Politics

Taking a look at an English electoral map of the 1700's.  Very much like today, the Conservative heartland is the countryside, liberals of all stripes dominate the cities.

While "bicostal" is the claim of many Republicans about Democrats, the most recent map returns to the English 1700's form.*

James Madison had to be aware of this when he engineered the Electoral College, in a manner favoring the votes in less densely populated areas.  So he was aware than in addition to simply restraining the vicisitudes of popular democracy, it would be applying a conservative bias.

Contrary to the claims of many who hold it, that conservative bias favors established power, primarily, the rich, and their agents and successors.  James Madison trusted these guys (including himself) to have the best judgement.

As Noam Chomsky has said with a preceding take on Madison's work, Madison is rolling in his grave now.

(*This is partly because of gerrymandering, which has contained Democrats in their strongholds with impressive majorities, while elsewhere they are just shy of breaking through.  Going back to 2006, there were "splotches" of blue around the country, including but less limited to cities.  Gerrymandering has made impressive progress since then.  The best solution would be popular vote Presidential elections, and statewide proportional representation, both of which I've long favored, but don't waste any time campaigning for.  The current system is totally biased against any such change.  A revolution or solid left ownership of the polls would be required to attain it, attempts to do so by agreement notwithstanding.)

Chomsky also explained the conservative ownership of the State level.  At the State level, which most people don't pay as much attention to, the dominance of power and wealth is even greater, and in fact national wealth can gang up on state politics to help keep it that way.

Only in rare cases can states actually be progressive leaders, and even then it's been of limited success.

A national popular vote would be among the more politically liberating things.  Escaping from one key dysfunctional part of the Madisonian prison.


*****

The most assured way to sainthood in US political discourse is as war criminal.  All sins will eventually (or much sooner than that) be forgotten in vast honorarium, so long as the individual has kept up their faith in empire forever!

I will sanctify anyone able to replace the oligarchic extractionist exploitationist enforcerist imperial state with a universalist (universal economic rights including healthcare education and housing and work) green (massive public investment in green energy and transportation--with retained public ownership) participationist (let people handle their own affairs, especially in foreign countries, including all things that affect them such as their workplaces) society.

Your Papers Please!

The new push to redefine sexuality as strictly conforming to DNA or organs at birth, is another chapter in the reactionary drive to supress human agency.  All the better to conform to the needs of power, as always, by fully encircling intimidation.

It's a further abomination because "rights" such as Title IX are exactly where the most universal protection is applicable and needed.  Like gays, transgender people have been around since forever, and had long needed protection from small minded guardians of virtue.

The actual areas where DNA or birth organ identification is necessary, in medicine or scientific reasearch, do not need heavy handed federal "definitions."

It's Done

This has to be a pivotal moment for respect for the Madisonian institutions, notably the US Senate and Supreme Court.

Not that I've had any respect for them in a long time, and had I known the whole history when I was younger, I would never have had any respect.  All these institutions were designed to supress real democracy by defusing it, and to guarantee the continuation of slavery.  When slavery was defeated, these same institutions worked amazingly well to protect wage slavery of varying degrees of oppressiveness.

The ONLY progressive Court in US history was the Warren Court, 1954-1969.*  Not surprisingly, that conincided with a golden age, in which the US may have been among the world's most progressive, socially and economically, domestically at least.  The progress during those years was enormous.  Segregation was ended, voting rights extended, and widescale poverty eradicated on an unprecidented scale...with the poverty rate reaching the lowest before and since.

Not that there weren't other factors...much was enabled by New Deal politicians and programs from 1932-1974.

These were all getting unfair abuse by the early 1970's.  You can almost pin the ultimate downturn to either the end of the Warren Court, or a particular decision regarding campaign finance in the early 70's, or virtually any major decision in the immediate post-Warren era, as the beginning of the free fall in social health we are experiencing today.

NOW, there are some positive signs, such as the once again acceptance, especially among younger people, of the word socialism.

Social Democracy was the essence of the New Deal era, and if we could merely get back to that level it would be huge social progress from where we are now.

And if we ever get the kind of majorities in Congress that Democrats had in the New Deal era, for real social democrats and not the usual quislings, we could impeach all the sanctimoneous corporate hack Justices on the Court, and start with all new progressives.

However, given the Madisonian design, increasing plutocracy and oligarchic control, the reverse may be more likely.

Vote!  But don't hold your breath.  Much more may be required now.

Kavanaugh

Kavinaugh was George W's Attorney, involved in the legalization of torture, and the coverup and defense of universal government surveillance.  And that's before 2006 before he was appointed to DC district circuit court, where's he's written a tirade of anti human decisions.  Because of that, "religious" conservative leaders like Pat Robertson have been demanding that he be appointed, and denouncing the "weak kneed" Republicans (who, to us, seem more like the scorched earth variety) in comparison with "fascist" Democrats.

He's provably perjured himself before Congress on this occasion and previous, talking about government wiretapping programs.

He shows intemperance and partisanship denounced by his Republican Predecessor, John Paul Stevens, who unusually is stepping down while still alive, and over by 2400 law professors. and by a leading Jesuit magazine (I haven't been able to figure out if his congregation is Jesuit), not to mention the National Council of Churches, and ACLU--who says they rarely take such positions.

Along with angry partisanship, he shows conspiratorialism-without-evidence to denounce his accusers, to evade answering questions.  These denunciations are picked up as gospel truth in the right wing-o-sphere, making him the ultimate partisan figure.

He was in his own words a puking drunk in his college years (which he lies about now) and apparently back to his high school years, and reportedly and believably committed a number of sexually agressive acts.  He refuses to accept responsibility and apologize for these acts, instead contributing toward further demonization and harassment of the victims.  He provably lied about many things in the hearings in these regards.  Not admitting any fault in the past, he continues to drink today and praises the activity, like a good shill for the Beer industry.  (By some accounts, there was far more than beer involved on some occasions in his past, especially hard liquor, and even 'Ludes--the drug ubiquitously used in sexual exploitation.)

Here are some of the best links:

Kavanaugh Is The Wrong Nominee For Our Times

Kavanaugh Is The Wrong Nominee For Our Times The Kavanaugh confirmation process has been a missed opportunity for the United States to face up to many urgent...

In The Religious Right’s Bizarro World, Brett Kavanaugh Is The Victim

In The Religious Right’s Bizarro World, Brett Kavanaugh Is The Victim Even after Prof. Christine Blasey Ford's compelling testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, R...

Sex, Lies and Privilege: The Kavanaugh Case

Sex, Lies and Privilege: The Kavanaugh Case The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has le...

Joe Laurie above at Consortium News is as good as always...but if you want to see more far right wing responses as ever in the comment section.

Ray McGovern below writes about Jesuit high school from personal experience and understanding, this is the article I originally promised though I feel the articles above have more important info.

Will ‘God’ Save Kavanaugh?

Will ‘God’ Save Kavanaugh? That attitudes may not have changed from an older generation to Kavanaugh’s — and may have gotten still worse, a...

Kavanaugh's appointment unifies (and discredits) the so-called #Resist Geroge W, who campaigned heavily for him, reportedly even more effectively than Trump.

People misunderstand the Deep State and what has really gone one.

The Deep State was at best agnostic about the election of Trump.  If not, he would have been shot down in the media earlier, instead of given endless breathless coverage.

WHAT THEY wanted to ensure, was continued war with Russia, despite Trumps self-reported desire to be more friendly with Russia.

THATS what the Russiagate nonsense perpetrated by the Deep State (since the leaking of Hillary emails, Hillary then being at the very center of the Deep State) was all about maintaining war on Russia, not about destroying Trump.  It could even be claimed that Hillary had decided to lose to Trump, by some of her bad decisions.  If the deep state had really wanted to, it could have destroyed Trump at any phase.  Instead, he had an active support wing within the Deep State.  But also, the collective push of the Deep State is always toward war and cold war, in this case, with Russia.

Well, Kavanaugh is part of this grand union between the Deep State and Trump.  So now the trolls have in my experience let loose in mass on many websites, denoucing all criticism of Kavanaugh.

These trolls actually come from the Deep State itself, perhaps some private power center.  They are most likely the biggest manufacturer of trolls.  The Russian troll influence, according to Robert Parry, was negligible in 2016..

Judiciality

Of course the US Senate is a corruptible and fully corrupted institution which should not exist in it's current rule-from-above form which enables plutocracy and imperialism.  Likewise, mostly, the US Supreme Court, with rare exceptions, Roe V Wade being by far their best decision that comes to mind, amidst a lot of other reeking decisions, like Bush V Gore and those relating to campaign finance.

But given that you have any kind of supreme court, one obvious requirement for justices is to speak the language of impartiality.  Best if they were to actually practice it, of course, or at least a certain kind of impartiality which looks at the good of society and therefore the best possible interpretations of law.

Even with the truthfulness of the accusations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh uncertain (I'd rate the testimony against him so far as sounding highly likely), his reaction to those accusations shows the epitomy of an unjudicial temperment.  A truly judicial reply would have gone like this:

"I do not recall such events.  As no one's memory is perfect, this doesn't mean they necessarily didn't happen.  Some may say an an investigation is warranted; I leave that question of law to my investigators in the Senate Subcomittee.  Furthermore, I do not consider them entirely relevant to my nomination.  Much as many people, I had an alcohol problem in my youth, and got involved with activity I should not have.  That is true, and I truly apologize for any harm I may have caused back then.  Nobody one ever confronted me for my actions back then [I've nixed any such memories too] so I had not, and do not now, believe their results to have been permanently harmful.  And 35 years ago I sobered up and became the family and community leader [paternalistic corporate hack] I am today, with a history of the best personal behavior and public service [manic destructiveness in the interests of corporate and state oppression].  I suggest we move onwards [for more complete social destruction]."

Instead, we got angry denialism (which more suggests guilt more than not), and partisan flame throwing.  That display, in itself, should have been fully disqualifying.

We all know the story...he wasn't on the plutocrat think tank list because many well knew he had a history...but George W saw in this guy a likeness of himself (and activities George W himself continued well into his 30's) and made him Circuit Judge, and then Trump saw in him the opportunity to select an unmitigated proponent of Presidential powers and freedom from prosecution, characteristics that would also appeal to Geroge W.

I won't say this destroys the legitimacy of the Court simply because it hasn't had much of that in a long time.  But it certainly shows "the devil may care" attitude toward maintaining that fiction anymore.

Meanwhile, the whole fracas made it easer to avoid talking about Trumps new Drug War Globalism, forcing drug war terms on Mexico and Canada, and scolding about it at the UN.

The Drug War is a another major form of national and international oppression, in the service of crushing leftism and poor people.

Life is "Brazil"

"Brazil" the 1984'ish movie by Terry Gilliam, I mean, where they have endless advanced technology, but none of it works correctly most of the time.  Named after Brazil because of the fascist Brazilian government of the day (and perhaps, once again, today?).

Modern life IS beginning to seem more and more like Brazil in the sense of advancement only causing fragile systems that rarely work well.  (I'm not trying to make a point about the fascist angle of "Brazil" in this article.)

Starting pretty much from the top, how the commanding heights of our government shapes our society.

Foremost, that is of a militaristic imperialistic society that spends over $1T a year on endless wars that produce only more chaos and blowback.  While it can't provide healthcare or ensure full education and employment and decent living for all.  All sectors except the rich have been in a kind of social free fall, being unable to afford the basics of a decent life.

We have a need to reshape our entire energy and transportation sectors to renewable energy, or face total devastation or perhaps annihilation--which has already started for increasingly large number of species.  By turning our national largesse from militarism to renewable national energy and transportation development (I believe it should be owned and operated by the people and free for the people) we could solve both problems: creating the jobs to build a new middle class, and having the money to take care of everyone.  That would be investment, even as done by the public.  Instead, we "invest" in craters, enemies, chaos, blowback, and disasters.

But we can't make these changes, in fact we must pile on the fossil annihilation ever faster, because we must make rich people even richer, and because job #1 (empire).

The Madisonian vision was that the wealthy would take a long term view of the health of society as they had much to gain or loose directly from that health.

That has turned out to be such a crock.  It seems in many cases the richer they are, the more they want to take for themselves at the expense of society, thinking they can survive the deluge.  And giving them an upper hand in the functioning of society leads to the ultimate catastrophe for all, exactly as we are headed.

You see this kind of misdirection being played out all over.  We are "investing" in unsustainable models and often ones that don't work from the start, like private roads, and furiously disinvesting in the health of people and society in the future.

One part of the solution is to negate the Madisonian empowerment of the wealthy, and let the people more democratically decide what is going to be paid for, and by whom, rather than have a government that serves as stenographer to the plutocracy and oligarchy.

IQ is not Intelligence

I've heard the claim about many kinds of intelligence before.  Believers in IQ promote the idea that IQ type intelligence underlies them all.  But clearly they are not the same, so there must be other factors also.

Here's a different kind of delineation than I've seen before: Analytical Intelligence (like IQ), Practical Intelligence, and creative intelligence, as described in this Guardian article.

IQ tests only capture analytical intelligence; this is the ability to notice patterns and solve analytical problems. Most standard IQ tests miss out two other aspects of human intelligence: creative and practical intelligence. Creative intelligence is our ability to deal with novel situations. Practical intelligence is our ability to get things done. For the first 20 years of life, people are rewarded for their analytical intelligence. Then we wonder why the “best and brightest” are uncreative and practically useless.

Here's the book of the authors.

https://profilebooks.com/the-stupidity-paradox.html


Here's another recommended book

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/life-sciences/neuroscience/beyond-iq-triarchic-theory-human-intelligence

Why the British Labor Party should not adopt a definition of Anti-Semitism

The very most definitive answer, from a few days hence to the distant past, addressing this issue, by the most thorough scholar Norman Finkelstein.

Also quoted at Mondoweiss.


I've mostly focussed on the political angle, of the neoliberal Blairites, like their American counterparts, using identity politics to destroy leftism.  This outer shell--and what some might call conspiracy theory (but in this case, widely recognized)--is not mentioned by Finkelstein.  He sticks to the facts of the specific decision that will be made by the Labour Party soon.

He looks within the immediate issue, and finds the demand of what he calls British Jewry to be way beyond the pale in every way.  They are attempting to define legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitism.

I agree totally, and further that such free speech principles as the Labour party has had in the past ought apply even moreso in America, where they have been under similar attack.

Truth and Context

Context is a key part of the whole truth.

Electric Cars

I have canceled my preorder of a Tesla Model 3.  I completely dislike removing all displays and controls (except for steering wheel and pedals) in front of the driver.  Certain displays and controls must be directly at hand for reflexive use, like speedometer, warning lights, wipers, lights, mirror controls.  The customary way this is done is fine.  I think my 2006 Prius is exemplary in this respect (and most others), with the full complement of stalk controls, steering wheel buttons, and fixed dash control for light, power, and electronic shift, and full internally reflecting (for greater depth...less eyestrain when watching environment mostly) speedometer main display, centered in front of the drivers.

I also had issue with the height of the rear window in the Tesla Model 3, said to allow about as much rear visibility as a Corvette, as measured by Car and Driver.

And the width, 5 inches more than my 2006 Prius (which is physically the perfect design, especially for a bottom heavy automobile, automakers should just clone the package design of the 2006 Prius which combines a relatively narrow and tall design with very good aerodynamics--it's actually brilliant--and the Ford Model E seems to be very similar, and the smooth curves of both are easy on the eyes, sadly the Model E is just slightly too wide for me, and no power folding mirrors that I can see).

Now, I could imagine Tesla fans would point to the automated systems minimizing the need for controls.  And the camera allowing for rear visibility through the monitor screen.  And the power folding mirrors.  (Most car mirrors will fold in, but it's unacceptable to have to get out of the car every day and fold them in to get into garage, and out when leaving.  It's a waste of time, it might be raining, you might be in a hurry and forget, etc.  Because Tesla thought of this, width isn't the #1 issue for me on the Model 3...the controls and displays are...but width is still problematic.  On the Ford Model E, width is the #1 issue)

I don't think one should need to rely on those things.  All the more so if actually doing the driving less.

Anyway, what other cars to consider?

Under consideration are the 2018 Chevy Bolt, and 2019 version of Hyundai Kona, and 2019 Ford Model E.

Ford Model E looks to too wide without motorized retractible mirrors, and I don't see them offered.

Chevy Bolt may look best now, things may change.

Leaf looks fine in 2019, check the details then, particularly active thermal management.

Hyundai Kona, I don't know, it may be best or one of, but also very hard to get.  I'm not fond of the angular stying and it looks like it might be small but that's better than too large.

Here's a Hyundai union leader criticizing EV' as job killers.   I hope and believe US union leaders would not feel this way or say this.  The GM CEO says GM is committed to a future of EV's.

Tesla fans often say that  all other ICE manufacturers including Hyundai building EV's may be a greenwashing exercise, and may involve getting more emissions credits to sell big trucks and the like.  They would claim, it's not sustainable.  So, they're not serious, they wouldn't ramp up if demand warranted.

I think demand will increase and they ultimately WILL ramp up, with EV's displacing ICE as the majority personal vehicle in 10 years or less.  That's what I understand many analysts as saying, and of course Elon Musk himself.  As well as being what I strongly hope will happen.  The most important thing is for those concerned like myself to buy EV's.  WRT the success of the EV revolution, it's less important who to buy it from, and nobody knows which manufacturers will be more sustainable anyway, that depends on many unknowns.

It might be worth noting that GM, Hyundai, BMW, Ford, and other mainstream auto companies are unionized.  Tesla and Nissan USA aren't.

It seemed the vast majority, perhaps 97%, of commenters on the EV blog were strongly opposed to unions.  I thought that strange, greens would most often I believe tilt left, and therefore mostly be favorable to unions, and wondered therefore if many of the commenters were were company trolls.  But all my assumptions could also be sufficiently incomplete or untrue so that when combined with the types who read such blogs it tilts like that.

The claim most often made to denigrate automobile unions is that they result in low quality cars.  This claim is demonstrably false, as most of the best quality cars in the world are union made.  It is true the US made poor quality cars in the late 1960's, and had (and still mostly has) a unionized workforce.  I know because my family owned a 1970 wagon that was virtually falling apart the day we bought it.  But subsequent to that, the US automakers cleaned up their act, and started making (mostly) quality cars again.  It seems what really led to low quality cars was the lack of high quality competition.  Once the high quality competition became available in the form of imported Japanese cars, US automakers were forced to make good cars, even if labor costs had gone up recently.  Quality is really a management decision.  Actually unionized companies, such as Ford, will always say that unions help them keep the quality level higher.

Personally I'd rather buy a union made car on the belief that the workers were less likely to be mistreated, and that unions help keep up wages and benefits for everyone including nonunion workers.  As the unions have faded away in USA, so have wages vs profits, and if all unions go away, workers might be toast.  It's another thought to consider when considering a Tesla.  And it tends to point to Chevy Bolt and Ford Model E, or anything made by Hyundai or German manufacturers as being the top choices for a leftist at present.

Tesla deserves a similar rating for at least paying decent wages and benefits now, AND being dedicated to electric transportation and energy.  But not enough to say ONLY buy Tesla, especially in view of their limited selection, quirky designs, and high prices.

And, of course anyone concerned about the future should buy nothing new except EV's, if possible.

However, the #1 issue in buying a product that meets my needs.  A car with terrible seats does not, nor does a car with inadequate controls, or that's too wide.

The above reasoning had me thinking of getting a Bolt, this year, before the tax rebate expires.  The Bolt has sufficient range, small enough size, and nice normal instrumentation combined with touch screen.  It has excellent performance (better than any car I've owned in decades).  And it's union made--at least the chassis and body.  Sadly, however, the front seats are notoriously uncomfortable, especially for heavier or wider people.  Even with the $6000 upper tier, which provides leather seats and other amenities, the seats are uncomfortable (even worse, according to many reports).  Seats are not replaceable anymore since they are wired into sensor electrical systems (seat pressure, seat belt confirmation) and possibly include airbags.  There was a possibility the Buick version would have better seats, it had been said they were going to be power seats, but the Buick EV based on Bolt will not be sold in the USA for another few years.  BTW, my 2006 Prius has fabulous seats, with very thick foam cushions on the bottom and on the side bolsters, and mine are still in perfect condition structurally, and has always had excellent lumbar support.  The 2001 Prius seat was not as good, I had to supplement it's lumbar support.

So, I'm back to waiting on a 2019 Kona, if I can get one, or a Leaf, if it appears the battery has sufficient thermal control in the new generation.

The way

Doug Henwood's twitter (which is fabulous, I keep reading) quotes Anne Boyer tweeted last year that the way to reduce both sexual harassment & partner violence is to make sure everyone has food, shelter, healthcare, and what they need to survive not contingent on employment or romantic partnership.

Wow.  And just about everything else bad, I think, and yet it's so simple.

And not that expensive, I think, compared with other things we could probably live without, like full spectrum military dominance.

But, it's just at odds with that large goal of capitalism, to get human labor power as cheaply as possible.

And the solution to capitalism's declining demand problem (as capitalist societies get more unequal, spending drops, ultimately in a self-perpetuating cycle causing collapse unless stopped, usually by government fiat), as determined by mid 1940's planners, was not a citizen utopia, with permanent public sector development for free institutions of all kinds: education, healthcare, entertainment, electrification, communication, etc.  That would compete with private industry, it was said.  (Well, actually, it should eliminate near "private industry" in some areas, but so what...if everybody gets high quality free education, why need there be a private industry for most people?  Etc.)  Instead, and this is well documented, the US Planners from the start (before Soviet 'provocation', which could be interpreted as western provocation) decided on endless war.

Now we've gotten so "used" to endless military spending, it would indeed be a challenge to wind down to a society directed to human needs rather than imperial ambition.  I suggest a corresponding ramp up in public Free Renewable Energy systems, and we need about that scale, just to keep from downward economic spiral.

Few understand we "must" spend staggering amounts...just to keep the capitalism going.  But there's no reason why it has to be on making craters and dead bodies, and in pursuit of global ecocide.

We need to make these changes, I hope that's understood.  Ultimately to the simple result of everything needed for life be free.  (That is my goal, a better one than UBI, I feel, for many reasons.)

The goal is simple, but the journey is challenging.

When the growth era ends, the result is communism or total destruction.

It's simple to see and say that, less simple to lead the way.  To communism.

Russiagate: The Prowar Psyop created by Neocons

People who like me are skeptics of Russiagate (who believe that Russia did not attempt to influence the US election through illegal activities, or collusion with Trump) include nearly all of the antiwar leftists I know of, and smartest people I know of, including:

Edward S. Herman (MIT professor of finance, co-author (w Noam Chomsky) of Manufacturing Consent, the antiwar left's most well known book).  Wrote detailed article denouncing the Russiagate narrative as a classic war consent manufacturing campaign in July 2017, just before his death. Published in the most respected Marxist magazine Monthy Review.

Robert Parry--award winning antiwar journalist who broke major stories about Iran Contra and CIA Cocaine Smuggling--debunked Russiagate talking points several times a week from 2016 onwards Here's one classic report by Parry in late 2017, where he deconstructs reporting in the New York Times about the alleged troll farm that placed Facebook ads, showing most of the reported $100,000 ads had absolutely nothing to do with the electoral politics--such as puppy pictures--and the actual tiny dollar amounts spent on political topics.  Sadly, Parry died of cancer in January 2018, but his website ConsortiumNews continues with contributions by like minded reporters about a wide variety of topics.  It's fair to say ConsortiumNews tilts left, mainly antiwar, pro environment, and pro civil rights, as do all the writers I highlight at the top.

Yves Smith (founder of Naked Capitalism, another of my favorite sites).  He linked this great story by Norman Solomon (another of my heroes) showing the elite manufactured obsession with Russigate isn't paying off, constituents want other issues addressed more.

 Social critic and growth limits theorist James Howard Kuntzler (End of Nowhere, The Long Emergency) declares Russiagate to be a dangerous irrationality driven by justifiable hatred of Trump.

Doug Henwood (New York radio journalist, author of After the New Economy and other books)

Max Blumenthal (antiwar journalist, son of Bill Clinton's key advisor Sid Blumenthal).  In this story he shows that an early Mueller indictment actually shows the influence of Israel, not Russia, a point never made in the mainstream media, but often made in the antiwar and anti-Zionist media.

Caitlin Johnstone (Australian journalist and blogger)

Scott Ritter (journalist, weapons inspector).  Scott has written many articles debunking Russiagate talking points.

Articles by Stephen F. Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at NYU and Princeton, published in The Nation.

Antiwar blogger MoonOfAlabama.

Those who denounce and debunk the Russiagate narrative include all of the writers who appear at ConsortiumNews, Counterpunch, Truthdig, Portside, InformationClearingHouse, GlobalResearch, Moon of Alabama.  Virtually all of the commenters on these and similar many antiwar and left blogs I've ever seen.  Of course--Julian Assange himself, who consistently denied Russians or Russian linked intermediaries leaked him DNC materials.

Many on the left like Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have hedged, admitting the Russians might have done some things, but denouncing the overreaction, on the basis that we have and continue to do far worse.  The left leaning The Nation simply never talks about Russiagate-per-se even while it is constantly examining Trump himself.

Perhaps not all of who could be described as radical and antiwar, left or right, but most, and all I find respectable so far.

And the antiwar right as well, the including antiwar libertarians such as Ron Paul, and well known Paleocons such as Buchanan and Paul Craig Roberts who write much nowadays about the need to disassemble the US empire.  While many establishment Republicans have made a Russiagate point or two in the past, in general the GOP is leaning more and more against it.  Of course Donald Trump himself has denounced it from the beginning.

The bottom line is...even if this were true, pushing it big could be an electoral disaster, which is exactly what Henwood and leftists have been saying for a long time, and now a major national poll as reported by Norman Solomon above.

The Russiagate Conspiracy Theorists

Who promotes the Russiagate conspiracy theory, that Russians illegally conspired with Trump?  Most strongly the "centrist" Democrats...the Clinton Campaign started the Russiagate narrative with the claim that Russians were behind the Wikileaks release of material showing favoritism toward Hillary at the DNC.  The Clinton campaign quickly changed the message from DNC corruption to Russian Influence.  (I tell this story in greater detail below.)

So, yeah, as very many I read are pointing out now, Russiagate was originally a plan by the "centrist liberal" elites to destroy the antiwar left, and it may be destroying the middle as well, by setting them up for another "unexpected" electoral wipeout.  One wonders how much the elite cares.

The Story

The incredible takeoff of Bernie Sanders during the spring of 2016.  By late spring, the mainstream media was giving people many reasons NOT to vote for Bernie, of course starting with the claim that Bernie was less electable and if he were selected as Democratic candidate.  Then more and  more stories arose discrediting the supporters of Bernie as thuglike "Bernie Bros."  That was failing too, it was beginning to look like Bernie might pull ahead.  At a critical point, Wikileaks relased emails proving the DNC was working against Bernie.  Bernie was now vindicated and he might have been victorious if this were the last word.  But this new story didn't have much play, because almost immediately a new story replaced it: the story that it had been Russians had hacked the DNC and given the emails to Wikileaks (and never mind what the emails showed).  In fact the Russiagate story of alleged Russian Hacking began hours after the still univestigated murder of Seth Rich, as if to change the narrative quickly.

So the story, if not the fact, was a war on the left from the very beginning.  And it has continued from there and morphed into a general purpose condemnation of leftists, the antiwar left and right, Russians, and so on.


The Problems with the Russiagate Story:

* Despite all the screaming heads on military-industrial-complex owned or operated "mainstream" media, including "public" media, no actual public evidence has been presented for the central claim of collusion between Trump and Russia in activity which illegally influenced the election.  We are being asked to believe the word of Intelligence and other Government officials who have frequently lied us into war and other disasters before.

* Not only have Intelligence agencies lied, they have murdered, drugged, tortured, and many other crimes, with not a person being held accountable.  And yet, these are the ones, some of them, often anonymous, that we must trust to believe the Russiagate stories.  Already some have been proven to be hacks on Russiage itself.

* It is a war consent manufacturing psyop, designed to demonize Russia and countries allied with Russia,  to ramp up the New Cold War which could result in nuclear annihiliation, rather than spending money on useful things, like renewable energy which might save humanity.  But along the way to annihiliation or collapse, he military industrial complex will make more money on "modernizing" weapons systems, because of course we continue to fear the evil other and must be "prepared" to counter them at any cost.  The consent manufacturing aspect of Russiagate was clearly spelled out by

* It is a McCarthyite war on leftist and antiwar journalists and websites.  Almost from the beginning antiwar and leftist websites who questioned Russiagate or other aspects of establishment malfeasance were categorized by mainstream media as Russian Trolls, to be marginalized by blacklisting, casting out of search lists, and so on.  This has been implemented more and more.  Bernie Sanders supporters were the first to feel the heat, when the leak of information about DNC favoritism toward Hillary was immediately buried with the (still unsubstantiated) claim that Russians were behind it, with the implication that Russians might prefer the nomination of Bernie and therefore it might not be patriotic to vote for him.  Those demonized by Russiagate included many of my favorite websites, including ConsortiumNews and NakedCapitalism.  Even now Bernie is feeling heat for not doing enough to stop Russiagate.

* It was an attempt to tie the hands of Trump so he would not be able to ramp down tensions with Russia as he claimed he would do during his campaign.  Indeed, he has still not lifted the sanctions on Russia, though he did, this month, actually meet with Putin, which should have been hailed as a good thing in itself.  But because he did not follow the Russigate script, and punish Putin for his alleged interference, which neither Trump nor other Americans believe, it was called Treason in the mainstream media.

* It is beyond hypocrisy, since it is well documented the US has substantially influenced over 81 foreign elections, and continues operating very well funded influence operations today through the National Endowment for Democracy and other "aid" and intelligence operations.   Billions of dollars are spent every year on such things, which include the well known Radio Liberty (formerly Voice of America).  We have operated heavily in Eastern Europe and continue to do so in all of Latin America.

* And that 81 is not even counting the government violent overthrows we orchestrated or contributed to, such as in Guatemala, Iran, Chile, and many other countries.  This is far worse than mere electoral "influence."

* And then, the wars, including Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, which we engaged or contributed or still contribute to.

* The fact that we still sanction Russia!  For reclaiming a tiny bit of territory they had controlled for nearly 200 years, where in a referendum over 90% wanted to resume Russian citizenship, and not the western government that had resulted from the most recent US backed coup.  This was a bloodless "conquest."  Compare this to our endless war in Afghanistan and proxy wars elsewhere.

* I'm all for tactically slowing Trump down, though I'm not impressed by the "sex" scandals so far.  But anyway, scandal mania against Trump as was done to Bill Clinton would be fine with me.  What irks me is the New Cold War with Russia that Russiagate puts front and center, and all the dangers and ill consequences that portends, and of course the war on independent and leftist and antiwar thinking.  Fighting Putin or Russia in the way won't do anything good for the people said to be hurt by them, such as women and homosexuals in Russia, or Syrians, or global warming (since Russia is an oil producer...one guy said we must stop Putin because of that...but the US is an even larger oil producer).

* The way to do those good things, is first and foremost, is to end war and empire.  Only then will anyone be able to afford to make the changes necessary.  So ending the New Cold War is actually our highest priority.  We must do that first, or nothing else important is possible.  To start that process, it's worth toning down the advirsarial rhethoric.  To stop looking for faults in others.  To be as generous as we can, overlook trangressions, as long as we can still move forwards.

* Even if there were a Russiagate as the media spelled out, it would have only made a tiny difference in the election.  I doubt it would have changed any precincts, let alone states.  Our own plutocracy spends billions to influence this game, before and after elections.

* In that context, it's hard to believe the Russians would have tried their hand on the small scale indicated in the official stories, such as the DNC emails.  The danger of being caught would be far worse than the possibility of doing anything useful.  They would also have had to have better statistics than anyone else to do the clever targeting required.

* In the case of the leaks about DNC favoritism of Hillary over Bernie, the DNC server was never provided to government authorities.  It was sent for examination by a firm with known anti-Russia neocon ownership, matching the attitude of Hillary herself.  This is one of the central flaws, and much of the privately gathered data could have been doctored or selected.  Trump was correct to comment on this.

* The media has pooh poohed the potential involvement of Seth Rich.  However, even Julian Assage has suggested his involvement by mentioning him in response.  Actually, here too, investigation of the Seth Rich murder was stopped under pressure from a top Democrat.  Seth Rich could have been murdered precisely because he alone could prove who the leaker was (assuming it was himself) and certain people would rather that information be replaced with a new more useful perpetrator: the Russians!  Also, of course, as a threat to anyone else who might get the idea of leaking from the DNC.

*  Jesus expressed one aspect of this idea of fundamental ethics the best when he said to remove the log from your own eye before protesting the speck in your neighbors.  That is exactly applicable here, including magnitude as I've argued above.  We should be ethical, and be most critical of our own faults, before criticizing others.

* In the case where there's not even any evidence, it's worse.  It's "bearing false witness."  We should not be talking about this unless we are absolutely sure.  To be sure, one should hear all sides, including the Russiagate skeptics, so we can grasp "the whole truth."  But the mainstream media would try to make you think that is unpatriotic or white supremacist (they have an angle for everybody).

* It's a distraction, from the things we should be focused on, which our own government is now doing, including our current ongoing very large scale influence and war operations, which we should not be doing, and should stop right now.  And our own oil production, mistreatment of immigrants and certain minorities, etc, etc.  It's even a great time waster for me.  How much time I'd have for other things if Russiagate narrative had never been advanced (by Hillary and friends first, I believe).

* Polls are now showing the Russiagate focus is not doing the Democratic Party any good.  Polls suggest politicians need to be focused on constituents immediate concerns.


More Links:

UK News aggregator 21Wire has assembled a treasure trove of anti-Russiagate articles, including a vast number by Robert Parry, but also Ron Paul, Stephen Cohen, and others.

"Antiwar" leftist interventionists

A friend of mine sent me to the blog of Clay Claiborn, who proclaims himself to be Antiwar and Anticapitalist in his bylines.  But his #1 issue appears to be support for the Free Syrian Army, and was very critical of the Obama Administration for "not supporting" them, and he still sells Free Syrian Army flags.

So here he claims to be antiwar, and he also criticizes the Imperium for not waging war with his own enemy, otherwise known as the internationally recognized government of Syria.

Thinking about this, if a "peoples army" needs or even accepts aid from the Emperor, it is not a "people's army."  It is a proxy army.

How long has the US been supporting "rebels" (terrorists) in Syria?  I would imagine back to about 1945 or so, when the British pulled out of the middle east.

So basically you could say that every rebel movement in Syria since 1945 has been corrupted by the blood money of the Emperor.

Unless they sternly refused any help.  Sternly and transparently.  Why?  How can I necessarily call the acceptance of foreign aid from forces with geopolitical interests to necessarily be corrupting?  Surely they have independent minds anyway!?  For the simple fact that this is the beginning of, and likely the endless continuing need for--even if they are successful, a client state relationship with the Empire.

The Emperor could be big or small, btw, the World Superpower, or the Bully on the Block.

Anyway, among his other virtues, such as pure nuttiness? for supporting a defunct army, it's the hyprocrisy of claiming to be antiwar when actually he calls for the imperium to support his war, after which he'd be happy to have no more wars.

And there's a thing about Capitalism also.  One cannot be Anticapitalist and support proxy wars of the Empire.  Empire is the highest form of capitalism.

Now if Clay Claiborne wants to fight on behalf of the Free Syrian Army, there's a longstanding tradition of Americans going abroad to fight on behalf of their causes.  He'd then be free to make moral mistakes or be a moral hero, despite my thoughts it would probably be the former, but they'd be for himself.

But the cause of the US military is supposed to be the defense of the US people.  And the best way to defend the US people would be to stop fighting proxy wars all around the world, and to end the US empire itself.  And that's also the most moral thing for the US military to do, unless there's a possibility for some kind of relief aid that it might best fill.  Or, they should all gear up to build renewable energy and transmission, and that would be the best defense too.

The moral response to "helping people" is foremost to ending the conflict, part of which is aided by stopping, rather than supplying, arms and help.

The second part is accepting refugees for as long as necessary.  Our interventionism was behind all the wars going way back.  Therefore, it is in large part our responsibility to take care of refugees.

The revolution is either within one, or within all.

Now I can imagine some clever internationalist point out that the USA got help from the French in it's revolutionary war, and I must think that was not such a bad thing.  But not only am I not condoning that help, it's clearer and clearer that the US revolutionary war was entirely immoral, geared toward the preservation of slavery and land theft across the continent.  It certainly wasn't antiwar or anticapitalist.  And it wasn't ultimately helpful to the French Monarchy, either.  Me and friends of mine would prefer the National Health System, and the Parliamentary System.  But it's not clear I would have existed without the nordic settler colonialism of the 1850's.

JFK assassination and the coverup enabled by big money

A good telling of the story.

The author is also one who mentions the Rothschilds here and there.  I'm warming to that angle, among other things they are not only dedicated Zionists they were there at the start of the project...the Balfour Letter was addressed to Lord Rothschild, and it was an agreement written somewhat to satisfy him (if not exactly as he would have it, since it needed to be negotiated, with the most devout Jews in government opposing it entirely).  The Zionist project was understood by then to ultimately involve vast military expenditure...hence more money for banks and arms dealers.

However I don't think they are unique.

It also continues to show you can't trust big media, including public media.

The antiwar media is generally the most trustworthy.  Like most in my sidebar, including my favorite ConsortiumNews.  I don't recall Parry or any of the other columnists ever singling out the Rothschilds.

Certainly LBJ was part of it, and he was not the first militarist US President but he was possibly the first Zionist US president.Many cite his determined coverup of the USS Liberty (and not to mention not backing it up, etc). However that may not be the best example.

Zionists claim LBJ worked against them, however there's a detailed record that suggests otherwise.

One of the key issues was that JFK was determined to terminate the Israeli construction of nuclear weapons.  Johnson coming to power quickly ended that.

Curiously in my own life, a half-Irish-American best friend of mine left for the bay area in 1963, and my new friend, whom I met upon returning from a month in hospital for pneumonia (which curiously struck the night after I had my first bad TV crush...on seeing Sharon Tate on her first appearance show on the Beverly Hillbillies), and my new friend (and many later best friends for decades) was Jewish, and by other coincidences, a fan of Sharon Tate later from seeing her vampire movie, and then later who started exiting my life immediately after her murder.

The switchover in my best friends occurred a few weeks BEFORE the assassination.  It may be just coincidence, but it concurs with my guess that something was already afoot in intelligence circles, and it involved Jews (Zionists) and Israel.  And the murder of Sharon Tate was a government involved conspiracy too, except perhaps involving Republican Zionist militarists in the deep state replacing the previous Democratic ones.

The Tate murder was the night of long knives in USA, the beginning of the end of the dominance of liberal culture.  It sealed the fate of LSD which had only recently been made illegal but was still considered hip.  Kids and their parents I knew were using it.  Not uncoincidentally both Tate and Manson were users of LSD, but otherwise on different ideological sides, with Manson being the strong anti-government conservative, Tate being the Robert Kennedy supporting liberal.  I'm sure the murder was a psyop involving the deep state and especially J Edgar Hoover, and possibly also helped to cover up details of the RFK murder that Tate may have had, that also disappeared that night.

The "Fake News" is in the eye of the sucker

I detest how Russiagate (the pinnacle of American Exceptionalist Fake News) has turned into the war on skeptics-of-Russiagate and their so-called "Fake News."

Because of the way the "Fake News" term is misused, to smear any questioning of the official propaganda, I hate to use the term.  (I also hate terms such as "Conspiracy Theories" and "Anti-Semitism" as they often seem to me to be often applied to the wrong side.)

After a great post by Phil Weiss comments claiming, sort of hopefully, that Hasbara is dead, commenter Tuyzentfloot really spells out what the war on "Fake News" is all about.

This is a clarification of an earlier comment in which Tuyzentfloot critiqued Weiss's optimism noting that Hasbara isn't dead, it's morphed into the war on Fake News.  To which I might add the war on anti-Zionism, smearing it as anti-Semitism.

Tuyzentfloot says:

Fake news is a pretext to implement a range of censoring mechanisms which will try to minimize the online footprint of undesirable content and a whole range of organisations of variable legitimacy get to decide about that. 

He gives a long list of targets which include anyone who is not nice enough about Israel, "conspiracy theorists" (defined as any display of mistrust in the powers that be), and "fake news" (defined as anything contradicting the mainstream narrative propagated by the corporate military establishment and its owned press).

Tesla vs Happy Workers

I have a reservation on a Tesla Model 3, and I was happy to be supporting a visionary all EV maker who is not just making EV's as a greenwashing loss leader.

However, by many reports, it is not going well.  There has been a big crunch to ramp up production speed and lower production cost.

All this and a non-unionized workforce.

I'm thinking that quality of life for the workers is as important to me as buying an EV.  I don't want to be buying into future tyranny for workers.

If I buy a Chevy Bolt, I believe it is assembled by UAW workers in Michigan.  The drivetrain comes from LG in South Korea which if not unionized (I don't know) is at least not a high stakes sweatshop.

Here's a somewhat dated article on what appeared to be GM's limited plans for the Bolt.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: The signature of Intelligent Life

It is often said that Oxygen in a planet's atmosphere is the signature of life.  Otherwise, it reacts quickly, gets replaced with compounds.

Likewise, I believe Dark Matter and Dark energy are the signature of Intelligent Life.  More Intelligent than us (humanity).

All this energy may come from dying stars.  Perhaps in a billion years, if we manage to survive the next 200, we might figure out how to do that also.  Such energy could be stored for perhaps astronomical timeframes.  Perhaps they figured that out too.

Then certainly they'd also want to keep it hidden to all the primitives.  So they'd also know how to make it "dark", invisible to us.

That's the key, the need to make something invisible to us...that's the signature of More Intelligent Life.

But it may be around our galaxy too.  What does that suggest???

Oh, I always say, they're here too.  Perhaps all around us, but equally invisible, for the same reason.

Now, of course, we shouldn't take this as some kind of assurance.  They may be under no obligation to save us from ourselves.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if they already have, and keep doing, but there may be limits to their desire or ability to do so.

Trump and Kim accord Is A Good Thing

And we need to see more of that kind of mutual agreement!

(Sadly it hasn't been present elsewhere, most of all with Syria, then Yemen, then Afghanistan, and so on, or simmering wars, and the dangerous threatened war with Iran--who wants to be our friend.  And our punitive disagreeablenesses, such as with Russia and Cuba, which does nothing useful.  Which is why we should pay attention to those things also.)

But in and of itself it is a good thing and should be heralded!  Those Democrats who criticize on trumped up National Security grounds, are traitors to the all who oppose needless war, which is most of humanity.

Our handling of NK has been abonimable, from the start.  They wanted and deserved independence, we were creating a zone of allies in the far east, because we could do so, by force and bluster.

So, we bombed all their cities flat, then their dams, then their hospitals.  Such as Lemay bragged about how we had bombed them.

And we've been treacherous to every agreement since.  Agreements made by one President are immediately abrogated by the the next, leaving the North Koreans in the cold and starving.

But like all our supposed "enemies" they want to be our friend!  The would rather be part of global trade, rather then the ultimate outsider.

The military excercises on North Korea's border was a needless and expensive provocation.

We are safer without them, and welcoming North Korea as a full partner in the international community.

Anything less is warmongering, serving the US Deep state and military/media/cia/fbi industrial complex.

Friends of mine have given up with the Democratic Party altogether.  I separate that from voting for the lesser evil, when I have to, and supporting the moderately good ones.

But I'm tired of Russiagate, fighting in Syria, supporting the war in Lebanon, shielding the Israelis from international censure, still waging the cold war in Cuba and much of Latin Americal, threatening Iran, threatening to heat the planet to catastropy.

All the things the Democratic Party has been quite involved with, even St Obama approving drilling on a massive scale where none had existed before.  And St Jerry Brown approving more fracking permits than all governors before him.  And so on.

This doesn't mean I've given up some considerable concern and reason.  I will continue to vote and persuade others to vote for the lesser evil, when I have to.

But the Democratic Party is as corrupt as the Blairite wing of the Labour Party that's been trying to take over from Corbyn.

Both serve Israel, and Great Wealth, first.

Debunking the Hasbara of the Medic

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/nyt-carries-idf-attack-on-murdered-gaza-medic-reveals-its-a-smear-in-20th-paragraph/

I'd been thinking of other Hasbara rhetoric.  Imagining the assignment in some class, sometime in the future.  Debunk this or that Hasbara claim.

Such as the famous, "Israel has a right to exist."

Chomsky famously debunks this claim, and points out that the very notion of a states right to exist, began with Israeli rhetoric.  No other state had ever made the claim, nor had it entered written discussion.

Of course states don't have an unconditional right to exist.  Nazi Germany, the Third Reich, certainly didn't.  Any state depends on good will toward those within and without.  Any group or state that doesn't act in good will, doesn't "deserve" to exist, but to be replaced which one which does act in good will and is democratic, not that could ever be imposed, or has.

And no group of people deserves to take the land of another, to forcibly eject an undersired population for some internal reason.

In this and many other ways, Israel is not a democracy.  Nor is the US, of course.  They are vassal states of each other.

It's the same old game played over 57 previous times in history.  The ruling empire controls Palestine, it has mostly been called, now effectively Israel.  Jerusalem--named after a Cananite god--has changed hands 57 times.

In between the hundreds of years of Greek control, and the hundreds of years of Roman control were a scant 80 years of "Jewish" sovereignty, "the Hashemite Kingdom," which was really a coalition of Jews, Gallileans, Samaritans, and other Cananite groups.

The "Jews" (the rich elites, especially in Jerusalem, the ancient city) were the ones forced out by the Romans after the bar Kochba revolt,, but most of the others in the holy land remained.  And so their descendants have as much or more claim to sovereignty to the Holy Land territories, even assuming "the Jews" were a group of true descendents rather than religious title that people can claim by going through "conversion" which many people do, often to get married to a Jew, and that the Jews had some reason for a unique claim over many others on any such assumed claim, such as ancestry to descendant from the region.  And of course that sovereignty were determined by a religious nation's "God"'s,, rather than the brutal conflict that caused Jerusalem to change hand 57 times, and so on.

It gets difficult, the deeper into the Hasbara you get.

The Photos Please

Israelis claim they needed to shoot unarmed protestors, including children, clearly identified journalists, and paramedics, because ... Hamas had organized this to storm the fence and attack Israel.

However, I have not seen any photos indicating anything like this.  I have seen photos of teargas and shots into masses of people hundreds of yards from the fence.  In one case, marchers were simply marching along the fence itself (as I think good if not best of all) smoothly and with no shots (yet?).

But none such as the Times of Israel and UN Watch "report."  Even their photos, if they have any, are hardly damning and just as I describe.

To even have any feeling that shooting would remotely be permissible, it would seem to me that a person need be either actually crossing the fence (or other true boundary), not just being close to it, or  sending dangerous projectiles.  (I have seen no such photos.)

Even then, shooting shouldn't be shooting to kill.  Shooting to kill is commonly understood as only being permissible when the defender's life is threatened.

Even if protestors were to cross through the fence, the first thing would be that they would fall into 100 foot ditch Israel dug around the fence in previous operations.  From there, if they had not already died from the fall, they could be easily shot by snipers who are perched above the ditch on the opposite side.

[And there's some question in my mind where this ditch is actually dug.  I strongly suspect the ditch is still on "Gaza's" side and territory commonly-understood-as-Israeli only begins on the other side, perhaps where the snipers are, or even further, far further back.  I remember reading something about how this was being done at the time, in 2014 I believe.]

Not to say even then shooting is justified.  It could be justified only if the defenders felt they would otherwise be overwhelmed and in bodily danger.  But just how quickly could the protestor-attackers be climbing the other side of the 100 foot ditch?  There have not even been stories about this being attempted specifically.  It would not be easy and require a few tricks.

In principle, and assuming they even had the right to detain Palestinians, Israelis could detain, and return protestors attempting to escape during the March of Protest.  There are no stories of this.

It is even arguable Israelis have the right to detain Gazans leaving from Gaza at all if their destination is the West Bank.  In fact I believe Israel detaining those in Gaza and the West Bank, preventing them from leaving or entering, is a crime under current law and UN resolutions as well as UNSC resolutions.

Meanwhile it is certainly not true that Israel has the legal right to detain Gazans coming and going from Gaza through the ocean.  It is illegal, immoral, and unconsionable.  As actually are the other forms of detention, dispossessing, wounding, and killing.

But they claim this is "War."  Hamas is "at War with Israel" and this justifies, to Israelis, endless forms of repression against civilians as well.  This is, of course, a War Crime.

The creation of Israel itself, the Nabka dispossession of 750,000 indigenous Palestinians, the continuing ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and repression, and the wildly unasymmetrical responses to any resistance, armed, or even journalistic...this is beyond merely being a war crime.

My friends feel that Palestinians are stupid when they use violence, even stone throwing, to express their great loss.

I feel it would be hard for anyone, under such circumstances, to bear such loss non-violently.  I am not going to judge.

But further, for me the Palestinian cause is clearly in the right.  Zionist Israel attacked and replaced their country.  They have a right to resist violently, even harming "civilians" of this invading force.

This is just my opinion, but I feel it is consonant with existing rules of war, all that's necessary is to recognize Zionist Israelis as an attacking force.

Israel has turned this around to claim that the Palestinian resistance to their aggression and illegal annexation and dispossession and killing is "terrorism," when clearly the State they defend is terrorist in its founding and in its present and for the forseeable future.

The best thing, of course, would be for the Zionist Israelis to wake up.  They had a chance...they could have groomed a Palestine...strictly within the recognized borders, done everything possible to make it work rather than otherwise.  I am sure they are smart enough to have done it, it's a matter of orientations.  But that opportunity has ceased.

Now there is no alternative to ending the Ethnic State, whose very definition is racist.  Every defense of Israel is fundamentally racist, according to legendary scholar Steven Salaita.  What is needed is a state of equality of all of it's citizens, including those who have been expelled by force.  He deftly deconstructs many of the pro Israel arguments.

Salaita points out that Likud and the other major Israeli parties have been responsible for far more deaths than Hamas, the party the Gazans selected to represent them.

Now, it is true, the great scholar and historian Norman Finkelstein, scrupulous about proving Israeli deceits and crimes in the widest possible picture of what has happened, nevertheless insists we must only consider "reasonable" solutions.  This very point is discussed by the also distinguished historian Salaita, who strongly disagrees, and this point is discussed further in the comments.

I side with those we must start with the heart, with justice, and work from there.

One view of justice in the imposition of a settler colony would be to say that all the colonists must leave and pay reparations.

Virtually every view of justice would be that the Palestinians and their descendants have the right to return, and all Palestinians be regarded as citizens with equal rights in all Israel/Palestine (heretofore to be called TheHolyLands).

The UN Partition Plan hardly qualifies as justice.  Both the native Palestinians and all the Arab majority nations refused to vote, calling it an unauthorized theft of a country.

But certainly even that, still a grave injustice, would be preferable to the present situation.  And while it would not be full justice in any accounting I consider honest...it would actually be internationally legal, having passed various tests.  This is the solution those like Finkelstein and Chomsky would comment, I believe, close to the UN Plan (except, the 67 borders are far more generous to Israel than the Mandate).

Israel to return to pre-67 borders.
All Palestinians to have full right of return to the new Palestinian State.
The Palestinians have unconditional sovereignty, regardless of politics.
Passage to be granted between Gaza and the fully restored West Bank (in the UN plan, they had bridging territory).
All of Jerusalem to an international city, or minimally East Jerusalem to be Palestinian.

But if the UN plan was theft, as Arabs complained at the time, the 67 borders are far worse.

Anyway, if Israel did these things...and refrained from attacking Palestine disproportionately...it would be fully legal and acceptable.

As long as it doesn't, or can't, the only alternative is the superior anyway solution, the full right of return of Palestinians to their homes anywhere in Israel/Palestine, and full and equal rights.

That is as morally correct as it gets, other the complete exit of Zionists from Palestine.

I believe the moral principles here are obvious.  No amount of suffering caused by Germans, Russians, and others to Jews, grants them the right to steal the country of Palestinians.

The most morally important thing to do is allow the Palestinians to return to their homeland.  Whether the Zionists remain or leave afterwards is far less important to the moral aspect of it.  But along with the return, they must have rights no less than any others.

This has nothing to do what what one thinks about Jews.  I think, before the rise of Zionism especially, Jews were among the best people and still are, and are most of my favorite authors and reporters as well.  Their culture produces very intelligent and often very clear thinking people, who have always been leaders in many fields (including Anti-Zionism).

The conflation of Zionism and "Anti-Semitism" (Anti-Jewishness) is a Zionist trap, not a Jewish one.

Many Jews opposed the creation of Israel before it was created, and still do now.  They demonstrate against it, disavow it, regularly.  The fairest interpretation of the Torah forbids the creation of a Jewish State, in the view of many Rabbis.  The Zionists were not very religious, and cared more about material things, as well explained by Rabbi Shapiro.

Western Societies strongly back Zionist not merely because of pressure from Jews, but because it fits the geopolitical agenda of the dominant northern powers in subduing the resourch-rich southern region.  Not unlike the kind of considerations involved in the return of Jews to Palestine by the emperor Cyrus.  He wanted to conquer Egypt, which his son did.

The risks involved here this time are obvious.