Too simple minds

Humans have a troublesome tendency.

They do often times identify one evil, and then follow a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy due to a "the enemy of evil is good" logic. That's obviously untrue.

Sometimes the enemy of evil is evil as well. Sometimes someone whom you identified as the bad guy in one context is the good guy in another context. Vice versa

Particularly zealous people seem to be particularly vulnerable to this (I suppose it's a) logical fallacy.

An example is Noam Chomsky, who correctly identifies some evil in Reagan's foreign policies and then stuck with the mind set that the U.S. is an evil imperial power. Worse; he all-too often depicts adversaries of the U.S. as good when they're clearly not.

Another example is Julian Assange. He helped to expose war crimes of the Obama administration and was opposed harshly by the same. This turned him into a hater of the Democrats, without any consideration about whether the Republicans wouldn't have been just as mean, if not worse - both in Iraq and to him.

There's a similar nonsensical illogic at play regarding the conflict in the Levante.

Some people (who am I kidding? Almost all people!) appear to be incapable of managing enough information in the mind in parallel to think of political actors as separate of the people as a whole or to maintain the thought that being victim in one context isn't in conflict with being perpetrator in another context.

And don't get me started on how incompetent the notion of war crimes is being handled. Hardly anyone ever read the Geneva Conventions (officers should know the basics, and I can at least say that I read much of the full text of the conventions).

Simple bogeyman thinking appears to rule. Most people appear to pick one hunter-gatherer clan to side with and that other hunter-gatherer clan is eeeevil!

Exceptions are being treated as if they were inconsistent or hypocrites, while I respect them for at least being able to think a bit more advanced than a caveman - even if the conclusions aren't mine.

The worst are of course the racists, who simply force their whole racism bollocks on the topic.

- - - - - - - - -

So in case anyone is ever confused about my stance:

  1. Israel has to leave the occupied territories and go back to its pre-1967 borders. The state of Israel is only legitimate within the pre-1967 borders.
  2. The U.S. is at fault for #1 not happening due to its unethical UNSC vetoes. It does thus deserve a major share of the blame for the mess.
  3. Any talk about pre-1967 borders being indefensible is bollocks. It's militarily untrue and it doesn't matter anyway. Singapore isn't exactly defensible either, but that doesn't mean it gets to steal land from Malaysia. The security interests of one country do never justify territorial expansion or occupation of foreign lands. No exceptions!
  4. The Geneva Conventions bind the signatory power Israel. Violations thereof are war crimes.
  5. Intentional killing, injuring, torturing or abducting civilians is a crime (at least in customary international law). It's obvious that all parties do or did at some point commit this crime.
  6. Israel has a right to close its borders with Gaza, but a naval blockade of Gaza just because Gaza was ruled by a disliked political faction was never legitimate.
  7. There's no violence followed by counterviolence in the Levante conflict any more. It's all counterviolence by now.
  8. Assassinations of non-combatants or against a country without state of war are illegal and deserve sanctions.
  9. Casual and habitual bombing of foreign countries at will is not acceptable, not legal, never legitimate and must not be normalised.
  10. The European politicians have been worthless  in the Levante conflict since 1967 (after when France ceased to export weapons to Israel in reaction to it attacking neighbours with French weapons). That's the nicest way to put it that I've come up with.
  11. Being a victim in one context does not authorise being a perpetrator in any context.
  12. The talk of "Staatsräson" in Germany is bollocks. The German government has to serve German interests, not foreign ones. The word "Staatsräson" or "Staatsraison" does not appear in the constitution, nor does the word "Israel". All this "Staatsräson" talk is bollocks of the same high grade as the "Supergrundrecht" bollocks. Keep in mind #10.


The conflict in the Levante is a big mess. Only fools find any "good" party there. Our (Western) handling of the conflict is an embarrassment. It shows the widespread failure of intellect and the all-encompassing worthlessness of Western politicians in this conflict.

The best path to cooling the conflict in the Levante down does include an end to the U.S. veto policy in the UNSC, which is not in sight. Democrats stick to Israel regardless of what its government does (short of nuclear genocide) becuase they don't want to lose the votes of New York City. Republicans stick to Israel regardless of what its government does (limit unclear) because they have a strong pseudo-Christian nutjob faction in their lying moron-dominated party that insists on supporting Israel due to one or another moronic bible interpretation.



  1. I agree with you on this but I still don't want any muslim/arab immigration to Europe, so according to you I am probably a "racist".

    That is actually why I am highly critical of a "harsh response" by Israel because I expect it to result in Gazans migrating to Europe which is something I want to avoid at all costs.

    I actually think immigration is the most fundamental issue we are facing atm, which is why I will never vote for pro immigration leftist parties even though I agree with a lot of their stances on economic and environmental issues (I don't agree to the lgbt-nonsense and language-engineering either).
    This issue just trumps everything else.

    There is no point in trying to reform the economy or preserve the environment if society will be dominated muslim clans who don't respect the laws of the state and live according to their own rules (the rule of the fist).

    1. I was alluding to racists who cheered the death among Arabs and/or Israelis out of hatred.

  2. It's not policy or realpolitik Sven. AIPAC bribes both parties without registering under FARA. The Epstein-Maxwell operation blackmailed both parties. 62% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck while Nikki Haley is going around reminding us that we need to protect The Greatest Ally. It's not hard to see that we stand where Germans stood in 1933.

  3. Let five be straight, you're sticking too much to rules in a world that's more flexible in this regard. I agree that the Palestinians need an own state, that Nethanyahu is responsible for diverting protection from Israel to the West Bank to help settlers get more land. But I doubt a treaty can be made with some people, such as the whole Islamist scene. It's in their scripture to only temporarily accept treaties and to violate them at opportune moments.

  4. What's so impossible about having no opinion about the issue at all? Why should I care? They want war? Let them have it. History is demonstrating that conflicts of this kind get resolved successfully after one side just plain and simply wins.

    1. Yes, this conflict is one that we best stay out of entirely, in words as in actions. It does not impact us, and we barely impact it. And if we take a side, we're earning the ire either of israel or the muslim immigrant population we have in germany now.

  5. >UNSC

    Who cares about UNSC? Maybe veto stop Russian invading Ukraine?

  6. To paraphrase Stalin: "The UN! How many divisions has it got?!"

    It is my opinion that doing international politics on an idealistic basis, and that includes much of "international law" and the UN as a whole organization, is the height of stupidity. Israel may also violate some international laws and even basic human decency in some cases, but if I have to pick between Israel and any other regional actor in the ME, I'll pick Israel every time. The rest are unequivocably worse; both in the idealistic sense of human rights and cultural and economic development and in the geopolitical sense.
    Israel is mostly a liberal democracy, hollow though parts of it may be; the alternative throws gay people off of highrises and is ALSO universally hated by everyone around them. Not to mention that there were multiple attempts to establish peace, all of which were rejected by the Palestinians. I have little enough sympathy left for Israel, but I most certainly have none for the Palestinians and their allies.

  7. You guys misunderstand my position.
    I'm not in favour of international law becuase of goodness. I'm in favour becuase it benefits every country to have an international order based on a rule of international law.
    Even those countries which erroneously think that exploiting the own strength rather than submitting to international rules is in their favour would be better off with a more rules-based order. They could greatly cut back their governments' wasteful activities in such a more predictable and more peaceful world.

    1. Last Dingo:

      Theoretically yes. Theoretically it could benefit every country. But in reality the so called international law is also only an instrument, a tool for more powerful nations to achieve their goals. Law is only a tool, it is therefore not there for justice, or peace, or the good of the people or the benefit of states, it exists only so that some can exploit, oppress, attack, and otherwise keep others down.

      The world does not become safer or more peaceful through international law and it is precisely the strong states that unscrupulously exploit other countries that hold international law so highly. Because it is a useful tool for them to exploit their strength.

      Also submitting to international rules is only a question of rethoric, subtleties, legal maneuvers and a question of definition.

      And since international law is not codified, it is not fixed, and international law is also customary law, which largely results from concordance, it is not suitable for creating peace and security, quite the opposite.

      And that's why I've been wondering for years why you think so highly of international law. or why you always hold the Security Council in such high regard and the un. These are all institutions that strive for the opposite of what you want.

      The USNC in particular is actually the exact opposite of everything think is good in this context.

    2. IL is very largely codified.

      The state of affairs doesn't dictate policy. We should have a foreign policy that seeks to improve the state of affairs.

      The Europeans should begin to pressure the U.S. to stop sabotaging the job of the UNSC with hypocitical vetoes.