Cernovich is intesting when he talks about Israel. He's often trying to broker a deal between pro and anti (right wing anti, presumably), but the pieces never come together because this simply isn't the right way to think about it. Today he called for eliminating the double
standard with regard to judging Israel's war fighing actions, in exchange for removing the double standard whereby Israel can have an "ethno-state" (a term seemingly invented to describe Israel) but the Western countries can't. But Israel has no power over how ethno-state-like
any European country is, nor could it prevent any country from simply deporting whomever it wished. Moreover, where does the double standard regarding the way Israel is treated in terms of international law v come from? Is it within the power of whoever Cernovich thinks he
represents, or is represented by, to do anything about that? That double standard is a result of the combined dominance of Muslim countries and leftist NGOs in international fora and the media stenographers they provide information to. If the agency Cernovich imagines making this
deal could break the power of Muslim countries and leftist NGOs in those fora I imagine it would, because doing so would be a good thing in itself, including, I assume, for whatever goals Cernovich himself supports. I assume this idea of a deal is attractive because inter-ethnic
conflict is often modeled on the vendetta, which is brought to an end by each side sacrificing something, or repudiating one of its own for the sake of peace. But this model is illusory in a world of states and in the end if you're supporting, opposing or trying to ignore
Israel for any other reason than the advantages it would bring to your state, as you conceive of that state and its interests and goals, you're just thinking in terms of resentment and will therefore misfire every time. If you're incapable of wishing to avenge yourself on Jews
while still thinking it's beneficial to have Israel as an ally, or loving Jews and wishing them nothing but the best while still not seeing a way of fitting Israel into the best alliance structure you can arrange, then you're not capable of thinking seriously about politics.
Unless, of course, you see Jews as uniquely evil or "unacceptable" and that unique evil or unacceptability as overriding all other considerations--in that case, no one in control of any state should let you near any decision making process.
@truepeers That's one side of the "deal" but the other side is the double standard applied to Israel in terms of human rights violations, etc. So, if the Jews would stop the latter someone (it's not clear who) would stop the former. (I'm referring specifically to a post earlier today.)
@truepeers The way you formulate it (no doubt a common way) there would be no deal, just a demand to cease being hypocritical.
@truepeers Cernovich's proposal is more generous, but also more incoherent--as would be any attempt to formulate it as a genuine exchange. It's just the wrong model for deciding any political question.