Netanyahu tells Biden Israel will act militarily against Yemen’s Houthis if US won’t: report

50 Comments / 52 Comments

1. i PUBLISHED A DETAILED REFUTATION OF THE HILER WAS A mARXIST CLAIM. bUT LIKE SO MANY OF MY RECENT POSTS IT HAS FALLEN INTO eLECTRONIC oBLIVION. tED, COULD YOU PLEASE FISH IT OUT AND pOST IT INTHIS SPACE?

2. @Sebastien Zorn

   Charming people, Marx and Engels

   They were also German chauvinists dreaming of the day when Germany becomes a leading world power exceeding every other country in its development.

   So what?

   If you apply the criteria of charm, goodness, virtue, etc., etc. to, say, the great writers, poets, scientists, composers, philosophers, inventors, and such in order to be able to have anything to do with them, be assured that you will never read any masterpieces of world literature, listen to great music, value any scientific achievements or read any works of philosophy, or use any new and useful things invented by those who don’t fit your exalted standards of thought and behavior, in fact, you will probably never be able to learn how to read, write, or count but you will derive great satisfaction in retaining your purity of thought (’cause your mind will remain a blank slate).

3. Charming people, Marx and Engels

   He [Moses Hess]married a poor Catholic seamstress, Sibylle Pesch, “in order to redress the injustice perpetrated by society”. Although they remained happily married until Hess’ death,[2] Sibylle may have had an affair with Friedrich Engels while he was smuggling her from Belgium to France to be reunited with her husband. Sibylle, however, claimed the relationship was non-consensual and accused Engels of rape.[6] The incident may have precipitated Hess’ split from the communist movement…

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Hess

4. @Reader

   Has it ever occurred to you…”

   No. All of that is just absurd. It’s not what he wrote or thought. Marx is not someone to learn from. He was just a bigot. He called people the N word a lot too. As well as the K word. Read his letters? I have. Later for Marx.Time to stop giving him a break as a product of his time. Time to cancel Marx.

5. Reader Thanks for your hard and difficult struggle

   https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1933/330610.htm
   Truly great article “barren political combinations” reference is memorable

   https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/03/guardian.htm
   Refers to “17 million desperate people” which is a graphic expression and a key into Fascism

   https://alphahistory.com/nazigermany/trotsky-on-nazism/
   A short article but shows that Hitler was the opposite of socialist. Repeated often but that concept truly laughable.

6. Reposting as the AI ate it last time:

   His private conversations, however, though they do not overturn his reputation as an anti-Communist, qualify it heavily. Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.

   https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

7. @Sebastien Zorn

   Has it ever occurred to you that Hitler was ”learning” from Marx what he thought were tricks and techniques one learns from the enemy he is fighting?

   Has it ever occurred to you that what Marx meant by socialism, what the Nazis meant by socialism, what the author of the article meant by socialism, and what you mean by socialism may be four completely different things?

   The important thing is not what is in the book but who reads the book.

   By your logic if it so happens that a serial killer was a great fan of Freud and his theories, you will conclude that Freudian theories are horrible because they are espoused by serial killers.

8. “Hermann Rauschning, for example, a Danzig Nazi who knew Hitler before and after his accession to power in 1933, tells how in private Hitler acknowledged his profound debt to the Marxian tradition. “I have learned a great deal from Marxism” he once remarked, “as I do not hesitate to admit”. He was proud of a knowledge of Marxist texts acquired in his student days before the First World War and later in a Bavarian prison, in 1924, after the failure of the Munich putsch. The trouble with Weimar Republic politicians, he told Otto Wagener at much the same time, was that “they had never even read Marx”, implying that no one who had failed to read so important an author could even begin to understand the modern world; in consequence, he went on, they imagined that the October revolution in 1917 had been “a private Russian affair”, whereas in fact it had changed the whole course of human history! His differences with the communists, he explained, were less ideological than tactical. German communists he had known before he took power, he told Rauschning, thought politics meant talking and writing. They were mere pamphleteers, whereas “I have put into practice what these peddlers and pen pushers have timidly begun”, adding revealingly that “the whole of National Socialism” was based on Marx.”

   https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

9. @ No, where on earth do you get that? I’m stating that Marx was a proto-Nazi. And yes, in part. Would Goebbels have lied to his own diaries that he didn’t expect anyone else to read? And he’s not the only source cited.

10. PLEASE, release my long comment that keeps disappearing.

11. @ Sebastien Zorn

    Tge author substantiates his argument with primary sources. Did you even read it?

    What primary sources? Goebbels’ diaries?

    Yes, I read it. It is BS. OK, it is fancy BS.

    Just because someone throws around a term doesn’t mean that they understand it.

    “Including the crackpot Marx who belongs therefore in his own “dustbin of history.””

    Are you implying that Hitler was right in regards to some Jews?

    You can call Marx any names you want but he came up with a very good model of the social-economic flow of history based mainly on the type of ownership of the means of production and the level of technological development, so far, no one has developed a better one, and everyone keeps using his terms.

    The events of the 20th century showed that it is impossible for societies to either jump over whole stages of development or to stop the next stage at will.

    There hasn’t been any real socialism anywhere yet in spite of people claiming to have established it.

    The attempts to stop or slow down the transition to the next stage turn into fascism.

    Some sociologists thought that fascism stage should also be added to the model.

12. I’ve never been so embarassed to have ever comsidered myself a Marxist in ny life. Ewww. I need a bath.

13. @Reader Name calling won’t cut it. Tge author substantiates his argument with primary sources. Did you even read it?

14. Reader
    December 12, 2023 at 7:52 pm

    @Sebastien Zorn

    “Including the crackpot Marx who belongs therefore in his own “dustbin of history.””

    Are you implying that Hitler was right in regards to some Jews?

    You can call Marx any names you want but he came up with a very good model of the social-economic flow of history based mainly on the type of ownership of the means of production and the level of technological development, so far, no one has developed a better one, and everyone keeps using his terms.

    The events of the 20th century showed that it is impossible for societies to either jump over whole stages of development or to stop the next stage at will.

    There hasn’t been any real socialism anywhere yet in spite of people claiming to have established it.

    The attempts to stop or slow down the transition to the next stage turn into fascism.

    Some sociologists thought that fascism stage should also be added to the model.

15. @Sebastien Zorn

    That article is pure BS propaganda.

    Hitler sold out to several German industrialists when the party was dead broke by promising to take care of the workers movement, etc.

    It is Hitler who was a crackpot, another crackpot is the author of this article.

16. My comment appeared, I tried editing it, it disappeared again.

    I reposted it 3 times from a saved copy and it disappeared while being posted.

    PLEASE, RECOVER IT!

17. @Sebastien Zorn

    Including the crackpot Marx who belongs therefore in his own “dustbin of history.”

    Are you implying that Hitler was right in regards to some Jews?

    You can call Marx any names you want but he came up with a very good model of the social-economic flow of history based mainly on the type of ownership of the means of production and the level of technological development, no one has developed a better one yet, and everyone keeps using his terms.

    The events of the 20th century showed that it is impossible for societies to either jump over whole stages of development or to stop the next stage from advancing.

    There hasn’t been any real socialist society anywhere yet in spite of people claiming to have established it.

    The attempts to stop or slow down the transition to the next stage turn into fascism.

    Some sociologists thought that fascism stage should also be added to the model.

18. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

19. I googled the question: was Hitler influenced by Marx. Took me several tries as Google kept changing my question to what was Hegel’s influence on Marx (Artificial Intelligence is an oxymoron or just a moron who sucks all the oxygen from the room) but I found this eye-opening article. In his recorded private conversations, Hitler not only regarded himself as a socialist but as Marx’s true heir. He read all of Marx and was an avid student of his writings!

    Please don’t erase this Mr. AI. 3rd try

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

20. Hitler was a Marxist.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/hitler-and-the-socialist-dream-1186455.html

21. @Reader

    Hitler didn’t invent anything new, he just worked with what was already there

    Including the crackpot Marx who belongs therefore in his own “dustbin of history.”

22. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    At start of Wikipedia article devoted to this theoretical issue is, I believe, a valid summary. I would add that in that timeframe the issue in Germany was THE issue in the Left…1843.

    Quote

    “The essay is a critique of two studies[1][2] by Marx’s fellow Young Hegelian Bruno Bauer on the attempt by Jews to achieve political emancipation in Prussia. Bauer argued that Jews could achieve political emancipation only by relinquishing their particular religious consciousness since political emancipation requires a secular state, which he assumes does not leave any “space” for social identities such as religion. According to Bauer, such religious demands are incompatible with the idea of the “Rights of Man”. True political emancipation, for Bauer, requires the abolition of religion.

    Marx uses Bauer’s essay as an occasion for his own analysis of liberal rights, arguing that Bauer is mistaken in his assumption that in a “secular state” religion will no longer play a prominent role in social life, and giving as an example the pervasiveness of religion in the United States, which, unlike Prussia, had no state religion. In Marx’s analysis, the “secular state” is not opposed to religion, but rather actually presupposes it. ”

    End Quote

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

    I take from this that Karl Marx was arguing that Jews should have full political and religious rights, for example that Jews should sit in Parliament and not be molested (in any part of society) because of their religion. This is normally called fighting against Antisemitism.

    The quotation usually used containing the word “huckstering” by right wing haters was meant in the overall sense of the article, that it is the overall system of capitalism that drives people’s into such roles, in fact into every role. We all are in this position. It is a position of alienation for all who are fated to live in a system of classes.

    So the essay which is always quoted spitefully by the right wing and those filled with hatred for revolutionary socialism, even revolution as in THE Russian Revolution, is really supportive of the rights of the Jewish people. This is undeniable.

    At the end of the day capitalism is a system created on lies and when Marx comes into conversation nothing in their lying rigmaroles is out of bounds. It is only but wise to give such liars a very wide berth because they will always seek to cloud the issue which in this 1843 essay, published 1844, is extremely supportive of the Jews.

23. @peloni

    yet he [Marx] just couldn’t overcome his antisemitism training?

    Antisemitism is based on emotion and upbringing, not on reasoning and brainpower, plus this particular quote reflects the common thinking of the German intellectuals at the time who wracked their powerful brains trying to figure out what to do with “those Asiatics who are alien to Germany”.

    Hitler didn’t invent anything new, he just worked with what was already there but this time he offered an efficient “solution” to the Jewish question.

24. @Reader, Felix Israel started out as socialist and it worked very well until it didn’t. There aren’t any universally applcable panaceas.

25. Three Nations That Tried Socialism and Rejected it; Israel, India, the UK

    https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

26. @Reader

    True enough but I suspect almost any Jew who got baptized at the age of 6 would end up being an antisemite

    Yet, Marx was suppose to be a great thinker, an intellectual of great reasoning and wisdom who riddled out the manner in which the masses might inherit the earth…, yet he just couldn’t overcome his antisemitism training? Interesting contradiction, don’t you think?

27. @Felix There isn’t any context that could make that passage not antisemitic.

28. @Peloni Excellent. That’s how Trump defeated ISIS and how to defeat Iran.

29. Jonathan Schanzer

    Yemen’s transitional council, the government entity battling the Houthis, is interested in teaming up with Israel to take on the Iran-backed terror group according to @kaisos1987
    from @kann_news

    https://twitter.com/JSchanzer/status/1733935170598711522

30. @Felix I’ve read it more than once, Felix. And Marx’s letters, too, which are even more damning and I know the shabby way he and Engels treated Moses Hess and the antisemitic name-calling of Ferdinand Lasalle. Proudhon and Bakunin were antisemites, too. Most of these socialist assholes were. And are. You have an unfortunate habit of not substantiating anything you say. You just, in this case, point to an entire essay, and say, “behold.” That passage alone could only have been written by an antisemite.

    You also didn’t mention what caveats you had about this article. I can’t imagine why you would object. It’s the only thing I’ve ever read that bolsters your position that he fought antisemitism and eventually considered some for of Zionism as a necessity even if it was just as an uninvolved and not terribly well informed bystander.

    Still, knowing that he didn’t hate Israel might affect others in the various Trotsky cults.

31. @Reader, Felix

    Israel is unique, the only nation where socialism was successful—for a while. The original settlers, according to Israeli professor Avi Kay, “sought to create an economy in which market forces were controlled for the benefit of the whole society.” Driven by a desire to leave behind their history as victims of penury and prejudice, they sought an egalitarian, labor-oriented socialist society. The initial, homogeneous population of less than 1 million drew up centralized plans to convert the desert into green pastures and build efficient state-run companies.

    Most early settlers, American Enterprise Institute scholar Joseph Light pointed out, worked either on collective farms called kibbutzim or in state-guaranteed jobs. The kibbutzim were small farming communities in which people did chores in exchange for food and money to live on and pay their bills. There was no private property, people ate in common, and children under 18 lived together and not with their parents. Any money earned on the outside was given to the kibbutz.

    A key player in the socialization of Israel was the Histadrut, the General Federation of Labor, subscribers to the socialist dogma that capital exploits labor and that the only way to prevent such “robbery” is to grant control of the means of production to the state. As it proceeded to unionize almost all workers, the Histadrut gained control of nearly every economic and social sector, including the kibbutzim, housing, transportation, banks, social welfare, health care, and education. The federation’s political instrument was the Labor party, which effectively ruled Israel from the founding of Israel in 1948 until 1973 and the Yom Kippur War. In the early years, few asked whether any limits should be placed on the role of government.

    Israel’s economic performance seemed to confirm Keynes’s judgment. Real GDP growth from 1955 to 1975 was an astounding 12.6 percent, putting Israel among the fastest-growing economies in the world, with one of the lowest income differentials. However, this rapid growth was accompanied by rising levels of private consumption and, over time, increasing income inequality. There was an increasing demand for economic reform to free the economy from the government’s centralized decision-making. In 1961, supporters of economic liberalization formed the Liberal party—the first political movement committed to a market economy.

    The Israeli “economic miracle” evaporated in 1965 when the country suffered its first major recession. Economic growth halted and unemployment rose threefold from 1965 to 1967. Before the government could attempt corrective action, the Six-Day War erupted, altering Israel’s economic and political map. Paradoxically, the war brought short-lived prosperity to Israel, owing to increased military spending and a major influx of workers from new territories. But government-led economic growth was accompanied by accelerating inflation, reaching an annual rate of 17 percent from 1971 to 1973.

    For the first time, there was a public debate between supporters of free-enterprise economics and supporters of traditional socialist arrangements. Leading the way for the free market was the future Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman, who urged Israeli policymakers to “set your people free” and liberalize the economy. The 1973 war and its economic impacts reinforced the feelings of many Israelis that the Labor party’s socialist model could not handle the country’s growing economic challenges. The 1977 elections resulted in the victory of the Likud party, with its staunch pro-free-market philosophy. The Likud took as one of its coalition partners the Liberal party.

    Because socialism’s roots in Israel were so deep, real reform proceeded slowly. Friedman was asked to draw up a program that would move Israel from socialism toward a free-market economy. His major reforms included fewer government programs and reduced government spending; less government intervention in fiscal, trade, and labor policies; income-tax cuts; and privatization. A great debate ensued between government officials seeking reform and special interests that preferred the status quo.

    Meanwhile, the government kept borrowing and spending and driving up inflation, which averaged 77 percent for 1978–79 and reached a peak of 450 percent in 1984–85. The government’s share of the economy grew to 76 percent, while fiscal deficits and national debt skyrocketed. The government printed money through loans from the Bank of Israel, which contributed to the inflation by churning out money.

    Finally, in January 1983, the bubble burst, and thousands of private citizens and businesses as well as government-run enterprises faced bankruptcy. Israel was close to collapse. At this critical moment, a sympathetic U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, and his secretary of state, George Shultz, came to the rescue. They offered a grant of $1.5 billion if the Israeli government agreed to abandon its socialist rulebook and adopt some form of U.S.-style capitalism, using American-trained professionals.

    The Histadrut strongly resisted, unwilling to give up their decades-old power and to concede that socialism was responsible for Israel’s economic troubles. However, the people had had enough of soaring inflation and non-existent growth and rejected the Histadrut’s policy of resistance. Still, the Israeli government hesitated, unwilling to spend political capital on economic reform. An exasperated Secretary Schulz informed Israel that if it did not begin freeing up the economy, the U.S. would freeze “all monetary transfers” to the country. The threat worked. The Israeli government officially adopted most of the free-market “recommendations.”

    The impact of a basic shift in Israeli economic policy was immediate and pervasive. Within a year, inflation tumbled from 450 percent to just 20 percent, a budget deficit of 15 percent of GDP shrank to zero, the Histadrut’s economic and business empire disappeared along with its political domination, and the Israeli economy was opened to imports. Of particular importance was the Israeli high-tech revolution, which led to a 600 percent increase in investment in Israel, transforming the country into a major player in the high-tech world.

    There were troubling side effects such as social gaps, poverty, and concerns about social justice, but the socialist rhetoric and ideology, according to Glenn Frankel, the Washington Post’s correspondent in Israel, “has been permanently retired.” The socialist Labor party endorsed privatization and the divestment of many publicly held companies that had become corrupted by featherbedding, rigid work rules, phony bookkeeping, favoritism, and incompetent managers.

    After modest expansion in the 1990s, Israel’s economic growth topped the charts in the developing world in the 2000s, propelled by low inflation and a reduction in the size of government. Unemployment was still too high and taxes took up 40 percent of GDP, much of it caused by the need for a large military. However, political parties are agreed that there is no turning back to the economic policies of the early years—the debate is about the rate of further market reform. “The world’s most successful experiment in socialism,” Light wrote, “appears to have resolutely embraced capitalism.”

    https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/three-nations-tried-socialism-and-rejected-it

32. Sebastien I had read the Fathom article days after it was published and liked it but have many serious caveats

    Somebody needs to take you by the hand and guide you as to the meaning of The Jewish Question. Most from the American Right who seem to be in the special class for those with Reading Difficulties (a bit stupid) do not make it to the actual essay and settle for a couple of excisions (quotes).

    Read it all. Carefully.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

33. @Reader Mendelssohn was seven and he was a philo-semite.

34. @FelixQuigley

    Reader Just imagine just as an exercise Israel was ruled by Bolsheviks led by Leon Trotsky.

    It’s a great fantasy, that is what was supposed to happen in the Soviet Russia (Lenin actually thought of Trotsky as his heir) but then Stalin took over and ruined the whole thing.

    The Old Guard (BTW, most of the revolutionaries or later Soviet officials were not Marxists) actually thought of Stalin’s takeover of the party and the government (the party’s role was originally supposed to stay exclusively political) as Thermidor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermidorian_Reaction and Brumaire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire in comparison with the French Revolution.

    The problem is that after any revolution, the revolutionaries are replaced by politicians plus the popular version of any political theory is very different from the original.

    Add to this the extremely imperfect human nature…

    There is a story about how Marx’s son-in-law was telling him about the discussions of Marxism in a local intellectual circle that he attended.

    Marx listened carefully and then said “You know, if what they were talking about is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist.”

    Netanyahu is a great speaker but I think in the situation you suggest they shouldn’t really let him ad lib.

35. @Sebastien Zorn

    Marx was an antisemite

    True enough but I suspect almost any Jew who got baptized at the age of 6 would end up being an antisemite, especially in the 19th century Germany.

36. @Felix OK, Felix, I did your homework for you. It turns out there is something to be recommended in Trotsky’s writings in undermining the left narrative in the same way that the early Mohammed’s endorsement of Israel as belonging to the Jews is used by genuinely moderate Muslims to undermine the antisemitism of the rest of Islam and the principle of “abrogation” in the Koran. Fascinating article. Trotsky did revise Marxism and fight antisemitsm and he did come around to believing that some form of Zionism was necessary and just. He expressed regret he hadn’t urged Jews to go to Palestine! That page from marxists.org is incomplete and unrepresentative, apparently. Though it wasn’t done his way and it never could be. But, you are correct. The Trotskyists out there are completely out of step with his views on the subject. But, good luck finding anyone who likes Trotsky and who agrees with you.

    https://fathomjournal.org/the-fathom-long-read-leon-trotskys-long-war-against-antisemitism/

37. @Felix OK, Felix, I did your homework for you. It turns out there is something to be recommended in Trotsky’s writings in undermining the left narrative in the same way that the early Mohammed’s endorsement of Israel as belonging to the Jews is used by genuinely moderate Muslims to undermine the antisemitism of the rest of Islam and the principle of “abrogation” in the Koran. Fascinating article. Trotsky did revise Marxism and fight antisemitsm and he did come around to believing that some form of Zionism was necessary and just. He expressed regret he hadn’t urged Jews to go to Palestine! That page from marxists.org is incomplete and unrepresentative, apparently. Though it wasn’t done his way and it never could be. But, you are correct. The Trotskyists out there are completely out of step with his views on the subject. But, good luck finding anyone who likes Trotsky or Socialism, for that matter, and who agrees with you.

    https://fathomjournal.org/the-fathom-long-read-leon-trotskys-long-war-against-antisemitism/

38. @Felix Marx was an antisemite, Felix.

    “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew.

    Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

    What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.

    Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Judaism, would be the self-emancipation of our time.

    An organization of society which would abolish the preconditions for huckstering, and therefore the possibility of huckstering, would make the Jew impossible. His religious consciousness would be dissipated like a thin haze in the real, vital air of society. On the other hand, if the Jew recognizes that this practical nature of his is futile and works to abolish it, he extricates himself from his previous development and works for human emancipation as such and turns against the supreme practical expression of human self-estrangement.

    We recognize in Judaism, therefore, a general anti-social element of the present time, an element which through historical development – to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed – has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily begin to disintegrate.

    In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

    -Marx “On the Jewish Question”

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

39. @Felix 😀

    The sheikh is so scared by the prophecies, he agrees to let them go on one condition: Eddie will never be able to see Fanya ever again. He agrees and boards a plane home to New York City, where he uses the inheritance to open a free ice cream factory with Toots, thus realizing their lifelong dream (“Ice Cream Fantasy Finale”).[2]

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Millions

    Ice Cream Fantasy

    https://youtu.be/UUBJJ9pZFrE?si=hXupYPbeKZm-zDSi

40. Reader
    Just imagine just as an exercise Israel was ruled by Bolsheviks led by Leon Trotsky. On my principles only Jews live from Jordan to the Mediterranean.

    There would be no poverty. Holocaust survivors and genocide survivors especially cared for etc.

    Little security problems so time and saved money to give special attention to scientific history of the Jews. And mankind.

    Netanyahu would be a spokesman on the world stage.

    He would have great freedom and he is a wonderful speaker.

    But he would inside that freedom be tied into not his policy making

    Ideally that should always have been his job.

    Surely they have given up

    They usually have noone on BBC world service these awful days of terrible shallow journalism

    Those that are are very poor speakers… especially wooden and not relaxed.

    But it is also the awfulness of BEEB

    Jews should create a great world service of their own. And they could.

41. @FelixQuigley

    One thing is that America sits back and let’s others die for it and in Ukraine even BOASTED of doing so.

    Absolutely!

    In addition, it also sits back and watches (together with the British whose policies are similar) the others kill and weaken each other to indirectly strengthen it as is currently happening in the war between Russia and Ukraine – I think it is getting close to a total of half a million casualties from both sides.

    Israel seems to be winning against Hamas in Gaza now BUT it doesn’t mean it can defend itself.

    If it could, then why has it allowed rockets raining on its population for decades and has been forced to evacuate scores of towns by its borders instead of decisively destroying the sources of firing at Israel?

    If it could, then why does it (a tiny country, one half of which is desert) keep giving away its territory for the empty promises of peace which, in reality, are tricks designed to shrink Israel into indefensible borders and then administer the coup de grace?

    If it could, then why has it allowed Hizballah to accumulate 150,000 rockets aimed at Israel?

    If it could, then why is it almost completely dependent on the US for its weapons supply and for the US vetoes in the UN Security Council?

    If it could, why would it allow the unceasing terror attacks inside the country and, especially, in the West Bank against the settlers.

    If it could, why would it keep using the phony terms “Palestinians” and “settlers” instead of Arabs and Israeli Jews?

    If it could, why would it freeze Jewish settlement and restrict aliyah?

    Etc., etc.

    Some politicians should really shut up, quit their PR, and quit piling up more responsibilities on their country which is in the state of war and which even in times of peace has a few serious problems that must be solved.

42. @Reader

    Israeli ships no longer take the Red Sea route.

    The increase in shipping time, the increase in insurance, the increase in costs are unsustainable to Israel’s thriving economy, not to speak of the degree of weakness which doing so projects in a region where the weak are targeted for destruction.

    Israel cannot defend itself, much less international shipping.

    Nonesense. If this were true Israel wouldnot be winning the war she is now winning..

    Israel is not in charge of international shipping.

    She will do what is needed to secure her international trade because she has to. No matter what happens, Israel can not and will not and should not succumb to threats regarding where she might go. The US will deal with this matter or Israel will, which is why the US is now discussing how to deal with this matter.

43. Reader

    Something puzzles me. I hear of fierce battles. The I see surrenders by Hamas. How to understand this?

    One thing is that America sits back and let’s others die for it and in Ukraine even BOASTED of doing so.

    Plus what is the state of play as regards answering the BBC lie machine?

    Do they bother now?

44. @peloni

    Israeli ships no longer take the Red Sea route.

    Israel cannot defend itself, much less international shipping.

    Israel is not in charge of international shipping.

    Politics is not a soccer match where you root for your favorite player, in this case Bibi-the-IDOL.

45. Netanyahu is putting Israel in harm’s way, he has basically promised the US that Israel will fight FOR and INSTEAD OF the US.

    This is silly. The threat to international shipping affects international trade, which is a direct assault upon Israel’s economy and its significant position in international commerce. Hence, Bibi is not placing Israel in Harms way, but rather reacting to the fact that she is in harms way by making it known to the US, the Houthis and the world that either the US will act in this moment, or Israel will do so instead.

    As to Israel’s response against Hamas, it has taken on an impressively strong nature resulting in significant results in just the past few days. Notably, even as the US warned Israel not to be so ferocious in the South as she was in the North, the response since then has been even more aggressive, and not less. Also, the US warned Israel not to attack schools nor mosques, and yet there is plenty of evidence to show that these safe zone targets have been targeted as needed in recent days. Even more notably than this, the US response was to veto a UN call for ceasefire, and to forego waiting for the Congress to act and authorized a $500 million arms sale to Israel instead. Indeed the victories of late have all been with Israel, and yet you state that

    Israel, at this point, has no capacity to defend itself from Hamas

    This does not in any way accurately describe the reality which we are witnessing to take place on the field of battle, nor in the field of diplomacy.

    The fact that Israel is now issuing its own ultimatums and red lines is nothing for which to criticize Israel, but for which we should be celebrating instead. Israel can not afford its economy and international position to be threatened by the Houthi menace, and it is an Israel’s interest that the seas be made safe for everyone, just as it is in the interest of Jews in general that laws be enforced with a normative vigor and not be allowed to be arbitrarily abused by Iranian proxies. Since the US has failed to provide a response to normalize the free navigation of the seas, Israel has stepped up to make it clear to friend and foe alike that she will do so on her own if US leadership continues to fail the world in this matter.

    In fact, as you lament that Israel is not acting against the other Iranian forces because it can’t, the ultimatum issued to the US demonstrates that this is far from being actually true. Israel is indeed a small nation, but one which has the means as well as the need to secure its future by establishing a punishing deterrence to threats surrounding her.

    It is time for her to not hold back with a trembling manner, but to rather boldly re-establish that deterrence with a meaningful assault upon each of those threats in turn which are now poised against her – something which she has made it clear that she means to do, beginning with her statement in regards to the attacks emanating from Yemen.

    1

46. @Edgar G.

    There is nothing here to know.

    Israel is a tiny country threatened from all sides.

    I know it cannot deal with either Hamas, or Hizballah, or the PA terror because of its current response to them.

    The proper response to barrages of rockets across the border aimed at any country is to suppress and destroy the sources of firing the rockets NOW and FOREVER.

    What is Israel’s response?

    Evacuation of hundreds of thousands of its citizens away from the Northern border and the border with Gaza while stating that the war in Gaza alone will take at least a year.

    One starts wondering if this evacuation is just a euphemism for another Disengagement but a soft, slow, and easy one.

47. READER-

    You don’t know what capacity Israel has so why are you posting as if you do?? The Israeli response to Houthi’s missiles would be by air not in the field.

    And the pirates (Houthi) held Israeli connected oil vessel was freed by a US Combat Fleet only a few days ago according to Arutz reports. It’s there to allow free Passage in that area.

48. READER-

    You don’t know what capacity Israel has so why are you posting as if you do?? The Israeli response to Houthi’s missiles would be by air not in the field.

    And the pirates held Israeli connected oil vessel was freed by a US Combat Fleet only a few days ago according to Arutz reports. It’s there to allow free Passage in that area.

49. Netanyahu is putting Israel in harm’s way, he has basically promised the US that Israel will fight FOR and INSTEAD OF the US.

    He has to take this back IMMEDIATELY!

    Israel, at this point, has no capacity to defend itself from Hamas, Hizballah, and the PA West Bank terror (if it flares up).

    Israeli ships are now taking the long route around Africa and NOT going through the Red Sea, the others are free to deal with Houthis on their own.

50. This is exactly the right thing for Netanyahu to do.

    First I read in the news in Israel that “MBS asked the White House not to interfere” with the Houthis. That made me suspicious. When the White House wants to do something bad against Israel they use MBS or anyone else as the messenger.

    Months ago the White House did this by saying to Israel that “MBS insists on the Palestinians having a seat at the table” if there were to be a peace accord between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    It happens to be a fact that during the negotiations of the Abraham Accords, it was Saudi Arabia who was “fed up” with the Palestinians always having a seat at the table but never accomplishing anything by doing so.

    So I doubt it was MBS who told the US not to attack the Houthis. After all, the Houthis act with aggression directly against Saudi Arabia, and the Houthis are an Iranian proxy. There would be no logical reason for him to tell the US to “hold off.”

    So now that we have that clear, that it all came from the US, it is also clear that the US message to Israel: “don’t attack the Houthis” meant: “We (the US) are on the side of the Houthis and Iran: you are not to attack an Iranian proxy!”

    Good move by Netanyahu saying, “no deal” to the US.