Separation of church and state, right ? Did you know there are 26 so-called “Lords spiritual” writing U.K. laws, among whom “Most Revd.” Justin “You’ve no understanding” Welby ? What unholy business is it of theirs ? Matthew 22:21 asks…
According to the Electoral Reform Society, Benny Hill appointed 36 new “peers” to the HoL in 2020, among whom “his brother [,] the son of a KGB agent” and this bloke, the U.K. government’s so-called “independent advisor on political violence” in your city, yeaaah, who’s now attempting to ban pro-Palestine advocacy for the sake of some defense contractors :
Look at that ! If ever there was one, that is a Lord indeed, folks ! How could you ever think otherwise ? And what that bought and paid-for thing is saying is that, while you’re allowed to say that there is, for instance, a Saudi lobby, without it ever amounting to “a textbook example of” antisaudism, you’re never allowed to mention its Israeli counterpart, lest you end up before the IHRA tribunal. In other words, you are required to conceal not only the obvious, but reality itself, for…
You see, your negationism is critical : “applying double standards” by denying Israel’s shady influence-peddling while acknowledging “any other [undemocratic country’s]” is the moral, the Jewish, thing to do…
Yes, that thing is a contemporary “Lord”, ladies and gentlemen, and, while it greatly values “some defense-related companies’ […] contribution […] to the U.K. economy”, it struggles valuing freedom of expression, of assembly and association‘s constitutive contribution to democracy.
Worse : it is unable to tell the difference between the “textbook […] antisemitism” contained in any evocation of “the Jewish lobby” (as in : any and every Jew has the same set of ethnocidal interests) and the factual condemnation of the Israel lobby (as in : whether vaguely democratic or openly fascist, Israel über alles, and Gott mit uns !).
When members of a once persecuted Western minority proudly display behavior reminiscent of the erstwhile persecuting majority, should they still be cuddled ?
Why are you still in the closet, Zaza ? It’s not as if you ever miss an opportunity to show your gaping hole to the world…
How else should Israel have gone about things after 10/7 ?
What would you have done ?…
Just as they did with the self-confessed former nerd with mighty worshipable porn-star-worthy pecs two weeks ago, two actual YouTube nerds (albeit with pit-bull fantasies), thinking they had found the question nobody else is asking, felt compelled to marinate the Norm in it for about thirty minutes, to the point even Mehdi Hasan would find the exercise slightly embarrassing. In their defense, the professor did inexplicably prove to be as slippery as an eel when repeatedly asked to put himself in Mileikowsky’s shoes, but that didn’t make their inquisition less repetitive.
Their question, however, far from being a trap, was an easy one to answer : ‘Number one : I would never have given the order to fire at my own compatriots !‘, the Norm could have replied. ‘Number two : I wouldn’t have let rage get the better of me. While making sure security at the southern border was restored, I would have taken my time and pondered my options, always applying the precautionary principle to the fate of the hostages. Number three : Some kind of reprisal was inevitable, but, at the very least, I would have felt morally obliged to abide by the Geneva conventions’ –exit the preposterous Dresden analogy (once and for all) ! Number four : In any case,I would have refrained from flattening entire buildings – along with their inhabitants – just to do some tunnel-busting. Number five : I would have ordered my air force and drone operators to stay on standby, in exclusive support of the infantry divisions (that is to say : to guarantee their safety), as they were going after the terrorists in a targeted way. Number six : I would have made no reference to Amalek whatsoever. Number seven : I would never have “lifted all [military] restrictions”. On the contrary, I would have publicly threatened to court-martial any and every trigger-happy scumbag, because an undisciplined army is an army prone to going off the rails. Number eight : I would have accepted any reasonable compromise to get the hostages released. Number nine : had the retaliation turned out to be the fiasco it now clearly is (without a single Hamas headliner captured after seven months), I would have tendered my resignation. Number ten : In view of the above, you will be able to conclude I would have done my very best, in such utterly challenging times as these, to behave like the statesman said times require, instead of lowering myself to behaving like a nefarious gangster‘.
Not answering that very simple question – being unable to or prevaricating – only bolsters the warmongers’ foolish beliefthat the fascist government of Israel did indeed have no other choice but to go full Godzilla on Gaza.
Now, while I’m not suggesting you explicitly said anything to that effect in this interview, here’s a simple question for you : Would you, like the Norm, sacrifice a few (or many) more kids in Gaza if said sacrifice super-hypothetically meant getting a few inches closer to Palestinian statehood, which you claim is the paramount goal ? If so, how many more child corpses is the raison d’Etat à advenir worth ? And should you indeed advocate prolonging the armed conflict for the sake of those few hypothetical inches, would you still be screaming : “Genocide ! Genocide !” ?…
Don’t get me wrong : in spite of the fact a few minor topics would remain on the table should A.I.P.A.C. unexpectedly withdraw its veto in the Security Council in the coming weeks – the matter of the borders of said Palestinian state, the democratic representativity issue, as far as Palestinian politicians are concerned, to name but a few – and regardless of whether the statement made on November 1, 2023 by some particularly brilliant Palestinian Pennywise, who had better caught a cold that day (a statement which, fortunately, no other self-proclaimed Palestinian spokesperson has echoed) is, with regard to the 764 civilians slaughtered on 10/7 (including foreign nationals), indicative of the Palestinian political class’s genuine adherence to article 1 of the U.N. charter (pertaining to peace, friendship and similar stuff), an article Israel, as we all know, religiously abides by, I, however receptive to Gideon Levy’s very rational arguments on this issue, support Palestinian statehood if such is the will of the Palestinian people, and, notwithstanding the Palestinians’ legitimate right to self-determination, I support it, at this very moment, as one of the means of putting pressure on Israel to end the bloodshed.
What I don’t support, however, is the blurry hologram of a state being used to try and vindicate sacrifice – to which, by the way, I am allergic in any and all circumstances.
So, let me repeat the question : Would you, like the Norm, sacrifice a few (or many) more kids in Gaza if said sacrifice super-hypothetically meant getting a few inches closer to Palestinian statehood, which you claim is the paramount goal ?
… But you’re not answering the question !
Let me ask it one more time : Would you, like the Norm, sacrifice a few (or many) more kids in Gaza if said sacrifice super-hypothetically meant getting a few inches closer to Palestinian statehood, which you claim is the paramount goal ?
No, but what I mean is : Would you, like the Norm, sacrifice a few (or many) more kids in Gaza if said sacrifice super-hypothetically meant getting a few inches closer to Palestinian statehood, which you claim is the paramount goal ?
I think the question was pretty clear… You’re basically refusing to give an answer, aren’t you ?…
Let me paraphrase : are you a human being or just another stone-cold automaton ?…
Among the various meanings of the word “fault” is “liability”, but, in that sense, it is but rarely used to qualify first-degree political speech, decisions or actions. In such instances, most English speakers resort to “error” or “mistake”, and there’s not much of a difference of meaning between those. In a political context, the French language, for its part, makes a pronounced distinction between “erreur” and “faute”. The former, although it may have some repercussions, is usually met with clemency : “errare humanum est”…The latter, in contrast, always indicates a striking moral, ethical or deontological shortcoming, more often than not deliberate and thought through, generally leading to the (alleged) culprit’s resignation.
In an immediate reaction to the early hours of Bloody Sabbath, you made a first “faute”, Norm. I, among others, highlighted it. Although I am very uncomfortable with some of the explanations you’ve given since then to try and correct that “faute”, whose leitmotiv keeps revolving around Nat Turner’s most despicable actions, I think that, through the knowledge you’ve shared, you have – at least partially – made up for your totally misplaced ecstatic exclamations seven months ago, however precipitous you want to call them. So, I won’t insist on it.
In your latest interview, however, you made a second one, and, provided the first one was, I wonder whether this one is actually forgivable…
If your “long life experience” should have taught you anything, particularly at this point, after seven months of relentless terror, it is that, if with that of any, you don’t cynically play with the existence of 2.2 million living shadows of themselves. Therein lies your latest major “faute”…
As far as the major “erreur” is concerned, it consists in believing, against all evidence – and even common sense –, that any Israeli politician would commit themselves to negotiating with Hamas – and Hamas alone – any institutional aspect of post-assault relations. Aside from the fact no one in their situation would, how can any rational person still hold such a belief after a cursory analysis of contemporary Israeli society, let alone a thorough one ? And how can any self-respecting academic further jeopardize already severely endangered lives by building their (faulty) argument in defense of a prolonged war on such shaky grounds ?
No more than it should be up to the Israeli government to decree which innocent Palestinians get to live or die is it up to you, Norm, to determine whether thousands more are better off being butchered than being confined to a semi-life of renewed oppression in “a huge concentration camp” (a.k.a the status quo ante.) That is not what humanism is about ! In fact, some might even detect remnants of absolute collectivism in your line of thought…
It is up to every concerned party to define priorities !
The first priority is to end the bloodshed, by any means necessary. After that, the second priority, which Hamas (alone) is in no position to influence one way or another, will be to provide guarantees that Palestinians will no longer be oppressed !
One would have thought this would be crystal clear to someone like you.
From the river to the sea, Palestinians must be free !
But, in order to be free, it is advisable they remain alive… Every single innocent one of them !
So, Switzerland won Eurokitsch. The neutral country. The one where the nazis stored the cash, the gold and some of the paintings they stole. Good for them !
Had the oh so apolitical national juries wanted to send a strong message to the world in the name of the European Disunion, they couldn’t have done it better : in the face of an ongoing ethnocide – a “plausible” one, always remember that ! Better yet : make a clear scholarly distinction between the rights plausibly being violated and the plausible reason why they are… plausibly. That’ll make the plausible violators‘ day ! –, the E.U. shall remain neutral ! As a dove sheltering in the “Reichstag”, waiting for the storm to pass…
What became of the letter Pedro and the late Leo – the usual misfits – sent to Ursula three fucking months ago, urging her and her Soviet bureaucracy to urgently review the continent’s economic partnership with the plausible “Judeo-nazis” ? Well, Ursula has been taking a long nap, that’s what became of it !
Overseas, on the other hand, someone seems to have finally woken up, although some sharp-tongued critics say they’re still half asleep…
Yet, now, in flagrant contradiction with Kyriat HaMemshala’s repeated statements, we’re back to this again ?…
That is to say : to square one ?…
Interested neutrality over here; overseas an 81-year-old tightrope walker who has criminally been leaning to the far-right side for so long one wonders how he still hasn’t met his fate…
Interested neutrality and funambulism… Or is the latter merely a different kind of “Duck And Cover”… to avoid having to implement the “Hague Invasion Act” later on ?…
Watch this boy film his own murder, President Biden and Secretary Blinken. Then tell us again that the Israeli government hasn't yet crossed your red line. Benjamin Netanyahu's political survival depends on the genocide. He cannot stop. You must stop him. @POTUS@StateDept… https://t.co/7n5ColVdMT
„Unsere Stärke ist unsere Schnelligkeit und unsere Brutalität. Dschingis Chan hat Millionen Frauen und Kinder in den Tod gejagt, bewußt und fröhlichen Herzens. Die Geschichte sieht in ihm nur den großen Staatengründer. Was die schwache westeuropäische Zivilisation über mich behauptet, ist gleichgültig. Ich habe den Befehl gegeben – und ich lasse jeden füsilieren, der auch nur ein Wort der Kritik äußert – daß das Kriegsziel nicht im Erreichen von bestimmten Linien, sondern in der physischen Vernichtung des Gegners besteht. So habe ich, einstweilen nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken. Nur so gewinnen wir den Lebensraum, den wir brauchen. Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung der Armenier ?“
Now, from a strictly legal standpoint, is Shredderman right ?
Article 4 § 2 of the U.N. Charter does require that “[t]he admission of any […] state to membership in the United Nations […] be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council”.
As you all remember, the United States – and it alone – vetoed such a recommendation on April 18, 2024.
But, contrary to what Shredderman would have you believe, yesterday’s General Assembly vote did not pertain to “[t]he admission of [Palestine] to membership in the United Nations”…
In doing so, those countries did not violate any U.N. Charter rule.
And that’s not the only thing Shredderman is wrong about…
Article 2 § 5 specifies that “[a]ll Members shall […] refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.”
“You have opened up the United Nations to modern-day nazis, to genocidal jihadists committed to establishing an Islamic state across Israel and the region, murdering every Jewish man, woman and child”, Shredderman declared from the General Assembly’s marble pulpit.
Without even mentioning the shameless – and indiscriminate – terrorist actions some Jewish fanatics undertook in Palestine before Israel’s accession to U.N. membership, or, for that matter, the conditions in which Israel’s great wannabe-partner Saudi Arabia came into existence as a country, what to make of this statement if not an amplifying paraphrase of I. Herzog’s infamous statement : “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible”, as quoted in the I.C.J.’s January 26, 2024 order ?…
Let’s face it : everything Shredderman’s Klan has been undertaking for the past seven months, both in Gaza and the West Bank, is contributing much less to Hamas’s decline than to the rise of Daesh-Palestine, which the likes of Mileikowsky, just as they did Hamas, are propping up in the hope that it will render the legitimate self-determination of Palestinians as well as Palestinian statehood even more inconceivable.
For those still wondering, that is their endgame… as it has always been !
Yannick Baele 
Vous devez être connecté pour poster un commentaire.