decision of the president, the signature is just an indication of the decision, not the actual decision. We saw this BTW in the declassified documents case against Trump — where he claimed he could declassify them just with his mind — no written form is required. And he was right.
This video on the subject is great, analyzing the case law rather than just speculating.
FWIW, I think the administration is doing an amazing job, but I am not a fan of a couple of recent things. First the deportation of this green card holder. It might have been technically within the decision of the Sec of State which seems entirely discretionary, although there are guidelines for revoking a green card, none of which this man violated. This man was not convicted of a crime. He said a lot of horrible things sometimes in especially egregious ways and is undoubtedly a terrible person, and our country is better being shot of him. But it seems clear that he is being deported for expressing an opinion, no matter how loathsome. Even if that is within the discretion of the government, it is not a decision I like at all either on its face or for the future it portends.
And second, threatening impeachment of this judge, no matter how outrageous his ruling might have been is not at all the American way. Justice Roberts was spot on. I think it is good for Justices to keep their mouth shut, but on this matter he was absolutely right to speak. To speak up in defense of the independence of the judicial branch. I’m not sure it is anything more than bluster from the President, but all I can say is if that was the standard Judge Aileen Cannon for sure would have been looking for new employment.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-4-10/ALDE_00000697/
If it is in the Constitution, then how is it not the American way?
Source:
https://x.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1902228979601363055
Is that true? If no, then what are the actual numbers?
Shlomo Maistre
If it is in the Constitution, then how can it not be the American way?
Do I really have to explain the difference between impeaching a judge for conviction of a crime and impeaching a judge because you disagree with his ruling?
Impeachment of a President is an important tool for the checks and balances of our government. But impeaching President Trump for some of the bullshit charges they did is certainly not the American way.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/157/all-actions
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/174/all-actions
Your assumption about the grounds for impeachment is false
More:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/145/all-actions
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/143/all-actions
I note that you did not respond regarding the claim:
I would prefer Trump pull an Andrew Jackson and say “now let them enforce it” and simply ignore some of the more egregious court rulings, especially those rulings that are on non-justiciable legal matters (for example the one noted in the quote from the tweet below). But Trump probably won’t do that in any major way, unfortunately. I’m sure you think such a course of action would be totally outrageous and violate “checks and balances”, or whatever. Meanwhile virtually every major thing the other side has done over the past one hundred years has been illegal and unconstitutional – and they almost always get away with it. Obamacare, for example.
Thankfully, I am pleased to report that younger right-wingers (under 35) are a bit more open to shitting on your checks and balances to actually achieve victory. You know, WIN – that thing the Left has achieved time and time again over the last 60 years while the Right sat down in their chairs, tied up their own hands with rope, and whined about process or whatever.
https://x.com/seanmdav/status/1902018329943917037
It is really only shocking to people who are under the impression that the US Government currently operates in accordance with the US Constitution in any meaningful sense. Could never be me.
In the US Constitution the Vice President has exactly one duty assigned to them. Not border czar, not mouthpiece of the administration, not some special project they take on. No they have exactly one duty namely to monitor the mental capacity of the President and determine if he has lost his marbles as per the 25th.
Actually, in the Constitution the VP’s duties are to preside over the Senate and break ties. The 25A does give the VP a role in determining whether the President is incapable of serving, but it’s rather more complicated than that.
@Shlomo Maistre
I note that you did not respond regarding the claim:
You post a bunch of links and expect me to read them? If you want to make a case make a case concisely enough that it is worth taking the time to read. The grounds for impeachment are “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”. It is right there in the constitution. Making a ruling you disagree with is none of these things. The appropriate remedy for a ruling you disagree with is the appellate process.
@Ted Schuerzinger
Actually, in the Constitution the VP’s duties are to preside over the Senate and break ties.
Yes, I forgot about that one. Thanks for the correction.
Your loss.
The legal basis for the impeachments of the judges have nothing to do with a ruling I disagree with. You could easily discover this if you click and spend 15 seconds reading the title of any one of the .gov links I provided to you or spend 30 seconds googling at http://www.google.com.
As for your other claims, those were easily dispensed with by others and by other links that I provided that you refuse to click on. Your loss.
I would suggest for the sake of your own credibility that you take 30 seconds to research the veracity of your claims prior to posting them here in the future.
While it does seem speech-driven, it remains (I think) legal and acceptable. When you enter under a green card or a student card, you’re entering into a contract with the US gov. One of the conditions that you accept when you come in is, you understand that anything you do to P-off the gov will be considered grounds for expulsion. Greencard entry is most definitely “you’re a guest, behave!” entry.
Agree with you on this one. No matter the political import, or the fact that the executive officer has made a ruling, if an American judge is presented with a claim of a due process violation, it is their job to bring it into court and rule on it. These claims are central to the freedom from government that our Constitution gives us.
Most of the cases have resulted in TRO’s – temporary orders that purport to stop and hold everything in place until the actual case controversy can be argued in court. This is all entirely proper.
It’s a pain in the rear in a situation in which Trump is blitzkrieging his way across the entire fedgov, but it is normal and proper.
If/when these cases actually get into court, I would expect that many of the correct legal answers are going to involve justiciability issues – meaning, the courts should be thinking that this is a political question and “we’re just not going there.”
But they still are going to have to enforce at least enough due process to ensure that the deportees are the people the fedgov thinks they are, and not some random hispanic mechanic with tattoos. There are allegations in the complaints that assert a lack of proper identification of deportees.
@bobby b
While it does seem speech-driven, it remains (I think) legal and acceptable.
Right, I don’t doubt it is legal, but lots of things are legal that are a bad idea. Kicking people out because of what they say irrespective of its legality, is not in line with the spirit of the first amendment. The first amendment applies to everyone on US soil. In America we all get to say what we want and the government shouldn’t punish us for our opinions. Even if the government can and has the right to do so, I just think it is a bad idea. The correct response to speech we don’t like is more speech, and I’d support that even were this guy an illegal immigrant.
Now, of course if he were an illegal immigrant I’d support his deportation and possibly permanent exclusion, but not for what he said, but for his breaking of the immigration law.
America, it seems to me, is that last bastion of free speech in the world. Everywhere else has abandoned it. I think we should defend that with all our might, even for speech we hate, because having somewhere you can speak freely in the world is very precious indeed.
https://x.com/basedmikelee/status/1902384208502517958
Fraser is wrong yet again. Mahmoud Khalil’s green card was revoked and deportation proceedings were initiated against him not because of what he said but because he was found to have provided material support to a terrorist organization.
Yes his speech attracted negative attention, but the legal basis for revoking his green card and starting deportation proceedings against him was that he provided material support to a terrorist organization. This material support primarily came in the form of activism. He was an activist who, for one example, tried to exert political and cultural pressure on Columbia University to cut financial ties with Israel. This constitutes material support to the terrorist organizations.
Again, would suggest some simple googling beforehand.
Fraser Orr.
If you really think that Joseph “Joe the Big Guy” Biden was in control of the autopen – then I have a nice bridge to sell you. Mr Biden was not making the decisions – and as he was the official President (not ex President Obama or whoever) then those documents are NOT valid. Including Statutes and Judicial appointments. Mr Biden has always been a corrupt man – but even he would never have appointed the sort of judges he is supposed, officially, to have appointed. I doubt he had any knowledge at all of some of these judicial appointments.
Also Fraser Orr.
If a nation can not prevent its enemies entering, or remove them once they have entered, then that nation will, eventually, fall.
The man you mention was not American citizen – but even if he had been it was ruled by the Supreme Court as far back as the 1920s that if an immigrant swears falsely, swears the oath of allegiance whilst NOT being loyal to the United States – an immigrant became a citizen and then started boasting (actually boasting) that he had no loyalty to the Constitution of the United States and, indeed, hated the “capitalist” principles it was based upon – it was ruled that, as he sworn falsely, he had no right to be in the United States – and he was stripped of his citzenship and removed (and RIGHTLY SO).
There are people in the United States House of Representatives who have nothing but hatred for the United States (and the rest of the “infidel” and “capitalist” West, yes they mix two world views that are logically not compatible, Islam and Marxism, but there we are) they make no secret of their lack of loyalty, indeed their utter hatred for the United States – they are immigrants, they have clearly sworn loyalty falsely – and should be removed from the United States and returned to their homes in Somalia and elsewhere.
Some people have TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) and so perhaps an example that does NOT involve President Trump will help them understand the situation.
In the time of the philosopher ruler Marcus Aurelius (a compassionate and learned person) there was a terrible plague that killed a large part of the Roman population – in some ways Roman civilization never fully recovered from this plague. Taking advantage of the collapse in Roman manpower, the Germanic tribes invaded the Empire (an Empire older than the United States is now) – getting as far as Italy itself. In spite of the illness that gave him terrible pain, and would eventually kill him, Marcus Aurelius personally led the Roman armies which eventually defeated the Germanic tribes.
But Marcus Aurelius did not wish to kill the Germanic people – after all they begged for mercy, they did not want to die. So he accepted their promises (their oaths) of loyalty and settled them, as free people, not as slaves, inside the Empire – indeed many went to the area around the Italian city of Ravenna – which had been especially badly hit by the plague. At the time the Roman Empire did not have high taxes (that came later) indeed Italy had very few taxes at all (up to the time of Diocletian – long after Marcus Aurelius), so the Germanic people would not be highly taxed.
Many modern history books and television programmes say that the Romans should have allowed in the Germanic tribes rather than trying to keep them out – they push this message as a veiled attack on anti immigration people now, but these history books and television programmes do not mention the time when Marcus Aurelius followed exactly the policy they suggest.
They do not mention it because the Germanic tribes people soon rebelled – slitting the throats of Roman civilians. Marcus Aurelius had to march against the immigrants and do what he should have done to start with.
The real world is not nice – if you let your enemies stay (accepting their promises to be good) they will, when they judge the time is right, slit the throats of your own people.
“But if they their own land…” – like GAZA?
There were no Jews in Gaza, no “occupation”, the locals governed themselves according to their own Islamic law.
And they attacked – they attacked without mercy, indeed with the intention of committing the very “genocide” against the Jews (and other infidels) that they, falsely, accuse the Jews of wanting to commit.
Again – the world is not nice, if you let your enemies stay they will, when they judge the time is right, slit the throats of your own people.
It seems to me that an autopen might be used for signing Christmas cards and the like, but not for legislation or executive orders.
There is a reason presidents like to make a big thing of signing legislation, it is a demonstration of their power. It is also proof they actually signed it.
The autopen may have signed legislation that Joe Biden knew nothing about. I recall when a senator got to talk to him about an aspect of oil policy, only to find Joe Biden knew nothing about it.
If a document is “signed” by the autopen without the knowledge and approval of the president, surely it is not valid? The people who arrange for this to happen seem to me to be criminals, and the documents are invalid.
I think it might be a good idea to get rid of the White House auto pen.
On the Restoration of the Monarchy in England it was ruled that all legislation passed during the Commonwealth period was unlawful (void) – as no lawful King had signed the legislation.
So it was void – the closing of the theaters, the banning of Christmas, and so on.
That was over a decade of legislation – yet the nation survived the declaration that these “laws” (and there were many of them) were not laws at all.
JohnK
Yes indeed Sir.
Indeed I am astonished that there is any debate about this.
Legal documents need to be signed by the person with the authority to do so – signed by the person, not by an autopen. It is true that special allowances may be made for a person who is disabled, say they have had their hands blown off in an explosion, but no such legal permission was given to Mr Biden – no court ever declared that he was not capable of signing a document, so a machine could sign the legal document for him. Mr Biden has two functioning hands – if he wanted to he could sign something, but he did NOT sign these documents.
These documents are void.
Paul:
You mentioned in a previous post that a disarmed people are not fully citizens. It seems our present government has discovered that our gun laws are somehow “too lax” because a murderer forged a shotgun certificate to get hold of a gun. God knows what Yvette Cooper has in store for us. But just as a forged shotgun certificate is not a shotgun certificate, so a piece of legislation “signed” by an autopen is not legislation. This seems so obvious that it is hard to believe one has to say it.
Paul Marks
This is such an absurd comment. Gaza has been a concentration camp for two decades. The idea that the locals “governed themselves” is preposterous. To take just one example – for many years Israel prohibited items such as chocolates and potato chips and soda from being imported into Gaza. Israel, without the consent of the Gazans, enforced this horrific, inhumane, and illegal blockade for many years.
Imagine if the British prohibited France from importing chocolate from any country in the entire world and imagine if the British enforced this prohibition using force with the consent of neither the French people nor the French government. And that’s just .00001% of the horror the Israelis have put the Gazans in for decades. “govern themselves” – what a sick joke.
Y’all need to look up the LEGAL definition of “signature.” I just legally signed 25 docs yesterday by clicking an icon 25 times.
Bobby:
I assume you knew you were “signing” these documents? That is different from the case of Joe Biden, whose autopen signature seems to have been used to enact laws he knew nothing about.
As a rule, I would argue that a president should sign legislation publicly, so there is no doubt that he signed it, and knew what he was signing. Using an autopen for a man who was in cognitive decline does not strike me as being legal. If a relative had dementia and you used an autopen for them to “sign” a will leaving everything to you, do you think it would stand up in court?
Shlomo:
Are you being serious? Israel prohibited the importation of crisps, chocolate and fizzy drinks into Gaza? Why, it was little better than Auschwitz.
Then again, from a public health point of view, maybe it was a good thing? Have you thought of that?
It is absurd to claim that the Gazans “governed themselves” – this is just false. Gaza has been a literal concentration camp, an open air prison for at least 20 years. When certain kinds of people say things like “from a public health point of view, maybe it was a good thing” or “it was a little better than Auschwitz” – it just shows how people rationalize evil and it demonstrates a genuine lack of empathy. I would know, because for many years I was a hardcore Zionist and supporter of Israel.
You smirk at this, but conveniently avoid the part where I said this is .000001% of what Israelis have been doing to Gazans for DECADES. These Israeli policies against Gaza are and have been illegal, immoral, and inhumane for decades. No freedom of movement, no freedom of travel, no citizenship, no country, no military, no immigration policy decided by Gazan government, no sovereignty; food, electricity, water controlled by a hostile foreign government that can and is turned off at the stroke of a pen. Blatant violations of international law, crimes against humanity, acts of war.
If the UK blockaded France and prevented chocolates from arriving in France, that would be considered an act of war. For Israel, this is just another Tuesday – and Israel of course blocks far more than just chocolates and soda. Many people find ways to rationalize and defend these horrific immoral and illegal actions. I was once one of them. Not anymore.
Another example:
Source:
https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20200909_fishrmen_families_gaza_strip
Hm I wonder why Gazans born into this concentration camp were angry at Israel before Oct 7 2023? What could it possibly be? Probably just anti-semitism.
In a testimony she gave on 5 August 2020, Intesar a-Sa’idi (52), a mother of six from a-Shati’ Refugee Camp in Gaza City, described the financial hardship and personal tragedy that befell her family:
My understanding is that Obama pioneered the use of the autopen because he wanted to be able to sign bills while he was in Hawaii. I don’t know what the rationale would be for Biden using an autopen while he was in the White House, maybe his hand had developed a stutter. I expect the courts will rule that his autopen signatures remain valid unless it can be demonstrated to legal standards that he was not in control of the autopen at all. Given that the White House detectives were not up to the task of determining who was leaving bags of cocaine around, it’s highly unlikely they’ll be able to determine who this mysterious actual signer might be, unless perhaps somebody thinks to ask the cleaning lady. And who would do that?
Shlomo:
Maybe if the people ruling Gaza had refrained from attacking Israel, and instead concentrated on developing Gaza’s economy and improving the lives of its inhabitants, then they could be living comfortable and contented lives. But they chose war.
I used to say the exact same thing. Indeed Israel forcibly expelled all the Jews from Gaza in 2005.
The situation is complex and neither side is innocent. To really determine who is less wrong we would need to delve into the very early history, which neither of us is doing right now. I suggest you read Benny Morris (an Israeli Jewish Zionist historian). Based on the work done by Benny Morris and many other historians, I have concluded after a great deal of research and reflection that the Palestinians are less wrong than the Israelis. But neither side is good.
My main point is: it is absurd to claim that the Gazans “governed themselves” – this is just false. I note that you are not disputing my main point. Good. Gazans have been living in an open air prison and a concentration camp for decades. These Israeli policies are and have been illegal, immoral, and inhumane for decades. Israel has been committing acts of war and systematic human rights violations and widespread crimes against humanity against the Gazans years and even decades before Oct 7 2023.
Your remarks (“from a public health point of view, maybe it was a good thing” or “it was a little better than Auschwitz”) are characteristic of many of the kinds of people who, even today, still support Israel. I am very glad to no longer share such company on this subject.
Shlomo:
How did the October 7th attack improve the lives of Gazans?
Hamas are like the scorpion in the parable. They sting the frog carrying them across the river even though it will drown them. It is what they do, it is who they are. They could have had a peaceful existence, but they never wanted that.
Where did I claim that the Oct 7 attack improved the lives of Gazans? I have readily stated that neither side is good or innocent. You seem curiously unable to say that
My point is and was that it is absurd to claim that the Gazans “governed themselves” – this is just false.
I note that you are not disputing my main point. Good. Gazans have been living in an open air prison and a concentration camp for decades. These Israeli policies are and have been illegal, immoral, and inhumane for decades. Israel has been committing acts of war and systematic human rights violations and widespread crimes against humanity against the Gazans years and even decades before Oct 7 2023.
The other side says the exact same thing about Israel. Israel knows that by carpet bombing Gaza for over a year and killing 60,000+ Gazans, the majority of whom are innocent civilians, destroying 80% of the civilian infrastructure, systematically depriving the Gazans of food, medical supplies, clean water, electricity, gas, and safe shelter for over a year that by doing these things Israel is intentionally radicalizing the population of Gaza and rallying the Gazans to Hamas (or even to more extreme organizations like Palestinian Jihad) for generations into the future. Everyone knows that Israel knows this. Israel is intentionally permanently radicalizing the entire population of Gaza.
I don’t think the population of Gaza needed radicalizing.
You seem to find it hard to acknowledge that if the government of Gaza had decided to leave at peace with Israel, there would have been peace. But this could not happen, because they are an anti-Semitic muslim terrorist organisation. Their aim is to destroy Israel and kill every Jew living there. Good luck living peacefully next to them.
Apparently the Israeli government disagrees with you on that point. I do not support the actions of Israel’s government, but I can recognize a shrewd strategy when I see one. The Israelis are very shrewd.
You, on the other hand, swallow the propaganda and try to convince yourself that innocent babies, children of God, who are born into concentration camp, born into an open air prison commit acts of violence against Israelis because they are antisemitic, instead of as a result of the illegal and immoral crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed by the Israelis against themselves and against their families and against their people for generations. You are sick in the head.
Jews have been living in Arab Muslim lands for many centuries, mostly in peace. The current conflict primarily stems from the formation of Israel which is a Jewish Ethnostate. Read Benny Morris.
Yes, Jews lived as dhimmis in many middle eastern states. But now they have all been ethically cleansed. They have made new lives in Israel, because they had to do so.
If neighbouring muslim states had agreed to live alongside Israel in 1947 the area would be peaceful now. It didn’t happen.
Any Palestinian with an ounce of sense would realise that they will never destroy Israel and should seek a modus vivendi. But they are crazed anti-Semitic fanatics, so it won’t happen. They are the people who suffer. The rest of the Arab world seems to be sick to death of them, and have long given up on trying to destroy Israel. It won’t happen.
You aren’t going to want to hear this, but the truth is that Mossad did commit terrorist acts in Iraq (for example) to spur the Aliyah of the Sephardi Jews from Iraq to Israel. The historian Avi Shlaim and others have proven Mossad did this based on lots of evidence and documentation.
Hamas has never once attacked Jews abroad, despite ample opportunities to do so.
Nothing you are saying is new for me, i’ve heard it all a thousand times. And I used to believe it myself. Not that everything you say is false – there is some truth to some of the things you say, for sure. But you are missing the big picture. And you are also missing a lot of details. Reading Benny Morris would be a great next step for you. I’m not going to convince you but I hope you can read some of Benny’s works sometime in your life with a reasonably open mind and see if that moves the needle at all.
Look up Naftali Bennett and Bezalel Smotrich – those used to be my guideposts and informed my approach to the conflict. So to the right of Netanyahu.
By the way I am Jewish and I have lots of family in Israel, including many who have served or currently serve in the IDF. I have visited israel twice
Gotta say, while he might want me to burn in hell or be first up against the wall or whatever, Shlomo is 100% correct on this. Fair play to them.
Shlomo:
The fact remains that there can be peace, but only if the Palestinians want it. Clearly, their leaders do not. They are a nihilistic death cult. I do not believe peace can ever be achieved with them in charge. The Palestinian people are doomed to repeat the same mistakes ad infinitum.