I want to end the war diplomatically, but only next year. Sorry, but some of our people need to die until I do what I already decided to do

It comes as German chancellor Olaf Scholz spoke with Mr Putin for the first time in nearly two years.

The German leader urged Mr Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine and begin talks with Kyiv that would open the way for a “just and lasting peace”, the German government said.

The move was swiftly criticised by Mr Zelensky, who said the call had opened a “Pandora’s box” by undermining efforts to isolate the Russian leader.

“Now there may be other conversations, other calls. Just a lot of words,” said Mr Zelensky in his evening address on Friday. “And this is exactly what Putin has long wanted: it is extremely important for him to weaken his isolation and to conduct ordinary negotiations.”

Diplomacy in 2024 is bad actually. Only next year!

Truly the hero of our time.

The Russian ruling class would need to disabuse themselves of neoliberal dogmas

and the EU vassals went with it blindly

The argument that modern Jewish people of European descent have a unique and direct lineage from the biblical Jewish people is suspect at best.

• There were significant conversions during the late Roman and early medieval periods, including the Khazars, Himyarites, and others.

• If we go back far enough, every ancient person with living descendants becomes an ancestor. For example, if Emperor Augustus has living descendants, it is a mathematical inevitability that every European is a descendant of Augustus. How significant should this fact be when it comes to modern politics?

Haven’t read it yet but

• Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, and The Invention of the Land of Israel: From Holy Land to Homeland, London and New York: Verso, 2014.

wiki

Ilan Pappé:

More serious analysis came from biblical scholars who were not influenced by Zionism, such as Keith Whitelam, Thomas Thompson, and the Israeli scholar, Israel Finkelstein, all of whom reject the Bible as a factual account of any significance. Whitelam and Thompson also doubt the existence of anything like a nation in biblical times and, like others, criticize what they call the “invention of modern Israel” as the work of pro-Zionist Christian theologians. The latest and most updated deconstruction of this idea came in Shlomo Sand’s two books, The Invention of the Jewish People and The Invention of the Land of Israel. I respect and appreciate this scholarly effort. Politically, however, I think it is less significant than the assumption that denies the existence of the Palestinians (although it is the complement of that assumption). People are entitled to invent themselves, as so many national movements have done in their moment of inception. But the problem becomes acute if the genesis narrative leads to political projects such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and oppression.

That was under Reagan! Bill Clinton tried to solve the problem!

FINKELSTEIN: Briefly, because we don’t have time, there were four key issues at Camp David and at Taba. Number one, settlements. Number two, borders. Number three, Jerusalem. Number four, refugees. Let’s start with settlements. Under international law, there is no dispute, no controversy. Under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, it’s illegal for any occupying country to transfer its population to Occupied Territories. All of the settlements, all of the settlements are illegal under international law. No dispute. The World Court in July 2004 ruled that all the settlements are illegal. The Palestinians were willing to concede 50% — 50% of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. That was a monumental concession, going well beyond anything that was demanded of them under international law.

Borders. The principle is clear. I don’t want to get into it now, because I was very glad to see that Dr. Ben-Ami quoted it three times in his book. It is inadmissible to acquire territory by war. Under international law, Israel had to withdraw from all of the West Bank and all of Gaza. As the World Court put it in July 2004, those are, quote, “occupied Palestinian territories.” Now, however you want to argue over percentages, there is no question, and I know Dr. Ben-Ami won’t dispute it, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions on the borders. What percentage? There’s differences. But there is no question they were willing to make concessions.

Jerusalem. Jerusalem is an interesting case, because if you read Dr. Ben-Ami or the standard mainstream accounts in the United States, everyone talks about the huge concessions that Barak was willing to make on Jerusalem. But under international law Israel has not one atom of sovereignty over any of Jerusalem. Read the World Court decision. The World Court decision said Jerusalem is occupied Palestinian territory. Now, the Palestinians were willing, the exact lines I’m not going to get into now — they are complicated, but I’m sure Dr. Ben-Ami will not dispute they were willing to divide Jerusalem roughly in half, the Jewish side to Israel, the Arab side to the Palestinians.

And number four, refugees. On the question of refugees, it’s not a dispute under international law. Remarkably, even fairly conservative human rights organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, in 2000, during the Camp David talks, they issued statements on the question of the right of return. And they stated categorically, under international law every Palestinian, roughly five to six million, has the right to return, not to some little parcels, 1% of Israel, which Israel is about — which Israel would swap, return to their homes or the environs of their homes in Israel. That’s the law. Now, Dr. Ben-Ami will surely agree that the Palestinians were not demanding and never demanded the full return of six million refugees. He gives a figure of 4-800,000. In fact — I’m not going to get into the numbers, because it’s very hard to pin it down — other authors have given figures of the tens of thousands to 200,000 refugees returning. That’s well short of six million.

On every single issue, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. The problem is, everyone, including Dr. Ben-Ami in his book — he begins with what Israel wants and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture.

sorry, but Putin will invade UK first, they just need to get through a couple of villages

(send money)

One of the things I hate, not just about US elections, but European ones as well, is that how many top intellectuals turn out to be worthless, spineless shitlibs.

Intellectually I know that the intelligentsia is petit bourgeois, but it’s always such a disappointment that a smart and sensitive writer/director/musician/academic whatever (doesn’t matter who, there are quite a few) turn out to be so fucking dumb when it comes to electoral politics.

I get the lesser evil arguments, and I absolutely disagree with them as a strategy, but I do get it as a kind of utilitarian argument, but then these people behave like and talk like they didn’t truly believe that the liberal career politicians are actually evil. And that’s the whole premise of lesser evilism! If we don’t agree on that, then we aren’t even on the same side!

But it seems like they actually tolerate, even like these fucking ghouls?! Fuck off

The whole lesser evilism is just sophistry: I don’t think I ever talked to someone who made the lesser evil argument who actually viscerally believed these ghouls to be evil.

Even Queen Latifah endorsed Kamala, and she never endorses anyone! It was a perfectly run campaign

Republicans are fascists

We’ll give them a seat at the table

Trump is the worst threat to America

[loses election]

we will peacefully transfer the power to fascists, but we are La Résistance

15 years from now, after Biden and Trump died, liberals will be proud to have Ivanka and Don Jr. on their side against President Tucker Carlson’s second run for presidency.

Can’t they borrow the CIA’s heart attack gun? Since Trump is the biggest threat to America?

Either Trump isn’t Hitler 2.0 or they don’t give a shit that he’s Hitler 2.0

Obama extra-judicially killed American citizens. Surely Hitler 2.0 is a bigger threat than a 16 year old?

The whole point of modern liberal democracy, from the liberal perspective, is that it’s like a market: the entrepreneur/party identifies (or creates!) a demand for a solution/product/policy package, then brings it to market/nominates a candidate and launches a marketing campaign. If you profit/win the election, you did a good job; otherwise, you failed. You are bankrupt. You should leave the market.
If your proposal does not represent the views of the voters, if you lose the popular vote, by definition, you did a shit job.

Not only they don’t know jack shit about Marxism, they don’t even understand their own theory.

Oh so now that Trump won Gaza & Ukraine is fucked? It was going well before? WW3 could happen? Biden was the peacekeeper of the world or what? absolute wankers they live in an alternate reality

“populist” is such a shitlib west wing watcher parlance

I think this analysis is spot on, at least it’s scientific enough

Remarkably Europeans are obsessed with this shit, it’s just as popular as the first two phases of the Marvel Cinematic Universe! Only European US-election-heads are even more insufferable.