good nuanced points. Thanks. One thing I must note is that the state of Israel was not founded because of the holocaust. You wrote:
" the cause of the Arab countries' invasion was the colonialist founding of the state of Israel by the United Nations, the cause of that founding was the Holocaust, and so on. "
I really must stress this as it's commonly misunderstood. Zionism (a Jewish nationalist movement which sought a homeland for European jews), whose ideology was finally realized in the founding of Israel, was first being spoken of in Jewish European circles in the 1880's. Theodor Hertlz being the central figure. European Jews took themselves to Palestine as early as the late 1800s, into the early 1900s (google first and 2nd Aliyah). the first Zionist congress took place in 1886- there the drafts for jewish national homeland with international support took place. in 1901 , the Jewish National Fund was established, tasked with buying land in Palestine. Strategic patches of Zionist Jewish settlement propped up through the early 1900s. Google the "Al-Fula Affair" of 1910 , in which land purchased by the Jewish National Fund displaced 1000 Palestinians, and caused a bloody fight between the two parties. 1917 Balfour Declaration , as commonly known, aided Zionism in legally enabling further Jewish settlement in Palestine. Between 1917 and 1948, there was much back and forth about whether this growing Zionist mission should occur. the King - Crane commission of 1918, commissioned by the U.S, found most locals opposed Zionism and thus called for a limit on Jewish immigration into Palestine. it was ignored. the 1930 Hope - Simpson Commission of Enquiry found similar discontent among Arabs. The report found Arabs peasants needed help and that Jewish immigration was again troubling. and so on and so on. 1948 the Zionist movement is successful enough to establish istself as the state of Israel. the holocaust merely meant Israel could be a safe place for European Jews to flee to after the horrors of Europe. But it played no part in the creation of Israel or the Zionist ideology whatsoever.
I found this essay to be pretty even-handed, although I disagree with some of the specific points. I was relieved to not read another diatribe against Israel, as is so typical these days.
The “Palestinians” wanted control of Gaza. Israel withdrew all Jews from Gaza in 2005. What has resulted is a terrorism hotbed. Sorry, but it is impossible to live in peace with people whose only option for peace is your destruction and death.
Is anyone talking about areas A, B, and C in Judaea and Samaria? Despite my interest in Israel for many years, I only learned about these areas the other day.
It’s interesting how it is hardly mentioned that israel has been accepting as a matter of course, the lobbing of rockets into Israel from Gaza and Lebanon for years. Who has been talking about the fact that Israelis need to have “safe rooms” in their houses and other places where they can run when the alarms sound to warn of these incoming rockets?
How can people not see the evil of Hamas and the impossibility of being at peace with a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s destruction?
Many people who are “conspiracy theorists” and don’t trust the UN, the ICC, the WHO, et al, are suddenly willing to believe NWO entities when they are anti-Israel.
I could go on and on, but I will conclude with this article, written in 2005. This is the fundamental issue in this situation.
You don't know what you are talking about, you are clueless.
We are talking about genocide by Israel. It has already killed more than 39 000 people, most of them civilians and half of them children and women.
That is called a crime against humanity.
The conspiracy theorists know perfectly well that most of the countries in the UN do not have the power they should have and that the UN has been hijacked by the US. That is why they veto anything that would stop wars and genocide.
I live in the woods. No houses in sight. Off grid. Haul my water. Split my wood - sometimes with a gas-powered splitter, but last year, I split all 5+ cords by myself with a maul. Stacked it, hauled it in. I’m no sissy. Not all Americans are the type that I’m ashamed of being associated with, but I AM ashamed of this country and my “fellow”-Americans. Most of them, at least. They have no clue about what real life is like in their sterile houses and offices. I have made almost every bookcase and trunk and kitchen shelf in my cabin with hand tools. I eat organic food. Almost 100% of the meat I eat is what I have raised (chickens, cows, sheep). I quit processed white sugar in 1996 and eat honey and maple syrup (often homemade). I have never done drugs. I’ve never even drunk alcohol. So be careful about assuming too much just because of the country of one’s birth.
That’s good, I appreciate the physical work well done, autonomy (or a certain autonomy), but it is also necessary intellectually, your reflection on this is wrong, read some comments posted here, would allow us to learn more about what is really happening there, without prejudice or bias, only taking into account the facts.
It’s about controlling the price of energy worldwide “oil”. One of the most abundant resources labeled “fossil fuels.” We’re being played by fascist psychopaths working for central bankers. All the world’s a stage. War is about natural resources. Religions are for manipulations like media. Jews have very little Hebrew in their DNA. I wish I had a “promise land” or was “chosen”, but those beliefs were conjured up by scribes working for Kings. There is Truth in the Great Religions but the institutions have been hijacked by psychopaths.
"Britain's - and later America's- drive to conquest was foreshadowed unmistakably by Mackinder's cursory yet almost oracular mention of the several bridgeheads that the Sea Powers need to graft unto the heartland to draw out its armies in a deliberate sequence of separate clashes. To isolate each conflict, the targeted territorial portion had to be severed from its adjacent district, and bled white by prolonged strife waged in the name of political, religious, or ethnic diversity. Thus the Anglo-Americans have always acted: in Europe by spinning everybody against Germany (1904-45); in the Near East, by jamming Israel in the heart of the Arab world (1917-present); in the Far East, by planting thorns in the side of China: Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan (1950-present); in Central Asia by destabilizing the entire region into tribal warfare with the help of Pakistan to prevent the Caspian seaboard from gravitating into the Russian sphere of influence (1979-present).
... Imperial stratagems are protracted affairs. The captains of world aggression measure their achievements, or failures, on a timescale whose unit is the generation. -- Guido Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, pg. 16
"Scientists at Tel Aviv University's School of Plant Sciences announced these days that they have recorded with special ultrasonic-sensitive microphones the cries of pain that plants emit when they are cut or when they lack water. There are no microphones in Gaza."
If this is true, because we never know if it was broadcast on purpose, show that this concern for the cries of plants and not those of Gazans. It is horrible, this absolute evil, it is what I wrote previously in a comment.
Are some beings deprived of the consciousness of evil where it disappears with time and malicious actions?
I understand you well, Marjolein, the question is not there, as already written, that the readers ask him directly his position if they wish.
My comment was about his essay, which I didn’t think expressed neutrality, but expressed a different or personal approach, I translate the articles into French, so I could have a less precise reading, I will reread it in English, which is not easy for me.
The question of the evidence concerned the com of Marciano, and here I remain affirmative, in this kind of discussion (judgment and affirming that one is mistaken) it is necessary to prove, a point is all.
Comments were made to this sjuet, nothing says that most are not aware of the genocide, they may not talk about it for x number of reasons, which I do not approve, but it is so.
So I would not judge people for reasons I am not aware of, I would if someone told me there was no genocide.
We can therefore judge the silence of people who do not express themselves, but absolutely not for the reasons that are spurned by us.
I also find it regretable that this subject is discussed only by the two of us, despite the number of subscribers.
there are more than 370 comments here; so you can't say that only two people are discussing. I don't know if Desmet understands that the supporters of the Israeli genocide are the same people and the same side as the implementers of the covid policy or the war in Ukraine. There may be exceptions in the crowd, but that does not change the fact.
If a resonating knowledge tells us that something is "strange", it does not mean that we stop there. Nope. In the second step, we have to make a rational, conceptual and historical analysis.
The problem is not only that we have lost pre-symbolic contact with the Other, but that we have in fact been neglecting reason all this time.
Yes, I misspoke, I wanted to say about the discussion of genocide and Desmet, whose Marjolein put forward, no one came sneaking into the exchange to possibly enrich it. It was not a criticism, just a statement.
I did mention that readers have commented on the subject of genocide elsewhere on this page.
So typical how all these anti-flu protesters suddenly lost the ability to judge right after 7 October! Mattias Desmet, you may think that you’re an original independent thinker, but you’re actually very very typical, look at the examples that I gave in this opinion piece that I wrote last October, you fit in 100%
We definitely need to take a stance, but neutrality is also a stance that is not allowed in highly polarised times. But more important than taking a stand is something else: saying what the reality of the situation is.
The danger of losing friends and making new friends in chaotic times is that the new transfer (a psychoanalytical concept) clouds our minds.
Desmet may be losing himself in this - among anticovid friends there are also tacit supporters of genocide. But maybe it's not just that: I think he wants to reformulate the problem in a different way, but I don't know if he realises the danger of doing so - because he is rapidly drifting away from the truth of the problem.
So he misses the mark twice:
- he has lost resonant contact with the civilian victims of Israel's systematic genocide
- he has not engaged in serious historical analysis, only clichés such as 'Human, all too human', he could have said 'Homo homini lupus'.
And you know, in my opinion, it all comes down to a lack of understanding colonialism as a system of oppression. Zionism is a political and ideological branch of the Western colonial empire. Without Western/colonial support, Zionism would be dead. That’s why I ironically speak of the ‘anti-flu movement’ to express my disappointment, it’s not a movement of resistance, it’s just a bunch of white people crying that the empire hurt them too. This selective outrage is not only illustrative for the very Eurocentric (and often openly colonial!) world view within these circles, it also prevents to connect some important dots.
Okay, I got it. That's partly true. As I follow critical theory and philosophy, it may be quite true that Anti-colonial thought is probably the last critical position today.
Marjolein, I read your post it is relevant and fair.
As far as I am concerned, I have spoken elsewhere about genocide on this subject and it must be denounced.
However, the subject of his text was the conflict between the two, it is not for me to judge it for this text expressed with a particular approach. If the writing had been done with indifference, I did not perceive it so, I would have mentioned it, my comments elsewhere testify to it (my frank talk).
It might have been more appropriate to ask for follow-up to the text, whether he considered the tragedy of the Palestinians as genocide or not. This would have made it possible to know his position outside his text.
What Desmet thinks in his strong interior about it, is between him and his conscience, I would not judge his integrity on a text.
I read the essay in English, I did not make an error of appreciation, the subject is expressed clearly. So I do not need to correct my comments, nor my inquiry already expressed concerning the sentence below, namely that in the current drama affecting the Palestinians, it is clearly a genocide and not a classic drama.
“...you see that what is happening there is a classic human drama. And that human drama is not unique.”
Including this one which joins the previous one and does not require additional comment.
“We can casually ask the relevant question: why so disproportionately more attention to this drama?”
I particularly appreciate the following, although in some cases affirmative answers can be given if one has the data to allow it.
“It is good to cherish our questions and be cautious with our answers.”
To conclude, it is true “These are difficult questions.”
It is necessary to have a common thread tracing the history of events, to apprehend accurately what is happening now or in the 'recent' past.
I no longer rely on verifiable historical accounts, there is no evidence that they are true or that they have not been modified, truncated, adapted etc.
The current accounts show that the doubt raises this sjuet and allowed.
No, Marjolein, I’ve been follow Desmet for years, I don’t know him in person.
I discovered his substack only recently, being myself on this site recently.
Why some, they often interpret comments in a subjective way, I do not defend anyone, am not «The moral policé of his comment section»
for no one. The reason I commented was to clarify. I find that you are conflating comments, as Marciano and Ely did.
Your case is fair, your opinion on the requirement to speak out loud and clear about injustices, genocides, etc. is also fair, but to put that in an essay, a comment, etc. addressing a conflict in a particular way does not seem appropriate to me.
That said, I have to reread the original text to make sure that I have not misunderstood what it says. If this were to be the case, I would not fail to make it known, I like the precision, if I made a mistake of apprciation I would have no problem in ademettre, it happens sometimes, even in his own language.
Perhaps we should start by asking the readers what they hear or imply when they speak, and not to judge what said, it often happens I find. If you had read my comment of June 14, you would know.
Sorry your convoluted way of arguing makes it very tiring to continue the conversation. You keep derailing the issue and keep on defending Mattias no matter what! You may not know him personally, but he’ll be very happy with loyal supporters like you who criticize his critics but do not apply the same standards to his writings. It’s also pretty annoying how you keep on lecturing others on what appropriate is or not, meanwhile congratulating yourself with how morally superior you are. Good luck with that, I rest my case!
It seems then that we have covered the question, even if subjectivity cannot always be avoided, we are not superhumans, the lack of objectivity often leads us to a dead end. It is your right to think that I am defending Mattias, as far as I am concerned, I am certain that he is old enough to do it himself (smile). If seeking precision is confused with moral superiority, what to say...
The fact that it makes you tired, wouldn’t it be related to the fact that you expect something instead of simply exchanging opinions or information.
One thing is certain, whatever one says, whatever one does, it is always a personal work that allows an awareness. We can, exchange, inform, then the rest do not belong to us.
It is remarkable how even in the political movement formed during the corona-era, venting criticisms about the pandemic narrative and, generally spoken, also not buying into the current pro Ukranian NATO-narrative, new forms of political correctness arise. This article above is a clear example of that.
Notice how this so-called movement allows itself to analyse what’s going on in Ukraine in-dept on the one hand, but hesitates to do any serious analysis of what’s happening in Gaza on the other hand. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is due to a political choice. The reason could be that the movement mentionend consists of pro-Palestinian people, neutral people as well as (often fundamentalist christian) zionists alike while the perception prevails that the movement risks falling apart if it would delve too much into the Israeli conflict. A more personal and opportunistic reason could very well be that Desmet is using the conflict, of which he clearly has neither a relevant clue nor even the slightest grasp, to appear a bit more moderate and balanced in the eyes of his employer Ghent University while rejecting the demands for a boycott, just to compensate for his more radical years of warning for the danger of totalitarian movements and conformism during the corona-era.
However, a political movement which is neither willing nor capable of well-informed and intelligent analysis, but starts to satsify itself with romanticised bedtimefiction instead, is doomed to fade away sooner or later.
« However, a political movement which is neither willing nor capable of, but starts to satsify itself with romanticised bedtimefiction instead, is doomed to fade away for sure. »
I am not sure that this is a new political movement, the Coronacirus may have allowed a consensus in the narrative, but either, I do not know more.
Since your criticism (2 comments) seems relevant, could you give us a «well-informed and intelligent analysis» of the real situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Apparently, you missed my third remark below in which I criticise Mr. Ely's comment and present such an analysis. It is easy to just feed people some nice sounding risk-free semi-intellectual twaddle, like Desmet does. It's less easy to properly study the historical and legal aspects of this conflict in order to develop a well-informed opinion.
Postmodern praise of uncertainty and display of other forms of intellectual helplessness will undoubtedly endear some girls, especially if it happens around the campfire after a couple of Belgian beers, but in reality it amounts to a plea for disengagement and self-immobilization.
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population is usually associated with complexity, but much of it is merely a smokescreen in order to discourage people from investigating its cause. In this way the myth is fed to the masses of a spiral of violence without beginning or end. This myth obviously suits the strongest party in this asymmetrical power conflict, namely apartheid-state Israel, which will undoubtedly persists in the targeted bombing of Gazan civilians (by most Israeli’s blatantly called ‘seed of Amalek’), despite of that.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of Desmet's sweettalk endeavour above, which is based on this myth. In this way, Desmet himself in fact actively contributes to the dehumanization that he claims to be against.
The superficial half-baked mysticism from Desmet, which will undoubtedly cater to the masses which on average don’t like bloodshed and have no clue either, isn't based on any substantial analysis and therefore only capable of pulling the wool over our eyes once more.
Your whole premise is wrong, wrong on so many levels. But the basic one is that the “Palestinian” were expelled from anywhere. I was born in British Palestine and my family was there from the early 30s. Five Arab nations in 1948 told their brethren that they were going to push the Jews into the sea, so they should flee their homes in Israel, meanwhile simultaneously expelling Jews from Arab lands. Stick to psychology and don’t pretend to be a historian.
“If the Jews laid down their arms there would be no Israel. If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace.”
Dear genocide-apologist Ely (Eli eli lama sabachtani),
Israel has been founded on a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, long and carefully prepared in advance by David Ben Goerion (who can be best called the Adolf Hitler for the Palestinians) and his military and orientalist advisors. The fourth and final version of that plan was called plan Dalet. This campaign is documented well, like the so called new Israeli historians found out after they got access to declassified military documents, including orders to zionist militia not to make any distinction between guilty and not guilty while assaulting and destroying Palestinian villages to speed up pressure during the expulsion-project, although Israeli society still prefers to get drunk repeatedly on bedtimestories like that the Palestinians would have left their land voluntarily.
At the moment the ethnic cleansing started, only one third of the population in British Mandate Palestine was Jewish and only 5,8% of the land was in Jewish hands. Understandably, David Ben Goerion had accepted the unfair UN partition plan in which the zionists got, despite of the situation as mentioned, most of the land (56%) assigned. However in reality David Ben Goerion still wanted to realise his initial bid to the UN, namely 80% of Palestine. Needless to say that it is hard to establish a viable Jewish democratic state (a democracy in which the zionists will have and remain having the upper hand) even in 56%, let alone 80%, of Palestine, if only one third of the population is Jewish and merely 5,8% in Jewish hands. So the campaign of ethnic cleansing was meant to solve that problem.
So under the watchful eye of the British troops which stood by idly, a sheer terrorist-campaign against Palestinians was conducted by zionist militia like the Hagana, the Irgun and the Stern. Palestinian families were often not warned in advance but simply blown up or torched while being in their houses. People trying to leave their houses in fear were randomly sprayed with stengun-bullets. Pretty-looking Palestinian girls gang-raped. Palestinian men between 10 and 50 years old caught, separated from the rest, lined up and executed on the spot, based on dubious namelists of zionist intelligence officers, just to instill fear by the other remaining Palestinians or just for having fun. Many villages were totally destroyed and mines were planted in the rubble after, just to prevent Palestinians who managed to escape from returning. This happened especially after Palestinian resistance. Other villages were left behind by Palestinians in advance, who fled in desperation after they heard of the zionist violence. These villages were looted by zionist militia, after which houses, land and other possessions were assigned to Jewish families.
Furthermore, it’s another sick zionist fairytale that little Israel has been invaded by five Arab Goliaths, after the state of Israel was declared. In reality the zionist militia had the upper hand from the beginning for several reasons.
Firstly because the backbone of the Palestinian resistance against British favoritism of zionism during the British Mandate was already effectively broken by the British army during the thirties.
Secondly, because the zionist lobby was able to get Great Brittain in check, so it wouldn’t intervene.
Thirdly, because the zionists planned the campaign of ethnic cleansing well and long in advance, gathering intelligence in a systemic way about Palestinian villages and its inhabitants (the so called village files) while building up a capable force of well-trained militiamen - especially the Palmach, a section of the Haganah.
Fourthly, because the zionists succeeded in concluding a secret deal with king Abdallah from Transjordan, who had the only capable professional Arab army (trained and led by British officers) Israel had to fear. The agreement made was that king Abadallah could get the West Bank and East Jerusalem in exchange for looking the other way while zionist forces would take the rest by force.
Fifthly, because the zionists succeeded via the zionist communist party in Palestine to secure import from superior weaponry from the Soviet Union.
Sixthly, because there was in practice an enormous gap between the retoric used by Arabic nations in public on the one hand and the invading Arab militia on the other hand. The latter often mainly consisted out of poorly trained volunteers, which were inferior in numbers to the zionist forces, besides that they got not enough and often inferior weaponry, badly organised logistic supplylines and were often led by incapable commanders with different and competing interests.
Hence, let us not mince words here. At the heart of zionism (and the conflict itself) lies the idea of Jewish supremacy. Therefore zionism considers Palestinians just as subhumans or collateral damage, during the landgrab it envisions (which encompasses in reality much more than just the territory of former British Mandate Palestine by the way), as the history of zionism, not only during the period of the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state but also thereafter clearly points out.
At the same time the west is just supposed to swallow this utter criminality in silence because of feelings of holocaustguilt or in the belief of the so called enormous complexity of this conflict, like Desmet does gullibly, skillfully manipulated to do so by the powerful zionist lobby.
Description: When Israeli graduate student Teddy Katz meticulously documented a massacre of Palestinian civilians surrounding Israel's independence, he was initially celebrated for his groundbreaking work. But soon, he was stripped of his degrees and was publicly shamed as a fraudulent traitor. Decades later, incendiary new evidence emerges to corroborate Teddy's initial findings, not just vindicating him, but raising profound questions about how Israelis — and we all — deal with the darker chapters of history.
IMDb: In the war of 1948 hundreds of Palestinian villages were depopulated. Israelis call it 'The War of Independence. Palestinians call it 'Nakba"'. The film examines one village - Tantura and why "Nakba" is taboo in Israeli society.
It is not the 'how' (the actions committed) that are complicated, they are observable and descriptive, by all witnesses.
What is it is the 'cause' (or causes) of all these dramas, their precise origin, their evolution from the design, without all the data in hand, we must be satisfied with what we have and that is enough, in my opinion, to affirm certain things, assume others and leave what we don’t know.
I read your presentation, which I think is more a description of the details of the Israeli assaults and actions, than a well-argued disclosure. Unfortunately you don’t prove what you say. How do you want people to believe you, should they do it at their word? Should they check for themselves what you are saying? That’s not the way you do it when you’re disclosing information or whatever, so a minimum of evidence is required.
Why not put links to written (declaimed etc) or visual documents (videos or protagonists speak in person). Otherwise, we cannot give credit to your presentation. We need to share evidence of what we are doing, even if we don’t have all the data in our possession, we need to be able to follow a common thread, important and historically traceable steps.
Even if some actors (managers, etc.) express themselves only briefly on a few important aspects, without developing them for x number of reasons, they nevertheless like to talk about them openly so as to leave the mystery hanging. It can allow people to question, to cast doubt on the dominant narrative. That’s already it.
“At the heart of zionism (and the conflict itself) lies the idea of Jewish supremacy. Therefore zionism considers Palestinians just as subhumans or collateral damage,... "
I heard it in person, but disclosure requires evidence.
Following the loss of an external hard drive, I do not have much evidence and documents to share, so it is difficult to highlight what we are definitely informed.
I have read a good part of the author recounting Jewish history, I suppose some of it may be true, even if along the way it has surely been modified like many other stories. I’ll read it again, and see if I find anything related to the current course there. Personally, I only refer to the orginal texts and videotapes (documents...), thus avoiding interpretations etc.
This is what I was referring to when I wrote above, that the origin of this genocide, and this whole NWO story, is complicated to prove in detail, especially if you want to exhibit to the public.
It’s much more than just a land grab and so on, although it’s important, there’s a purpose behind it, and you have to be able to demonstrate that, if you want to expose it.
“I read your presentation, which I think is more a description of the details of the Israeli assaults and actions, than a well-argued disclosure.”
Well, maybe it's an idea to set the historical record straight first? Or are you really so naive to think that you can argue about this conflict without having any clue about that, just based on the general mood regarding the topic as perceived by yourself, supplemented with your apparent belief that history is determined by sheer contingency, plus some feelings in your underbelly?
Further, these “details” (in which you apparently fail to see any coherence or logic) show for most people, who study the matter concerned, and are not politically invested in the zionist project, a clear pattern about landgrab, apart from the fact that forced displacement qualifies as a war crime – just to mention another minor detail.
There is even resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which demands that Israel should let Palestinian refugees back in and compensate them fairly for loss of damage to their property, which, like may other resolutions of the General Assembly or the Security Council, Israel has never given any follow up to.
Anyhow, apart from the fact that we are just debating here in some minor comment-section on substack, it’s too easy to demand proof here like I am defending a dissertation or someone in court, while apparently you are not realising that your own assumption that the conflict can be reduced to a spiral of violence without any clear cause is equally subjected to that requirement and you are not entertaining the slightest effort to underpin this far too easy and risk-free belief.
Since you are not willing to engage seriously into this matter, I refer here only to Alan Pappé, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications London 2006 for a good start.
You did not understand me, it is not that at all, I am quite well informed, as mentioned I lost a lot of truthful information, pronounced by the protagonists.
I didn’t contradict your presentation, I didn’t in any way write “inconsistent or illogical”; I asked for evidence, not specifically for me, I know enough to understand, if not totally, at least much of what this conflict is about. But we are not alone, there are other people here, who might be interested, or requiring even partial evidence.
Example “resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the UN” why not link it.
« while apparently you are not realising that your own assumption that the conflict can be reduced to a spiral of violence without any clear cause is equally subjected to that requirement and you are not entertaining the slightest effort to underpin this far too easy and risk-free belief. »
There you judge me wrongly, I never reduced this conflict to only that. My first comment of June 14 testifies to this, as well as some videos posted on my account.
Only exposing our knowledge, even thorough, without source or documentation, does not serve the cause that possibly we defend, nor the subject we are dealing with, the facts must either be verifiable, or have been expressed by the actors themselves.
So I didn’t denigrate your presentation, so don’t be so quick to judge people.
With all respect Mia, but this is a comment section, not an independent Substack post or essay as the one written by Desmet where one would expect further links to back up sweeping (and above all uninformed!) statements.
Why be so critical at someone who is just posting a comment while you seem not to have any problem with Desmet’s empty words? (Yes, that’s my opinion too, and I recommend everyone here to read the works of authors like Ilan Pappe, if you want evidence so badly, pls go check it out!)
Marjolein, yes, but even in a comment we should post evidence when we judge, affirm, etc. Otherwise, what’s the point of exchanging, everyone could say what they want without concern for accuracy or veracity.
The difference between Desmet and Marciano is that the first gives an opinion, as he mentions in his text, and the second says that he is wrong and gives statements and judges the person "Desmet himself in fact actively contributes to the dehumanization that he claims to be against."
Writing a comment on a review is one thing, and does not require evidence because it remains an exchange of opinions.
Writing a comment stating that the author is wrong and in addition to judging him for this or that opinion is not an exchange, but a firm opposition, a judgment, so it requires much evidence, you would not like to be judged without it, I suppose.
When you say someone is wrong, you’re arguing evidence, and if you call that criticism, that’s your right.
Just as it is your right to say that his words are empty, I do not share this opinion, I left a comment on June 14, or I shared what interpreted me.
His position was not a political or historical presentation, but according to my understanding an analysis of the relationship between feelings, biases and different aspects to consider: prejudices, our judgments, different types of approaches etc.
It does not seem empty to me at all, on the contrary, some might have wished to have had a clear opinion on the issue, a bias etc. This is not the approach he chose (unless I am mistaken, misunderstanding on my part), there are situations where this is required because the outcome may depend on it. This is not the case.
That said, he is not obliged to have a thorough knowledge of this conflict, to give an opinion, no one is perfectly informed in all areas.
There may be an important component, ignored or not commented on for x reasons. That does not make someone neutral or not daring to position themselves. It depends on the approach we want to share.
do not delude yourself with fairy tales about the "right starting premise" when a systematic genocide against Palestinian civilians is currently taking place.
Are you saying that you are righteous and at the same time you support genocide?
I find your sentence inappropriate, Mattias did mention that he was asked to speak on this subject, he gave his opinion, so he did not claim, from reading this post, to give historical information.
I’m not defending Mattias, he’s not a child, he can do it himself. If I respond to your comment only for the sake of precision, the argument is used for that.
Apart from the insiders, historians do not always know the precise details of Iraël’s settlement on Paletinian lands. It is enough to listen to the concerned express themselves and not the stories reported by anyone, interpretations are always possible.
If the land originally belongs to the Palestinians, we might wonder why they have allowed themselves to be dominated (as a people) for more than 70 years. We can draw a parallel with our current situation, we too have allowed ourselves to be dominated by a minority. The causes and consequences are therefore complex. How many peoples I hear have risen massively against the implantation of Israel at the time? Come on, just like today.
To understand the ins and outs of this genocide and many others, as well as purposeful conflicts, we must follow the long-standing plan, and follow the thread of their own saying about it. This is a lot of research, extract visionages or more etc.
And again it won’t be entirely clear, I guess, a few points might remain in the shadows.
Sushrey, Yes, I also perceive it differently, I didn't read « Maps of Meaning », so i can not speek about it.
It could be explain from a psychological point of view, the different beliefs
as mental constructs, identifications etc. However, I don’t think that applies completely to this global totalitarianism. It seems to me it goes beyond that.
As far as i am concerned as an expression of absolute evil (not with fait and religion), in each of us is evil, but some people express themselves freely, growing by externalizing themselves from thought to action again and again. There’s a mental construct behind it with a purpose, in or situation « masters of the world » wit destruction of life.
It is an illusion, but it can become reality if a significant number starts to execute the plan (mental construction), each with a more or less important role.
Our responsibility is great, through our indifference, our inaction, our willingness to let others manage politely, economically etc. our lives, we left the door open to abuse and taking power.
I have a video (documentary), attention sensitive souls abstain!
Very well written. I was quite nervous reading this, but you did not disappoint.
However, I think people are missing an important point. For me it not about Palestinians or the Israeli state. It is about, in my opinion, a concentration camp, and a machine of death, as described in J. B. Peterson's magnum opus, the Maps of Meaning. It is this feature that has stood out to me the most. I do not look at it as a conflict, but something else. Something I worry, we do not quite understand yet. Norman Finkelstein, I believe will agree with this assessment.
Monstrosities known as concentration camps, arise again and again in modern times. I fear they are not a product of mere hatred, but some kind of undetected sadism. Like something made by the Joker in the Batman series.
I am not blaming Israeli people here. What I am referring to is something like a subtle socio-psychological process unfolding. What I want to say is, that maybe it is worth focusing on this specific aspect of the situation, how, why and under what circumstances do concentration camps come into existence?
I read your post « War and the Instinct to Kill » and found it extremely interesting, very good analysis.
Thank you for this enriching text. The materialistic view of wars is a fact, but concerning the good of humanity it is yours that prevails.
Some extract
« Group shift is the tendency of groups to slowly move towards extreme positions if counteracting factors are not present. »
« What is most chilling about war is not just the death and mutilations caused by it, but the lack of regret people have about it. People can be found gloating about winning a war as if they were winning a cricket match. »
« Though we may say that we act according to reason, our reasoning might be shaped by motivations we may not acknowledge. It is important to understand that Justification Systems are a group phenomenon. Individual justifications are far less powerful than justifications endorsed by groups. Since, groups are able to faux verify beliefs through its members reflecting on each other, the justifications it provides appears more valid than they actually are. »
« People might accept war out of cognitive laziness and fear of judgement by others. It is easier to accept the position taken by the majority and resisting the majority can be outright dangerous. Most people do not possess sufficient confidence in their reasoning skills to defy the masses. »
Yes, I also perceive it differently, I didn't read « Maps of Meaning », so i can not speek about it.
It could be explain from a psychological point of view, the different beliefs
as mental constructs, identifications etc. However, I don’t think that applies completely to this global totalitarianism. It seems to me it goes beyond that.
As far as i am concerned as an expression of absolute evil (not with fait and religion), in each of us is evil, but some people express themselves freely, growing by externalizing themselves from thought to action again and again. There’s a mental construct behind it with a purpose, in or situation « masters of the world » wit destruction of life.
It is an illusion, but it can become reality if a significant number starts to execute the plan (mental construction), each with a more or less important role.
Our responsibility is great, through our indifference, our inaction, our willingness to let others manage politely, economically etc. our lives, we left the door open to abuse and taking power.
I have a video (documentary), attention sensitive souls abstain!
Thank you for reading my essay. I am glad you found it useful.
On your point about "masters of the world" and destruction of life, I will quote here a passage from Maps of Meaning you may find interesting: "The need for order (control, power, symmetry or homogeneity) ultimately attempts to stifle life itself.
Thank you for this. Delicately woven with quiet compassion. This eases my heart, as I have been grasping towards this thinking in all of the heated discussions (or silences) around dinner tables which have become the norm in my life. I refuse to be drawn into denunciations and am met with the usual blustering rage and discomfited incredulity. If there is one thing that the covid debacle and all other unfolding technoterror has made me very certain about - is that we are in a struggle for our souls and humanity. I don't accept nihilism and despair and the forces that seek to divide. I still grapple with rage over the deep relationship and psychological damage I sustained during covid, but I now try to practice a weird mixture of uncompromising non-compliance when it comes to my personal sovereignty, and fierce optimism when It comes to humanity in general. It feels right.
Yes, I agree with you Mattias. There can not be a simple view on this conflict, since human life is not simple. Everywhere we look at intp this world there are polarities. Some polarities are the expression to be the edges of great versatility, vitality and richness, some are expression of radicalisation, blindness and unfinished personal and collective business. I have been travelling in Israel some 30 years ago and was working at a Kibbutz there. A fascinating country. Still there is this impression of an multilayered, multicausal mix of joy and pain I took with me from these times. There has been no simple answers at these times - the questions and answers got even more complicated in the meantime. What happens there now in the war between Palestinians and Israelis is the output of lots of pain, lots of hardship on the collective memory on both sides - getting radicalized and prone with violance now. Both radical sides belong to be brought in front of the International Criminal Court because of war crimes. War crimes can not be answered by war crimes. Radicalists on both sides are wrong. Person responsible of both sides need to be taken to international court. But even there we will meet a public international law, created by former colonialist Western nations, not being willing until today to accept and integrate the former colonized nations to get full justice ...
good nuanced points. Thanks. One thing I must note is that the state of Israel was not founded because of the holocaust. You wrote:
" the cause of the Arab countries' invasion was the colonialist founding of the state of Israel by the United Nations, the cause of that founding was the Holocaust, and so on. "
I really must stress this as it's commonly misunderstood. Zionism (a Jewish nationalist movement which sought a homeland for European jews), whose ideology was finally realized in the founding of Israel, was first being spoken of in Jewish European circles in the 1880's. Theodor Hertlz being the central figure. European Jews took themselves to Palestine as early as the late 1800s, into the early 1900s (google first and 2nd Aliyah). the first Zionist congress took place in 1886- there the drafts for jewish national homeland with international support took place. in 1901 , the Jewish National Fund was established, tasked with buying land in Palestine. Strategic patches of Zionist Jewish settlement propped up through the early 1900s. Google the "Al-Fula Affair" of 1910 , in which land purchased by the Jewish National Fund displaced 1000 Palestinians, and caused a bloody fight between the two parties. 1917 Balfour Declaration , as commonly known, aided Zionism in legally enabling further Jewish settlement in Palestine. Between 1917 and 1948, there was much back and forth about whether this growing Zionist mission should occur. the King - Crane commission of 1918, commissioned by the U.S, found most locals opposed Zionism and thus called for a limit on Jewish immigration into Palestine. it was ignored. the 1930 Hope - Simpson Commission of Enquiry found similar discontent among Arabs. The report found Arabs peasants needed help and that Jewish immigration was again troubling. and so on and so on. 1948 the Zionist movement is successful enough to establish istself as the state of Israel. the holocaust merely meant Israel could be a safe place for European Jews to flee to after the horrors of Europe. But it played no part in the creation of Israel or the Zionist ideology whatsoever.
I found this essay to be pretty even-handed, although I disagree with some of the specific points. I was relieved to not read another diatribe against Israel, as is so typical these days.
The “Palestinians” wanted control of Gaza. Israel withdrew all Jews from Gaza in 2005. What has resulted is a terrorism hotbed. Sorry, but it is impossible to live in peace with people whose only option for peace is your destruction and death.
Is anyone talking about areas A, B, and C in Judaea and Samaria? Despite my interest in Israel for many years, I only learned about these areas the other day.
It’s interesting how it is hardly mentioned that israel has been accepting as a matter of course, the lobbing of rockets into Israel from Gaza and Lebanon for years. Who has been talking about the fact that Israelis need to have “safe rooms” in their houses and other places where they can run when the alarms sound to warn of these incoming rockets?
How can people not see the evil of Hamas and the impossibility of being at peace with a terrorist organization bent on Israel’s destruction?
Many people who are “conspiracy theorists” and don’t trust the UN, the ICC, the WHO, et al, are suddenly willing to believe NWO entities when they are anti-Israel.
I could go on and on, but I will conclude with this article, written in 2005. This is the fundamental issue in this situation.
https://www.thebereancall.org/content/judgment-day-approaching?sapurl=Lys5MjZkL2xiL2xpLyt3dm44dWs4P2JyYW5kaW5nPXRydWUmZW1iZWQ9dHJ1ZSZyZWNlbnRSb3V0ZT1hcHAud2ViLWFwcC5saWJyYXJ5Lmxpc3QmcmVjZW50Um91dGVTbHVnPSUyQnd2bjh1azg=
You don't know what you are talking about, you are clueless.
We are talking about genocide by Israel. It has already killed more than 39 000 people, most of them civilians and half of them children and women.
That is called a crime against humanity.
The conspiracy theorists know perfectly well that most of the countries in the UN do not have the power they should have and that the UN has been hijacked by the US. That is why they veto anything that would stop wars and genocide.
Yes,
"You don't know what you are talking about, you are clueless.
We are talking about genocide by Israel. It has already killed more than 39 000 people, most of them civilians and half of them children and women.
That is called a crime against humanity."
How’s the koolaid?
you in America know it better: intoxicated by sugars and processed foods. And always have a crack on every street corner to finish you off.
I live in the woods. No houses in sight. Off grid. Haul my water. Split my wood - sometimes with a gas-powered splitter, but last year, I split all 5+ cords by myself with a maul. Stacked it, hauled it in. I’m no sissy. Not all Americans are the type that I’m ashamed of being associated with, but I AM ashamed of this country and my “fellow”-Americans. Most of them, at least. They have no clue about what real life is like in their sterile houses and offices. I have made almost every bookcase and trunk and kitchen shelf in my cabin with hand tools. I eat organic food. Almost 100% of the meat I eat is what I have raised (chickens, cows, sheep). I quit processed white sugar in 1996 and eat honey and maple syrup (often homemade). I have never done drugs. I’ve never even drunk alcohol. So be careful about assuming too much just because of the country of one’s birth.
That’s good, I appreciate the physical work well done, autonomy (or a certain autonomy), but it is also necessary intellectually, your reflection on this is wrong, read some comments posted here, would allow us to learn more about what is really happening there, without prejudice or bias, only taking into account the facts.
I read some. I read enough.
Did you read the article I linked above?
Additional recommended reading for Mattias Desmet: https://rightsforum.org/opinie/uit-het-draaiboek-van-europa/
It’s about controlling the price of energy worldwide “oil”. One of the most abundant resources labeled “fossil fuels.” We’re being played by fascist psychopaths working for central bankers. All the world’s a stage. War is about natural resources. Religions are for manipulations like media. Jews have very little Hebrew in their DNA. I wish I had a “promise land” or was “chosen”, but those beliefs were conjured up by scribes working for Kings. There is Truth in the Great Religions but the institutions have been hijacked by psychopaths.
"Britain's - and later America's- drive to conquest was foreshadowed unmistakably by Mackinder's cursory yet almost oracular mention of the several bridgeheads that the Sea Powers need to graft unto the heartland to draw out its armies in a deliberate sequence of separate clashes. To isolate each conflict, the targeted territorial portion had to be severed from its adjacent district, and bled white by prolonged strife waged in the name of political, religious, or ethnic diversity. Thus the Anglo-Americans have always acted: in Europe by spinning everybody against Germany (1904-45); in the Near East, by jamming Israel in the heart of the Arab world (1917-present); in the Far East, by planting thorns in the side of China: Korea, Vietnam, and Taiwan (1950-present); in Central Asia by destabilizing the entire region into tribal warfare with the help of Pakistan to prevent the Caspian seaboard from gravitating into the Russian sphere of influence (1979-present).
... Imperial stratagems are protracted affairs. The captains of world aggression measure their achievements, or failures, on a timescale whose unit is the generation. -- Guido Preparata, Conjuring Hitler, pg. 16
"Scientists at Tel Aviv University's School of Plant Sciences announced these days that they have recorded with special ultrasonic-sensitive microphones the cries of pain that plants emit when they are cut or when they lack water. There are no microphones in Gaza."
Oct. 30, 2023
Giorgio Agamben
If this is true, because we never know if it was broadcast on purpose, show that this concern for the cries of plants and not those of Gazans. It is horrible, this absolute evil, it is what I wrote previously in a comment.
Are some beings deprived of the consciousness of evil where it disappears with time and malicious actions?
Lots of questions, no answers.
I understand you well, Marjolein, the question is not there, as already written, that the readers ask him directly his position if they wish.
My comment was about his essay, which I didn’t think expressed neutrality, but expressed a different or personal approach, I translate the articles into French, so I could have a less precise reading, I will reread it in English, which is not easy for me.
The question of the evidence concerned the com of Marciano, and here I remain affirmative, in this kind of discussion (judgment and affirming that one is mistaken) it is necessary to prove, a point is all.
Comments were made to this sjuet, nothing says that most are not aware of the genocide, they may not talk about it for x number of reasons, which I do not approve, but it is so.
So I would not judge people for reasons I am not aware of, I would if someone told me there was no genocide.
We can therefore judge the silence of people who do not express themselves, but absolutely not for the reasons that are spurned by us.
I also find it regretable that this subject is discussed only by the two of us, despite the number of subscribers.
there are more than 370 comments here; so you can't say that only two people are discussing. I don't know if Desmet understands that the supporters of the Israeli genocide are the same people and the same side as the implementers of the covid policy or the war in Ukraine. There may be exceptions in the crowd, but that does not change the fact.
If a resonating knowledge tells us that something is "strange", it does not mean that we stop there. Nope. In the second step, we have to make a rational, conceptual and historical analysis.
The problem is not only that we have lost pre-symbolic contact with the Other, but that we have in fact been neglecting reason all this time.
Yes, I misspoke, I wanted to say about the discussion of genocide and Desmet, whose Marjolein put forward, no one came sneaking into the exchange to possibly enrich it. It was not a criticism, just a statement.
I did mention that readers have commented on the subject of genocide elsewhere on this page.
So typical how all these anti-flu protesters suddenly lost the ability to judge right after 7 October! Mattias Desmet, you may think that you’re an original independent thinker, but you’re actually very very typical, look at the examples that I gave in this opinion piece that I wrote last October, you fit in 100%
https://marjoleinvanpagee.substack.com/p/geen-oordeel-vellen-houdt-onrecht (In Dutch)
We definitely need to take a stance, but neutrality is also a stance that is not allowed in highly polarised times. But more important than taking a stand is something else: saying what the reality of the situation is.
The danger of losing friends and making new friends in chaotic times is that the new transfer (a psychoanalytical concept) clouds our minds.
Desmet may be losing himself in this - among anticovid friends there are also tacit supporters of genocide. But maybe it's not just that: I think he wants to reformulate the problem in a different way, but I don't know if he realises the danger of doing so - because he is rapidly drifting away from the truth of the problem.
So he misses the mark twice:
- he has lost resonant contact with the civilian victims of Israel's systematic genocide
- he has not engaged in serious historical analysis, only clichés such as 'Human, all too human', he could have said 'Homo homini lupus'.
And you know, in my opinion, it all comes down to a lack of understanding colonialism as a system of oppression. Zionism is a political and ideological branch of the Western colonial empire. Without Western/colonial support, Zionism would be dead. That’s why I ironically speak of the ‘anti-flu movement’ to express my disappointment, it’s not a movement of resistance, it’s just a bunch of white people crying that the empire hurt them too. This selective outrage is not only illustrative for the very Eurocentric (and often openly colonial!) world view within these circles, it also prevents to connect some important dots.
Okay, I got it. That's partly true. As I follow critical theory and philosophy, it may be quite true that Anti-colonial thought is probably the last critical position today.
Marjolein, I read your post it is relevant and fair.
As far as I am concerned, I have spoken elsewhere about genocide on this subject and it must be denounced.
However, the subject of his text was the conflict between the two, it is not for me to judge it for this text expressed with a particular approach. If the writing had been done with indifference, I did not perceive it so, I would have mentioned it, my comments elsewhere testify to it (my frank talk).
It might have been more appropriate to ask for follow-up to the text, whether he considered the tragedy of the Palestinians as genocide or not. This would have made it possible to know his position outside his text.
What Desmet thinks in his strong interior about it, is between him and his conscience, I would not judge his integrity on a text.
Are you Mattias’ personal assistant? The moral police of his comment section? Dictating others on how we should respond? Or are you Mattias himself?
I read the essay in English, I did not make an error of appreciation, the subject is expressed clearly. So I do not need to correct my comments, nor my inquiry already expressed concerning the sentence below, namely that in the current drama affecting the Palestinians, it is clearly a genocide and not a classic drama.
“...you see that what is happening there is a classic human drama. And that human drama is not unique.”
Including this one which joins the previous one and does not require additional comment.
“We can casually ask the relevant question: why so disproportionately more attention to this drama?”
I particularly appreciate the following, although in some cases affirmative answers can be given if one has the data to allow it.
“It is good to cherish our questions and be cautious with our answers.”
To conclude, it is true “These are difficult questions.”
It is necessary to have a common thread tracing the history of events, to apprehend accurately what is happening now or in the 'recent' past.
I no longer rely on verifiable historical accounts, there is no evidence that they are true or that they have not been modified, truncated, adapted etc.
The current accounts show that the doubt raises this sjuet and allowed.
No, Marjolein, I’ve been follow Desmet for years, I don’t know him in person.
I discovered his substack only recently, being myself on this site recently.
Why some, they often interpret comments in a subjective way, I do not defend anyone, am not «The moral policé of his comment section»
for no one. The reason I commented was to clarify. I find that you are conflating comments, as Marciano and Ely did.
Your case is fair, your opinion on the requirement to speak out loud and clear about injustices, genocides, etc. is also fair, but to put that in an essay, a comment, etc. addressing a conflict in a particular way does not seem appropriate to me.
That said, I have to reread the original text to make sure that I have not misunderstood what it says. If this were to be the case, I would not fail to make it known, I like the precision, if I made a mistake of apprciation I would have no problem in ademettre, it happens sometimes, even in his own language.
Perhaps we should start by asking the readers what they hear or imply when they speak, and not to judge what said, it often happens I find. If you had read my comment of June 14, you would know.
Sorry your convoluted way of arguing makes it very tiring to continue the conversation. You keep derailing the issue and keep on defending Mattias no matter what! You may not know him personally, but he’ll be very happy with loyal supporters like you who criticize his critics but do not apply the same standards to his writings. It’s also pretty annoying how you keep on lecturing others on what appropriate is or not, meanwhile congratulating yourself with how morally superior you are. Good luck with that, I rest my case!
It seems then that we have covered the question, even if subjectivity cannot always be avoided, we are not superhumans, the lack of objectivity often leads us to a dead end. It is your right to think that I am defending Mattias, as far as I am concerned, I am certain that he is old enough to do it himself (smile). If seeking precision is confused with moral superiority, what to say...
The fact that it makes you tired, wouldn’t it be related to the fact that you expect something instead of simply exchanging opinions or information.
One thing is certain, whatever one says, whatever one does, it is always a personal work that allows an awareness. We can, exchange, inform, then the rest do not belong to us.
It is remarkable how even in the political movement formed during the corona-era, venting criticisms about the pandemic narrative and, generally spoken, also not buying into the current pro Ukranian NATO-narrative, new forms of political correctness arise. This article above is a clear example of that.
Notice how this so-called movement allows itself to analyse what’s going on in Ukraine in-dept on the one hand, but hesitates to do any serious analysis of what’s happening in Gaza on the other hand. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is due to a political choice. The reason could be that the movement mentionend consists of pro-Palestinian people, neutral people as well as (often fundamentalist christian) zionists alike while the perception prevails that the movement risks falling apart if it would delve too much into the Israeli conflict. A more personal and opportunistic reason could very well be that Desmet is using the conflict, of which he clearly has neither a relevant clue nor even the slightest grasp, to appear a bit more moderate and balanced in the eyes of his employer Ghent University while rejecting the demands for a boycott, just to compensate for his more radical years of warning for the danger of totalitarian movements and conformism during the corona-era.
However, a political movement which is neither willing nor capable of well-informed and intelligent analysis, but starts to satsify itself with romanticised bedtimefiction instead, is doomed to fade away sooner or later.
that was also my point
« However, a political movement which is neither willing nor capable of, but starts to satsify itself with romanticised bedtimefiction instead, is doomed to fade away for sure. »
I am not sure that this is a new political movement, the Coronacirus may have allowed a consensus in the narrative, but either, I do not know more.
Since your criticism (2 comments) seems relevant, could you give us a «well-informed and intelligent analysis» of the real situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Thank you.
Apparently, you missed my third remark below in which I criticise Mr. Ely's comment and present such an analysis. It is easy to just feed people some nice sounding risk-free semi-intellectual twaddle, like Desmet does. It's less easy to properly study the historical and legal aspects of this conflict in order to develop a well-informed opinion.
Postmodern praise of uncertainty and display of other forms of intellectual helplessness will undoubtedly endear some girls, especially if it happens around the campfire after a couple of Belgian beers, but in reality it amounts to a plea for disengagement and self-immobilization.
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population is usually associated with complexity, but much of it is merely a smokescreen in order to discourage people from investigating its cause. In this way the myth is fed to the masses of a spiral of violence without beginning or end. This myth obviously suits the strongest party in this asymmetrical power conflict, namely apartheid-state Israel, which will undoubtedly persists in the targeted bombing of Gazan civilians (by most Israeli’s blatantly called ‘seed of Amalek’), despite of that.
Unfortunately, the same can be said of Desmet's sweettalk endeavour above, which is based on this myth. In this way, Desmet himself in fact actively contributes to the dehumanization that he claims to be against.
The superficial half-baked mysticism from Desmet, which will undoubtedly cater to the masses which on average don’t like bloodshed and have no clue either, isn't based on any substantial analysis and therefore only capable of pulling the wool over our eyes once more.
Your whole premise is wrong, wrong on so many levels. But the basic one is that the “Palestinian” were expelled from anywhere. I was born in British Palestine and my family was there from the early 30s. Five Arab nations in 1948 told their brethren that they were going to push the Jews into the sea, so they should flee their homes in Israel, meanwhile simultaneously expelling Jews from Arab lands. Stick to psychology and don’t pretend to be a historian.
“If the Jews laid down their arms there would be no Israel. If the Arabs laid down their arms there would be peace.”
Dear genocide-apologist Ely (Eli eli lama sabachtani),
Israel has been founded on a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing, long and carefully prepared in advance by David Ben Goerion (who can be best called the Adolf Hitler for the Palestinians) and his military and orientalist advisors. The fourth and final version of that plan was called plan Dalet. This campaign is documented well, like the so called new Israeli historians found out after they got access to declassified military documents, including orders to zionist militia not to make any distinction between guilty and not guilty while assaulting and destroying Palestinian villages to speed up pressure during the expulsion-project, although Israeli society still prefers to get drunk repeatedly on bedtimestories like that the Palestinians would have left their land voluntarily.
At the moment the ethnic cleansing started, only one third of the population in British Mandate Palestine was Jewish and only 5,8% of the land was in Jewish hands. Understandably, David Ben Goerion had accepted the unfair UN partition plan in which the zionists got, despite of the situation as mentioned, most of the land (56%) assigned. However in reality David Ben Goerion still wanted to realise his initial bid to the UN, namely 80% of Palestine. Needless to say that it is hard to establish a viable Jewish democratic state (a democracy in which the zionists will have and remain having the upper hand) even in 56%, let alone 80%, of Palestine, if only one third of the population is Jewish and merely 5,8% in Jewish hands. So the campaign of ethnic cleansing was meant to solve that problem.
So under the watchful eye of the British troops which stood by idly, a sheer terrorist-campaign against Palestinians was conducted by zionist militia like the Hagana, the Irgun and the Stern. Palestinian families were often not warned in advance but simply blown up or torched while being in their houses. People trying to leave their houses in fear were randomly sprayed with stengun-bullets. Pretty-looking Palestinian girls gang-raped. Palestinian men between 10 and 50 years old caught, separated from the rest, lined up and executed on the spot, based on dubious namelists of zionist intelligence officers, just to instill fear by the other remaining Palestinians or just for having fun. Many villages were totally destroyed and mines were planted in the rubble after, just to prevent Palestinians who managed to escape from returning. This happened especially after Palestinian resistance. Other villages were left behind by Palestinians in advance, who fled in desperation after they heard of the zionist violence. These villages were looted by zionist militia, after which houses, land and other possessions were assigned to Jewish families.
Furthermore, it’s another sick zionist fairytale that little Israel has been invaded by five Arab Goliaths, after the state of Israel was declared. In reality the zionist militia had the upper hand from the beginning for several reasons.
Firstly because the backbone of the Palestinian resistance against British favoritism of zionism during the British Mandate was already effectively broken by the British army during the thirties.
Secondly, because the zionist lobby was able to get Great Brittain in check, so it wouldn’t intervene.
Thirdly, because the zionists planned the campaign of ethnic cleansing well and long in advance, gathering intelligence in a systemic way about Palestinian villages and its inhabitants (the so called village files) while building up a capable force of well-trained militiamen - especially the Palmach, a section of the Haganah.
Fourthly, because the zionists succeeded in concluding a secret deal with king Abdallah from Transjordan, who had the only capable professional Arab army (trained and led by British officers) Israel had to fear. The agreement made was that king Abadallah could get the West Bank and East Jerusalem in exchange for looking the other way while zionist forces would take the rest by force.
Fifthly, because the zionists succeeded via the zionist communist party in Palestine to secure import from superior weaponry from the Soviet Union.
Sixthly, because there was in practice an enormous gap between the retoric used by Arabic nations in public on the one hand and the invading Arab militia on the other hand. The latter often mainly consisted out of poorly trained volunteers, which were inferior in numbers to the zionist forces, besides that they got not enough and often inferior weaponry, badly organised logistic supplylines and were often led by incapable commanders with different and competing interests.
Hence, let us not mince words here. At the heart of zionism (and the conflict itself) lies the idea of Jewish supremacy. Therefore zionism considers Palestinians just as subhumans or collateral damage, during the landgrab it envisions (which encompasses in reality much more than just the territory of former British Mandate Palestine by the way), as the history of zionism, not only during the period of the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state but also thereafter clearly points out.
At the same time the west is just supposed to swallow this utter criminality in silence because of feelings of holocaustguilt or in the belief of the so called enormous complexity of this conflict, like Desmet does gullibly, skillfully manipulated to do so by the powerful zionist lobby.
Description: When Israeli graduate student Teddy Katz meticulously documented a massacre of Palestinian civilians surrounding Israel's independence, he was initially celebrated for his groundbreaking work. But soon, he was stripped of his degrees and was publicly shamed as a fraudulent traitor. Decades later, incendiary new evidence emerges to corroborate Teddy's initial findings, not just vindicating him, but raising profound questions about how Israelis — and we all — deal with the darker chapters of history.
IMDb: In the war of 1948 hundreds of Palestinian villages were depopulated. Israelis call it 'The War of Independence. Palestinians call it 'Nakba"'. The film examines one village - Tantura and why "Nakba" is taboo in Israeli society.
https://archive.org/details/tantura_2022
Has anything changed? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECFpW5zoFXA Targeted ambulances, tortured and executed civilians. They tell me it’s “complicated."
It is not the 'how' (the actions committed) that are complicated, they are observable and descriptive, by all witnesses.
What is it is the 'cause' (or causes) of all these dramas, their precise origin, their evolution from the design, without all the data in hand, we must be satisfied with what we have and that is enough, in my opinion, to affirm certain things, assume others and leave what we don’t know.
I read your presentation, which I think is more a description of the details of the Israeli assaults and actions, than a well-argued disclosure. Unfortunately you don’t prove what you say. How do you want people to believe you, should they do it at their word? Should they check for themselves what you are saying? That’s not the way you do it when you’re disclosing information or whatever, so a minimum of evidence is required.
Why not put links to written (declaimed etc) or visual documents (videos or protagonists speak in person). Otherwise, we cannot give credit to your presentation. We need to share evidence of what we are doing, even if we don’t have all the data in our possession, we need to be able to follow a common thread, important and historically traceable steps.
Even if some actors (managers, etc.) express themselves only briefly on a few important aspects, without developing them for x number of reasons, they nevertheless like to talk about them openly so as to leave the mystery hanging. It can allow people to question, to cast doubt on the dominant narrative. That’s already it.
“At the heart of zionism (and the conflict itself) lies the idea of Jewish supremacy. Therefore zionism considers Palestinians just as subhumans or collateral damage,... "
I heard it in person, but disclosure requires evidence.
Following the loss of an external hard drive, I do not have much evidence and documents to share, so it is difficult to highlight what we are definitely informed.
Israel Shahak has a book you might want to read, here: https://archive.org/details/JewishHistoryJewishReligionTheWeightOf3000Years-I.Shahak/mode/2up
I found chapter 3 and 5 most interesting.
Thanks Kolokol.
I have read a good part of the author recounting Jewish history, I suppose some of it may be true, even if along the way it has surely been modified like many other stories. I’ll read it again, and see if I find anything related to the current course there. Personally, I only refer to the orginal texts and videotapes (documents...), thus avoiding interpretations etc.
This is what I was referring to when I wrote above, that the origin of this genocide, and this whole NWO story, is complicated to prove in detail, especially if you want to exhibit to the public.
It’s much more than just a land grab and so on, although it’s important, there’s a purpose behind it, and you have to be able to demonstrate that, if you want to expose it.
“I read your presentation, which I think is more a description of the details of the Israeli assaults and actions, than a well-argued disclosure.”
Well, maybe it's an idea to set the historical record straight first? Or are you really so naive to think that you can argue about this conflict without having any clue about that, just based on the general mood regarding the topic as perceived by yourself, supplemented with your apparent belief that history is determined by sheer contingency, plus some feelings in your underbelly?
Further, these “details” (in which you apparently fail to see any coherence or logic) show for most people, who study the matter concerned, and are not politically invested in the zionist project, a clear pattern about landgrab, apart from the fact that forced displacement qualifies as a war crime – just to mention another minor detail.
There is even resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which demands that Israel should let Palestinian refugees back in and compensate them fairly for loss of damage to their property, which, like may other resolutions of the General Assembly or the Security Council, Israel has never given any follow up to.
Anyhow, apart from the fact that we are just debating here in some minor comment-section on substack, it’s too easy to demand proof here like I am defending a dissertation or someone in court, while apparently you are not realising that your own assumption that the conflict can be reduced to a spiral of violence without any clear cause is equally subjected to that requirement and you are not entertaining the slightest effort to underpin this far too easy and risk-free belief.
Since you are not willing to engage seriously into this matter, I refer here only to Alan Pappé, The ethnic cleansing of Palestine, Oneworld Publications London 2006 for a good start.
You did not understand me, it is not that at all, I am quite well informed, as mentioned I lost a lot of truthful information, pronounced by the protagonists.
I didn’t contradict your presentation, I didn’t in any way write “inconsistent or illogical”; I asked for evidence, not specifically for me, I know enough to understand, if not totally, at least much of what this conflict is about. But we are not alone, there are other people here, who might be interested, or requiring even partial evidence.
Example “resolution 194 of the General Assembly of the UN” why not link it.
« while apparently you are not realising that your own assumption that the conflict can be reduced to a spiral of violence without any clear cause is equally subjected to that requirement and you are not entertaining the slightest effort to underpin this far too easy and risk-free belief. »
There you judge me wrongly, I never reduced this conflict to only that. My first comment of June 14 testifies to this, as well as some videos posted on my account.
Only exposing our knowledge, even thorough, without source or documentation, does not serve the cause that possibly we defend, nor the subject we are dealing with, the facts must either be verifiable, or have been expressed by the actors themselves.
So I didn’t denigrate your presentation, so don’t be so quick to judge people.
With all respect Mia, but this is a comment section, not an independent Substack post or essay as the one written by Desmet where one would expect further links to back up sweeping (and above all uninformed!) statements.
Why be so critical at someone who is just posting a comment while you seem not to have any problem with Desmet’s empty words? (Yes, that’s my opinion too, and I recommend everyone here to read the works of authors like Ilan Pappe, if you want evidence so badly, pls go check it out!)
Marjolein, yes, but even in a comment we should post evidence when we judge, affirm, etc. Otherwise, what’s the point of exchanging, everyone could say what they want without concern for accuracy or veracity.
The difference between Desmet and Marciano is that the first gives an opinion, as he mentions in his text, and the second says that he is wrong and gives statements and judges the person "Desmet himself in fact actively contributes to the dehumanization that he claims to be against."
Writing a comment on a review is one thing, and does not require evidence because it remains an exchange of opinions.
Writing a comment stating that the author is wrong and in addition to judging him for this or that opinion is not an exchange, but a firm opposition, a judgment, so it requires much evidence, you would not like to be judged without it, I suppose.
When you say someone is wrong, you’re arguing evidence, and if you call that criticism, that’s your right.
Just as it is your right to say that his words are empty, I do not share this opinion, I left a comment on June 14, or I shared what interpreted me.
His position was not a political or historical presentation, but according to my understanding an analysis of the relationship between feelings, biases and different aspects to consider: prejudices, our judgments, different types of approaches etc.
It does not seem empty to me at all, on the contrary, some might have wished to have had a clear opinion on the issue, a bias etc. This is not the approach he chose (unless I am mistaken, misunderstanding on my part), there are situations where this is required because the outcome may depend on it. This is not the case.
That said, he is not obliged to have a thorough knowledge of this conflict, to give an opinion, no one is perfectly informed in all areas.
There may be an important component, ignored or not commented on for x reasons. That does not make someone neutral or not daring to position themselves. It depends on the approach we want to share.
do not delude yourself with fairy tales about the "right starting premise" when a systematic genocide against Palestinian civilians is currently taking place.
Are you saying that you are righteous and at the same time you support genocide?
I find your sentence inappropriate, Mattias did mention that he was asked to speak on this subject, he gave his opinion, so he did not claim, from reading this post, to give historical information.
I’m not defending Mattias, he’s not a child, he can do it himself. If I respond to your comment only for the sake of precision, the argument is used for that.
Apart from the insiders, historians do not always know the precise details of Iraël’s settlement on Paletinian lands. It is enough to listen to the concerned express themselves and not the stories reported by anyone, interpretations are always possible.
If the land originally belongs to the Palestinians, we might wonder why they have allowed themselves to be dominated (as a people) for more than 70 years. We can draw a parallel with our current situation, we too have allowed ourselves to be dominated by a minority. The causes and consequences are therefore complex. How many peoples I hear have risen massively against the implantation of Israel at the time? Come on, just like today.
To understand the ins and outs of this genocide and many others, as well as purposeful conflicts, we must follow the long-standing plan, and follow the thread of their own saying about it. This is a lot of research, extract visionages or more etc.
And again it won’t be entirely clear, I guess, a few points might remain in the shadows.
Sushrey, Yes, I also perceive it differently, I didn't read « Maps of Meaning », so i can not speek about it.
It could be explain from a psychological point of view, the different beliefs
as mental constructs, identifications etc. However, I don’t think that applies completely to this global totalitarianism. It seems to me it goes beyond that.
As far as i am concerned as an expression of absolute evil (not with fait and religion), in each of us is evil, but some people express themselves freely, growing by externalizing themselves from thought to action again and again. There’s a mental construct behind it with a purpose, in or situation « masters of the world » wit destruction of life.
It is an illusion, but it can become reality if a significant number starts to execute the plan (mental construction), each with a more or less important role.
Our responsibility is great, through our indifference, our inaction, our willingness to let others manage politely, economically etc. our lives, we left the door open to abuse and taking power.
I have a video (documentary), attention sensitive souls abstain!
Trying to maintain your Balance while sitting on The Fence certainly
is hard when so many questions threateningly unsettle you...
Very well written. I was quite nervous reading this, but you did not disappoint.
However, I think people are missing an important point. For me it not about Palestinians or the Israeli state. It is about, in my opinion, a concentration camp, and a machine of death, as described in J. B. Peterson's magnum opus, the Maps of Meaning. It is this feature that has stood out to me the most. I do not look at it as a conflict, but something else. Something I worry, we do not quite understand yet. Norman Finkelstein, I believe will agree with this assessment.
Monstrosities known as concentration camps, arise again and again in modern times. I fear they are not a product of mere hatred, but some kind of undetected sadism. Like something made by the Joker in the Batman series.
I am not blaming Israeli people here. What I am referring to is something like a subtle socio-psychological process unfolding. What I want to say is, that maybe it is worth focusing on this specific aspect of the situation, how, why and under what circumstances do concentration camps come into existence?
I read your post « War and the Instinct to Kill » and found it extremely interesting, very good analysis.
Thank you for this enriching text. The materialistic view of wars is a fact, but concerning the good of humanity it is yours that prevails.
Some extract
« Group shift is the tendency of groups to slowly move towards extreme positions if counteracting factors are not present. »
« What is most chilling about war is not just the death and mutilations caused by it, but the lack of regret people have about it. People can be found gloating about winning a war as if they were winning a cricket match. »
« Though we may say that we act according to reason, our reasoning might be shaped by motivations we may not acknowledge. It is important to understand that Justification Systems are a group phenomenon. Individual justifications are far less powerful than justifications endorsed by groups. Since, groups are able to faux verify beliefs through its members reflecting on each other, the justifications it provides appears more valid than they actually are. »
« People might accept war out of cognitive laziness and fear of judgement by others. It is easier to accept the position taken by the majority and resisting the majority can be outright dangerous. Most people do not possess sufficient confidence in their reasoning skills to defy the masses. »
Yes, I also perceive it differently, I didn't read « Maps of Meaning », so i can not speek about it.
It could be explain from a psychological point of view, the different beliefs
as mental constructs, identifications etc. However, I don’t think that applies completely to this global totalitarianism. It seems to me it goes beyond that.
As far as i am concerned as an expression of absolute evil (not with fait and religion), in each of us is evil, but some people express themselves freely, growing by externalizing themselves from thought to action again and again. There’s a mental construct behind it with a purpose, in or situation « masters of the world » wit destruction of life.
It is an illusion, but it can become reality if a significant number starts to execute the plan (mental construction), each with a more or less important role.
Our responsibility is great, through our indifference, our inaction, our willingness to let others manage politely, economically etc. our lives, we left the door open to abuse and taking power.
I have a video (documentary), attention sensitive souls abstain!
Thank you for reading my essay. I am glad you found it useful.
On your point about "masters of the world" and destruction of life, I will quote here a passage from Maps of Meaning you may find interesting: "The need for order (control, power, symmetry or homogeneity) ultimately attempts to stifle life itself.
Yes, one cannot control life or freedom, true life and true freedom come when one is ready to welcome it and become free.
I intend to read Maps of Meanings as well as the other authors mentioned in your essays. We never stop discovering and learning. Thank you.
Thank you for this. Delicately woven with quiet compassion. This eases my heart, as I have been grasping towards this thinking in all of the heated discussions (or silences) around dinner tables which have become the norm in my life. I refuse to be drawn into denunciations and am met with the usual blustering rage and discomfited incredulity. If there is one thing that the covid debacle and all other unfolding technoterror has made me very certain about - is that we are in a struggle for our souls and humanity. I don't accept nihilism and despair and the forces that seek to divide. I still grapple with rage over the deep relationship and psychological damage I sustained during covid, but I now try to practice a weird mixture of uncompromising non-compliance when it comes to my personal sovereignty, and fierce optimism when It comes to humanity in general. It feels right.
Yes, I agree with you Mattias. There can not be a simple view on this conflict, since human life is not simple. Everywhere we look at intp this world there are polarities. Some polarities are the expression to be the edges of great versatility, vitality and richness, some are expression of radicalisation, blindness and unfinished personal and collective business. I have been travelling in Israel some 30 years ago and was working at a Kibbutz there. A fascinating country. Still there is this impression of an multilayered, multicausal mix of joy and pain I took with me from these times. There has been no simple answers at these times - the questions and answers got even more complicated in the meantime. What happens there now in the war between Palestinians and Israelis is the output of lots of pain, lots of hardship on the collective memory on both sides - getting radicalized and prone with violance now. Both radical sides belong to be brought in front of the International Criminal Court because of war crimes. War crimes can not be answered by war crimes. Radicalists on both sides are wrong. Person responsible of both sides need to be taken to international court. But even there we will meet a public international law, created by former colonialist Western nations, not being willing until today to accept and integrate the former colonized nations to get full justice ...