Nick Kollerstrom has appeared on this show many times to discuss his books on 9/11, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo, World War II revisionism, and most recently the “just war” in Ukraine. Let’s ask Nick: If Russia is fighting a just war against an aggressor who keeps pushing NATO’s borders and first-strike-oriented nuclear weapons systems ever closer to Moscow, what does that make the Palestinians’ war against the Zionist lunatics, those psychopathic killers intoxicated to the point of genocidal fury by the notion that the God they don’t believe in gave them Palestine 3000 years ago?
Nick's book 'Ukraine: The Just War' brilliantly elucidates the disinformation about Ukraine. It is essential reading. Putin is trying to protect Russian-orientated Ukrainians from NATO-driven terrorists, whilst also defending Russia from threats by the US's High Priests of War and arms industrialists. Proposing a parallel with Gaza v Israel is apt but, with respect, the wrong way round. The Palestinians do not want war; they are peaceful people; they have no arms or army apart from the Qassam Brigades; they have no hope of victory; it would be suicidal. They wish to be rid of the Genocidal Zionist Dictatorship but the break-out from the Gaza Extermination Camp was a cry of fear and frustration against relentless blockade, assassinations and bombardments, not a declaration of war. That is how the Zionists want the World to see it. And they are using it as an excuse to eradicate Gaza of Muslims, who may justifiably pose a threat to their Jews-only state ambition, after a century of oppression, dispossession and Genocide by Jewish zealots without, as Nick says, legal claim to the Holy Land. They have a track record of deception, fraud, theft, murder and domination of banking, media and politics. They also abide by Talmudic law which exonerates all their traits and which is a threat to Humanity's peace and justice. Hamas, on the other side, simply want their country back. Intervention by a strong, impartial state like China plus the extended offer from Russia of a Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan might achieve that.
The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judea were actually two separate entities that were never together as one entire nation. Depending on the situation, Judea would at times confederate with Israel but never became a part of the much larger kingdom.
In Douglas Reed's, "The Controversy of Zion", he states that the ancient Israelis and the Judeans never got along because the former were convinced that the latter were clinically insane. Whether Reed's analysis was accurate or not it appears in today's world that his work did have some prophetic meaning, given the genocidal monsters that the Israeli Jews have morphed into...
Yes, I went through a huge bible as archeology phase and read everything. There is no Temple of Solomon that exactly corresponds with the Bible descriptions of grandeur but there was a First Temple, although it likely was similar to other temples that were “pagan,” People have analyzed some of those ancient temples and they correspond OK with the passages in Kings. In ritual based religion, that preceded text, the idea of the temple was to maintain and restore harmony and unity. Strangely, the Mormon religion follows along the lines of the “First Temple,” a kind of as above/so below structure to emanate the divine plan across the countryside. I once had a long conversation with a Mormon guide who showed me their miniature temple that is a replica of the First Temple. Actually Egyptian religions and Levant religions were not too dissimilar with the idea of Maat in both. But second Temple Judaism was a text base religion, not so much ritual based. Anyway, I have read Thompson, but he is maybe too dismissive. Finklestein preserves more of the religion even though the context might be missing in places. The key understanding for the current situation, though, is that the Canaanites were the original Israelis, only the “Israelis” were the ones who moved upland from the lower coastal areas. I am using the word Israeli as convenience, not sure what they were. The point is that the Jewish scriptures were probably not written as a history in the way we understand it and so the idea of God as a real estate agent who promised these people the land from the river to the sea is absurd. These types of covenants, I think, came directly from the Assyrian canon law (or at least I think I remember it that way). It’s of course worse than absurd, far worse. It’s an ongoing tragedy of biblical proportions.
Retired American U professor once wrote, based on his research, any Zebrew place of worship was not located where they say it was. Their “temple” was Herod’s palace
I don’t know where you get your biblical archeology but there absolutely was a first Temple. However, it was probably exactly like all other Bronze Age temples of the Levant. The First Temple was destroyed by the Assyrians. After that, there was the Babylonian exile—all of that is real, archeological truth. What is more problematic is the Exodus, which there is no evidence for. According to the ancient Egyptians, the Exodus was a group of lepers (a name for people the Egyptians didn’t like) who were semites living in Egypt, but not slaves. The leader was not Moses but some other name and they crossed into Arabia at the Gulf of Acaba, not the Delta, where they met the volcano God, Yahweh. There were mountain top shrines in the ancient Levant—also Bronze Age—to Asherah and Baal. Those came down with King Josiah’s reforms. But I agree the second temple was probably in another place from the Temple Mount. Animal sacrifices required running water. So, I have long advocated (not that I have a say in the matter) for another place to build a temple. But the other place is a popular open space or something like that, so maybe it’s some goofy political thing where they would rather start World War III rather than irritate some environmentalists.
Nick's book 'Ukraine: The Just War' brilliantly elucidates the disinformation about Ukraine. It is essential reading. Putin is trying to protect Russian-orientated Ukrainians from NATO-driven terrorists, whilst also defending Russia from threats by the US's High Priests of War and arms industrialists. Proposing a parallel with Gaza v Israel is apt but, with respect, the wrong way round. The Palestinians do not want war; they are peaceful people; they have no arms or army apart from the Qassam Brigades; they have no hope of victory; it would be suicidal. They wish to be rid of the Genocidal Zionist Dictatorship but the break-out from the Gaza Extermination Camp was a cry of fear and frustration against relentless blockade, assassinations and bombardments, not a declaration of war. That is how the Zionists want the World to see it. And they are using it as an excuse to eradicate Gaza of Muslims, who may justifiably pose a threat to their Jews-only state ambition, after a century of oppression, dispossession and Genocide by Jewish zealots without, as Nick says, legal claim to the Holy Land. They have a track record of deception, fraud, theft, murder and domination of banking, media and politics. They also abide by Talmudic law which exonerates all their traits and which is a threat to Humanity's peace and justice. Hamas, on the other side, simply want their country back. Intervention by a strong, impartial state like China plus the extended offer from Russia of a Jewish Autonomous Region in Birobidzhan might achieve that.
I like your proposed Russia-China solution.
The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judea were actually two separate entities that were never together as one entire nation. Depending on the situation, Judea would at times confederate with Israel but never became a part of the much larger kingdom.
In Douglas Reed's, "The Controversy of Zion", he states that the ancient Israelis and the Judeans never got along because the former were convinced that the latter were clinically insane. Whether Reed's analysis was accurate or not it appears in today's world that his work did have some prophetic meaning, given the genocidal monsters that the Israeli Jews have morphed into...
Yes, I went through a huge bible as archeology phase and read everything. There is no Temple of Solomon that exactly corresponds with the Bible descriptions of grandeur but there was a First Temple, although it likely was similar to other temples that were “pagan,” People have analyzed some of those ancient temples and they correspond OK with the passages in Kings. In ritual based religion, that preceded text, the idea of the temple was to maintain and restore harmony and unity. Strangely, the Mormon religion follows along the lines of the “First Temple,” a kind of as above/so below structure to emanate the divine plan across the countryside. I once had a long conversation with a Mormon guide who showed me their miniature temple that is a replica of the First Temple. Actually Egyptian religions and Levant religions were not too dissimilar with the idea of Maat in both. But second Temple Judaism was a text base religion, not so much ritual based. Anyway, I have read Thompson, but he is maybe too dismissive. Finklestein preserves more of the religion even though the context might be missing in places. The key understanding for the current situation, though, is that the Canaanites were the original Israelis, only the “Israelis” were the ones who moved upland from the lower coastal areas. I am using the word Israeli as convenience, not sure what they were. The point is that the Jewish scriptures were probably not written as a history in the way we understand it and so the idea of God as a real estate agent who promised these people the land from the river to the sea is absurd. These types of covenants, I think, came directly from the Assyrian canon law (or at least I think I remember it that way). It’s of course worse than absurd, far worse. It’s an ongoing tragedy of biblical proportions.
And the open area near their wailing wall was once occupied by Palestinian houses. Pulled down by the illegal occupiers
Love use of BC & not the Zebrew “BCe”
Retired American U professor once wrote, based on his research, any Zebrew place of worship was not located where they say it was. Their “temple” was Herod’s palace
I don’t know where you get your biblical archeology but there absolutely was a first Temple. However, it was probably exactly like all other Bronze Age temples of the Levant. The First Temple was destroyed by the Assyrians. After that, there was the Babylonian exile—all of that is real, archeological truth. What is more problematic is the Exodus, which there is no evidence for. According to the ancient Egyptians, the Exodus was a group of lepers (a name for people the Egyptians didn’t like) who were semites living in Egypt, but not slaves. The leader was not Moses but some other name and they crossed into Arabia at the Gulf of Acaba, not the Delta, where they met the volcano God, Yahweh. There were mountain top shrines in the ancient Levant—also Bronze Age—to Asherah and Baal. Those came down with King Josiah’s reforms. But I agree the second temple was probably in another place from the Temple Mount. Animal sacrifices required running water. So, I have long advocated (not that I have a say in the matter) for another place to build a temple. But the other place is a popular open space or something like that, so maybe it’s some goofy political thing where they would rather start World War III rather than irritate some environmentalists.
Have you read Israel Finklestein and Thomas Thompson referenced in the interview?
He seems to get his info from them.
The Gihon Spring is in the City of David