@ KA

 

1) Obviously, the majority of Israelis hold "pro-Iisraeli" views.  That would be the 'natural' default position in ANY nation on this planet.  Apart from the fact that "pro-Israeli views" is not exactly what we are talking about (i.e. the specific Gottfried thesis), the crucial point lies elsewhere.  And, that is that Israel's democratic society tolerates opposing views, including "anti-Israeli views" if you will.  By contrast, the Arab world does NOT tolerate INTERNAL questioning of its dogmas (for instance w.r.t. the Arab-Israeli conflict). My gosh, it doesn't even tolerate EXTERNAL criticism of its dogmas, particularly religious ones.  If you dispute this, then you got your head in the sand.

2) We agree on your second point.  Yes, "were these types (i.e. subordination of patriotism to ideology) a majority neither Israel nor the West would survive".  Given the current domination of naive-leftism in western media and academia, it remains indeed a central question as to whether the West will survive, or whether it will go the same way as the Roman empire.  Israel is only but one small aspect of that larger tectonic development seemingly underway.

3) Multiculturalism and political correctness did NOT "emerge as solutions" to the two problems you mentioned.  On the contrary, they made them much worse, precisely because they helped to undermine freedom of political speech (especially in Europe), which is always a necessary condition for society to be able to adapt IN TIME to changing circumstances and to new problems.  In any case, this has nothing to do with the moral imperative to always put the individual at the core of human morality (which, yes, derives from a 'judeo-christian' perception of human morality).

4)  The desire to 'undo' history ensures that we keep on repeating the same mistakes that were made before in history.  That is not exactly the same as what you said, i.e. "making history". As usual, the extreme moral-relativism that you share with the naive-leftists (of multiculturalism and political-correctness) causes you to fail to make the necessary distinction between good and bad 'history'.   

5) You continue to make absurd comparisons between very different centuries.  So, you continue to maintain that 'Amerindians' TODAY do not benefit from living in advanced and democratic societies?   Now, can you explain why Russian Canadians, Korean Americans, and Phillipino Americans appear to fare much better in North America than for instance 'Irish Americans in Appalachia'?  My gosh, even (Asian)-Indians are doing much better as a 'group' in 'free' North America than Rumanians do in Rumania and than even Walloons and Flemish do in less-free Belgium. So spare me your 'explanation'.  You remain blind to the importance of 'culture' (including 'sub-culture') for individual well-being, because of your ethnic obsession. 

6)  I do not think that it was necessary for everybody in Europe to be "subjugated to the Roman Empire" for that empire to have a major cultural impact on the 'unsubjugated'.  Given your manifest knowledge of numerous historical DETAILS,  I am surprised that you claim that England was never subjugated by the Romans.  I suppose, you now want to nitpick a  bit further about the meaning of the word "subjugated", in Bill Clinton-fashion?   Your numerous historical details prevent you from seeing the big picture. 

7) I fear that your "social consciousness" sees what it has been 'told' to see by the media environment that you live in.  But, nevertheless, I agree partially with your last point.  At the same time, it seems rather destructive (for civilisation) on your part to mount a defense for "certain biases".  

marcfrans: ...you continue to justify (creating new) contemporary injustices on the basis of some fanciful "historical redress".
 

I justify nothing. I merely claim that one's identity is to a certain extent fixed, and that this lends one to certain biases. Nor are the Jews any exception. One can possess an individual consciousness and a social consciousness that are not necessarily parallel. Were I born an African in a Parisian banileue, I may very well have the same individual consciousness that I do now e.g. a tendency towards individualism as opposed to collectivism. However, my social consciousness could not ignore what I saw in the mirror.

marcfrans: No, it is NOT reasonable to assume that "the vast majority" of Israelis - and certainly not of jews - would support that specific thesis of Gottfried...Isael [sic] is a genuine democracy and...power there has frequently alternated between right and left.

 

I am not disputing the turbulence of Israeli politics; I am disputing that the turbulence prevents the vast majority of Israelis to hold pro-Israeli views, which would seem natural. Formal democracy does not necessarily entail that the population in question is open to critical and un-patriotic thinking; as Talmon noted, democracy can be totalitarian.

 

marcfrans: Jews, like westerners, can be leftist before they are jews, and still survive in Israel and in the West.

 

Were these types a majority neither Israel nor the West would survive. Moreover, one can be a nationalist libertarian, liberal, conservative, social democrat, socialist, communist or fascist, without this being a contradiction. Nationalism is compatible with almost any ideology, so long as that ideology does not subordinate the nation to regionalism, internationalism or globalism.

 

marcfrans: Morally speaking, the ultimate value MUST pertain to individuals, not some ethnic identity.

 

In your opinion. Multiculturalism and political correctness emerged as solutions to two related problems: (1) Western countries were no longer able to assimilate increasingly 'diverse' immigrants; and (2) heterogenous countries could not pretend that different groups were non-existent or strictly adhere to an ideology that completely ignored groups and their differences. Though these policies and programmes have proved a colossal failure, it is impossible for diverse societies to ignore the communities that comprise them, unless these communities can be made to amalgamate or to cease perceiving themselves as communities and become atomised along individual lines.

 

marcfrans: You cannot 'undo' history - and one should never even try! - you can only learn from it.

 

The desire to "undo" history is what continues to make history.

 

marcfrans: ...the 'indians' were not angels either! Far from it.

 

So? One cannot equate the Amerindian tribes and the European settlers. If you were to claim that as a clearly inferior society, not morally but by every worldly measure that counts, and that they should assimilate into American society, I might agree. However, to argue that North Americans identifying as Amerindian should rejoice in the humiliating history and its far-reaching consequences, is nonsensical.

 

marcfrans: ...contemporary 'Amerindians' benefit from living in advanced and democratic societies in North America. They benefit just as much from that as you and I benefit from living in advanced and democratic societies.

 

Not really. Our ancestors built these societies and infused them with their values. The Amerindians, not unlike the African-Americans were marginalized, oppressed, and neither contributed to or received succor commensurate with their suffering from North American settler societies.

 

marcfrans: ...I benefited tremendously from having been born in the 'low countries' in Europe...at a time when genuine freedom of political speech was still honored there...thank you Roman Empire"

 

Perhaps the dominion of Rome was unnecessary in the construction of democracy in the Low Countries. Neither England, Finland nor the Scandinavian countries were ever subjugated by Rome. Indeed, Eire would probably have developed sooner had it not been conquered and occupied by the English, given its medieval history of monasticism which was so crucial to the expansion of Christianity in continental Europe, particularly in Germania or East Francia, and to the Northumbrian and Carolingian revivals or learning (or renaissances). One must think carefully before 'thanking' any foreign society for historical or contemporary interference in the affairs of one's own, no matter the seemingly obvious results.

@ KA

1) ....

2) No, it is NOT reasonable to assume that "the vast majority" of Israelis - and certainly not of jews - would support that specific thesis of Gottfried. You forget that Isael is a genuine democracy and that power there has frequently alternated between right and left. I see a contradiction in your thinking. Many of the very 'jews' that you constantly blame for undermining 'nationalism' in the West are often the same 'leftists' who would have no truck with Gottfried's thesis. Jews, like westerners, can be leftist before they are jews, and still survive in Israel and in the West. Indeed, many of them thrive and gain power. There is nothing comparable like that in the islamic and in the Arab world. Such people (i.e. Arabs or muslims who openly criticise the 'Arab' position on the Palestinion question) cannot thrive there, and usually they do not survive (for groupthink is the order of the day there).

3) There cannot be "redress" for the past. There can only be lessons learned from the past, and 'justice' to living individuals in the present. Sovereign statehood CAN help to bring 'justice' to individuals, and it 'normally' would. But it can equally bring even worse injustice to individuals. Morally speaking, the ultimate value MUST pertain to individuals, not some ethnic identity. Unless "games of musical chairs" come to an end, they will continue to perpetuate injustice. You cannot redress past injustice by creating new injustice in the present. You cannot 'undo' history - and one should never even try! - you can only learn from it.

4) Where did I claim that "the pilgrims" were angels? Where? You are playing the same 'strawmen games' as Armor. The point was that the 'indians' were not angels either! Far from it. All of this is totally IRRELEVANT for the point that contemporary 'Amerindians' benefit from living in advanced and democratic societies in North America. They benefit just as much from that as you and I benefit from living in advanced and democratic societies.

5) Oh, yes! I can say with "certainty" that I benefited tremendously from having been born in the 'low countries' in Europe (at a time when genuine freedom of political speech was still honored there), as opposed to having been born in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, China, Bolivia, etc... I have experienced too much of the real world out there, and had good history teachers as well (in the days when freedom of speech was still honored in the low countries, and ideological diversity still tolerated) to think otherwise. So, thank you Roman Empire.....(despite ending through decadence).

6) I have nowhere defended the thesis that "the end justifies the means". But you continue to justify (creating new) contemporary injustices on the basis of some fanciful "historical redress".

MarcFrans: I made a specific judgment about you, based on your numerous contributions (many of which I find interesting, well-written and thoughtful, at least compared with the comments of many others). Given the 'quality' of your postings I tend to think that your manifest anti-semitism is not...a reflection of your person...but...more of the broader 'culture' in which you move.

 

I certainly do appreciate your appreciation of my comments. As far as my "broader 'culture' " is concerned, you are not informed enough to determine what it is. Indeed, my perceptions of and attitudes towards Jewry, Judaism and Israel may be entirely personal.

 

MarcFrans: You can bet that virtually ALL muslims share the ambassador's views on that specific agenda.

 

Agreed. Would it not then seem reasonable that the vast majority of Israelis and perhaps the Diaspora as well, would lend support to Gottfried's opinion that "the religious and cultural hatreds that inflame the Muslim world would likely be there even if the Israelis managed to cut a deal with the Palestinians"? Certainly this opinion would ameliorate any guilt that those Jews and Israelis who agree with it feel regarding Israeli-Palestinian history and contemporary "inequalities". Moreover, it is easier for Israelis to continue to villify Palestinians, re-iterate historical and religious claims to the territory of Israel and uphold a militarized society, than to address Palestinian and Muslim grievances. Such a sea change would rock Israel to its very core, although granted, there are many Israeli individuals and NGOs determined to effect just that. Though there are Muslim supremacists who will forever agitate against non-Muslims, there are many Muslim individuals and collectivities that have in my opinion legitimate grievances towards non-Muslim states. However, we may never be able to fully tease the supremacists from the rest or the supremacism from Islam.

 

MarcFrans: Your SELECTIVE depiction of "Amerindians" as VICTIMS is typical leftist and naive.  I repeat, EVERYBODY's ancestors (at least some generations among them) have been victims in one way or another.

 

Agreed. However, the entirety of contemporary ethno-cultural conflicts are directly related to historical victimisation and the lack of redress. Self-determination through sovereign statehood seems the most successful remedy, although it is truly an unending game of musical chairs.

 

MarcFrans: past cases of victimhood should never be invoked to 'victimise' new people.  As usual, you fail to see INDIVIDUALS, in the here and now, and you focus unreasonably on 'ethnicity' and on 'groups'.

 

Unfortunately, humanity cannot be divided into mere individuals. It also includes collectivities. The failure of liberalism and socialism is that both are cosmopolitan, and require the deconstruction of collective identity if they are to be applied beyond a single group. Communism foundered on the sharp rocks of nationalism, culture and religion. Liberalism has run aground on the same treacherous shores, and attempts to graft group rights onto a society based upon individual rights have been thus far disastrous.

 

MarcFrans: ...I find it very hard to compare the actions (and suffering) of say 'pilgrims' freeing persecution in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, and arriving in Massachussets, with the actions and suffering of an 'indian' tribe that a decade earlier massacred all the men of a neighboring tribe (while 'enslaving' all the women and 'adopting' all the healthy children).

 

Do you really believe that this suffices for any sort of informed historical analysis? Many of these so-called "pilgrims" engaged in religious persecution of their own in the colonies, not unlike their Puritan brethren in England. Are you forgetting the raging Thirty Years War?

 

MarcFrans: ...I have tremendously benefited from the fact that the Roman empire occupied the 'low countries' (and presumably wiped out many of my 'ancestors).

 

You cannot say for certain. I take it then, that you are either French, Belgian or Dutch. I assume then that your ancestors are Gallic or Celtic. Your views represent a nasty precedent: the ends justify the means. Was Stalin's genocide and democide 'good' if it increase Soviet standards of living?

@ Kapitein Andre

 

1) No, I doubt that one could make a sensible judgment of that kind about any "vast majority" of commentators on TBJ or anywhere else.   I made a specific judgment about you, based on your numerous contributions (many of which I find interesting, well-written and thoughtful, at least compared with the comments of many others).  Given the 'quality' of your postings I tend to think that your manifest anti-semitism is not so much a reflection of your person (you, as an individual) but rather more of the broader 'culture' in which you move.

2) I think that the comparison you make is not valid, but I would 'understand' if you do not share my view on this.  Gottfried expressed an opinion on a very general and rather abstract hypothesis or THEORY  (that I rephrased under my point 1).  And that opinion is shared by SOME jews, by myself and by many other non-jews.  By contrast, you point to an "ambassador" with a very clear and CONCRETE AGENDA (involving the construction of minarets and  attempts to weaken anti-muslim political forces in Switzerland).  You can bet that virtually ALL muslims share the ambassador's views on that specific agenda.  The two cases are not comparable.

3) Your SELECTIVE depiction of "Amerindians" as VICTIMS is typical leftist and naive.  I repeat, EVERYBODY's ancestors (at least some generations among them) have been victims in one way or another.  And past cases of victimhood should never be invoked to 'victimise' new people.  As usual, you fail to see INDIVIDUALS, in the here and now, and you focus unreasonably on 'ethnicity' and on 'groups'. 

4) NO, you make improper comparisons across the centuries.   It does not matter what I think about which particular ethnicities in particular past centuries were more 'victimised' than other groups in the same (or even in different) past time periods.  For example, I find it very hard to compare the actions (and suffering) of say 'pilgrims' fleeing persecution in Europe in the 16th and 17th century, and arriving in Massachussets, with the actions and suffering of an 'indian' tribe that a decade earlier massacred all the men of a neighboring tribe (while 'enslaving' all the women and 'adopting' all the healthy children).  So, yes, I repeat that contemporary 'Amerindians' in North America benefit tremendously from the fact that they live in advanced and democratic societies (as opposed to Bolivia and southern Mexico), just like I have tremendously benefited from the fact that the Roman empire occupied the 'low countries' (and presumably wiped out many of my 'ancestors).   Once again, what counts is not ethnicity but the quality of the 'culture' in which we live TODAY.

5)  No, there are no "obvious reasons" for the failures of individual Amerindians.  What you fail to see is that these failures were almost disappearing - certainly much less observable before the 1960's.  It is the rise of naive-leftism in western culture after the 1960's, and its attendant victimisation-cult, which has led to a massive increase in individual failures.  Most of the 'groups' which have received the imprimatur of victimhood from the naive-left orthodoxy (in western civilisation) - including 'white' criminals - have seen their social pathologies rise, because victimhood status undermines individual self-responsibility.  I find it amazing that even 'rightist' Europeans like yourself parrot the media-and academia-mantras of "subtle and systematic discrimination".  Take a simple example: the pathologies of the 'black underclass' in the USA are much more severe today (post civil-rights legislation etc...) than they were fifty or sixty years ago.  That is certainly not because of 'increased discrimination'.   No, it is because of a loss of human values throughout society.  

6) Indeed, FOR YOU judeo-christian values do not exist.  That is precisely why you can be both racist and anti-semitic.  

MarcFrans: ...your deep-seeted anti-semitism...

 

If my comments can be construed as anti-Semitic, then those posted at various times by the vast majority of commentators on the Brussels Journal could be construed as being racist, sexist and Islamophobic.

 

MarcFrans: The fact that Gottfried is jewish is totally irrelevant in this context, and it has nothing to do with the veracity or falsehood of such an opinion.

 

Therefore you would agree that OSCE representative Ömür Orhun's position as a Turkish ambassador and his Turkish and Muslim identity is "totally irrelevant" to his arguments for allowing the construction of minarets on Swiss mosques, making Islam equal with Christianity in Switzerland and agitating against the Schweizerische Volkspartei.  

 

MarcFrans: Your comment about "Amerindians" is ridiculous and, of course, cut from the same cloth as the victimisation-industry of the naive-left.

 

I fail to see what is "naive" or "leftist" about it.

 

MarcFrans: We live in the here and now, not in the 19th century or in  any other past century. Human history is full of human migrations, and EVERYBODY can claim displacements of ancesters and "ancestral lands" elsewhere.

 

So? Part of what constitutes a nation is a people's common history.

 

MarcFrans: Amerindians in North America have today the benefit of living in advanced and democratic societies. Those who have any doubt about the benefits of that for 'Amerindians', should take a close look at the tribal governance taking place in heavily subsidised 'Indian lands' (where very few Amerindians actually live) or in places like Bolivia and Southern Mexico.

 

Then according to your analysis of the issue, Amerindians have benefitted from European colonialism despite the resulting loss of land, ethnic cleansing, deportation and socio-economic and cultural oppression.

 

MarcFrans: Your comment suggests a willingness on your part to discriminate against innocents today for actual or perceived injustices against others' ancestors in the past. It is a devaluation of what should be the centrality of the individual, and all in the name of some race- or ethnic-based view of humanity.

 

Communities have and will continue to exist. All individuals have some form of group identity. While individual Amerindians can theoretically succeed as much as any individual (although this ignores subtle and systemic discrimination), Amerindians as a group are unable to for obvious reasons, a fact that is not lost on individual Amerindians.

 

MarcFrans: No wonder you continue to keep asserting that judeo-christian values were not central to western civilisation.  You seem to be sorely lacking in such values.

 

"judeo-christian values" do not exist as such.

Adoration in its own way has to be a greater test than power.

Interesting. Adoration easily leads to power. I recall one Austrian-turned-German receiving lots of adoration. And, no analogy implied, also the founder of Islam with his nickname meaning 'The Praised One'.

Muhammad's real name was 'Qutham', according to Spencer.

Now that Charles has committed the very obvious error of charging pro-Israel people with anti-semitism, I'm wondering if Paul or others have considered filing for libel against him? Or at least have a lawyer send him a 'Cease and desist' letter?

The charges are serious, honour-damaging and false, and the relevant evidence has been produced already.

Talking of libel, I hope everyone have read Melanie Philips The al-Durah Blood Libel

Gives quite a perspective of what libel can lead to...

I don't understand at all why this piece can be percieved as 'anti-semitic' or in other ways 'evil', 'immoral', 'decadent', 'racist' or whatever degorative can be thrown in. It's a piece of debate on the situation of Israel, quite along the lines that Daniel Pipes could have written (I don't think he's virulent anti-semitic), and is relevant to the debate about Islam. I second the notion that giving concessions has been a long string of failures for Israel, that their best bet is to completely stop doing so. They of course need a more positive press in order to succeed, but I'm sure BJ and other conservative media will do their best to provide it. I'll certainly contribute.

But Paul, I think there's one bad idea in your comment above: the (PBUH) thing. That's a needless derogative. Yes, Charles is acting like a moron, and a Stalinist one to boot, with all the guilt-by-association stuff, the Big Lie tactics, the lousy evidence, mock trials, vilification and eventual purging of dissidents etc. But I think it's better to stay a little aloof from all that and not try to out-insult him. He's caused enough trouble by now, all required evidence is online, we can move on to more relevant activities than slurs from some American blogger.

I temporarily deleted this page from TBJ because American friends asked me to do so. Friends are under attack from Little Green Footballs (LGF) because TBJ quoted the above sentences from Paul Gottfried. Today, however, I notice that the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) himself links to the above article. Hence, the question: If the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) is allowed to link to this (although indirectly - what utter hypocrisy), why am I not allowed to post an interesting quote from it? Because I am a European, hence tainted with "racism," "anti-Semitism," "neo-Nazism,"... while the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) is an American hedonist?? Or because, as the fans of the great Charles Johnson (PBUH) say, this website is in the habit of posting "pieces of trash"?

If the result of all this is that we will have to close down TBJ for lack of support, so be it. What a relief: no more death threats from Islamists, no more harassment by the Belgian authorities, no more vile attacks by American "neo-cons" like the great Charles Johnson (PBUH)...

  

PS: Rebuttals to the great Charles Johnson's (PBUH) allegations can be found here. The list gets endless.

 

I want to make one thing clear: I am not an anti-semite. By my lights the only reasonable definition of anti-semitism is hating ALL Jews because they are Jews. NOT merely criticizing some Jewish elites who do things that they think are in the interests of their group but actually are not. That some Jewish elites do this is beyond question. Look at the quote I provided, Earl Raab admits as much, and unless he is lying or deluded I suggest we take what he say seriously.

There is much to admire about Jews. Ashkenazi Jews have the highest group average IQ (115) that we know of. They are vastly over-represented in Nobel prize recipients, Ivy League professorships, and finacial success.

But when some Jews use their prodigious talents to advance their group interests at the expense of my group's interests I will criticize them unreservedly even at the expense of hysterical cries of anti-semitism.

The idea that Israel will long endure if the West goes down (and yes, if whites are no longer in the majority in their own countries and can therefore no longer exercise decisive power over their countries the West will have gone down) is far fetched to say the least.

We have an almost perfect parallel of what is in store for Israel is the West is diminished: South Africa. A nation that once had nuclear weapons, a first world standard of living, and a sophisticated white population of 5-6 million that ruled over and held at bay a population of unsophisticates. What is the condition of whites in South Africa these days? It ain't great. Do Jewish activists like Earl Raab really believe whites could avoid the fate of the white South Africans once they are an overwhelmed minority in historically white countries? Do they care? I doubt it.

Once the West goes down will China or India assure the security of Israel as the United States once had? Again, I doubt it.

These are serious questions that must be asked and answered without incantation of anti-semitism. Afterall, white males are criticized all day every day from all corners, we also reserve the right to criticize.

Earl Raab of Brandeis University's Institute of Jewish Advocacy wrote in his column in the San Fransciso Jewish Bulletin quote:

"The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [presumably he means Jewish activists] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to ethnic bigotry for about half a century."

So here we have it from the horse's mouth as we say here in America. In order to save the Jews from a second holocaust Jewish activists have been working for "half a century" to water down the influence of white Americans in the country that we (whites) have built so we will no longer have the power to go nuts and kill them all. Thanks Earl!

The fact that many white Americans fought, died, and were maimed in WWII to save what remained of Europe's Jewry seems lost on Earl. This level of ingratitude and paranoia is truly sick and pathetic.!

@ Kapitein Andre

 

In recent months, on this website, you have left it to Armor to carry the torch of manifest racist ethnocentrism, but your deep-seeted anti-semitism continues to seep through.  And it continues to shame a certain part of the 'right' in Europe as well as a growing part of the left. Let's consider your 5 points.

1)   Gottfried's opinion, that the religious and cultural hatreds inflaming the Muslem world would still be there irrespective of any deal with the Palestinians, is just that: an OPINION.  And it is, in my view, an opinion for which one could marshall an impressive amount of empirical evidence (if one cared to make the effort).  The fact that Gottfried is jewish is totally irrelevant in this context, and it has nothing to do with the veracity or falsehood of such an opinion.  You bringing that up, says something about you, not about Gottfried.  

2)  Your comment about "Amerindians" is ridiculous and, of course, cut from the same cloth as the victimisation-industry of the naive-left.  We live in the here and now, not in the 19th century or in  any other past century.   Human history is full of human migrations, and EVERYBODY can claim displacements of ancesters and "ancestral lands" elsewhere.   Amerindians in North America have today the benefit of living in advanced and democratic societies.   Those who have any doubt about the benefits of that for 'Amerindians', should take a close look at the tribal governance taking place in heavily subsidised 'Indian lands' (where very few Amerindians actually live) or in places like Bolivia and Southern Mexico.   Your comment suggests a willingness on your part to discriminate against innocents today for actual or perceived injustices against others' ancestors in the past.   It is a devaluation of what should be the centrality of the individual, and all in the name of some race- or ethnic-based view of humanity.  No wonder you continue to keep asserting that judeo-christian values were not central to western civilisation.  You seem to be sorely lacking in such values.

3)  The issue of who can be "trusted" more (Palestinians or Israelis) TODAY is essentially an empirical matter.  One can only depend on honest observations, and your selective reading of Israel's independence struggle is of little relevance in that respect.   There can be no clearer indicator of respective levels of trust and trustworthiness in those two societies than observations about the ways they organise themselves INTERNALLY and the way they treat each other internally.  By contrast, your comment was highly prejudicial.    

4) Gottfried's suggestion that the past should or could inform the present (about honoring of treaties etc...) may be "conjecture", but your view that it is "useless" conjecture is blind stupidity.  There cannot be any better guide about the future than the past, precisely because the past lays 'cultures' bare. 

5)  No, jews have NOT been major advocates of "such policies", only SOME jews have been.  And these FEW jews have always been a TINY proportion among western lefties.   It is disgusting that some on the paleo-right continue to scapegoat "jews" in some futile attempt to appease the much broader left in their societies.   You should try living in the present and let the past go.

considering that this is off the Taki site and calls Walt and Mearsheimer illustrious academics, claims Israel was behind the invasion of Kuwait and that the ADL is a front group for the Israeli government

this is simply a screed filled with hate toward Israel and considering the source site and the praise for Norman Finkelstein, is rather ugly toward Jews too. I really have no words.

Gottfried: The religious and cultural hatreds that inflame the Muslim world would likely be there even if the Israelis managed to cut a deal with the Palestinians.

 

Any such deal would involve the continued existence of the Israeli state. Though this would ameliorate the grievances of Palestinian nationalists, it would not resolve them. Moreover, it would make little difference to Arab or Islamic supremacists or hardline Zionists. But is "a deal" the solution? Perhaps one side or the other must be truly crushed to achieve peace. Moreover, Gottfried is himself Jewish and therefore has an innate bias with regards to the Jewish State.

 

Gottfried: While one might readily concede that American Indians were expelled from their tribal territories in the nineteenth century, why would anyone but a self-hating white Christian call for allowing Indian tribes to take back sizable chunks of the U.S.?

 

Then "one" is presumably a White Christian. If "one" were of Amerindian ancestry, "one" might very well consider restitution of "one's" ancestral homeland to be reasonable, perhaps with reparations also.

 

Gottfried: It might also be asked why the Israelis, who run a Western-type constitutional government, should trust the Palestinians politically – even if admittedly Israeli military forces have sometimes taken brutal revenge on the Palestinians after Hamas-incited terror-bombings.

 

It might also be asked how the Palestinians can ever trust the Israelis who used terrorism enthusiastically before establishing their conventional forces, "even if admittedly" the Palestinians used the same 'total war' strategy. One former IDF officer summed it up by deducing that the Israelis committed more war crimes during the Arab-Israeli War only because they captured more enemy territory than the Palestinians and Arabs.

 

Gottfried: There is nothing in the Palestinian, or for that matter the Arab Muslim, past that would suggest the likelihood that they would honor and enforce treaties or control violent minorities that might seek to wipe out the Israelis.

 

This is useless conjecture.

 

Gottfried: ...there are other possible developments that may not favor the Israelis in the long run. Weakening Christian institutions, while opening the Western world to Islamic and other Third World influences, does not help the Jews here or in Israel...such policies destroy what remains of the substance of the only civilization that is likely to assist the Israelis out of genuine affection.

Jews have been major advocates of "such policies"; it is interesting to see them backfire. Jews thought Western nationalists were terrible until they realized what unrestricted Muslim immigration will do for the Diaspora and Israel.