This Michael Brizon character of Haaretz caught my attention. Seasoned opposition mouthpiece. Seemingly respected by his divisional side. Born in 1947 and has an endless library of penned pieces prodding at the chains. At his age and with his experience, though being so married into mainstream logic, would it be possible for him to open his eyes a moment to evaluate a scenario in which his archnemesis "the base" actually carries little more than theatrical value and that powers in control would insist on pursuing the same goals by the same means regardless of the will of "the base" or any other group of voters? I suspect he'll either ignore my questions or quickly steer the conversation towards a defensive "deep state" posture in which answers will be fewer the closer we get up the angled slope to the top. But with his age and level of snark, I don't doubt I can plant the seed in him. A 76 year old mainstream Jewish columnist would be a powerful ally were he to publicly address accusations that western governments are pursuing an anti-human agenda rather than the will of any base of voters of any nation.
Now I am on record saying that the aftermath of and reaction to the Hamas attack in October is a strategic disaster for Israel and the USA, and the wider West by association. There are no good optics or narratives regarding what amounts to ethic cleansing driven by mass murder. HOWEVER, this massive counter-reaction was driven by terrorist actions carried out or sanctioned by Hamas. You can argue that these were over-reported etc etc, but they still occurred. Hamas are not the good guys.
I am also on record as saying I am staying out of this debate as both sides seem as bad as the other - at least in terms of motives if not capabilities.
My view on this whole situation is that there is no good solution. One people or the other gets expelled and/or genocided. I would very much like there to be a compromise that is workable, but cannot see it. Probably my over-simplification and small brain. Looks to me like the Palestinians got the shitty end of the stick. I absolutely don't support what Israel is doing, but do understand it. Much like I understand why Ukraine is such a big deal for Russia.
In a lot of these blogs etc we read about a failure to understand the enemy's position and logic. My view is that I can understand Israel's actions even if I don't agree with them, and indeed find the proposed way forward abhorrent. However I think the Palestine/Israel issue is a zero-sum game. One side wins it all. And Israel will win in narrow terms, but in doing so, will I think, suffer a strategic long term defeat. And that defeat will have unpredictable consequences.
Thanks for outlining your position. I'll repeat again that the original mandate from 1923 put forth the idea of a two-state solution but didn't envision the problem Zionism would bring to the table in demanding genocide of the people already residing in Palestine. Over the weeks, the history of this problem/conflict has been put forward in snippets, the initial intent going back 200 years was for the Anglo-French to displace the Turk from the region for Imperialist motives--Suez Canal being #1 at that time since the Oil Lands hadn't been discovered yet. That initial motive never died and still exists today, with the Zionists supposedly being the tool of the West, or at least Western corporations. Since day one of this conflict, Palestinians of all types have been the victims of terrorism unleashed by the Zionists. As I wrote two months ago, the region would've remained peaceful if the Turks had remained in control as the Turks lacked the Anglo-French Imperialist impulse as they were already in control. Ultimately, it could be said that Palestine is a victim of geography which includes geology. That will all change as tectonics continue to reshape the planet and the hydrocarbons get sucked out of the ground well before the plates smash everything together. Will Humanity still be around then? Only if it wises up to the need to stop conflicts and live together as one family.
thanks karl.. crooke mentions israel will have to remove the palestinians from the land... and how are the palestinians going to be removed? is this a polite way of saying they are being ethnically cleansed?
You'll note he tells Napolitano they'll be ethnically cleansed. After watching the behavior and listening to the language of the Zionist ambassador to UK, my assumption that those people are extremely mentally ill and utterly without morals is very close to being 100% confirmed. They have absolutely no--zero--comprehension of their own history and as such are calling down the wrath of most of the world onto their heads. Who actually merits being cleansed from Palestine as determined by their behavior? A Humanity whose future advancement will depend on people sharing and acing as one family holds no place for such people and their behavior. If they are to be chosen, then they will become the chosen outcasts as will become the fate of all people who think themselves exceptional and above all other humans.
i missed him saying they will be ethnically cleansed, but he did say they would remove the palestinians from the land... that bbc israel womens voice on this is quite clear and obscene.. i can't see how this is going to unfold.. my crystal ball is completely foggy here..
It would be much easier if the Kremlin translated all of Putin's events, not just the small selection that shows up on its English page. Same with MFA and the entire government for as they admit themselves they need to get Russia's POV more widely distributed. And as I've stated, I want the primary document, not a secondhand reporting which is what my summarizing and merely linking to an untranslated document would be for readers. Why should I give readers what I don't want myself?
"I’ll wager nobody was ready to learn what Hamas really is." .... ???
Then you lost that bet Karl. Crooke did not share anything I did not already know, or, he spoke about things I did not need to know because what he said was so irrelevant to anything and everything it served no purpose other that to increase his own sense of historical self-importance . His quotes from others do not add anything either. Crooke is badly overrated. There were no insights nor quality new information in any of this article.
I don't automatically accept his personal 'conclusions' about the past or present either, he makes all kinds of claims that are not supported by any hard evidence or references, in the article or in the interview. Crooke does this a lot, makes assertions with zero evidence to support them or his peculiar framing of what happened or caused things to unfold as they did. At times he does say things I can easily agree with, but that is because I already knew X happened and was backed up with factual evidence I was aware of. He 'waxes lyrical' a lot, iow, as if anything he says must be taken as true by default. None of his "articles" allow comments by readers.
Karl, by all means keep pushing Crooke but imo you would be better off finding Arabs and others who actually know things first hand - rather than spreading these self-promotional narrowcast conjectures that lack any degree of genuine CONTENT or facts or news or credible expert analysis. Seriously. If people believe they've been "well informed" by articles like this one by Crooke, then you're seriously mistaken and need to raise your standards of what is acceptable in the "media" space.
At times he has been informative, but not here. This article is terrible. It says nothing.
No one would be at a loss if he never wrote another article again (if this is the best he can do.) Sorry. To me it is patently obvious and extremely self-serving on his part. But, each to their own I suppose.
hey sean... how about you contribute something positive to represent what you think would be deemed worthy of all our attention? can you do that? thanks..
Hi, I did contribute something positive. I defined a problem in need of a solution. No point building a "bridge" unless there is a river or a valley you need to get across. Right? :-)
That is a positive thing to explain to people. (in my world it is.) I gave my reasons without going into details. Nothing personal either. Purely objective on my part. I did suggest looking to "Arabs and others" as an alternative.
But James, I am not a control freak. It's 100% up to Karl to accept my comments as constructive or not, and do whatever he thinks. His reply is pretty clear, me saying anything more than I did is a waste of time. He's not open minded enough. Which is ironic given what he says about that very thing in this very article.
You supplied an opinion and I let it stand. My energy is limited, so I chose to spend it where it's needed. Challenging your opinion isn't warranted, just as I don't challenge Hack's very often.
Sure. Whatever. Nice dialogue. My time and energy is limited. I chose to spend it in a manner I deemed would do the greater good. Straight to the point after wasting it. You too can do better.
"Is it far-fetched then for the Resistance Axis to found their plan on Israel making strategic mistakes?"
Question remains: If it far-fetched then for the Resistance Axis to found their plan on the US making strategic mistakes? Quite possibly.
Because that's how you get a wider war that "no one wants" - except the neocons who run the US administration and the Congress that supports anything Israel does and wants to see Iran destroyed to boot.
Crooke is right about everything - but he doesn't ask the next question.
Thanks Karl - another good post with lots to digest. The question that arises for me following the YT discourse, is why (if it is recognised that the two state solution is dead in the water) do the Russians and Chinese maintain the the two state solution is the only viable solution to the current impasse? Is it because they want to expose the abject impotence of the UN? I can’t think of any other reason why they continue to flog this dead horse. Any insight from yourself or other contributors would be appreciated. Thanks.
IMO the two-state solution derives it's - admittedly limited - legitimacy from the original UN declaration WRT the issue and is therefore the logical starting point for future - serious - discussions. No more no less. I'm no diplomat but I assume that's the diplomatic MO. While I'm here I'd just like to point out the (troll) narrative directed towards the attempt to diminish Mr Crookes reputation WRT to his diplomatic skills and understanding and therefore any contribution his opinions make to our discussions. For my part I neither read or mention contributors who I have no faith in and assume that anyone who does feel the need to badmouth contributors to be a Troll trolling.
My policy is unless the behavior is well over the top to allow other opinions to be voiced. As most subscribers know, I've battled trolls and fleas for years and have found it easier to let them out themselves so readers can see the aim is to spread FUD and not engage in any serious discourse.
I listened to Crooke on the Duran (yesterday?) and he seemed almost rambling and incoherent. I was a bit shocked as I have found him incisive and lucid before. He has been ill so maybe that is taking its toll short term. Hope so.
Just listened to it. Other than his persistent cough he seemed ok to me. Early in his first monologue he seemed to be searching his memories of actual conversations from the quite distant past but as the discussion progressed he seemed pretty alert to me. However, I'm no expert on the reasons anyone might be 'almost' 'rambling' or 'incoherent'. Although I experieced no sense of 'incoherence' at all nor did I sense any 'almost' 'incoherence' from Mr Crooke.
Well maybe I should have stuck with it, but he did not seem up to his usual standard to me. In my view, I would not think that interview would convince any doubters. I did not get beyond the first 10 minutes. My loss I guess.
It must be noted that Alastair isn't young and has stamina issues, and he's suddenly become high in demand for appearances on these video interviews, which was never the case before. IMO, it's hard to continue to say the same thing in answer to the same questions as the aim is to try and improve what you've already said, thus the slowness in delivery. And then there's the work required to do his analysis, and that's not altogether easy either.
Magnificent column. Thank you!
Well done. Crooke has the wide and deep and diverse experience needed to make and support his analysis and predictions.
Also see the Duran with Mercouris,Diesen and Crooke for a longer discussion.
Thanks for that info. Here's the link, https://theduran.com/palestine-to-ukraine-conflicts-without-solution-alastair-crooke-alexander-mercouris-glenn-diesen/
I just finished Crooke's opening observations about his recent trip to Russia that consume the first 14 minutes.
This Michael Brizon character of Haaretz caught my attention. Seasoned opposition mouthpiece. Seemingly respected by his divisional side. Born in 1947 and has an endless library of penned pieces prodding at the chains. At his age and with his experience, though being so married into mainstream logic, would it be possible for him to open his eyes a moment to evaluate a scenario in which his archnemesis "the base" actually carries little more than theatrical value and that powers in control would insist on pursuing the same goals by the same means regardless of the will of "the base" or any other group of voters? I suspect he'll either ignore my questions or quickly steer the conversation towards a defensive "deep state" posture in which answers will be fewer the closer we get up the angled slope to the top. But with his age and level of snark, I don't doubt I can plant the seed in him. A 76 year old mainstream Jewish columnist would be a powerful ally were he to publicly address accusations that western governments are pursuing an anti-human agenda rather than the will of any base of voters of any nation.
Now I am on record saying that the aftermath of and reaction to the Hamas attack in October is a strategic disaster for Israel and the USA, and the wider West by association. There are no good optics or narratives regarding what amounts to ethic cleansing driven by mass murder. HOWEVER, this massive counter-reaction was driven by terrorist actions carried out or sanctioned by Hamas. You can argue that these were over-reported etc etc, but they still occurred. Hamas are not the good guys.
I am also on record as saying I am staying out of this debate as both sides seem as bad as the other - at least in terms of motives if not capabilities.
My view on this whole situation is that there is no good solution. One people or the other gets expelled and/or genocided. I would very much like there to be a compromise that is workable, but cannot see it. Probably my over-simplification and small brain. Looks to me like the Palestinians got the shitty end of the stick. I absolutely don't support what Israel is doing, but do understand it. Much like I understand why Ukraine is such a big deal for Russia.
In a lot of these blogs etc we read about a failure to understand the enemy's position and logic. My view is that I can understand Israel's actions even if I don't agree with them, and indeed find the proposed way forward abhorrent. However I think the Palestine/Israel issue is a zero-sum game. One side wins it all. And Israel will win in narrow terms, but in doing so, will I think, suffer a strategic long term defeat. And that defeat will have unpredictable consequences.
Thanks for outlining your position. I'll repeat again that the original mandate from 1923 put forth the idea of a two-state solution but didn't envision the problem Zionism would bring to the table in demanding genocide of the people already residing in Palestine. Over the weeks, the history of this problem/conflict has been put forward in snippets, the initial intent going back 200 years was for the Anglo-French to displace the Turk from the region for Imperialist motives--Suez Canal being #1 at that time since the Oil Lands hadn't been discovered yet. That initial motive never died and still exists today, with the Zionists supposedly being the tool of the West, or at least Western corporations. Since day one of this conflict, Palestinians of all types have been the victims of terrorism unleashed by the Zionists. As I wrote two months ago, the region would've remained peaceful if the Turks had remained in control as the Turks lacked the Anglo-French Imperialist impulse as they were already in control. Ultimately, it could be said that Palestine is a victim of geography which includes geology. That will all change as tectonics continue to reshape the planet and the hydrocarbons get sucked out of the ground well before the plates smash everything together. Will Humanity still be around then? Only if it wises up to the need to stop conflicts and live together as one family.
thanks karl.. crooke mentions israel will have to remove the palestinians from the land... and how are the palestinians going to be removed? is this a polite way of saying they are being ethnically cleansed?
You'll note he tells Napolitano they'll be ethnically cleansed. After watching the behavior and listening to the language of the Zionist ambassador to UK, my assumption that those people are extremely mentally ill and utterly without morals is very close to being 100% confirmed. They have absolutely no--zero--comprehension of their own history and as such are calling down the wrath of most of the world onto their heads. Who actually merits being cleansed from Palestine as determined by their behavior? A Humanity whose future advancement will depend on people sharing and acing as one family holds no place for such people and their behavior. If they are to be chosen, then they will become the chosen outcasts as will become the fate of all people who think themselves exceptional and above all other humans.
i missed him saying they will be ethnically cleansed, but he did say they would remove the palestinians from the land... that bbc israel womens voice on this is quite clear and obscene.. i can't see how this is going to unfold.. my crystal ball is completely foggy here..
'pre empting Putin'! No one pre empts Putin
Thank you very much for all your work
Well, there's a backlog of his events that's receding into the past daily, which is what was meant.
I know, the work is endless, but thank you again
It would be much easier if the Kremlin translated all of Putin's events, not just the small selection that shows up on its English page. Same with MFA and the entire government for as they admit themselves they need to get Russia's POV more widely distributed. And as I've stated, I want the primary document, not a secondhand reporting which is what my summarizing and merely linking to an untranslated document would be for readers. Why should I give readers what I don't want myself?
"I’ll wager nobody was ready to learn what Hamas really is." .... ???
Then you lost that bet Karl. Crooke did not share anything I did not already know, or, he spoke about things I did not need to know because what he said was so irrelevant to anything and everything it served no purpose other that to increase his own sense of historical self-importance . His quotes from others do not add anything either. Crooke is badly overrated. There were no insights nor quality new information in any of this article.
I don't automatically accept his personal 'conclusions' about the past or present either, he makes all kinds of claims that are not supported by any hard evidence or references, in the article or in the interview. Crooke does this a lot, makes assertions with zero evidence to support them or his peculiar framing of what happened or caused things to unfold as they did. At times he does say things I can easily agree with, but that is because I already knew X happened and was backed up with factual evidence I was aware of. He 'waxes lyrical' a lot, iow, as if anything he says must be taken as true by default. None of his "articles" allow comments by readers.
Karl, by all means keep pushing Crooke but imo you would be better off finding Arabs and others who actually know things first hand - rather than spreading these self-promotional narrowcast conjectures that lack any degree of genuine CONTENT or facts or news or credible expert analysis. Seriously. If people believe they've been "well informed" by articles like this one by Crooke, then you're seriously mistaken and need to raise your standards of what is acceptable in the "media" space.
At times he has been informative, but not here. This article is terrible. It says nothing.
No one would be at a loss if he never wrote another article again (if this is the best he can do.) Sorry. To me it is patently obvious and extremely self-serving on his part. But, each to their own I suppose.
Ha! I just declined to make a wager because I stopped doing so years ago. Seems that was the right choice.
President Assad had a very good resent interview " Gaza Resistance Defending Palestine; Al-Manar, Lebanon.
hey sean... how about you contribute something positive to represent what you think would be deemed worthy of all our attention? can you do that? thanks..
Hi, I did contribute something positive. I defined a problem in need of a solution. No point building a "bridge" unless there is a river or a valley you need to get across. Right? :-)
That is a positive thing to explain to people. (in my world it is.) I gave my reasons without going into details. Nothing personal either. Purely objective on my part. I did suggest looking to "Arabs and others" as an alternative.
But James, I am not a control freak. It's 100% up to Karl to accept my comments as constructive or not, and do whatever he thinks. His reply is pretty clear, me saying anything more than I did is a waste of time. He's not open minded enough. Which is ironic given what he says about that very thing in this very article.
So, whatever. No biggy. Best regards.
You supplied an opinion and I let it stand. My energy is limited, so I chose to spend it where it's needed. Challenging your opinion isn't warranted, just as I don't challenge Hack's very often.
Sure. Whatever. Nice dialogue. My time and energy is limited. I chose to spend it in a manner I deemed would do the greater good. Straight to the point after wasting it. You too can do better.
thanks sean.. i will ignore you here forward.. cheers.
James, why couldn't you contribute something positive about what I said instead of being so critical, judgemental, negative and dismissive about me?
"Is it far-fetched then for the Resistance Axis to found their plan on Israel making strategic mistakes?"
Question remains: If it far-fetched then for the Resistance Axis to found their plan on the US making strategic mistakes? Quite possibly.
Because that's how you get a wider war that "no one wants" - except the neocons who run the US administration and the Congress that supports anything Israel does and wants to see Iran destroyed to boot.
Crooke is right about everything - but he doesn't ask the next question.
Thanks Karl - another good post with lots to digest. The question that arises for me following the YT discourse, is why (if it is recognised that the two state solution is dead in the water) do the Russians and Chinese maintain the the two state solution is the only viable solution to the current impasse? Is it because they want to expose the abject impotence of the UN? I can’t think of any other reason why they continue to flog this dead horse. Any insight from yourself or other contributors would be appreciated. Thanks.
IMO the two-state solution derives it's - admittedly limited - legitimacy from the original UN declaration WRT the issue and is therefore the logical starting point for future - serious - discussions. No more no less. I'm no diplomat but I assume that's the diplomatic MO. While I'm here I'd just like to point out the (troll) narrative directed towards the attempt to diminish Mr Crookes reputation WRT to his diplomatic skills and understanding and therefore any contribution his opinions make to our discussions. For my part I neither read or mention contributors who I have no faith in and assume that anyone who does feel the need to badmouth contributors to be a Troll trolling.
My policy is unless the behavior is well over the top to allow other opinions to be voiced. As most subscribers know, I've battled trolls and fleas for years and have found it easier to let them out themselves so readers can see the aim is to spread FUD and not engage in any serious discourse.
I listened to Crooke on the Duran (yesterday?) and he seemed almost rambling and incoherent. I was a bit shocked as I have found him incisive and lucid before. He has been ill so maybe that is taking its toll short term. Hope so.
Thanks for the Duran episode at,
https://rokfin.com/post/159927/Palestine-to-Ukraine-Conflicts-without-Solution--Alastair-Crooke-Alex-Mercouris--Glenn-Diesen
Just listened to it. Other than his persistent cough he seemed ok to me. Early in his first monologue he seemed to be searching his memories of actual conversations from the quite distant past but as the discussion progressed he seemed pretty alert to me. However, I'm no expert on the reasons anyone might be 'almost' 'rambling' or 'incoherent'. Although I experieced no sense of 'incoherence' at all nor did I sense any 'almost' 'incoherence' from Mr Crooke.
Well maybe I should have stuck with it, but he did not seem up to his usual standard to me. In my view, I would not think that interview would convince any doubters. I did not get beyond the first 10 minutes. My loss I guess.
It must be noted that Alastair isn't young and has stamina issues, and he's suddenly become high in demand for appearances on these video interviews, which was never the case before. IMO, it's hard to continue to say the same thing in answer to the same questions as the aim is to try and improve what you've already said, thus the slowness in delivery. And then there's the work required to do his analysis, and that's not altogether easy either.