If it is clear to me that every liberal believer
in democracy and human rights
should broadly support Israel -
and be broadly hostile to the Palestinians -
why does the world not see it that way?
Why does the world support violent, intolerant, racist, Islamic religious fanatics
who are fighting
to set up a tribal Islamic state in which there will be no democracy and no human rights?
It seems the Palestinians have hit all the right buttons:
They are (allegedly)
the "third world" fighting "imperialists"
- a cause many people will support no matter what kind of
"imperialism" is being attacked,
and with no thought to what kind of state the "third world" rebels
are fighting to establish.
They are (allegedly)
"non-whites" fighting "whites".
The modern left, which is
still in the racist world,
cares primarily about crimes by "whites" or "people like us".
It cares little about crimes by "non-whites".
As I have argued
elsewhere, this looks like anti-white racism,
but is in fact just another form of anti-non-white racism,
treating non-whites as if they are not adults responsible
for their actions.
Not criticising Palestinians or other "third world" or "non-white" peoples
does not show how enlightened you are.
It shows how racist you are.
Of course, to think of this conflict as
"non-whites" versus "whites"
is actually nonsense.
Israelis comes from all over the world,
including all over the Middle East
(from which they were expelled),
and including places like Ethiopia.
But for racists the world over
most of the western left),
all Israelis are honorary "whites".
They are fighting
- always a popular target
The world has not changed that much.
Prejudices don't die overnight.
After Auschwitz, the world should have changed forever.
But it didn't.
If a second Holocaust ever happened, the world's reaction
would be similar to the first one.
If its Islamic enemies ever defeated Israel,
and the Jews were being rounded up
to be gassed in concentration camps,
the entire Muslim world would cheer.
The western left would explain how the Jews were responsible,
for having generated such hatred.
The EU and UN would hem and haw and do nothing.
Only America and Britain and a few others would try to stop it.
How can anyone doubt the above would be the case.
They are Muslim, giving them a sympathetic constituency of 1 billion people.
Muslims tend to sympathise
with Muslims engaged in conflict
with non-Muslims worldwide.
Christians aren't like this.
the genocide of Christians in the Sudan
a matter of indifference to western Christians,
who are interested in other issues.
See the silence of the
Archbishop of Canterbury
on the topic of the persecution of third world Christians.
If the Palestinians were Christian,
nobody would support them.
Certainly the Islamic world wouldn't.
And if they were fundamentalist Christian, the western left would despise them -
and probably even support the Israelis.
But, for some reason, fundamentalist Islam is alright
with the western left.
They are incredibly violent and barbaric,
with savage attacks against the most defenceless of civilians,
such as children.
Due to the strange nature of humans,
this gets them more support, not less.
If they engaged in peaceful protest, nobody in the world
would pay them much attention.
But no one can ignore young people who suicide bomb restaurants
and shoot toddlers.
They are fighting a
democracy. A democracy gives open access to journalists
and is a nice comfortable place for them to report from
(good hotels, shops, restaurants, Internet access, etc.).
Also, the journalist can
attack the democracy in print as much as he likes
non-democracies allow little or no access,
facilities are primitive and unpleasant,
and journalists live in fear of arrest or even death.
Hence, lots of journalists in Israel.
Hardly any in the Sudan or North Korea.
a war against a democracy will be covered in a lot more detail
than a war against a non-democracy.
the democracy will be criticised for its (minor) crimes
a lot more
than non-democracies committing really serious crimes.
Israel gets more criticism
than even countries that commit large-scale genocide.
They are fighting a
A non-democracy would simply exterminate
or ethnically cleanse them,
and the conflict would soon come to an end
and be forgotten
by everyone except historians.
Who in the world talks about
the Armenians now?
Or even Bangladesh
Most young people have never even heard of these
- just as Rwanda
will soon be forgotten.
But a democracy like Israel cannot simply exterminate its enemy
and end the conflict.
It has to be far more restrained,
and so the conflict goes on and on for years.
shirt on sale
to hip youngsters at a
The Palestinian cause has become cool to young western people,
despite the fact that the Palestinians are fighting for oppression
and against freedom.
The real imperialism in the world today.
The jihad's plans to crush half of the Old World under its heel.
The left are on the side of the imperialists.
Image circulating on jihadi social networks as at 2013.
also tries to construct such a list of reasons.
"There are a wide range of answers to this question")
The left's disgusting support for third-world religious fundamentalists.
If you cloak yourself in some "anti-imperialist" bullshit,
the left will support you no matter what you stand for - even if you stand for killing gays and atheists.
Here, Irish gays march along with the flag of Hamas
in hatred of Israel, the only country in the Middle East with gay rights.
These particular useful infidel idiots are
Labour LGBT (Ireland).
ISM volunteers from
Ireland and Denmark
standing holding guns.
Centre is the StopTheISM.com infiltrator
(who risked torture and a horrible death if he was uncovered here)
and a Palestinian "policeman"
People who attack the parliamentary democracy of Israel for alleged "human rights" abuses
often turn out to be surprising enthusiasts for genuine dictatorships.
This is someone called
declaring his love for Putin's crushing of Russian democracy.
Terrorism works: The Palestinians try to kill civilians - and the world loves them.
Incredibly, the Islamist way of war
does not bring universal condemnation.
Incredibly, the more brutal the Palestinians are,
the more popular they are.
The more indiscriminately
they kill utterly innocent Israeli women and children,
the more they are supported on western campuses, in demos
and in the western media.
It is very mysterious, and indicates the truth of
my bleak view of human nature.
There are hundreds of
more deserving causes
in the world.
And yet this is the no.1 international cause
- a bunch of racist,
mass-murdering Islamist religious fundamentalists
who want to set up an Islamist state in which there will be
no democracy and no human rights.
Anti-Semitism and Ethnicity in Europe
by John Rosenthal, October 1, 2003,
on the mystery of left-wing support for the killing of civilians:
"while the escalation of the suicide
bombings should have led to increased solidarity with the largely Jewish victims
and a taking of distance from the
organizers of the attacks, on the left exactly the opposite transpired:
the more indiscriminately Palestinian commandos
killed Israeli civilians, the more frenetically was the intifada covered
with "anti-imperialist" applause."
There is a lot more evidence for the opposite view
- that appeasement of international Palestinian terror in the 1970s and 1980s
led inevitably to Al Qaeda and 9/11.
hijacked airplanes and slaughtered civilians -
and instead of being hanged,
he got invited to address the UN.
The "oppression" and "injustices" the Palestinians have suffered
are rather mild
- and hardly worth even noticing - by historical
and world standards.
There are dozens of
really oppressed peoples
in the world - peoples that are being killed by the thousands
or even by the millions - such as in
and the Sudan.
The Palestinians are not the most oppressed people
in the world (far from it).
Rather they are the most violent people in the world.
This is why everyone loves them.
of the haters of western freedom
claim they represent the "impoverished"
of the earth,
and their killers represent an attack on the "rich" of the west,
who, in this bizarre world view, apparently
The black reality, of course, is that the leaders
of the killers are often immensely rich,
while their people are poor and unfree
not because of the west
but because of
their own leaders.
- $2 billion.
His people were poor and unfree, allegedly
due to UN sanctions (rather than due, say, to his rule).
- $300 million.
Leader of Islamofascist killers
who also allegedly represent the "impoverished"
of the earth.
His people are poor and unfree, allegedly
due to Israel (rather than due, say,
to his rule).
- $110 million.
His people are poor and unfree, allegedly
due to America (rather than due, say, to his rule).
Osama bin Laden
- $100 million.
This disgusting playboy,
instead of doing something decent with
his inherited wealth, used it
to murder thousands of innocent people
for no reason.
For comparison, consider the wealth
of the elected democratic leaders of the "rich" world.
Most are middle class
or upper middle class.
They run free societies, in which thousands of ordinary citizens
are richer than them.
tend not to hold power for anywhere near as long
as the above
Osama bin Laden was far, far richer than George W. Bush.
Saddam Hussein was far, far richer than George W. Bush.
Yasser Arafat was far, far richer than Ariel Sharon.
Life expectancy in Gaza
is higher than life expectancy in Turkey, Egypt, Iran or Pakistan.
Funny tweet, 11 Dec 2012,
from the satirical
This is Palestine
sums up the world we live in.
Why do people support the Palestinians, when it is such a worthless cause,
most of the money is stolen,
and there are so many more worthwhile causes in the world.
Palestinians use violence as their first resort.
They never try anything else.
Many westerners, knowing nothing about the jihad,
try to impose western concepts on it.
So they think a suicide bomber must be "desperate" or unhappy in some way.
They only show how little they understand the enemy fighters.
Many people in the world are desperate, impoverished and oppressed.
Very few of them decide to slaughter innocents as a result.
It does not remotely logically follow from the previous.
In reality, of course, jihadi fighters are fighting a war,
and using suicide as a tactic of war.
War on Want
spokesman Nick Dearden
says this ludicrous theory is "obvious"!
"That poverty and desperation caused by years of Israeli aggression - the biggest source of instability in the Middle East - leads people to suicide bombings is obvious."
What an ignoramus.
sums up the idiot view that Palestinian suicide bombers are "desperate".
Suicide bombers in the intifada in Israel
were not "desperate", as know-nothing leftists said.
They were and are enemy fighters,
full of hatred and racism.
And now what has started in Israel has come to Europe.
Paris suicide bombers
are not "desperate".
They are evil.
Their suicide is not a cry for help.
It is a tactic of war.
and the appeal of primitive Palestinian tribalism
Many secular and atheist Westerners
who claim to be "rational"
can still get seduced by the
primitive talk of Islamic land, blood and honour.
It somehow has psychological appeal to some Westerners.
is a good example.
The Islamic talk of land, blood, struggle and revenge means something to him.
Whereas he would simply despise Christians talking the same way.
A Western atheist is
worried that the wrong people are living on
From the above thread.
He thinks Gazans should not pursue
money, jobs, fun, sex, family, shopping and happiness.
Rather they should carry on "resistance" until they get "their" land back.
From the above thread.
He doesn't quit.
Land disputes in the former Ottoman Empire obsess him.
The wrong people are living on Muslim land!
He's very into primitive tribal Palestinian nationalism for a "secular" guy.
I tell him:
"As for settlements, couldn't care less. Why should I care where Jews live? I'm not a lefty."
More on Peter Ferguson
If you defend Israel online, you get endless
abuse and libel
from a wide range of people -
the far right, the far left, anti-semites and Islamists.
All the shoddy thinkers do not agree on much,
but they agree on
Libel from Peter Ferguson:
Unable to win an argument, Peter Ferguson has now gone down the well-trodden
leftist road of calling opponents "racists" to end debate,
and setting up "purity tests"
for other opponents to demand they not associate with "racists".
I think there must be a Trotskyist handbook where they explain how to do this.
He called me a "racist" on a podcast (see below).
He carried on libelling me on Twitter, so I block him now.
I guess he will call me a "fascist" and a "Nazi" soon, if he hasn't already.
He's running out of words to strip the meaning of.
Who hates the Palestinians? Me or Ferguson?
The irony is that I want a better future for the Palestinians.
That's why I want them to stop, and pursue money, family, fun, life and shopping.
Whereas this pious virtue-signalling outsider
wants "resistance" to continue,
no matter what the cost in Palestinian misery.
Another example of Western liberals failing to see Palestinian extremists
for what they are is
my vote for
the greatest Irish comedy of all time.
So I really wish I didn't meet him on Twitter,
and get exposed to his idiot ideas on jihad and Israel.
But meet him I did.
My encounter with Linehan
happened in response to a
by Nesrine Malik
in the Guardian on 11 Dec 2016 complaining that the media gives a platform to Nigel Farage.
I'm not sure what's wrong with Farage.
Leftists don't like him I guess.
They're often the same people who defend giving platforms to genuine extremists like
hate their normal parliamentary opponents
more than they hate actual genocidal dictators and terrorist killers.
Such people are not serious.
I thought Linehan would say something like:
"I hate Farage, but of course I also hate Hamas, who are jihadi scum".
But much to my surprise, he didn't.
Despite being asked repeatedly by multiple people,
he refused to condemn Hamas.
He declared Farage was a "cunt"
but when asked to condemn actual racists
(who say Jews are bacteria)
it was "complex".
He then suggested
there is something wrong with being anti-jihad.
Yes he actually said this.
What an idiot.
He never condemned Hamas, or jihad.
He tried to change the subject a few times
and then asked me to untag him.
How sorry I am to have seen this.
Hamas came into the
bedroom in April 2002.
At point blank range, they shot a 5 year old child dead.
They also shot her 4 year old brother.
These were not errors.
The Shefi children were the targets.
Graham Linehan has no problem condemning a democratic politician he doesn't like,
but he finds it too "complex" to condemn Hamas.
He promoted Hugo Chavez,
the Marxist thug who destroyed Venezuela.
See 2012 screenshot.
He laughs at comedian
being prosecuted in the UK for a joke, 2018.
He doesn't like the guy, so he laughs at the UK prosecuting him for a Nazi joke, even though Linehan has made Nazi jokes!
The ultimate irony: Graham Linehan is banned by Twitter, June 2020, for not being woke enough.
Graham Linehan was banned from Twitter in June 2020 for
disagreeing with trans ideology.
Of course he never said anything objectionable. (On this issue at least.)
It doesn't matter how much of a woke Maoist you are. The other woke Maoists will come for you in the end.
Blocked by the regressive left and Islamists on Twitter:
I love debate.
I love ideas.
But the Western left
and their friends the Islamic right
do not return the favour.
Their response to opposing ideas, whether expressed politely or robustly, is often to block.
See Who blocks me on Twitter.
I will debate almost anyone.
Stick to ideas and I will debate you.
But I do have rules.
See Who I block on Twitter.
Where to debate? Twitter's best days are over.
I am on Twitter at
Twitter was a truly great place for debate before 2016.
You could meet everyone in the world, and argue about ideas.
Twitter is broken.
It is now full of reporting and bans and censorship.
In 2019, Twitter even started
for no reason that was ever explained, or could ever be appealed.
It is time to find a better place to debate.
I am on Parler at