I don't know what sort of compromise is possible with people that are, literally, Hell bent on your complete destruction.
"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." Yasar Arafat.
In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.”
"I noted in my article that in the revised edition of Morris’s book, he writes that he found conclusive evidence that there was indeed a deliberate decision by Ben-Gurion to expel—the term “cleanse” is used extensively—700,000 Palestinian Arabs. Their flight was therefore not the unintended collateral damage of a war started by the Arabs but the result of decisions and actions taken by the Yishuv’s top political and military leaders."
Fist of all, it's quite probable that those Arab armies invaded Israel because the Israelis were involved in ethnic cleansing. It's quite possible that they may well have ethnically cleansed the Jews at the time if they have won.
But then I wonder how you'd react if the United Nations deposited a whole lot of Maori in your back garden and said they were entitled to it because they had a historical connection to the land?
But that's largely irrelevant – because the right-wing narrative you seem to be pushing is that somehow it was only the Arabs that refused to accept the partition plan. The BenGurion letter suggests otherwise.
So why is one group forbidden to resist the partition and the other allowed to completely ignore it?
Letter or no letter, Jim, Israel accepted the partition plan, and the Palestinians rejected it.
Try to imagine how much better the region would be for 80 years of the UN's two-state solution. Think about what Gaza would be like today. Instead of a smoking ruin, a thriving and cultured city looking much the same (although larger) as it did in 1920.
Sadly, there has never been enough room in the irredentist Palestinian imagination for anything more constructive than antisemitism and martyrdom.
Of course as you have described Chris, it's the leaders who make these decisions. Whether it be Netanyahu, Churchill, Trump, Putin or the leaders of Hamas, they are so self absorbed with their own importance and agenda's that their own populations become secondary. Netanyahu has his personal agenda to clear Gaza completely and with it any further threat from Hamas. Hamas with their own form of righteous BS are happy to sacrifice every last Gazan to promote their cause. Netanyahu has taken the opportunity arising from Hamas's decision not to release all hostages, to obliterate Gaza. Both have a disregard for human life whether it be their own people or their enemies. In all these conflicts the ordinary people have no say. In their own megalomaniac, psychotic way these leaders believe they are acting out their own predetermined future to improve human existence in their eyes only. Not knowing when to stop Chris. They have no intention of stopping unless they are themselves stopped.
Israel should stop when Hamas unconditionally surrenders and lays down their weapons, their tunnels destroyed, their surviving combatants imprisoned or voluntarily repatriated to another country. Anything less will allow them to regroup and repeat October 7 all over again. Biden would never permit this level of victory, it remains to be seen if Trump has any appetite for it.
Netanyahu has said he wants permanent control of Gaza. That pretty much guarantees an ongoing insurgency. Defeating Hamas won’t stop that. There are enough angry young Palestinians to want to continue to attack. If not now, a short few years away. And as in the 1970’s I think it is likely to be internationalised.
I think Netanyahu would like to expel all Palestinians from Gaza. Certainly many in his government do. That will result in a major border war between Israel and Egypt, given the only place the Palestinians can go is across the southern Gaza border. Not something that the US would be remotely enthusiastic about.
In short Netanyahu appears not to have a realistic plan to end the war.
Netanyahu, as part of those conditions, also said he wants full control of Gaza. Essentially a military occupation by Israel. Experience should tell him that won't work out well.
Netanyahu's decision-making is surely (and mostly?) guided by the knowledge that if he falters in his quest to erase Gaza as a Palestinian entity, then his coalition government will fall; and that if, in the subsequent election, he finds himself shorn of his prime-ministerial immunity, then he may very soon also find himself behind bars.
That is perfectly normal, Wayne; the loser of a war (Hamas in this case) is usually deposed by the victor.
The Nazis, for example, were not allowed to continue running Germany after WW2. That worked out well for the German people and will, ultimately, for the other victims of Hamas - the Gazan people themselves.
These Muslim Brotherhood offshoots are a disaster for all.
Do you seriously think the Palestinian population is going to accept an Israeli military occupation?
Surely the last 60 years of occupation on the West Bank must tell you that thee will be an ongoing insurgency, admittedly with varying levels of intensity.
There is considerable dissatisfaction with Hamas if the recent courageous protests are any indication. The death and destruction is the easily foreseeable consequence of the disastrous Hamas decision to invade Israel; even the tyrannised and heavily propagandised Palestinian population can see that.
When Oct 7 occurred, I wondered how far Israel would go before international and US condemnation would cause them to stop. I thought, at most, 20,000 killed. It was obvious from the get go, there would be an atavistic response.
But 50,000, and how many more? 100,000? The removal of all Palestinians from Gaza?
David George;
Quoting the Hamas charter is not an excuse for the current scale of destruction.
Hamas do negotiate, they know full well they can’t literally destroy Israel. Netanyahu and his far right coalition have consistently broken the arrangements they sign up to (long term cessation of hostilities, as they had just recently agreed).
At the moment it seems hopeless. Just continuing rounds of destruction and full scale occupation by Israel. There will be 100,000 deaths, mostly civilian within the next year or so. Plus a continuing insurgency within Gaza.
As US officials (and many Israeli officials) noted, Netanyahu has no actual plan that can end the war. No realistic plan as to what happens next.
I see you are getting your numbers from the Hamas media spokesman. Until we have faced what Israel continues to face every day, I don’t think we have the moral right to tell them what to do. Israel is panned by world media for ‘not providing enough aid’ to Gaza. In which other war have we seen one side who was attacked and now fighting back against the enemy, being told off for not providing aid to their foe? Hamas are playing the world with their spin. To make it all stop, they know what they have to do.
The figures of casualties are widely accepted, including by the US government. Israel has never been able to rebut them.
There is dispute about how many are Hamas fighters. Based on my reading I reckon that around 40% are fighters, maybe a bit less. The UN definition of children is anyone under 18. I suspect quite a few Hamas fighters are 16 and 17.
"Netanyahu has no actual plan that can end the war". "No realistic plan as to what happens next."
And the Hamas plan is?
Returning the hostages and laying down their arms is the hope but it's a fat lot of good having having a plan that Hamas have repeatedly rejected. Or, rather, pretended to negotiate then completely ignored. Lets not forget that there was a ceasefire in place on October the 7th.
That quote above is not from the Hamas charter but from Arafat when he was the billionaire head of the PLO terrorists. The complete destruction of Israel is the motivating intention regardless of it's practicality. How do you negotiate with that? Intentions matter.
It's difficult for us, Wayne, the peaceful and prosperous recipients of a culture rooted in the Christian values of the sanctity of life and liberty, to even imagine folk pursuing it's opposite. And to therefore conclude, against all evidence, that the Jihadi cause is one of freedom and justice; to conclude that evil, genuine malevolence doesn't even exist.
"I don't think you understand evil if you don't understand it as the ultimate in rebellion against the fact of existence itself, [against] the spirit of existence. Well hence death cult
But then the layer underneath, that is where death is offered up as a form of worship Now this is something the western mind finds incredibly hard to understand within the death cults within Islam."
" worshippers of death and suffering ---- taken to its extent but imagine that with a theological framework around it such as the kind that jihadists have"
" worshippers of death and suffering ---- taken to its extent but imagine that with a theological framework around it such as the kind that jihadists have"
Very similar to the Christian who blew himself up along with a fertility clinic right?
This place has become a hive of conspiracy theories, stereotyping, and general fucknuttery. It's Fox News/Newsmax/GB news/Nazi barbie/Ben Shapiro/Neil Oliver lunacy, Of the "the MSM doesn't want you to know this!" type. Vaccines are harmful, everyone to the left of Jingiz Khan is a communist,all Muslims are either 1. Bad or 2. Good but only if they regularly condemn every coreligionists who does something wrong – which they themselves have had absolutely nothing to do with.
On the other hand, Christians who do this sort of shit are simply dismissed as "not true Christians." Or "not New Zealanders". I never thought I'd ever see this, when one of the few people talking sense is an ex-National party cabinet minister.
It's such a pity that the Baron never made it here, given he can put this sort of thing into better more polite English than me and has far more patience with it all. But in his absence I must say that the amount of stereotyping of Muslims based on dubious or no evidence is a little disappointing, given that I was told off for not providing evidence of someone's commitment to not censoring child porn.
I suspect much of it comes from that paragon of sloppy research and biased writing Douglas Murray, who manages to write about terrorism in Scandinavia without once mentioning Brevik. Or possibly that awful harridan Laura Ingraham who seems to be happy being seen giving a Nazi salute.
Tell you the truth Jim, Brandolini's law predominates here. It takes most of these people 5 seconds to glance at U-tube of Ingraham spouting stuff about how Santa Claus is white – yes I know it wasn't her but they all look the same – And you spend maybe an hour or so carefully looking for evidence that refutes their bullshit, and when you post it of course the reaction is usually crickets as the American say or
"meh– I know better than almost every scientist on earth." Is it a waste of time? I seriously don't know. How many people who haven't made up their mind are hanging out around here carefully considering the evidence? I suspect few to none.
"This place". Once again, GS, your disdain for all those who disagree with you is on full and disturbing display. As is your intellectual snobbery.
Are you at all aware how strongly you confirm people's stereotype of the condescending academic? Doesn't it bother you that, in the minds of those attempting to hold the middle ground, your commentary actually strengthens, rather than weakens, the Right's case against the Left?
I sometimes wonder why you don't just dismiss those who fail to measure up to your exacting standards as "deplorables" and be done with it?
Well Chris– First of all, you've written an article about Gaza without mentioning one thing about the ordinary people of Gaza. The ones that are being deliberately targeted by Israel. Argue as much as you like, still counts as murder. I seem to remember you saying as much about the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan at one stage.
What on earth has happened to you anyway that you start lumping all Muslims together as an 'existential threat'.
Personally I don't think I'm any more intellectually arrogant than anyone else on this site, including you. As I said before, no one in the site changes their mind, everyone believes they have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And everyone pretty much puts it in a patronising way – Including you, so there's that. I somehow doubt that my commentary strengthens the rights case against the left at least here. Everyone is committed. If he could show me perhaps someone on the right whose change their mind by way of rational argument please do so. Or someone on the left has been put off by my commentary and turn rightwards
Doesn't it bother you on the other hand that you are facilitating conspiracy theories and misinformation on your site? Doesn't it bother you that you seem to have abandoned both the left and the middle ground to engage in right wing stereotypes about people you don't really know?
How about attacking the substance of my argument rather than simply calling me intellectually arrogant? Can you argue that your blog doesn't tolerate conspiracy theories these days? You once told Brendan not to post his anti-nonsense on this site – well that's honoured more in the breach than the observance these days isn't it?
"Your exacting standards." What the hell is so exacting about expecting people to at least tell us where the information comes from. I don't know about exacting, that's probably the least I would expect, and that's what you've demanded of me in the past.
If you're going to slander a whole religion, I think it and we deserve more than bald statements.Would you be quite so sanguine if people describe Christianity as an "existential threat"? Whatever happened to your sense of fairness? Or was I just imagining it in the past?
Can you argue that some of the posts here don't come close to fascism? Or racism? Have you ever asked any of them for proof of their opinions about Muslims? Once?
Take Brendan for instance – again – he continually makes disparaging remarks about Muslims being an existential threat, without providing a skerrick of
evidence for it.
He insists that all we need for a better society is more Jesus, when the evidence and facts suggest that less Jesus is much better. Have you ever called him on this? Is that not religious if not intellectual arrogance?Why is it that right-leaning commenters on this site seem to get away with murder?
Try to pick up my argument for a change or at least may be get someone else to do it. It shouldn't be difficult for a man of your alleged intellectual ability surely?
"spend maybe an hour or so carefully looking for evidence that refutes their bullshit"
I suspected that that is what you do, GS.
"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs". Wikipedia
Funnily enough I know what confirmation bias is David. You show it all the time. But some of your ideas are so out there that I can do little else but look for a refutation to be honest. Sometimes I even find it on Pangburn or whatever it's called.
Yes, I guess it's human nature to seek validation but we need to be aware that it's unlikely we'll find the truth if it's not the truth we're looking for.
The treasure (truth) will often be found where we least want to look.
A lone nutter versus the hundreds of thousands (2013- 2024: 56,413 attacks and 204,937 deaths) of Islamist victims?
Not "very similar" at all.
I suspect you didn't watch the clip but perhaps you have an alternative excuse for the institutional endorsement and indoctrination of murder and mayhem. Perhaps the tens of thousands of massacred Nigerian villagers, for example, somehow brought it on themselves? "Death cult" sounds about right, Jim.
How many lone nutters were there in Rwanda, when Christians – led by their priests – killed half a million people using machetes mostly, quicker than the Nazis managed to do it using modern Western technology?
How many lone nutters were there when the Nazis managed to kill approximately 17 million people, ranging from the mentally deficient to Jehovah's Witnesses?
It wasn't Muslims who collected heads in the Congo, I do believe Leopold ii was a Christian wasn't he?
Jesus Chris, why not just say tl/dr? Because as far as I'm concerned it is not bad history or poor thinking. I did an assignment many years ago on the geographical causes of the Rwandan massacres – so I probably know bit more about that at least than you.
What's poor thinking is your knee-jerk reaction to Islam.
Actually David the Nazis were only anti Christians who opposed them. And there were a number of very brave examples of that, but most of their support came from heavily Christian, particularly catholic and rural areas.
To the point where after the war had ended in Europe, the catholic church hierarchy was deeply invested in helping war criminals escaped justice and shift to South America. Now you might not regard Catholics as Christian but I certainly do.
Also of course even if some of the Nazi leadership were anti-Christian, those who carried out the orders, and they were far more widely distributed than simply members of the SS and the like, were often Christian. Perhaps nominally perhaps not depending on where they were from. After all, the German army had Got mit uns on its belt buckles all the way through World War II.
Leopold II was raised a Roman Catholic, but both the atrocities he oversaw in the Congo in pursuit of wealth and his numerous extra-marital affairs suggest he wore his religion very lightly.
Thanks Chris - a thought-provoking piece. In the last few weeks TV has bombarded us with heart-wringing images and voiceovers of all the innocent lives being destroyed in Gaza. Somehow in all this little, if anything is offered about Israeli damage and the initial October atrocities that kicked the whole thing off are all but ignored. There is NO negotiable peace possible with Hamas or, I suspect, with Putin. A close friend has just returned from 6 weeks in Japan including a week in Nagasaki and the feelings of deep wrongness that, to her, remain in the city despite its physical beauty. Whatever the outcomes, this is where Gaza and the Ukraine are heading. Like most of us I have no answers or solutions but can just watch in horror as history repeats itself. Different locations, different protagonists but equally horrifying.
"Somehow in all this little, if anything is offered about Israeli damage and the initial October atrocities that kicked the whole thing off are all but ignored. "
For crying out loud, it's the news cycle. The damage done to Israel, comparatively speaking at least, was minor compared to what has happened to Gaza, and it happened last October. Whereas the murders of innocent Gazan civilians just goes on and on. I'm pretty sure that if they managed to strike back at Israel and kill a few Israeli soldiers or civilians it would be all over the MSM.As it was in October.
Not to mention that the hostages are constantly in the news. And if you watch the US news at all, the attacks on Gaza are minimised and excused. Only in the slightly left of centre press has anything made of it.
Disingenuous. Murder takes place in war if you don't follow the rules of war such - as they are. Snipers Deliberately targeting unarmed children will always be murder in my book.
I don't know what sort of compromise is possible with people that are, literally, Hell bent on your complete destruction.
"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem." Yasar Arafat.
In a letter to his son in October 1937, Ben-Gurion explained that partition would be a first step to “possession of the land as a whole.”
"I noted in my article that in the revised edition of Morris’s book, he writes that he found conclusive evidence that there was indeed a deliberate decision by Ben-Gurion to expel—the term “cleanse” is used extensively—700,000 Palestinian Arabs. Their flight was therefore not the unintended collateral damage of a war started by the Arabs but the result of decisions and actions taken by the Yishuv’s top political and military leaders."
And, had those Arab armies triumphed, Jim? Who do you suppose would have been "cleansed" then?
Couple of interesting points.
Fist of all, it's quite probable that those Arab armies invaded Israel because the Israelis were involved in ethnic cleansing. It's quite possible that they may well have ethnically cleansed the Jews at the time if they have won.
But then I wonder how you'd react if the United Nations deposited a whole lot of Maori in your back garden and said they were entitled to it because they had a historical connection to the land?
But that's largely irrelevant – because the right-wing narrative you seem to be pushing is that somehow it was only the Arabs that refused to accept the partition plan. The BenGurion letter suggests otherwise.
So why is one group forbidden to resist the partition and the other allowed to completely ignore it?
Letter or no letter, Jim, Israel accepted the partition plan, and the Palestinians rejected it.
Try to imagine how much better the region would be for 80 years of the UN's two-state solution. Think about what Gaza would be like today. Instead of a smoking ruin, a thriving and cultured city looking much the same (although larger) as it did in 1920.
Sadly, there has never been enough room in the irredentist Palestinian imagination for anything more constructive than antisemitism and martyrdom.
Exactly.
Of course as you have described Chris, it's the leaders who make these decisions. Whether it be Netanyahu, Churchill, Trump, Putin or the leaders of Hamas, they are so self absorbed with their own importance and agenda's that their own populations become secondary. Netanyahu has his personal agenda to clear Gaza completely and with it any further threat from Hamas. Hamas with their own form of righteous BS are happy to sacrifice every last Gazan to promote their cause. Netanyahu has taken the opportunity arising from Hamas's decision not to release all hostages, to obliterate Gaza. Both have a disregard for human life whether it be their own people or their enemies. In all these conflicts the ordinary people have no say. In their own megalomaniac, psychotic way these leaders believe they are acting out their own predetermined future to improve human existence in their eyes only. Not knowing when to stop Chris. They have no intention of stopping unless they are themselves stopped.
Israel should stop when Hamas unconditionally surrenders and lays down their weapons, their tunnels destroyed, their surviving combatants imprisoned or voluntarily repatriated to another country. Anything less will allow them to regroup and repeat October 7 all over again. Biden would never permit this level of victory, it remains to be seen if Trump has any appetite for it.
Netanyahu has said he wants permanent control of Gaza. That pretty much guarantees an ongoing insurgency. Defeating Hamas won’t stop that. There are enough angry young Palestinians to want to continue to attack. If not now, a short few years away. And as in the 1970’s I think it is likely to be internationalised.
I think Netanyahu would like to expel all Palestinians from Gaza. Certainly many in his government do. That will result in a major border war between Israel and Egypt, given the only place the Palestinians can go is across the southern Gaza border. Not something that the US would be remotely enthusiastic about.
In short Netanyahu appears not to have a realistic plan to end the war.
Those claims (expel all Palestinians and permanent control) are not true and there is a realistic plan, Wayne.
Prime Minister Netanyahu says Israel is ready to end the war in Gaza — if these conditions are met:
1.All hostages are freed
2.Hamas disarms
3.Hamas leaders go into exile
4.Gaza is fully demilitarized
Source: https://x.com/i/status/1925281124479041931
Netanyahu, as part of those conditions, also said he wants full control of Gaza. Essentially a military occupation by Israel. Experience should tell him that won't work out well.
Netanyahu's decision-making is surely (and mostly?) guided by the knowledge that if he falters in his quest to erase Gaza as a Palestinian entity, then his coalition government will fall; and that if, in the subsequent election, he finds himself shorn of his prime-ministerial immunity, then he may very soon also find himself behind bars.
That is perfectly normal, Wayne; the loser of a war (Hamas in this case) is usually deposed by the victor.
The Nazis, for example, were not allowed to continue running Germany after WW2. That worked out well for the German people and will, ultimately, for the other victims of Hamas - the Gazan people themselves.
These Muslim Brotherhood offshoots are a disaster for all.
https://www.theahafoundation.org/how-to-deal-with-the-muslim-brotherhood-part-i/
Do you seriously think the Palestinian population is going to accept an Israeli military occupation?
Surely the last 60 years of occupation on the West Bank must tell you that thee will be an ongoing insurgency, admittedly with varying levels of intensity.
There is considerable dissatisfaction with Hamas if the recent courageous protests are any indication. The death and destruction is the easily foreseeable consequence of the disastrous Hamas decision to invade Israel; even the tyrannised and heavily propagandised Palestinian population can see that.
Breezy reductionist ‘take’ on The Empire Of The Rising Sun’s inability to surrender.
On what conditions would/ should the Allies have been ready to settle with Hitler, or Hirohito?
Problem with starting wars is generally speaking they get finished for you by someone else.
When Oct 7 occurred, I wondered how far Israel would go before international and US condemnation would cause them to stop. I thought, at most, 20,000 killed. It was obvious from the get go, there would be an atavistic response.
But 50,000, and how many more? 100,000? The removal of all Palestinians from Gaza?
David George;
Quoting the Hamas charter is not an excuse for the current scale of destruction.
Hamas do negotiate, they know full well they can’t literally destroy Israel. Netanyahu and his far right coalition have consistently broken the arrangements they sign up to (long term cessation of hostilities, as they had just recently agreed).
At the moment it seems hopeless. Just continuing rounds of destruction and full scale occupation by Israel. There will be 100,000 deaths, mostly civilian within the next year or so. Plus a continuing insurgency within Gaza.
As US officials (and many Israeli officials) noted, Netanyahu has no actual plan that can end the war. No realistic plan as to what happens next.
I see you are getting your numbers from the Hamas media spokesman. Until we have faced what Israel continues to face every day, I don’t think we have the moral right to tell them what to do. Israel is panned by world media for ‘not providing enough aid’ to Gaza. In which other war have we seen one side who was attacked and now fighting back against the enemy, being told off for not providing aid to their foe? Hamas are playing the world with their spin. To make it all stop, they know what they have to do.
The figures of casualties are widely accepted, including by the US government. Israel has never been able to rebut them.
There is dispute about how many are Hamas fighters. Based on my reading I reckon that around 40% are fighters, maybe a bit less. The UN definition of children is anyone under 18. I suspect quite a few Hamas fighters are 16 and 17.
"Netanyahu has no actual plan that can end the war". "No realistic plan as to what happens next."
And the Hamas plan is?
Returning the hostages and laying down their arms is the hope but it's a fat lot of good having having a plan that Hamas have repeatedly rejected. Or, rather, pretended to negotiate then completely ignored. Lets not forget that there was a ceasefire in place on October the 7th.
That quote above is not from the Hamas charter but from Arafat when he was the billionaire head of the PLO terrorists. The complete destruction of Israel is the motivating intention regardless of it's practicality. How do you negotiate with that? Intentions matter.
It's difficult for us, Wayne, the peaceful and prosperous recipients of a culture rooted in the Christian values of the sanctity of life and liberty, to even imagine folk pursuing it's opposite. And to therefore conclude, against all evidence, that the Jihadi cause is one of freedom and justice; to conclude that evil, genuine malevolence doesn't even exist.
"I don't think you understand evil if you don't understand it as the ultimate in rebellion against the fact of existence itself, [against] the spirit of existence. Well hence death cult
But then the layer underneath, that is where death is offered up as a form of worship Now this is something the western mind finds incredibly hard to understand within the death cults within Islam."
" worshippers of death and suffering ---- taken to its extent but imagine that with a theological framework around it such as the kind that jihadists have"
From "The West Is Too Weak For Radical Islam" https://youtu.be/lyNHvGEJrpY
Section the above quote comes from: https://youtu.be/lyNHvGEJrpY?t=3020
" worshippers of death and suffering ---- taken to its extent but imagine that with a theological framework around it such as the kind that jihadists have"
Very similar to the Christian who blew himself up along with a fertility clinic right?
This place has become a hive of conspiracy theories, stereotyping, and general fucknuttery. It's Fox News/Newsmax/GB news/Nazi barbie/Ben Shapiro/Neil Oliver lunacy, Of the "the MSM doesn't want you to know this!" type. Vaccines are harmful, everyone to the left of Jingiz Khan is a communist,all Muslims are either 1. Bad or 2. Good but only if they regularly condemn every coreligionists who does something wrong – which they themselves have had absolutely nothing to do with.
On the other hand, Christians who do this sort of shit are simply dismissed as "not true Christians." Or "not New Zealanders". I never thought I'd ever see this, when one of the few people talking sense is an ex-National party cabinet minister.
It's such a pity that the Baron never made it here, given he can put this sort of thing into better more polite English than me and has far more patience with it all. But in his absence I must say that the amount of stereotyping of Muslims based on dubious or no evidence is a little disappointing, given that I was told off for not providing evidence of someone's commitment to not censoring child porn.
I suspect much of it comes from that paragon of sloppy research and biased writing Douglas Murray, who manages to write about terrorism in Scandinavia without once mentioning Brevik. Or possibly that awful harridan Laura Ingraham who seems to be happy being seen giving a Nazi salute.
Tell you the truth Jim, Brandolini's law predominates here. It takes most of these people 5 seconds to glance at U-tube of Ingraham spouting stuff about how Santa Claus is white – yes I know it wasn't her but they all look the same – And you spend maybe an hour or so carefully looking for evidence that refutes their bullshit, and when you post it of course the reaction is usually crickets as the American say or
"meh– I know better than almost every scientist on earth." Is it a waste of time? I seriously don't know. How many people who haven't made up their mind are hanging out around here carefully considering the evidence? I suspect few to none.
"This place". Once again, GS, your disdain for all those who disagree with you is on full and disturbing display. As is your intellectual snobbery.
Are you at all aware how strongly you confirm people's stereotype of the condescending academic? Doesn't it bother you that, in the minds of those attempting to hold the middle ground, your commentary actually strengthens, rather than weakens, the Right's case against the Left?
I sometimes wonder why you don't just dismiss those who fail to measure up to your exacting standards as "deplorables" and be done with it?
Don't you think that perhaps the right might take some comfort in your mutual obsession with "wokeness" and "identity politics" Chris?
Driving political issues of our time - making and breaking governments. I'd bloody well say the Right was interested, Jim.
Well Chris– First of all, you've written an article about Gaza without mentioning one thing about the ordinary people of Gaza. The ones that are being deliberately targeted by Israel. Argue as much as you like, still counts as murder. I seem to remember you saying as much about the strategic bombing of Germany and Japan at one stage.
What on earth has happened to you anyway that you start lumping all Muslims together as an 'existential threat'.
Personally I don't think I'm any more intellectually arrogant than anyone else on this site, including you. As I said before, no one in the site changes their mind, everyone believes they have the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And everyone pretty much puts it in a patronising way – Including you, so there's that. I somehow doubt that my commentary strengthens the rights case against the left at least here. Everyone is committed. If he could show me perhaps someone on the right whose change their mind by way of rational argument please do so. Or someone on the left has been put off by my commentary and turn rightwards
Doesn't it bother you on the other hand that you are facilitating conspiracy theories and misinformation on your site? Doesn't it bother you that you seem to have abandoned both the left and the middle ground to engage in right wing stereotypes about people you don't really know?
How about attacking the substance of my argument rather than simply calling me intellectually arrogant? Can you argue that your blog doesn't tolerate conspiracy theories these days? You once told Brendan not to post his anti-nonsense on this site – well that's honoured more in the breach than the observance these days isn't it?
"Your exacting standards." What the hell is so exacting about expecting people to at least tell us where the information comes from. I don't know about exacting, that's probably the least I would expect, and that's what you've demanded of me in the past.
If you're going to slander a whole religion, I think it and we deserve more than bald statements.Would you be quite so sanguine if people describe Christianity as an "existential threat"? Whatever happened to your sense of fairness? Or was I just imagining it in the past?
Can you argue that some of the posts here don't come close to fascism? Or racism? Have you ever asked any of them for proof of their opinions about Muslims? Once?
Take Brendan for instance – again – he continually makes disparaging remarks about Muslims being an existential threat, without providing a skerrick of
evidence for it.
He insists that all we need for a better society is more Jesus, when the evidence and facts suggest that less Jesus is much better. Have you ever called him on this? Is that not religious if not intellectual arrogance?Why is it that right-leaning commenters on this site seem to get away with murder?
Try to pick up my argument for a change or at least may be get someone else to do it. It shouldn't be difficult for a man of your alleged intellectual ability surely?
TLDR.
"spend maybe an hour or so carefully looking for evidence that refutes their bullshit"
I suspected that that is what you do, GS.
"Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs". Wikipedia
Funnily enough I know what confirmation bias is David. You show it all the time. But some of your ideas are so out there that I can do little else but look for a refutation to be honest. Sometimes I even find it on Pangburn or whatever it's called.
Yes, I guess it's human nature to seek validation but we need to be aware that it's unlikely we'll find the truth if it's not the truth we're looking for.
The treasure (truth) will often be found where we least want to look.
A lone nutter versus the hundreds of thousands (2013- 2024: 56,413 attacks and 204,937 deaths) of Islamist victims?
Not "very similar" at all.
I suspect you didn't watch the clip but perhaps you have an alternative excuse for the institutional endorsement and indoctrination of murder and mayhem. Perhaps the tens of thousands of massacred Nigerian villagers, for example, somehow brought it on themselves? "Death cult" sounds about right, Jim.
https://www.fondapol.org/en/study/islamist-terrorist-attacks-in-the-world-1979-2024/
How many lone nutters were there in Rwanda, when Christians – led by their priests – killed half a million people using machetes mostly, quicker than the Nazis managed to do it using modern Western technology?
How many lone nutters were there when the Nazis managed to kill approximately 17 million people, ranging from the mentally deficient to Jehovah's Witnesses?
It wasn't Muslims who collected heads in the Congo, I do believe Leopold ii was a Christian wasn't he?
Bad history, Jim. Poor thinking.
Jesus Chris, why not just say tl/dr? Because as far as I'm concerned it is not bad history or poor thinking. I did an assignment many years ago on the geographical causes of the Rwandan massacres – so I probably know bit more about that at least than you.
What's poor thinking is your knee-jerk reaction to Islam.
Not sure about the others but the Nazis were anti Christian and Christianity doesn't condone any of that, far from it.
Actually David the Nazis were only anti Christians who opposed them. And there were a number of very brave examples of that, but most of their support came from heavily Christian, particularly catholic and rural areas.
To the point where after the war had ended in Europe, the catholic church hierarchy was deeply invested in helping war criminals escaped justice and shift to South America. Now you might not regard Catholics as Christian but I certainly do.
Also of course even if some of the Nazi leadership were anti-Christian, those who carried out the orders, and they were far more widely distributed than simply members of the SS and the like, were often Christian. Perhaps nominally perhaps not depending on where they were from. After all, the German army had Got mit uns on its belt buckles all the way through World War II.
Bad history David poor thinking.
Leopold II was raised a Roman Catholic, but both the atrocities he oversaw in the Congo in pursuit of wealth and his numerous extra-marital affairs suggest he wore his religion very lightly.
Thanks Chris - a thought-provoking piece. In the last few weeks TV has bombarded us with heart-wringing images and voiceovers of all the innocent lives being destroyed in Gaza. Somehow in all this little, if anything is offered about Israeli damage and the initial October atrocities that kicked the whole thing off are all but ignored. There is NO negotiable peace possible with Hamas or, I suspect, with Putin. A close friend has just returned from 6 weeks in Japan including a week in Nagasaki and the feelings of deep wrongness that, to her, remain in the city despite its physical beauty. Whatever the outcomes, this is where Gaza and the Ukraine are heading. Like most of us I have no answers or solutions but can just watch in horror as history repeats itself. Different locations, different protagonists but equally horrifying.
"Somehow in all this little, if anything is offered about Israeli damage and the initial October atrocities that kicked the whole thing off are all but ignored. "
For crying out loud, it's the news cycle. The damage done to Israel, comparatively speaking at least, was minor compared to what has happened to Gaza, and it happened last October. Whereas the murders of innocent Gazan civilians just goes on and on. I'm pretty sure that if they managed to strike back at Israel and kill a few Israeli soldiers or civilians it would be all over the MSM.As it was in October.
Not to mention that the hostages are constantly in the news. And if you watch the US news at all, the attacks on Gaza are minimised and excused. Only in the slightly left of centre press has anything made of it.
War is not murder. Murder is not war.
Disingenuous. Murder takes place in war if you don't follow the rules of war such - as they are. Snipers Deliberately targeting unarmed children will always be murder in my book.
I agree. Snipers targeting children very clearly is not war, it's murder.
Ehud Olmert, prime minister of Israel from 2006 till 2009:
Enough Is Enough. Israel Is Committing War Crimes.
https://archive.ph/FGfQA
Humans, or hatred. Pick one, the devil might say.
Those who choose poorly find the sky and the horizon shrinking and darkening.
Who and where can this mean?
This particular thread.
There’s an old pre antibiotic surgical saying, ‘laudable pus’.
Thank you , Mr Trotter, for draining the abscess to here.