¿What the heck has happened and what is currently happening in the Middle East? (Chapter III)
Alright, it seems we have reached the third chapter of this historical sequel of articles on this thorny and complicated issue. And I hope it is the last in the series and everything tends to fall into place and be resolved very soon.
If you have read and consumed with attention the three previous posts I have written to address this subject, you will most likely have noticed that I have done it so fairly impartially and without leaning towards either of the two parties in dispute.
Therefore, I suppose you have noticed my intention to limit myself only to sharing some historical facts that are or at least should have been in the public domain. And if you already knew them, I'm very happy. Because it is only by being well informed that you can eventually reach a fairly accurate knowledge and awareness about things.
If you didn't know or had never read or heard anything about it. Well, then I invite you to consume each of the four articles that I have created on this topic: «-1 - 2 - 3-»
Because I'm very clear that everyone has always their own way of thinking and interpreting things. However, I am also of the opinion that a well-informed and educated mind without dogmas, biases or tendentious inclinations of any kind often is more likely to reach somewhat more accurate and correct conclusions.
Since in this third (or fourth) and hopefully last chapter of the sequel. Most of the content today will be basically audiovisual and with historical facts and events of more or less recent date. With which I hope and aspire that you may feel a little better informed on the subject.
Now please, just sit back comfortably, relax and join me on this fascinating journey of new discoveries together towards information frontiers with less popular, crowded and known truths about history. And simply enjoy a few of the variables to take into account of these which I have selected for you today:
¿Lobby?
¿Communication?
¿A Babel Tower?
¿Need a translation?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KF48eR1T41Y
¿How to respond?
However... last but not least a message of hope!
«Collaboration not War»
«Resources not Money»
«««-$-»»»
"Follows, Comments, Rehives & Upvotes will be highly appreciated"
I grew up since my early childhood with the usual news that there are "tensions in Gaza". So there has been war there for about fifty years of my own lifetime. The constant repetition of this term made me dull to it and although pictures and maps were constantly shown, I never understood what it was actually about there and never took any further interest in it. Judging by the duration of this conflict and the constant news about missile strikes, walls, border controls, etc., the region should be depopulated, abandoned and devastated by now. Of course, this is not the case and at some point I heard - with great astonishment - that Jerusalem is a "very modern city". Much less is said about Palestine. So I have zero idea about the whole thing.
The earth is huge. Because it is, and because there is always something going on somewhere, I am supposed to be interested in it in order to "form an opinion". In the meantime I know that my opinion is apparently important (people's mood) and that I should therefore take a side. Well, I think it is enough to know that the manufacturers of armaments and weapons supply their goods to ALL who want them. That should be enough to realise that there are forces that are interested in war.
My view is that enough states should stay out of wars and not participate in them. I am in favour of a Europe that adheres to the non-use-of-force agreement and does not allow itself to be misused for warmongering. Europe as a whole could simply refuse to allow other nations to station weapons and troops. Neither the East nor the West could then get closer to its enemy. What could governments do then? Would they then launch an economic war? But there would be no justification for that, since staying out of a conflict is not an aggressive act, but an expression of neutrality.
The mere fact that it is possible to carry out warlike actions in one region of the world for several decades should make everyone wonder. Common sense dictates that at some point one country is the victor and the other the defeated country. But those who want neither a victor nor a vanquished will fuel the conflict. This is how world wars are born.
Yeah, that's the core of the matter and the real main puppeteer pulling the strings behind the scenes. Isn't it?
Well, I really hope that more people in Europe also adhere to your vision and principles sooner than later. Because more and more we are beginning to see some influential people in Europe who see this issue a bit differently.
A lot of average people do. Here you find a video from a very well known Swiss historian (Daniele Ganser) who holds lectures in German and also in Germany:
I guess, you can choose English subtitles. He is very good in what he is doing and that he hits a nerve shows how he - like many others - had to face some nasty hurdles in booking a place and being ignored by the legacy media.
His explanations about the background and history of the war in Ukraine are easy to remember and to grasp.
Most of your videos I cannot get access to, by the way. Tell me, if the above video is available for you.
I have never heard of the Jews being responsible for Europe becoming "multicultural". I can't do anything with the term and with this name from the woman. "Multi-Kulti" was a trendy term here with us, that is true, and was traded as "good" and "fair" etc..
It is also not about any nation being a monolith, but language is part of it and it is to be welcomed that a Spaniard differs from a Frenchman and a German from a Dutchman. Language is also tied to one's own culture, and for all the love of cultural tolerance and letting live, culture and language can only be lived and practised through difference. But that difference per se is something bad or something to be fought against is some kind of intellectual nonsense. Just as the differences between men and women are real and do not need a battle of the sexes, because men and women have always been the best of friends and their differences make them the best of companions.
The fact that there is so much conflict and insanity is due to the fact that the governments have no honour, those in charge break their word, thus do not keep agreements and outright lie to each other - but people reflect this back and if both, the peoples and the governments, lead a faithless life, you get what you get. Those who have no spark of faith and honour in their bodies have no orientation and cannot give guidance to others.