The Israel Question as the Modern Jewish Question

Hey everybody, it's James Lindsay, you're listening to the new Discourses podcast, and I want to talk today about something I call the Israel question. So, nothing to controversial, right? So, is questioning Israel, anti-Semitic is just asking questions, anti-Semitic is anti-Zionism, a form of anti-Semitism. These are the kinds of questions we're going to get to. I want to talk about this concept called the Israel question, which is, as you can kind of tell by the way,

“we have formulated an extension of something that's well-known called the Jewish question. Okay, just to get it right out from the very beginning, the Jewish question is, what do we do with the Jews?”

Now there's a presumption underneath the Jewish question, which is, we don't want them here, right? We don't want them around, so we have to figure out something to do with them.

That's the Jewish question, and as you can hear, it is intrinsically anti-Semitic. The underlying assumption of not wanting them there is always present, why?

Because if your answer to the Jewish question was, you know what? Jews are members of our society, so we're going to work productively with them. We're going to extend them religious liberty, we're going to treat them like we would anybody else, and we're going to let them, you know, be Jewish. And okay, if that was your answer to the what do we do with the Jews? Like we're just going to let them be themselves and extend them liberty, then you wouldn't have the question, you wouldn't ask it. You already know the answer. The answer, in fact,

“if that's your answer is of the sort to where there's no question to ask, what do you do with the Jews?”

You only ask, what are we doing with the Jews? What are we going to do with the Jews? If you think there are a problem, so there is an underlying presumption, when I say presumption, I don't mean assumption, I mean presumption that the Jews being here are a problem, we don't want them. That's the underlying assumption of the Jewish question. And that question is intrinsically antisemitic, so if you are asking the Jewish question, congratulations, you're an antisamite. There's no getting around it.

That underlying predicating presumption of we don't want them around that drives you to ask the question in the first place is impossible to get away from.

So this is a thing that has been historically a lot. Now, we're going to talk about it in our present context too, but let's talk about the Jewish question a little bit historically. We've got the Old Testament. You can read about civilization after civilization, that decided for one reason or another that was going to drive the Jews into extinction or get rid of them. They were answering the Jewish question. People in the region is the Old Testament records were dealing with the Jewish question. What do we do with these Jews?

“Meaning we don't want them here. But then this kind of culminates, I think, is the right way to phrase this, I mean not that everything in the Old Testament is pretty either. This kind of culminates around 87.”

And in the preceding, maybe a couple of centuries, when you have Roman occupation of the region, they called Palestine, which of course is named after the Philistines. So you have this Roman occupation. They also don't know what to do with the Jews. This is recorded in the Bible in the New Testament very clearly. They don't know what to do with the Jews. They see the Jews as a problem. They aren't sure what to do with it. What do we do with the Jews? And they did different things. They tried to, like, Herod is a great example having gone to Israel a couple of times and having visited, you know, Herod's magnificent temple, which was the second temple, what's left of it obviously.

And then the Tower of David Museum and seeing what it was and understanding the story having visited Herodian, which is on top of a volcano just outside of Jerusalem, which was this great palace.

The Herod built, you get this sense of what their answer to the Jewish question was in one sense, which was basically the Jews can stay here as long as they kind of, you know, nod to what we're doing.

And we'll kind of integrate in Herod, of course, built the greatest temple ever now. The problem was that the Jews don't actually ever fully assimilate. They're a semi assimilating group at the best because they retain their Jewishness and they retain their Jewish peculiarities, their traditions, their beliefs. And they will not worship God in the form of nodding to Jupiter or whatever. They won't do it.

And there's lots of archaeology showing that. But I'm digressing the point is that the Romans had a solution come 70 to the Jewish question, which was, we've had enough of them. They've provoked us too far. And we're not merely going to try to govern them. This was the Herod stories. The Roman governors, they would use people of Jewish heritage to govern them to kind of have this like, you know, somebody under the Roman authority who's one of you is going to rule you as kind of like a king who's embedded.

“There's a word for this and I forgot what it is at the moment. So they answered the question in 8070 by deciding even at Matsada to destroy all the Jews relentlessly.”

Of course, through the middle ages during diaspora diaspora begins after 70. The Jews are scattered throughout their other countries of the world that go in if you want it in Hebrew. So they're scattered through the other countries of the world. And all through the middle ages you have these countries wrestling with the Jewish question.

There's always tensions. Jews are always pushed into weird situations in society. They're often not given full citizenship status or given explicit second class.

It isn't status or frequently ghettoized. They're not allowed to own certain kinds of property or whatever, but they were allowed to do business and enact his merchants. And so they, you know, you know, the whole story. This was particularly bad in Zarrist Russia before the Bolsheviksuk over even the communists had their own takes on the Jewish question Martin Luther had his take on the Jewish question writing near the end of his life when he turned viciously anti-Semitic on the Jews and their lies.

The communists Carl Marks himself in 1843 wrote on the Jewish question, which I've read some of here on the podcast. So the Jewish question is what do we do with the Jews? The communist answer if you don't recall was we get rid of Jews by making them not Jewish by getting rid of the religion, right? So you solve the Jewish question by taking the Judaism out of the Jew. It doesn't matter what they are ethnically to the communists, what it matters is that they don't believe the Jewish faith. And of course the Nazis had the opposite answer. It matters a lot, what they are ethnically. But the Nazis represent the most earnest attempt to solve the Jewish question in history, at least since the Romans.

In the years 1939 to 1945, the systematically went not just to imprisoning and ghettoizing Jews but to outright just trying to destroy them. We call this the Holocaust.

“It's very important to realize that well before the Holocaust began way back in 1919 before the national socialists even became a party.”

Hitler was writing and a letter and explaining that getting the Jews out of Europe by one means or another was absolutely necessary to Europe's future survival. So all the way back to the very beginnings of the post-World War One environment anti-Semitic currents and Germany were concluding that it was time to solve largely as a result of the cataclysm of World War One. It is now undeniable at its time to solve the Jewish question, which means to get the Jews out of Europe, which culminates in the Holocaust when they realize that there's simply no way to put them anywhere.

There's nowhere you can put them. And so Hitler attempted to solve the Jewish question. This results in the Holocaust.

And it was, you know, 6 million dead Jews systematically exterminated merely for being Jews rounded up across Europe intentionally hunted across Europe intentionally, so that they might be removed from Europe by what Hitler called the final solution.

“And the rest of the free world had its Jewish question during the Second World War and even immediately after, as well, will you accept Jews as refugees?”

Well, the answer was mostly no. In the free countries of the world, the United States, Britain, European countries, mostly did not want to absorb Jewish refugees. Some came in, some had the opportunity to get to other countries, but it was very limited. And the stance was generally, no, we don't want them. This was the Jewish question by other means in a sense. What do we do with the Jews? Well, we don't let them in, despite the fact that they're being rounded up in Europe in ways that are extremely concerning, not that necessarily the West knew the full extent of what was going on there or the intention.

We see this question arising on the radical right. We see this question embedded in the radical left. We sell this. We see this question even in other places.

“When we obviously see this question deeply, deeply embedded in the third world list Islamist programs of the radical Muslims who are most of Israel's neighbors today.”

This was the first question, because it asked a lot. I was recently on a panel at the Judeo-Christian Zionist Congress and one of the questions posed to the panel was how did we get here. How was it that we kind of got taken by surprise and were on defensive after all these years, maybe 78 years of not having to be on the defensive about the Jewish question. The answer that I gave, memory, very brief, very short panel amounted to that we were taken by what is kind of a sneak attack. We were actually infiltrated and infiltrated suggests something other than what happened.

It suggests that people snuck in unwelcome and they tricked us and there's a degree to which that's true.

“But what happened actually is that the alt-right held many of these views, the older fringes of the American right, the never gave up things like the Jewish question, although most of us did not accept it.”

We no longer accept the Jewish question after the Holocaust in free Western nations. We see it as the anti-Semitism that it is. Well, some people, you can't get rid of these things. You can only push them to the margins as some people maintain them in this thing that we called the alt-right through the middle 2010s. Certainly had elements of that. And then after the Charlottesville United the right, that's the many fine people on both sides event. If you forgot what that was, it was called United the right, by the way, eerie parallels to now.

After that, these people mostly went underground. They were gab. They were the groypers. They were the alt-right, the manosphere. All these kinds of alt-right characters and different circles and segments. The neo-reactionaries, the pagan right, the Bronze Age weirdos. They all kind of started to insinuate themselves. And then along comes woke. So there are anti-woke fighters alongside us. And some of them are proving very useful to building platforms and making big accounts. They have shows. They're making meme accounts that are actually moving the ball. They're funny memes. They help meme warfare. I think is a very legitimate form of information and political warfare.

“So it's like Gorilla Media Warfare. It's actually extremely effective. I think it's a very fascinating form of information warfare.”

And so they built huge accounts that were on our side. They ingratiated themselves and insinuated themselves among us.

It seemed many of them had given up some of their more radical ways and maybe some of them had, maybe some of them hadn't. But a lot of them built each other's programs. They built each other and brought some of us along with when it was convenient and useful. So we tolerated them because they were building platforms and the alt media space that we wanted and needed. They were doing things in the alt media space and in the culture war that we wanted and needed. And so we didn't just tolerate them. We found them to be allies. Then COVID comes along and a lot of them put up a great fight against COVID. Some of them were the ones who were open willing to open their mouths and fight back against this tyranny where I was no one else would.

And they became our allies in woke and COVID fights and the MAGA conservative movement Republican Party sort of absorbed a large number of them. So this isn't exactly infiltration though there are infiltration elements. This is kind of worse than that. It was a kind of desperation of the situation lack of discernment and we brought in a lot of people who never should have been fellow travelers who some of whom carried with them. The Jewish question. But that's kind of how we got here. They spoke our language. They made themselves useful. They insinuated themselves into the movement. When I say they spoke our language, I mean they spoke things that resonate with a lot of conservatives and libertarians in America anti war rhetoric, especially following the Gulf Wars Afghanistan.

This anti war attitude is very strong. That bleeds into something even bigger, which is the anti interventionist theme, especially since the Gulf Wars, this idea that we're going to go mess around in other countries. And do things has been very unpopular with the big segments of the American right. They blame the Neo conservative movement as it were, which we should really be specific. We're not talking about the Reagan doctrine. We're talking about the Bush doctrine, but they're blaming this Neo conservatism of the Bush doctrine for, and that's both Bush is by the way, but Bush won primarily.

They're blaming this doctrine, this Neo conservative as they call it doctrine, for all this interventionism, fooling around causing wars, participating in wars, on false pretenses or bad pretenses, and they're against it. And this is a very strong current on the American right that I think is even kind of indicative of the right, since at least the mid 2000s, but probably since the Gulf Wars.

I digress, and I just also had, I guess, a lot of these guys were Buchananites, Pap Buchananites, and Pap Buchanan, of course, was accused, likely credibly President Trump had him, who went on J. Leno's show, the tonight's show a long time ago, and had it nailed to the wall about how Pap Buchanan traffic and these same kinds of anti-Jewish conspiracies or whatever, but in this new form that I'm going to talk about in this podcast, which I'm going to call the Israel question. So you have this woke right, alt right, Buchanan right, dissident right, new right, pagan right, whatever way, new Christian right, ironically enough, that all of them are circling around this radicalism and insinuate themselves, like I said, into the broader conservative maga and Republican movements, and that's kind of how we got here.

So the reason we're behind, or this has been so effective for them over the second half of 24 and all of 25 in particular, is that we were taken by surprise by people we thought were our friends who worked alongside us and insinuated themselves among us. And a lot of it has to do, of course, with the structural change, all of a sudden, on X, where it became a free speech platform that was easily gamed by these guys, Andrew Torbo with his alternative site gab, a lot of 4chan flooded onto X as a free speech site, but they came prepared to start gaming the algorithm and get ahead.

“And they came with bot farms, they came with all kinds of tools, and of course they had a lot of foreign help doing that without even having to speculate about, you know, causes there, we can say that those things are all certainly true.”

The reason these guys were fringe and they were on gab and they were in forechand and having to hide is because after the Holocaust two things happened, one of them is that in 1948, through holy legal processes, Israel, real established itself as a political entity, as a country, where it stands today in the Middle East, up against the, you could say, I guess, between the Jordan River and the

Mediterranean Sea. And so that's one of the two things that happened after World War II, we end up having the establishment of Israel in 1948.

For what it's worth, by the way, how legal was this President Harry Truman recognized the state of Israel's claim legal claim to be a country as it was within 11 minutes. Think about this is in the 40s. They declare it's an interesting story on this really side.

“But bingurion declares the nationhood through what worked out to be kind of a narrow, tight little loophole that allowed him to be able to do it, and President Harry Truman within 11 minutes within 11 minutes.”

We don't have the internet, okay, this is 1948 within 11 minutes already has written and signed a letter recognizing the state of Israel as legally reestablished in the location that it is.

Now, there's a name, by the way, for the establishment of Israel, where in the location such that Jerusalem can be its capital, and that is called Zionism.

“Then, of course, this was part of the Zionist movement to purchase property there, to get it from the British and so on from the first part of the late part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century.”

In a reestablished as Jewish homeland, of course, the consequences of World War II and the Holocaust encouraged this process to be brought to fruition.

But the second thing that happened was as after the Holocaust and after World War II was kind of this shock, this culture shock through the entire free Western world.

The basically said the Jewish question is bull shit. We are not doing this anymore, this anti-Semitism went really bad, and the question of what are we going to do with the Jews on the presumption that we don't want them is anti-Semitic. It became a very, very widely recognized attitude that very quickly spread, at least through the governments of Western nations, by the 50s, by the 60s, you start to see very quick, very thorough changes, and asking the Jewish question is getting sideline. By the time that we get to people like William F. Buckley, Jr. defining the modern Republican Party, this is verboten, the old right lost this fight.

And the anti-Semitism of the Jewish question was so apparent and the shock that we all faced in the visible evil and horror we all saw from World War II and the Holocaust caused most people in Western nations, especially as time went on, to reject even the asking the Jewish question.

If you think there's nothing wrong with having Jews in your society, there is no Jewish question.

“So the presumption is guaranteed if the question is being asked, the presumption is there. So these two things happened.”

First, you have the legal establishment of a Jewish homeland in the state of Israel, and then secondly, the anti-Semitism within the Jewish question rapidly became visible in verboten.

So free societies all around the world tended toward the belief that the Jewish question is not just "mute" as in what you do as you treat Jews like any other people in your society, but it's also because the presumption is rejected. But it's not just "mute", but it's also "abhorent". We're not going to ask the Jewish question anymore. So you get rid of the Jewish question except in the margins, except in the fringes and except in the parts of the world that are doing this third world is deliberation stuff.

The communist world still retains the Jewish question, and the Islamist world still retains the Jewish question. The fascist world was shattered, and then the liberal world rejects it. So this is the state of affairs beginning in 1948. But again, the reestablishment of the Jewish homeland there. So the JQ is thrown out from liberal democracies. It's no longer considered acceptable by the 1960s. It's more or less sideline, not completely obviously, and you have Israel. So Israel becomes by definition, whether this was its intention and it's not the intention of the Zionist movement which predates it by a long time.

But Israel becomes definitely a fail-safe option should the Jewish question ever arise again in these free Western democracies in Europe in the United States and Australia, New Zealand, Canada, even South America, Mexico, etc.

If Jews are unsafe in some other country, they are totally free to make Aliyah and go to Israel, where there is a country in a country, is a homeland in that country has an army called the IDF.

And the IDF can and will protect them. And it has proven itself again and again, especially after 1967, to be fully capable of protecting its citizens and willing to protect its citizens. And seeing it as having been to Israel a couple of times, I understand that most Israelis understand that it is one of the highest duties of Israeli to protect the Israeli citizenry in homeland. And so much so that you have this really kind of compelling song that's one of the most popular songs from what I understand or was in Israel for a while, which is basically this guy just kind of walking around singing and the lyrics are more or less like he drives a bus, but he also drives a tank.

“It's a nation of heroes like you teach a school, but he also knows how to put together tank battalion or what I don't know, I don't remember the lyrics. They're in Hebrew anyway.”

But the point is that the every single person in Israel for the most part is a hero. They're all war heroes. They all understand the value and the importance. So Israel as a country with its IDF and its nation of heroes becomes a fail safe option against the Jewish question.

If the detent against it fails. So we now have a moral belief that pervades the Western liberal democracies. The Jewish question is off the table. Obviously the Islamic republics never accepted that.

But the European countries did. The Americas did. All of the developed nations in the world, the free nations in the world, all accepted that it's morally out of bounds to ask the Jewish question, which is what do we do with the Jews? Again, on the presumption that we don't want them here. We have to get rid of them somehow, right? So if that moral bull work were to fail Jews now with a Israeli homeland with an IDF could make Aliya and go home if they want to. Now, that's a funny way to say it. A lot of Jews do think that way and feel that way, but at the same time a lot of Jews live in countries like the United States or in Europe or in Russia or anywhere else.

Feel like the place that they live and their families have lived for generations is home. They don't necessarily want to go to Israel, though they can. So there's this fail safe.

“So having this is it pulls a plug on the Jewish question that didn't exist during diaspora. This is kind of the context you have to understand. During diaspora, the question was what do we do with the Jews?”

The presumptions we don't want them here, but the reality was we don't have anywhere where we can send them either. The Nazis even flirted with the idea of conquering Madagascar and sending all the Jews there, not to the Middle East, not to their ancestral homeland, the one that's given to them in the Bible, but to Madagascar.

This is not going to work and therefore they default to this final solution program, which is if you can't, if you don't want them there, and you can't send them somewhere else, because they have nowhere to go, as Hitler describes in the third chapter of the second volume of mine confesers, or some people who don't have a country, and the Nazis were going to send anybody who didn't want to be a slave in the Nazi regime back to their own country, although the Jews they didn't want to slaves even, they're going to send them back to their own country, but the Jews don't have a country.

“So what are you going to do with them? How are you going to get rid of them? It turns out there's only one answer, and they tried it, and this is a catastrophe. And so you have this, the existence of Israel pulls the plug on that.”

Okay, so Jews don't have to cower, they don't have to hide, they don't have to rely upon the nations in which they live to be willing to protect them.

They don't have to be on the right side of the police and security forces and politics of the countries that they're in, if they have Israel. They have their own country with its own army that can defend them.

“And so all of a sudden, the part of the Jewish question, which is what do we do with the Jews, which you don't have to, by the way, you don't have to ask that question if you don't want them gone,”

you also don't really, you still kind of do, but less, the question makes a lot less sense if there were a place they could go if everything got really hostile.

So if Jews were able to move, if things got hostile, even though they shouldn't, and they had a guaranteed place that they could go, which is Israel, all of a sudden you take the pinch, you don't render the Jewish question, but you take the pinch out of the Jewish question, okay? So, you know, they can go to Israel. So, this, in other words, is a game changer. After World War II, for the first time in thousands of years, since 80, 70 at the very least, you have a game changing situation, okay?

“And that game changing situation is first, that the liberal countries of the world, the free countries of the world, the developed countries of the world, recognize the Jewish question to be against their principle values and abhorrent,”

so that it shall be pushed to the margins and not a mainstream part of society. This is what the woke right, by the way, calls the post-war liberal consensus, which they think oppresses them, because they want to engage in, we'll say, older styles of politics. And including asked the Jewish question in many cases. But then secondly, you now also have a fail-safe option, which is Israel itself, in case some country forgets its morals, and fails the IQ test, and decides they want to get rid of Jews or treat Jews badly, they do have a place to go.

America, once it finally got its head on straight by the late '50s and early '60s, was also a decent place for Jews to go, which is why nearly half of the Jews in the world live in the United States,

nearly half of those live in New York City, which is an interesting situation now with Mayor Mundami. Okay, so anyway, everything changes post-World War II, with the establishment of Israel as a fail-safe, it's not all it is, I'm just saying, in with the relevance to the Jewish question, it's a fail-safe, and then secondly, with this change of heart of the Western democracies. Now obviously the Arab neighbors in the Middle East and North Africa did not accept this and they have their own Jewish question, and they answered to the Jewish question, they are now really almost since 1948, has been from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, right?

That's the mantra, what does the mantra mean from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea? The region that was formerly called Palestine will be free of Jews and Israel. There will be no Jews, there will be no Israel as a state, that whole area will be cleansed of that and restored to being some pan-erob area of conflict, I think, is a way to probably phrase what would really happen. What happens as a result of these changes is we now have a new question on the world stage, the Western democracies have rejected the Jewish question, but even the Middle East North African Arab states have accepted a new version of the Jewish question, in addition to retaining the Jewish question itself, which I call the Israel question, and the Israel question is the point of this podcast.

We need to start thinking about this, we have the JQ, now we have the IQ following 1948, and it's funny that it's IQ, like it's some kind of giant cosmic IQ test, which it is, and the Israel question, the IQ is what do we do with Israel?

The catastrophe that they were defeated, and the Israel not only established itself legally, but was able to withstand the attempted destruction of itself.

There was a attempted destruction again later, we could chronicle among them at the very least, the six day war in six days war in 1967, the war in 1973, and of course October 7th, are all serious attacks.

“But nonetheless, the state was legally established and everything changed, and then we have this new question, regardless of whether the Jewish questions a lot of persist, but this new question is, what do we do with Israel?”

And like I said, if the assumption underneath the presumption underneath it wasn't, we don't want it there, we don't want it at all, then there would be no Israel question, we would say, okay, it's a legally established country, it exists in the world. We'll establish trade with it, we'll recognize alignments and mutual interests, we'll see where we differ, we'll set up the same deal every other country in the world has and has to deal with, we'll make alliances accordingly, everything that you do country to country as it is, et cetera, et cetera.

Because your view, okay, Israel exists after 1948, sure they got attacked, they tried to, the Arab states tried to wipe it out, they failed Israel has demonstrated it can maintain its own security and a contentious region.

“It didn't have a lot of help doing that by the way, unless it was from heaven, and okay, if you just accept that, okay, Israel exists now, so it's like a country and it's more going to deal with it like any other country.”

There's no Israel question, there's no question of what do we do with this country, we trade it like any other country.

Which means you hold it to the same standards, you would hold in your other country regarding its security, regarding its trade, regarding its behavior, regarding the activities of its intelligence community, regarding its alliances, everything. So the Israel question is only a question because of the presumption underneath it and that presumption underneath it is, we don't want Israel to exist. The Arab Islamists and their Communist Bakers, whether we're talking about the popular front for liberation in Palestine, or we're talking about the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, whether we're talking about the Soviet KGB infiltration and activity there, whether we're talking about the infusion of the new left through Jean Paul Sartra and some of the third worldists in these liberationists, whatever the Arab Islamists and their Communist Bakers have a particular answer to the Israel question,

“which is Israel is the problem, it is the agitation, the agitator by its mere existence, it is illegal, it is an appropriate, it has stolen Arab lands and it needs to be or Islamic lands and it needs to be destroyed.”

Their answer to the Israel question is from the river to the sea, Israel will no longer be. That is actually the answer that they have done the presumption that they don't want it to exist.

Now the left throughout the west downstream from that communism, that KGB manipulation, the third worldism, the not just Jean Paul Sartra, but also Franz Fannon, Edward Said,

Edward Said being a allegedly Palestinian American who did a lot of who imported the kind of postmodernized postcolonial theory or third world theory, liberation theory, in with his book Orientalism and is other writing. These guys, the left has all adopted the Red Green Alliance's answer to the Israel question, which is from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, the Palestinian region must be completely free of Israel and Jews. There's no surprise there, this is the left, this is what the left does. So the Israel question replaces the Jewish question after 1948,

especially in western countries, and the western left following the Islamic Bolshevist radical Muslims and Arab states, these Islamic republics, following them, and the communist decides the same answer, the Israel is illegal, it's a prop of the western appearance nations like the US and the UK, and it shouldn't exist, it should be destroyed. So they're able to hide the fact that they're asking this Israel question, they don't, if you ask your average leftist purchasing campus, do you think Israel should be destroyed?

But even when they know, sometimes they might say, they can hide all of this through all of this rhetoric and propaganda and leftist gobbledy cook that they all engage in all the time.

I just see it as settler colonialism. Oh, it's an occupied Palestinian territory. They don't even call Judea Jews Judea Jews Judea, where do you think that comes from? Judea and Samaria, they call the West Bank, the West Bank of what? The West Bank of the Jordan River, which is still supposed to be part of Jordan in their calculations. They can hide it under the third world is deliberationist rhetoric and theoretical models that we've all this postcolonial theory and all the propaganda that's been built out supplied amplified by the red green alliance and its affiliates, including the PLO and Hamas downstream from that, the Muslim Brotherhood, et cetera.

“And so they ask and answer the Israel question all the time in hidden rhetoric, and this is something I think it's very important. The Israel question hides itself.”

Whereas the Jewish question in the 1920s or before would have been asked directly, what do we do with the Jews?

Hitler asks it openly, it just brings it up and these writings from the late 1910s and early 1920s. What are we going to do with the Jews? We straight up see Marx writing in 1843 on the Jewish question. There's no hiding what he's actually talking about, right? Well, the Israel question hides. Very few people say what are we going to do with Israel? Actually, the only people who do are these kind of Islamists, Islam of Bolshevists, the Red Green Alliance characters, and then one more kind of group, which is the more liberal left, which is hidden it from itself too, they all hide the Israel question.

“They never state it plainly. What do we do with Israel under the presumption that we don't want it, right? And like I said, sometimes these Arab states will straight up say it, but the left won't.”

The left hides it behind all of this third world is liberationist rhetoric in jargon, and all of these propaganda terms, West Bank, blah, blah, blah, occupied Palestinian territories and so on, and they start screaming about genocide by Israel. Some of them call the Israelis, the new Nazis, etc. But the liberal left, which has been kind of the globalist left, if you will, has also hidden from itself the Israel question in a different way, while kind of still talking about it.

They do ask the question, what are we going to do with Israel, but they propose a answer that hides from themselves what they're actually proposing.

“That answer is called the two-state solution. The two-state solution, this was an experiment, this has been tested. The two-state solution has been tried, let's put it that way.”

It's still being tried. You can go to Israel today and you are indifferent. The land is broken into three parts, three territories, the territories A, B, and C, territory A is controlled by the Palestinian Authority, as it's called, and if you are Israeli, you cannot go in there. It's against the law, and cannot, and will not guarantee, or safety, you will probably be killed if you go in there, and there's these big red signs everywhere, at the gates telling you so, warning you for your life. If you're not, Israeli, if you're an American visiting, you're taking your life in your own hands. It's a very dangerous situation, but this has been tested for many decades.

Israel, some people knowing better, some people not. Try to push something to make a workable two-state solution. They were very generous in this attempt, very frequently generous. The character that's now on people's lips because of the Epstein files and his relationships in Jeffrey Epstein and his relationships with Steve Van in this character, a Houd Barak, a former prime minister of Israel, was a pretty big proponent of the two-state solution of how not mistaken. But the two-state solution is dependent on this thing called the concept, or the concept, yeah. And the concept, yeah, was this belief that if, you know, okay, there are people too, where people too, we can establish our national borders, we can create a two-state solution, we can make this work.

We will help them get their economy going, we will allow massive amounts of basically migrant workers to come across from the Palestinian areas, that will help them have a functioning economy, it will give them money, it will make them economically. A, more secure and be aware that Israel is willing to work with them and place where economic opportunity lies. The concept, yeah, was particularly strongly held in the various Kibitsim that learned on October 7th, 2023 that they were deadly wrong.

and there's no history of a Palestinian state, it's an Ersats state that doesn't exist, has never existed, that these people want a stable two-state solution, that's the misconception upon which the entire program of a two-state solution depends. So these left liberals throughout the West had been advocating for this, and even within Israel, itself, they've been advocating for this, have been being played and playing themselves or have been the useful idiots of people who always had the intentions of it not working.

“Even if there were people within the Palestinian Authority itself that wanted it to work, there were other groups like Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, ISIS, Al Qaeda that never wanted it to work, and we're not going to allow it to work.”

So these organizations, in that side of the two-state solution, which were to end the Palestinian side, never wanted it to work.

They wanted it to be an opportunity to set up and plan for what happened on October 7th or worse, and as long as this pretence is maintained, there will be another October 7th. As long as Israel is unable to properly secure its borders and is operating under this even less effective but still, this misconception to conception of the possibility of a functioning two-state solution, they're going to get played by people who simply don't want one. You cannot negotiate with terrorists, as it said, and these people are actually terrorists.

“The purpose is to wipe Israel off the map, they have their answer to the Israel question, and so you have this two-state solution rhetoric, this high-minded BS rhetoric, with the global liberal left,”

thinking that they can broker some kind of peace and a lasting ceasefire that's not merely an opportunity for Hamas and/or its similar entities to plan for another attack, because they have no interest in lasting peace, they have no interest in a stable two-state solution, they have no interest in building their own prosperity. So long as the Israel question maintains and the Israel being questionable, maintain for them as long as Israel is maintained for them. So since October 7th, but also before stretching back in some ways to the very early days of the alt-right, we've also seen the Israel question on the western right.

So you have the Islamists have an answer to these requests, which is to destroy it, what are we going to do with Israel? We're going to destroy it until the, you know, one day the rocks themselves and the trees will call out, "Hey Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come kill him." They say the Hamas charter includes this, the Hamas charter explicitly wants a destruction of Israel and Jews. But since October 7th and also before, we've seen this build up very strongly on the American or western left, but also now on the American or western right.

The fringes on the margins, whether it would be canonites, whether we go back further and we're actually talking about like clan type guys, it's never quite gone away, it's always had different manifestations. This Israel question, which is what do we do with Israel presuming you don't want it, has been a part of the fringe right, the radical right, the far right, whatever you want to call them, the new right.

“I mean, we can come up with tons of names, be canonite, they tried to claim that for themselves, the woke right is my favorite, I think it's the most appropriate, the alt right, they called themselves.”

But certainly since October 7th, starting primarily, honestly with Candice Owens, the propaganda toward the right to doubt Israel to get our young men, especially, and young women, secondarily, and middle age women probably.

Third, and then Christian men under 44th to get those groups of people in the conservative movement to strongly doubt the relationship between the West and the United States, particularly in Israel.

And to doubt Israel's role in the world is a right wing western, Israel question. Now remember the context we can't ask the Jewish question anymore, it's morally apparent, we're not anti-Semites, we're just asking questions about the role of Israel in the world and what it does. So here, the Israel question, what do we do with Israel, on the presumption that we don't want it, gets couched in more language that hides it even from the people that are asking it, even knowing actors who know what they're doing, like Tucker Carlson must know what he's doing, he's not just asking questions, he knows what he's doing.

A lot of these guys on the internet aren't even hiding it, they don't even try to blur the line between the fact that the Israel question is the Jewish question for them.

But it gets couched when they are hiding it, including from themselves and this anti-interventionist anti-war America first rhetoric and propaganda,

Russia, the various Gulf states, Qatar, Iran, the deep state, the anti-Trump deep state, and so on.

The Democrats, probably, and so on. And it's the same question. What do we do with Israel, on that underlying presumption that we don't want it? That's the Israel question. So when they are just asking questions, we've all heard the different talking points.

“They are asking the Israel question, just like when you have the two state solution people who honestly might have been just confused about what was really going on,”

the Islamists hit their intentions well enough. If you even have these factions in Israel that were supportive of the two state solution,

we can say that's the case, but then also the radical left and it's Islamo Bolshevist, Red Green Alliance program. They're all asking the Israel question. The Israel question is should Israel exist? What do we do with Israel, meaning should it exist? Can it presume it shouldn't? In this anti-interventionist, America first, anti-war rhetoric comes off. We've heard these talking points.

Like foreign aid isn't America first. When are we going to put America first? I want to be able to buy a house, but we sent three and a half billion dollars.

Israel for foreign aid? Of course, they don't know how the foreign aid works or what it's for.

“Is the massade spying on people? Are they running blackmail rings through Epstein? All of these things. Is Israel destabilizing the region?”

Causing us to have random wars forever wars, drag America into wars. It's wars not our wars as though global jihad isn't our problem too. Is Israel destabilizing the region by starting these random wars as they would say it? This is the talking points deliberately in order to drive Islamists into the West falsely as refugees. This by the way is a major propaganda piece all over the world right now. I've seen this exact same meme in Japanese. I've seen it in English and I've seen it in Polish and I'm sure it's in other languages and positive it'd be in Spanish and other languages as well, which shows what it shows is that you know the grim reaper meme or the grim reapers knocking one door to the next and it's all the doors are open and like a trail of blood is coming out.

And so the grim reaper is labeled with like Islamic refugees or whatever. And then the doors are the different European countries Britain, France, Germany and they're open and it's blood leaking out and then it's knocking on the next door or there's Canada, Australia, United States, whatever, but I said specifically it's whichever country is the languages in Poland and Polish, it's in Japanese or it's Japan and the one that's in Japanese. And then you say okay, I kind of get that, but then the meme actually has the you know kind of stereotypical world miserly planning, you know, nefarious Jew with the big nose and the beard and the rubbing his hands together down in the corner because the meme is that the Jews are intentionally provoking conflict in the Middle East to generate fake refugees of these terrible wars

“to send to Western Europe, to Japan, to Australia, to New Zealand, to America, to Canada, to South America and so on.”

As though, I mean, this is just straight Islamist propaganda, the reality is that these guys, these Islamists are using huge amounts of oil money to wage jihad against every country they can particularly the West and they're projecting that as though it's a Jewish plot by projecting the provocation under the Jews. Okay, so we're seeing that kind of a talking point coming from this America first, you know, that Israel's over there starting random wars, that's what they say. Those wars create refugees, that fuels the Jews are causing the mass migration in order to undermine our societies.

This, by the way, is perhaps the dumbest, the great replacement version is probably the dumbest of these pieces of propaganda, like so the Jews are trying to replace a slightly anti-Semitic society with a vastly more anti-Semitic society, like this is the dumbest propaganda ever. But it's working, so Israel started random wars to drive America into and are allies. Israel's a false ally, this is the US-S Liberty BS, they spit on Christians, they hate Christians, they persecute Christians, they attack churches, they're killing Palestinian babies blah blah blah blah, we hear all this propaganda.

These are all the Israel question masking itself. These are not intelligent debates on foreign policy, these are not intelligent debates about Israel's role in the world, so the Israel question does Israel deserve to exist, because we presume it doesn't, or what do we do with Israel, presuming it shouldn't exist, but they can pass this off, not just to each other, not just to the world, but to themselves, as we're actually not anti-Semites, we are just debating Israel's role in the world.

And by holding the country to impossible standards that no other country would ever be held to, if the United States had a gigantic invasion that came across a Texas and Arizona border and killed a whole bunch of people.

“Not one American conservative would doubt the American government's right to go in and obliterate any infrastructure that the Mexicans had to be able to enable that attack and to completely secure the border.”

Nobody would doubt any of it, but this is exactly what's happening Gaza and they paint it as a genocide. The Israelis took unbelievable pains, literally pains, dead people, on their own side, pains to minimize the loss of human life, even among enemy combatants, even while they're the people that they were fighting, would hide behind civilians and within civilian targets like churches, mosques, hospitals and so on behind babies, behind women, behind pregnant women, they would hide behind them, or send them out as combatants and then use it as propaganda when Israel finally through very laborious processes.

You know, took action that may be damaged to church, colliderally or that blew up something that was a hospital harboring a missile silo or an entrance to a tunnel or whatever else.

“So they claim that we're, oh, we're just anti war and we don't want America dragged into the war and we think that this war, this is too violent.”

I'm just against killing babies, you always hear that crap and look at the destruction in Gaza.

This is a genocide. This is an ethnic cleansing. You hear all of this very charged language and they pretend they're being highlighted anti war activists, anti intervention activists, America first. Oh, I don't care if Israel needs to solve its own own problems or wars, that's fine, but America and Americans shouldn't be helping, is though any Americans are fighting in Israel's wars at all. Okay, so they're holding Israel to a completely false standards and lacing it with propaganda that boil down to actually questioning whether or not Israel should be allowed to do what it needs to do to survive

as a non-aggressive nation in the region, in allyship with countries like the United States, including military partnerships and trade partnerships and so on.

That doesn't involve some foreign aid, three point whatever billion that's total up to about a hundred billion over its entire lifespan.

By the way, Israel can survive without this. They were able to do so. In fact, even they had no support whatsoever in the six days war in 1967. This is well documented that they've been able to secure themselves. So there are other reasons for all of that that are not so nefarious, how the foreign aid and so on. This is not all nefarious.

“And this propaganda allows people to ask Israel questions. Should Israel? What should we do with Israel on the presumption that it shouldn't exist?”

Allow them to ask Israel question while hiding from themselves that they're asking the Israel question. Here's some examples of the insane standards, some other ones. I made a little list. Well, here the Israel has arrived to exist but not to start any wars, right? But then the propaganda runs at the very second, they defend themselves that was a war they provoked by existing, by the way, thus started. And so their mere existence and their presence in the Middle East is the reason for the war. So Israel is the one that's starting the random wars by doing what by existing.

Turns out this is the exact same propaganda, the settler colonialist propaganda that the red-green alliance leftists give you. The radical right, the anti-interventionist America first right just doesn't use the exact same settler colonial's language, but it's the exact same message in propaganda. But the message is, Israel's really the problem. Why? Because they defended themselves. So maybe some people will concede, you know what? Fine, they're allowed to defend themselves. So long as it's exactly proportional and actually therefore doesn't solve the underlying security problem, but prolongs it.

And they're not allowed to create any collateral damage and nothing bad can happen. Nothing, no target can be hit, no innocent person can die. Even though they're fighting enemies at high military facilities inside schools, hospitals, houses, worship, behind women and babies and so on.

And if there's any collateral damage, which they're always as in war, that's absolutely not okay. And it doesn't matter how many pains Israel took to minimize that.

It still wasn't enough. Israel is still the problem. That's, by the way, that not a foreign policy debate, not an intervention debate, not a, what Israel's role in the world is it is a illegitimate debate. That is holding Israel to an impossible standard to know whether a country would be held to. The United States, like I said, of Texas and Arizona were invaded by Mexico in similar fashion. What we saw, it not just in on October 7th, but in 1967, 1973, et cetera, et cetera. And on going process.

But they hold, they hold Israel to a completely different standard. And the idea that like Israel's small, therefore, it shouldn't rely on, but you know, it's small, but, you know, it shouldn't be, if it can't exist on its own, it shouldn't.

So it shouldn't, you know, we shouldn't have like a big country like the United States or the Western Alliance backing at this kind of thing.

“Well, it's like Lithuania is fucking small, but we wouldn't be okay with like Germany just deciding it's going to take it over, right?”

So as it turns out that that's a non-starter too. Your holding Israel to a standard that doesn't apply. And the reason that they're doing it is because they're asking the Israel question.

Israel question once again is very simple. What should we do with Israel in the world on the presumption that it's the problem and shouldn't exist? That's the underlying question.

So if this all sounds, by the way, these impossible standards, if this all sounds like leftist debating maybe, you know, self-defense for police officers who encounter any racial minority, there's a reason, it's the same logic. There's a reason that we call this, these people woke right, the woke right, even the woke libertarians that are these anti-interventionists America first America only people are making the same argument.

“And the argument boils down to the Israel question. What should we do with Israel on the presumption that it shouldn't exist?”

But they hide the fact behind these more high-minded sounding arguments in this rhetoric and these theoretical formulations just like the left, just like the two-state solution people, but that slightly more forgivably. So that's the only out though, is that two-state solution. So on the other hand, Israel maybe can exist, at least some of these people will argue, if it commits to what amounts to a death pact, which is called the two-state solution. So as long as Israel survives under a two-state solution logic, the conditions will be such that it is a guarantee that there will be further conflict and that conflict will be turned into propaganda that's used to blame Israel for being the problem for doing what, for existing.

So the impossibility here isn't demanding coexistence in this two-state solution model is demanding coexistence with a committed hostile enemy that even reasonable security measures or responses to provocations and attacks will get treated as intolerable infractions that cost Israel support on every front. In other words, being held to an impossible standard and know what their country would be held to, in other words, asking the Israel question. So the Israel question hides itself, whether on the left, whether in this liberal, globalist thing or on the radical right, the Israel question hides itself in the terms of high-minded foreign policy debates that we all accept in Western free countries as totally above board.

Something that we, of course, would accept and have, but the underlying arguments are not real. This is why they feel like they are bad faith, disingenuous arguments. They are hidden.

They are the Israel question itself hidden within high-minded foreign policy debates in our free countries that fragment our countries, that break apart our conservative movements. While hiding the fact that it's the Israel question is being asked in the first place even for most of the people asking it. I would reckon that if we were to go back to say the mid-1800s and we went around say Germany or Britain or France or lots of countries and we would hear the Jewish question asked very unabashedly.

But the Jewish question is so verbotent that the Israel question is also verbotent. So what we have is this attempt to mask the Jewish question as Israel question and the Israel question is high-minded foreign policy debates that take one of three different forms, which is this communist Islamist red-green alliance leftism, or is this two-state solution liberal-left, globalist nonsense,

“or as this radical right, America first anti-interventionist anti-war nonsense? But the question remains, what do we do with Israel and the presumption under it remains that we presume that we don't want it?”

This isn't actually there for a high-minded policy discussion. It's not a debate. It is kind of a two or three layers of frosting over a presumption that Israel's very existence as the problem. That just disguises itself as high-minded foreign policy discussion and debate. So the people can continue to do it both either with a clear conscience or without being pushed to the sides, the margins of the moral universe that we occupy in the liberal-free west after World War II.

This fact is actually brilliantly clear with one of the talking points that we hear.

“I've already said this talking point, but I'm bringing it out again. We hear this regarding the foreign aid question from the isolationist nationalist right.”

And when they say this, it's funny. They're actually not nationalists at all. They're fundamentally imperialists, violent brutal imperialists. But that talking point is, and I quote, a country that cannot survive on its own doesn't deserve to.

So if Israel can't defend itself, this is about four and eight. If Israel can't defend itself without America giving it three and a half billion dollars in military budget or whatever every year,

then it doesn't deserve to. The argument is supposed to cancel the military aid from the United States, which a lot of Israelis want to cancel that as well, including Benjamin Netanyahu, who's the prime minister, which took Trump by surprise and it kind of insulted Trump. I mean, it's a very interesting situation. Trump was very proud of his support for Israel in this, and this is cause its own pile of complicated stink, but this point, which is supposedly about a foreign aid debate. It's supposed to be a point showing, well, Israel either can survive on its own two legs or it cannot, and if it cannot survive on its own, then it doesn't deserve to.

“Again, they wouldn't make this argument about Lichtenstein. They wouldn't make this argument about Indora. They wouldn't make this argument about Portugal.”

They wouldn't make this argument about any other country on the planet. They don't make this argument about Taiwan. They don't make this argument about any other country on the planet. But if Israel can't exist without foreign aid, then it shouldn't. They don't make this argument about South Korea.

They don't make this argument about any other country, but Israel. But it's supposed to be a reason why we're high-minded about three and a half billion dollars in foreign aid every year.

All they're asking is the Israel question. They say it exactly, a country that cannot survive on its own doesn't deserve to exist. That means the question is whether or not the country deserves to exist. So what this helps us to see is that the Israel question is just the Jewish question, refraised on the world international stage rather than within the individual particular national stages. Rather than Germany or France or Britain or the United States or Europe or the Americas asking, "What are we going to do with the Jews?" It's now the world asking, "What are we going to do with Israel as the Jewish state?"

So it is the Jewish question reframed on the international stage rather than the Jewish question asked in the particular national stages.

So the question when it's the Israel question is no longer about whether or not we should have Jews. Therefore they can say, "I'm not being anti-Semitic. I'm not asking about Jews." It's not about whether or not we should have Jews. It's about whether or not we should have Israel. That's the Israel question. Should we have Israel or should we not? Just like the Jewish question was, "Should we have Jews or should we not?" It's not about individual groups or about individuals within a particular nation,

but it's about whether or not we should have the state of Israel and the world stage at all. That's the Israel question. But why is this question a question? Why is this an issue? Okay, because it's a Jewish nation full of Jews and if you don't believe that that's the root, go read the Hamas charter or go look at any of the absolute nonsense arguing this thing on a standard that no other country in the universe would ever be held to. So the Israel question is the same question as the Jewish question just in a new context.

“That's what I want you to take on from this. The Israel question is the Jewish question by proxy.”

This shift of stage from the national circumstance to the international community of nations, if you will, is the same old question writing on the same old presumption just in a new form that's been made socially acceptable to debate as though we're debating global politics. And it's forced to take into account the reality this new reality since 1948 that Israel exists, that it has a military, that it can, and in fact, does stand on its own two legs, it can survive, by the way, without foreign aid. It's just as to everybody's benefits, as far as I can tell, that this aid has been rendered up to this point,

except that it puts Israel in a pair of golden handcuffs, where they have not been able to solve some of their problems, unless they buck the agendas of various American presidents, including President Trump at different times. Of course, we ignore also when we talk about the foreign aid, what it provides, what actually forget the foreign aid, just a relationship, our strategic relationship with Israel provides in terms of military intelligence against Islam, against the red-green alliance,

technology sharing, research and development, especially in military research and development,

“rocketry in particular, has massively benefited.”

There's a reason the United States is aiming to build something like an iron dome, which was technology pioneered in Israel, Trump is trying to claim the technology, but it was pioneered in Israel.

Basically, what it boils down to is that the Israel question is the late 20th and early 21st century proxy for the Jewish question.

The question only exists because it's a Jewish state harboring the Jews, and the question is should we really have them, and the main reason people are asking is in the Islamist case, because they don't want them there at all, for very profound reasons

“that go back 13 centuries in the communist case where it's the red-green alliance, it's that they understand at the very minimum what a powerful agitation it is against the West,”

the logic written in the communist manifesto by the way, besides what Mark's wrote in 1843 about Jews needing to lose their Judaism,

so that we could have communism.

The communist manifesto on the last page explicitly says that the communist will take the side of every radical movement against the existing order of the world. The existing order of the world right now is a Western hegemony that's led by the United States and its Western alliance. So the Islamist being against that means that the communist are against that. The Russians on the world stage want to upset the apricot, the Chinese want the West to have its foothold in the Middle East taken away, so it is built in road initiative,

can operate purely on crooked terms set up with the Gulf States. It's all over the Pan Arab states, this is everything in the world is organized against this relationship between the United States and Israel for very solid reasons, and it takes the form of the Israel question because we can't ask in good conscience the Jewish question, the only countries in the world that don't have the Jewish question, these free Western democracies are now being pushed with the Israel question, which comes from these enemies Russia, China, the Arab states and so on.

The Islamists and it's all the same question at the end of the day, what do we do with the Jews presuming that we don't actually want them? Why is it the same question because if we solve the Israel question, so remember the Israel question relies on the presumption that we don't want Israel there on the first place. There's no question otherwise, we already covered that, but if we solve the Israel question, which means that we get rid of Israel, where do we go?

Guess what? We default back to the Jewish question, which is always unlocking under the exact same surface, that is the Israel question only exists,

“because Israel is a fail-safe against the Jewish question. That's why.”

It only exists on the presumption of a solution, which is no more Israel, and if that presumption is realized, the source of the presumption, which was a Jews, does not go away, but returns to its ground state, which is in fact the Jewish question. That return to the Jewish question, and it's pure form, not in some high-minded, airy-fairy bullshit for in policy form is guaranteed, because the underlying presumption that we don't want the Jews remains. At least in some people, those margins didn't go away, those margins in fact are growing.

With or without Israel, the anti-Semitic presumption of not wanting Jews in our countries didn't go away, and can and still will grow, especially when the problem gets worse, or problems I should say, of the world get worse. Eventually, you're going to get back to the same Jewish question you had during all of Diaspora. The second you have a major downturn in economic and political affairs, the Jews become a ready-scape goat as a visible, but weak, but successful minority, and whatever their countries are, who now no longer,

supposing Israel's been erased from the map, no longer have any practical possibility of making Aliyah. Of course, not that any should have to. I feel like Jews should be more than welcome in every free Western country, and it should feel just as at home there as anybody else, obviously. But if Israel ceases to exist, Diaspora becomes a reality again. What's going to happen? Think about it, imagine that these Arab states get what they want, and Israel is wiped off the map as a geopolitical entity, and the IDF no longer exists. What's going to happen?

Well, all the free nations of the world are suddenly going to have to decide to absorb or not absorb millions of Jews, as refugees, a lot of them are not going to be in great positions. And a lot of countries are very likely, like they were in a laboratory to be unwilling to take them, especially now that, say, all the Western European countries have overwhelmingly large Islamist factions, minority factions within their countries.

Because the Israelis are going to fight to the last for their country. So, to take Israel off of the map means there's going to be a nasty, awful war.

“In countries are going to have to decide, are we allies with Israel or are we allies with the Islamists in the communist, because that's how that war really cuts.”

Are we on access or are we on allies? And it's not clear, you know, you have Canada siding with China right now. You have Western Europe is in a huge mess. It's not at all clear. They're recognizing the Palestinian state. This is just the European Union's disaster. America is increasingly divided, not into two camps, but three Canada's mostly captured. This is just, I mean, Australia and New Zealand are not doing great. This is New Zealand better than Australia. This isn't a good situation.

But then should the modern state of Israel fall, there is no fail safe left against the Jewish question, and any of our nations anymore. They have no homeland, no IDF.

It's just, you have this highly successful semi assimilating minority group that will never fully assimilate whose security and liberty will be put back onto the hangar of the thread of the tolerance of some host country. And that tolerance, by the way, is another one of these IQ tests. The United States looks like it will pass that test for a time. Europe does not look like it will pass that test. The Commonwealth does not look like it will maintain passing that test. New Zealand being one, like the only exception and it's not a particularly large place.

“What it can absorb and not absorb is not exactly clear, their population is smaller than the population of Israel, I think.”

In the propaganda doesn't stop. If you think that the Islamo Bolshevist, this red-green alliance communist and Islamist propaganda against Jews is going to stop, because Israel got destroyed, you are out of your effing mind.

They're going to run the propaganda even harder just like they did on October 8th. They're going to talk about these invading Jews, bringing disease, bringing problem, stealing opportunity.

They're going to run the propaganda even harder. And these groups, the radical left, the radical right, and then the squishy weak, spineless, I don't know what to call them. I don't want to call them middle, but this is kind of the radical center. None of them are particularly positioned to be strong on this issue, and the Jewish question becomes real in all of those countries, again, even the United States. This is a tale as old as time, read your Bible, read any history of the last three millennia that eventually, when there's no Israel, there is the Jewish question.

“And even when there isn't Israel, there's a Jewish question. What do we do with Jews on the presumption that we don't want them here?”

That's the Jewish question. So the Israel question is merely a proxy for this Jewish question, because if we solve the Israel question, we get the Jewish question. If we don't solve the Israel question, then we can keep pretending that that's the question we're asking, when at the bottom, the question we're actually asking is what are we going to do with Jews in the world? Because the answer that we have now is that the very least, at the very last, they can retreat to Israel, but that gets taken off the map in that person, if we solve, as it goes, the Israel question.

In politics, as the Jewish question became in Western free democracies, the Jewish question has never left our stages. It has never left our countries. Our fringes still hold it. The left has embraced it. The right is growing with it. The squishy middle is too weak to say no to the Islamists and the communists. So the Israel question even as a proxy hasn't been able to hold back the rise of the Jewish question directly even after the Holocaust. Even after World War II ends and it became absolutely recognized as the anti-Semitism that it is.

And the propaganda that pushes it and that informs it, whether from the, again, from the Islamists, from Russia, from China, from any, from the deep state, from, from just the factions of the radicals on the fringe minorities has never gone away.

The picture, including as we're watching horrified the rising anti-Semitism in Christianity and circles within Christianity, not Christianity overall, segments of the radical traditional is the rad-trad Catholics. There's sometimes called, I call them, "Trad-Cath TM." Certainly Islam and its established footholds throughout the West all bring the Jewish question back to prominence once the Israel question is solved. So the Israel question is a proxy for the Jewish question. To solve the Israel question is to return to the Jewish question. So it's the same question. So if you're asking the Israel question, even if you don't think you're asking the Israel question, you're actually asking the Jewish question, even though you don't realize you're asking the Jewish question.

“The Israel question is the Jewish question in proxy. It is asked only on the condition of Israel's existence because Israel's existence provides a fail-safe to the Jewish question that renders the Jewish question partly moot.”

But if we return to the Jewish question, we're not actually even returning. We never left to in order to return the people who were asking it would have had to have given it up and they didn't.

They're still here, whether Islamist, whether communist, or whether fascist, whether racist. They're still here. The Israel question ultimately rests on the presumption that Israel should not exist, which itself implies that the Jewish question should not have any fail-safe answer. But the Jewish question itself ultimately rests on the presumption that Jews should not exist. At least not here where here can be anywhere.

Of course, the name for the belief the Israel should exist as I said earlier as a sovereign state somewhere near its current geographic borders is generally known as Zionism.

It doesn't mean anything different than that. This is very simple. If you believe Israel should exist as a sovereign state somewhere roughly in its current geographic location with Jerusalem.

“It will be as capital, you are a Zionist. That's all it means. You just believe the Israel should be able to exist as a sovereign state roughly where it is in the world. That's what it means to be a Zionist.”

If you are a Zionist, you don't believe that. So if you are a Zionist, you are asking the Israel question with its underlying presumption.

If you are asking the Israel question, what should we do with Israel? You are asking it on the presumption of Zionism. Period. We now see, however, that this anti-Sionism, which is the Israel question, if you are asking the Israel question, you are resting on anti-Sionism, and we see that the Israel question, thus anti-Sionism, rests upon one of two things. The Jewish question itself, or some absolutely idiotic hopeless naivety, which I guess is admirable in that you believe that the good people of the world are just going to stay good, but it's pitiful in its idiotic because they will not.

That painful idiotic naivety is this belief that a country like America or the Free West will never become anti-Semitic again, because it's just won't, which is absolutely retarded. They absolutely would, especially in the absence of the state of Israel. The Jewish question is actually anti-Semitism in hiding. The Israel question is anti-Sionism in hiding, but that in turn is cloaked anti-Semitism by proxy. Accept in cases where the person who's entertaining the Israel question is simply to stupid to qualify for the accusation of being an anti-Semite.

In other words, logically speaking, it is possible to be an anti-Sionist who's not anti-Semitic, but only barely in only if you're really, really dumb and naively idealistic, which is in practice being some kind of useful idiot for the people who know exactly what they're doing, by taking you in that direction, and those people are anti-Semites. The only way that you're going to be anti-Sionist is to be anti-Semitic yourself for the useful idiot to anti-Semites, because being anti-Sionist is to ask the Israel question, and the Israel question is the Jewish question by proxy, and the Jewish question is anti-Semitism by definition.

So we're left with a question, then now that I've said all anti-Signists are either idiots or anti-Semites, does that mean you can criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic or just really dumb. Then the answer is yes, you can criticize Israel. It is fine to criticize any existing state. What you cannot do is question Israel's existence, or the foundations upon which this existence is enabled and secured.

“That's what it means. It means that you cannot hold Israel to a standard that no other country would ever be held to including your own.”

If, for whatever reason, Canada invaded Vermont, you can bet that there would be a lot of flattened maple trees.

So when Hezbollah comes across the Lebanon border, and then we blow up some of, sorry, when Israel blows up some of Lebanon, this is the same action. If you hold Israel to bat account over that, you are entertaining an anti-Semitic position.

You're just holding them to a position that is you would never hold any other country to you're not questioning Israel.

“You're asking the Israel question. Should Israel be sovereign enough to be able to secure itself?”

And if the answer to your question to that question is yes, then shut the up. And if your answer to the question is no, then you're actually saying that you don't really think Israel should be a sovereign nation that's allowed to secure itself. So in the end of that logic, the Israel shouldn't really exist. And if you believe that your asking the Israel question was his full presumption, and then you were just asking a proxy of the Jewish question. So yes, you are anti-Semitic, unless you're just too stupid to realize the implications.

So you can question Israel, you can question its behaviors, you can question its actions, you can question elements of its history.

Nobody saying you can't, nobody saying that you shouldn't.

“However, you can question specific, it'd be great if rather than questioning Israel, like it's some kind of monolith.”

You actually paid attention that the different factions and the different politicians and the different groups within it, believe different things that Benjamin Netanyahu is very different from our own, is very different from a who'd baroque, and that they had different visions and different agendas, even if they all stood for the country of Israel. You cannot question the foundations upon which Israel's existence is enabled and secured by holding it to a standard that no other nation would be held to in your own reckoning without being anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitic or really, really, really stupid. That's the line. And even if you're just kind of dumb and don't realize this, you probably should start to understand that consequentially all of your reasoning is founded upon anti-Semitic presumptions, and that you're probably the useful idiot of anti-Semitic people, even people who are anti-Semitic and just don't want to admit it even to themselves but certainly not to their audience.

So, question Israel and its activities all you want as anyone should as most Israelis do all the time. So, long as the way that you're doing it does not fundamentally call into question whether or not Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, which PS makes you as ionist if you agree that it should be able to exist as a sovereign nation. If you were doubting that and you're asking in the unfair ways, that's the Israel question. Israel question is, what do we do with Israel? On the presumption that it really shouldn't exist, that it's the problem in its mere existence.

And the Israel question is either based on a hopelessly stupid naivety or is just a proxy for the Jewish question itself and its underlying anti-Semitic presumption that the problem is the Jews,

and that we have to figure out what to do with them as a problem, which is intrinsically anti-Semitic. So, this is my introduction to my concepts that I call the Israel question. The Israel question is the 21st century update to the Jewish question, which we no longer ask in which the state of Israel provides a fail-safe answer for. What are we going to do with the Jews? Because we don't want them here. That's the Jewish question.

“We've updated that in our time now to the Israel question. What are we going to do with Israel in the world stage?”

Because they don't really want it and it's the cause of the problems rather than actually all of the states around it. They want to destroy it all the time. So I hope this clarifies the issue. I think we should be thinking very carefully about this idea of the rise of the Israel question as a proxy for the Jewish question. And what it means and what it means that we are entertaining this and how we should stop entertaining this question. In the same way we've stopped entertaining the Jewish question. We should be actually besieging people to understand what they're asking or arguing for.

And we should be pulling them away from that ledge and showing them that yes indeed this isn't an idle or unfair or unjust accusation of flirtation or association with antisemitism or adoption of antisemitism. You actually are participating in it. An antisionism turns out to be the Israel question. So either you're completely naive to what you're talking about or you're an antisemite if you're an antisionist. Don't like it, tough, fix yourself.

[Music]