94 Comments
Comment deleted
Jan 25
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

These brave people are trying to prevent "trans genocide"

https://www.tiktok.com/discover/stages-of-trans-genocide

Expand full comment

Hit the like button at the top or bottom of this page to like this entry. Use the share and/or re-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment if the mood strikes you to do so (be nice!).

And don't forget to subscribe if you haven't done so already.

Expand full comment

South Africa supports Palestinianism because Palestinianism is resentful, dumb b----s wanting to take over a white people's country so they can run it into the ground. Edgy dissident right wingers are in denial about this, but the Palestinians could hardly be more open about it.

Expand full comment

You're gonna have to clean up the language there a bit, bro. Thanks in advance.

Expand full comment

>a white people's country

Israelis think they're all three of white, civilised, and indigenous to the Levant when they're neither white, nor civilised, nor indigenous to the Levant. Some call that a paradox!

Expand full comment

Not all Israeli Jews are white, but the ones who built the country, and run the country, and will always run the country, so long as it exists, are white.

Expand full comment

No lol

Expand full comment

It's good to see the Israel Palestine issue from various points of view.

So much media coverage is either hysterical or has less consideration than the kind of choosing sides people do with respect to sports teams.

This issue springs from an ancient political labyrinth that gets frequently manipulated by outside forces. Much of it is to draw attention from the internal problems of the outside countries, which is a maximally immoral reason to feed another killing cycle.

Expand full comment

Niccolo, could you share with us the name of these "other actors (who) pushed South Africa to pursue this case in order to harm the legitimacy of these courts."?

Or have you already done that in a paywalled article?

Expand full comment

I mentioned it in last weekend's SCR. I don't doubt the earnestness on the part of the South Africans, but I am of the sneaking suspicion that Russia (and possibly China) cheered them on in order to harm the case against Putin and his colleagues.

We all know that there is no way that the USA will allow the Israelis to be put on trial. An American veto (backed by France, UK, Canada, Germany, etc.) would significantly harm the legitimacy of the process in the eyes of the world as it would be shown to be a "victor's court".

Expand full comment

Douglas Murray has claimed that Iran paid South Africa to lodge the case. Sounds plausible to me.

Expand full comment

Douglas Murray was a warmongering maniac, total supportive of the US/UK destruction of Iraq. He's not changed his stripes regarding this current colonialist slaughter. I wouldn't believe a damn thing he says regarding South Africa's motivation to lodge this case, because he has zero credibility, not to mention evidence.

Expand full comment

Fair enough. To each his own. I have no idea what his sources are for the claim about Iranian influence but the claim seems plausible enough. As for credibility in general, Murray offers a counter-narrative. The media (mainstream as well as alternative) is all about narrative. I prefer analysis myself but I am in a very small minority. Murray is open about his sympathies, but he is never intemperate, malicious or dishonest as far as I can tell.

Expand full comment

100% agree. He's a bought rent boy.

Expand full comment

'100% agree. He's a bought rent boy.'

If you are going to write like that, Niccolo, you owe us an explanation about how exactly you pay your bills.

The real issues are the rigour of Murray's opinions, the accuracy of his claims and the quality of his prose.

Expand full comment

Here's a quick way to learn what he's about: has he ever once veered from the Likud line to show some nuance in his writing and opinions?

Expand full comment

> He's not changed his stripes regarding this current colonialist slaughter.

So now we're going woke, I see.

Expand full comment

One could hardly have chosen a better example of "arrogance" (Israeli or otherwise) than Ehud Olmert. As Israel's Prime Minister, his 2008 "peace plan" would have given-away 94% of Judea and Samaria, and turned the Old City of Jerusalem into a five-nation trusteeship (thankfully, Mahmoud Abbas turned it down). Olmert was later tried and convicted for (among other charges) breach of trust, fraud, tax evasion, and bribery (sentenced to 27 months in prison, he served 16 months before being given early-release).

Expand full comment

How was his time as Mayor of Jerusalem viewed by Israelis?

Expand full comment

He is best known for building one of the ugliest buildings in Jerusalem (one of the only Israeli cities which has made some effort to maintain baseline aesthetic standards) because he was bribed.

It's really embarrassing how so many of the Israeli anti-Bibi leadership are total lowlifes. I support them because I support Ashkenazi supremacy, but, geez, what a shower.

Expand full comment

Are you a Noachide?

Expand full comment

No. I've never even been to Alabama.

Expand full comment

Re: "Ugliest building[s] in Jerusalem", I would've said the Clal Center (בנין כלל), but that "honor" goes to then-mayor Teddy Kollek; perhaps the new Central Bus Station? I'm curious.

Re: "Embarrasing", I'd add that many/most of them are/were senior-level IDF staff (among them, ex-generals, who retire and "turn Left"... right into Israeli politics -- Ehud Olmert, a prime example).

Expand full comment

In truth, there are worse buildings, but what everyone hates about the Holyland Tower is how it spoils the skyline, with the cherry on top being that most of the apartments are owned by wealthy Americans and empty for most of the year.

Expand full comment

In a nutshell, he talked a good game: אחדות ("unity") of Jerusalem, meaning no East/West division -- but acted in the best PLO tradition of "noes" (NO to new Jewish building, NO to stopping/tearing-down illegal Arab buildings).

Expand full comment

So you're admitting Israelis don't actually want a Palestinian state. It's lip service they pay to outsiders.

Expand full comment

No-no... we DO want a "Palestinian state" -- just not in Israel. Here, read these... they'll make it clear:

https://lisaliel.substack.com/p/a-three-state-solution-hurrah

https://lisaliel.substack.com/p/an-addendum-to-the-three-state-solution

Expand full comment

So Palestinians can support an Israeli state, just elsewhere. The Jews can have their own state. Just not in the Middle East. Does that work for you too?

Expand full comment

That's an interesting idea.

Expand full comment

The fact that the South African case against Israel is driven by pure resentment sums up the case against Pretoria. Amongst serious, worthwhile people, foreign policy is driven mostly by cold geopolitical considerations. But Pretoria is run by the dregs of Africa. Corrupt, stupid, emotional and unworthy of respect or goodwill. The Israelis should be proud to have the ANC as their enemies.

Re German foreign policy, Germany has played a major role in Western Asia throughout the 20th century, ever since Kaiser Bill teamed up with the Ottomans. Initially Germany sought to displace the UK and France and gain access to the Mesopotamian oil-fields.

The NSDAP enthusiastically encouraged Arab nationalism, in particular the cause of the Arabs of Palestine. Berlin welcomed the Arab Revolt of 1936 and later welcomed Rashid Ali al-Gaylani's coup against the Banu Hashemi in Iraq. After WW2 West Germany followed the US line: polite hostility towards Israel from 1948-1967, followed by friendship mixed with support for Palestinian irredentism at the expense of Israel's security since 1967.

Expand full comment

Agree on unworthy South African motivations, but them taking an unnecessarily outspoken position does have geopolitical consequences. Whether or not they’re a pawn, they are cozying up with the growing contingent of anti-western nations. With our increasingly impotent allies in Europe and an America less engaged in global policing, the South African position represents a not insignificant tally on the side of deconstructing the existing global order.

Expand full comment

You don’t need “balance” here. All you need to do is analyse Israeli leaders genocidal statements, then their actions, then their spurious defence where they argue their is no link between their statements and their actions. I don’t need some Soros hack to tell me South Africa has an “agenda “

Expand full comment

Exactly.

It's the same bullcrap they try to pull when people questioned lockdowns, masks, and vaccines as having an agenda.

They pretended like the politicians, corrupt agencies, and big pharma didn't have an agenda 😂. Same in this case....

Expand full comment

George Soros funds the organisations whose viewpoints you are regurgitating. What are you even talking about?

Expand full comment

Regarding the ICJ, both Russia and China have been conspicuous by their silence. I would have thought that both would have jumped in to support South Africa with both boots, but no. This does lead me to think that Niccolo's suggestion of "Russia collusion" could have some merit.

After all, the Russians must surely know that if the ICJ finds against Israel, then an immediate case will be launched against them by Ukraine (or the UK).

Expand full comment

A lot of the decisions made at the ICTY (that covered the wars in the ex-YU) seem to have been made in mind with not causing the Americans/Brits/French problems with their actions. I can go at length on this and might to do so at some time in the future.

Expand full comment

No country is as openly racist as Israel. That must sound familiar to the South Africans with their apartheid past. They really don't need Russia or China for this.

Expand full comment

Congratulations on obtaining your PhD in Missing The Point.

Expand full comment

Thank you for sharing these articles, Niccolo!

The Kansas City Times published 2 articles on my attendance at the 1976 Republic National Convention in Kansas City as a Canadian, after the Convention left town.

With shoulder length hair & beard, wearing my trademark #13 jersey, I just walked into the News Room from off the street, having no famous name, organization or money behind me, and The Kansas City Times published 2 Historical Newspaper records on my Time in the City.

The 1st was on September 13, 1976 with the picture of me wearing my trademark #13 jersey. Having no Editorial control, it was certainly interesting for me to see that Day!

The Times did a followup on ALL SOULS DAY, November 2, 1976, publishing this picture in the article:

https://ray032.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/kansas-city-times-november-2-1976-all-souls-day-2.jpg

So you might understand my surprise when 7 years to the month later, on November 20, 1983, the movie THE DAY AFTER Kansas City was incinerated in a Nuclear Holocaust was shown to the World, of all the major US Cities where the movie could have been shot.

Why was I surprised? At he end of the movie, Kansas City was burnt and destroyed into rubble like we see in Gaza Today.

The movie pauses at the very same picture frame The Kansas City Times published on ALL SOULS DAY, 7 years to the month earlier, except I wasn't in the movie. You and I both know THE DAY AFTER will be TOO LATE.

This is the clip from THE DAY AFTER showing it: https://youtu.be/q7J8eMyK1DI

What would you think if you were me?

https://rayjc.com/2013/09/01/signs-of-the-times/

Today being the 248th Day of my 80th year, counting up, not down, in this Year of the Lord 2024 I'm glad to be alive and able to point to the Historical Records.

Expand full comment

I remember THE DAY AFTER! The UK version, THREADS, was much, much scarier.

Expand full comment

Thanks for making me aware of THREADS, Niccolo. I will watch the whole movie that can be seen for free on YouTube.

I'm glad I came across your site and subscribed to your newsletters. I enjoy your writing.

www.rayjc.com

Expand full comment

Speaking of genocide:

"Taking both white English and Afrikaans speakers into account (along with those classified under ‘other’), South Africa’s white population is expected to go from around 4.58 million people in 2021 to 4.23 million by 2041 – a loss of almost 8%." https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/265501/south-africas-white-population-is-shrinking-heres-how-it-could-look-over-the-next-20-years/

"Zimbabwe’s white population grows more than the world average during 1950–1975, and thereafter decreases abruptly and asymptotically toward zero." https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0129183120500084?journalCode=ijmpc

Meanwhile, Palestinian population grows.

Expand full comment

I love pointing out to african de colonist’s who shout apartheid genocide, that the African population is South Africa growing from 4 million people to 50 million from 1890 to 1990 is probably the worst genocide ever.. looks like the Palestinian genocide is working out the same way, although they obviously live longer, because African public health care is garbage..

Expand full comment

"meanwhile Palestinian population grows"

That reminds me of the reaction of a Kosovo Albanian around 1990 to the accusation of Serbs that their population growth amounted to waging war in bed. He noticed that the discriminatory policies of Serbia kept most Albanians in the villages. And in the villages the population growth is higher than in the towns.

You will be able to find similar explanations for the Palestinian population growth.

Expand full comment
Jan 25Edited

The ICJ is supposed to make a ruling on South Africa's charges tomorrow, Friday.

I understand the ICJ refused to play tapes/video of Oct 7 Hamas massacre against Israeli civilians.

BTW, I have read that black South Africans's standard of living has actually decreased post-Apartheid. Thoughts?

Expand full comment

South Africa has had two decades without any economic growth. The ANC have been a disaster. They are corrupt, inept, reckless and deeply racist. South Africa had been by far the economic powerhouse of sub-Saharan Africa, now it is rapidly heading towards becoming a failed state. There is going to be an important election there in 2024. I expect that this will act as a catalyst for significant unrest.

Expand full comment

You see a similar effect in most African countries. Things would have been different when the Whites had bothered to foster a Black business and professional elite during apartheid.

Expand full comment

True, but there was no international support for the kind of patient, cautious, development that was needed. There was, however, plenty of support for the alternative. The West prefers South Africa in ruins (deindustrialised, de-skilled, impoverished and criminally governed). Even worse the West has developed a taste for South African style diversity capitalism. It will end very badly.

Expand full comment

It's easy to pick this or that thing South Africa could have done better, but the truth is that Rhodesia already did all of them and it didn't help one bit. Indeed they succumbed to the tidal wave of colour a decade earlier.

Expand full comment

I found Olmert’s mention of Gaza as being almost totally destroyed interesting. Regardless of any humanitarian feelings I might have, it’s always been surprising to me that the annihilation of Gaza isn’t given more consideration. Surely no one wants that type of humanitarian disaster but what is the benefit of Israel not wiping the city away aside from moral brownie points.

Seriously, I’m not trying to sound like an edge-lord--I have Palestinian (and Israeli) friends. As such I want minimal humanitarian harm and suspect the best way to do this is end the conflict asap. I have an impossible time imagining this ends with a sovereign Palestine and the solution is permanent resettlement. It’s harsh but we live in a world where the big fish eat the small fish but pretend they aren’t. Am I crazy?

Expand full comment

Yeah, that'll work out real well for the Jews, won't it? Be careful what you wish for. Someday Israel will not hold military dominance over its neighbors. That point may already be here. Will Haifa and Tel Aviv still be standing if the Israeli nutcases launch another war on Lebanon?

Expand full comment

Well, I’m not wishing for anything but wondering what is really holding Israel back. Would the political consequences be so severe Israel wouldn’t recover? Is Israel open to a Palestinian state just because the alternative wouldn’t make Jews look bad? I’m not so sure.

Expand full comment

Starting to think predictions of Netanyahu’s demise are similar to the constant predictions that the Kim family in North Korea and that Putin in Russia will exit the stage. They will not go away.

Expand full comment

The guy somehow manages to keep hanging on.

Expand full comment

Niccolo, your framing is wrong from the start. It's clear that Israel is waging war on the Palestinians, not (just) on Hamas. Look at the killing and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, parallel to the industrial scale slaughter Israel is committing in Gaza. Listen to the Israeli political and military leadership: they're as open as open can be about a "Gaza Nakba." Netanyahu openly proclaims that Israel will rule all, from the Sea to the River, just like in the Likud charter of 1977 (which predates the formation of Hamas.) This is a difference of scale, not of intent, which has always been to drive the Palestinians out.

Regarding Germany: it was European Christians, Germans in the forefront, who undertook the Holocaust. It should be on Germany to bear the cost, not the Palestinians. Move Israel to Germany, where it belongs, if the German leadership is so intent on making amends.

Expand full comment

I understand your argument, but it was Hamas that launched this round of fighting and it is Hamas who are happy to use Palestinians as collateral damage because they purposely lured the IDF into Gaza.

Secondly, I can't call it a "War on Palestinians" because the PLO are not active in this fight. There has been some scattered settler violence on the West Bank targeting the Palestinians, but nowhere near enough to call it a 'war'.

Are the Israelis taking advantage of what Hamas did to change the demography of the Gaza Strip? No doubt in my mind, and you've laid out reasons/examples that explain this well.

Germany has already borne the cost of what it did, and continues to pay out as well. Plus, the Jews prefer to live in the Holy Land.

Expand full comment

It's impossible to call this a war on Hamas, when Israel has killed 30,000, two thirds of them woman and children, wounded far more, imposed starvation and disease on the entire population, and destroyed the vast majority of housing, schools, medical facilities, everything! Yes, Hamas and other Palestinian groups launched the attack on October 7th. But what was happening in the days, weeks, months, years before that? Siege, interrupted by Israel periodically "mowing the lawn," to use its sociopathic phrase. Hell, the Palestinians could just as easily say they were "mowing the lawn" in Israel as a means of resisting the endless grind of Israel's boot upon them.

The murders and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank aren't getting much press coverage, given the horrific scenes coming out of Gaza, but they're happening at higher intensity than before October 7th, and it had already been a bad year in that regard. Whole villages have been emptied, by "settlers" running amuck. Israel's intent to "finish 1948" is obvious. Let's not forget the Jewish supremacists marching through the Al-Aqsa Mosque with armed guards five days before, a provocation if ever there was.

The PLO are not active in this fight, because the PLO is a long paid off, corrupt security subcontractor of the Israeli occupation. It's not active in ANY fight, except against elements of the Palestinian population that offer resistance.

More fundamentally: should the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto have simply laid down, starved, and died within the walls? Or were they justified in resisting the Nazis, even though that prompted vicious reprisals, with all the surviving residents being shipped off to the camps? What Israel is doing to Gaza right now is akin to the Lidice Massacre. Should the Resistance there never have attacked a German officer? The logic of your position is that Israel can rain death on the Palestinians whenever it so chooses, while the Palestinians should just suffer it, and give up. That's not going to happen. You strangle a person long enough, at some point that person is going to claw at your eyes and kick you in the nuts.

I disagree that "Germany has already borne the cost of what it did," because it is the Palestinians who have really paid the price. If an ethno-religious state was going to be set up (not a good idea), it should have been at the expense of those who committed the crimes, on their territory. There's some dark humor in the fact that Berlin is now a favored destination for many Israelis seeking safe harbor elsewhere. Do the Jews really prefer to live in the Holy Land? Are they willing to live there under conditions of equality, one person one vote, or only so long as their supremacist project reigns?

Expand full comment

Never have I once said that the Palestinians do not have a right to resist. And never have I tried to claim that this conflict began on October 7, 2023.

At the same time, this would not have happened had Hamas not launched the raids that day and taken hostages back to Gaza. You might say that "they had to do something at some point, since conditions in Gaza were unbearable already", and you will have a point. But was what they did wise? Or prudent? That all depends on your perspective. If Hamas feels that the deaths of all these Palestinians is worth it, then it was a wise and prudent move on their part. They are obviously playing a long game in which they are trying to make Israelis feel unsafe in Israel, and trying to cobble together a global coalition to chip away at what little support they have left.

Civilian slaughter has been a feature of war since time immemorial.

Expand full comment

Israel has been itching to do something like this for decades. Is it particularly important what action they selected as the "cause"? Look and listen to the nutcases in the cabinet now, the Smotrich's and Ben-Gvir's, who are imprudent enough to express out loud the actual goals of the Zionist project. Netanyahu is forthright, there will be no Palestinian state, and he holds up a map - well before October 7 - of Israel ruling it all, not a Palestinian entity to be seen.

All these deaths are entirely on the hands of Israel, and even more so on the United States, which supplied the planes, the bombs, the diplomatic cover, and continues to do so three months into the very public massacre. Yeah, civilian slaughter has been a feature of war since time immemorial. Has it always been visible to the whole world in real time? Doesn't mean we have to just go along with it. It's particularly despicable for anyone claiming the mantle of Holocaust victim to adopt that attitude: it wasn't that long ago that you were the weaker party. Someday you likely will be again. Not only Palestinians will remember this.

Expand full comment

Israel and the USA are responsible, but so is Hamas. What you are seeking is justice for Palestinians, and no doubt via self-rule for them. The issue with that is that there is no power willing to act on its behalf like the USA does on behalf of Israel. Balkan Christians waited hundreds of years before freeing themselves of Ottoman occupation and domination. Maybe the Palestinians are going to have to wait a long time too before the stars align for them? Or maybe it will come sooner?

Expand full comment

Agree that sometimes things move super slow and we never see a resolution to the political problem. And other times the opposite happens.

Case in point: East Timor.

When I first became active in the human rights issue in the early 1990s I never foresaw freedom for the East Timorese. Then at the end of the decade Suharto (leader of Indonesia) died and soon after we had the independent nation of Timor Leste.

Fun fact: I met Xanana Gusmao (rebel and President of Timor Leste), and Jose Ramos Horta (Nobel Peace Prize winner).

Expand full comment

Israel is in both the West Bank and Gaza pushing the Palestinians out. But they are taking Western public opinion into account. Loss of Western support would at least cost a lot of money and might even mean the end of Israel.

And so they are going slow in the West Bank. They have grabbed 7 October to create a fictional story that stands far from reality but forms a good excuse for their reign of terror in the Gaza. The Israeli army started claiming 1400 victims. It latest version is "more than 1000". It keeps silent about the fact that half of them may have been killed by the Israeli army. And it ascribes all crimes to Hamas fighters while it is obvious that other Palestinians that went into the area after Hamas had conquered it are responsible for a considerable part too.

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israeli-hq-ordered-troops-shoot-israeli-captives-7-october

Expand full comment

The legal and diplomatic foundation for Israel's establishment was laid by the League of Nations Mandate which preceded the Holocaust by several decades. The need and justice of a homeland for the Jewish people was thus accepted by the international community as part of the entire post WW1 settlement. At the time the French had established several diminutive ethnosectarian states in Lebanon and Syria, most of which were soon merged into a single Syrian state which has splintered, as has Iraq (which was created at roughly the same time).

The United Nations is the successor to the League of Nations, which is why the question of partition was sent to the General Assembly in the first place.

Finally, Germany itself was not independent at the time of Israel's establishment in 1948. The Federal Republic was formally established in 1949 and the two German states only gained full membership at the UN in 1973. So Germany had no agency to resolve the question of Jewish statehood or settlement at the time even had they wished to do so.

Expand full comment

The British Mandate over Palestine laid the legal foundation for Israel's establishment? How? Even the Balfour Declaration (itself a colonial imposition upon the peoples actually living in the territory in question) is phrased so that the rights of the existing Palestinian population were not to be abridged. The UN recommendation seriously shortchanged the much larger Palestinian population, even after a large influx of European Jews following WWII. Israel's admission to the United Nations was contingent upon it permitting the return of all the Palestinians who fled the war on their territory, something Israel has refused, from the very first. And as far as I know, the only borders Israel has ever officially acknowledged are the borders as recommended in the UN partition recommendation. The "legal foundation" for the State of Israel has been cracked from the start.

Expand full comment

The "colonial imposition" might strike you as obnoxious but it was legal enough under international law as it was understood then. Britain's right as the sovereign power (to dispose of territory as it saw fit) was established by victory over the Ottomans. The collapse of Ottoman power created a vacuum; Ottoman authority had been established by conquest and maintained by force of arms. Britain filled this vacuum and went on to create a series of Arab states via the Mandates awarded to them by the League of Nations. Iraq was formed under a League Mandate, as was Transjordan (the latter on territory excised from the Palestine Mandate). The Mandate for Palestine stipulated that territory was to be available for Jewish settlement.

You are 100% right about the borders of 1948 and the return of refugees. The intention of the UN officials (Bernadotte and Ralph Bunche) was to constrain and weaken the Israelis as much as possible. Things, however, have not gone according to plan. The Palestinians would have been better served by accepting partition in 1948. And they would have been better off had the PLA accepted the last extant offer (joint sovereignty over East Jerusalem, land swaps in return for conceding the Etzion Bloc etc).

Expand full comment

Kaliningrad/Königsberg would have been the perfect place. Empty in 1945.

Expand full comment

ICJ just issued a nothing-burger ruling.

Expand full comment

Some people are reading too much into it, declaring a moral victory for the Palestinians and such, It's an interim ruling.

Expand full comment

Ordering Israel to halt their military operations would have been a symbolic moral victory. Great interim decision. Now they're going to spend years mulling the actual case.

Expand full comment

When the court refused to allow the Israelis to submit evidence relating to Al Aqsa Flood they made it impossible for themselves to question or challenge the legitimacy of the war itself. The right to wage war is integral to sovereignty, as is the right to self-defence.

This self-limitation by the judges ensured that the eventual finding would relate only to the conduct of the war. Supporters of the South African allegations did not twig to this at the time.

Expand full comment