FlyTheNest

Mearsheimer and Walt describe in clear and bold terms the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. They provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America's posture throughout the Middle East―in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict―and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America's national interest nor Israel's long-term interest. The lobby's influence also affects America's relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.

In the aftermath of the House of Commons vote, which overwhelmingly urged the British government to recognize Palestine, Duncan launched what the London Times called “an outspoken attack on Israel for its construction of illegal settlements,” which he claimed had left one West Bank town, Hebron, resembling South Africa under apartheid.

Duncan was speaking to a London think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute. He said it would be “impossible to overstate the criminal intent and strategic importance” of Israel’s recently announced plan to build 2,600 homes in occupied East Jerusalem, a reference to the planned Givat Hamatos neighborhood, which would “finalize the severing of Bethlehem from Jerusalem,” The Times reported. “This illegal construction and habitation is theft, it is annexation, it is a land grab – it is any expression that accurately describes the encroachment which takes from someone else something that is not rightfully owned by the taker,” he said.

Recently, the Financial Times published some charts illustrating how the gulf between young men and women has grown in each Western country. And in every chart, there is an unmistakable pattern. The political views of young men haven’t actually altered all that much. Their drift to the Right has been really quite gentle.

The political views of young women, however, have changed dramatically. Their move to the Left has been abrupt and profound. In truth, then, this cavernous ideological divide is almost entirely attributable to them.

Which is curious. Because, whenever the divide is discussed by politicians and commentators, they make it sound as if the problem is young men. They fret endlessly about how young men today are being “radicalised” by nasty Right-wing YouTubers such as Andrew Tate, or horrid Right-wing politicians such as Donald Trump.

Yet they never apply this word “radicalised” to young women. Why not? I suspect it’s because these politicians and commentators tend to be progressive themselves. Therefore, they see no problem with young women becoming drastically more progressive. In their view, the more progressive someone is, the better. So the fault lies entirely with young men, for failing to emulate young women’s lurch to the Left.

Personally, though, I think this lurch Leftwards should alarm us all. The future of Western civilisation is already threatened by our collapsing birth rates. And this sudden ideological chasm between the sexes is only going to make the crisis worse. No one’s going to be forming couples at all any more, if, on every first date, the woman asks, “What do you think of Gramsci?”, and the man replies, “He’s the type of striker Man Utd are crying out for.”

It’s a chilling thought. So clearly something must be done. Politicians must spend less time obsessing over the radicalisation of young men, and start paying attention to the radicalisation of young women, instead.

As it happens, the Labour Party has announced that, when it’s in power, it will help to combat the influence that Andrew Tate has on boys. Surely it would make more sense to help combat the influence The Guardian has on girls.

Otherwise, the only way young men are going to get a girlfriend is by frantically boning up on George Monbiot and Owen Jones. And if that’s what the future has to hold, perhaps Western civilisation isn’t worth saving, after all.

AnatolyKasparov wrote: ↑Thu 04 Apr, 2024 2:31 pm "LOTO and others" have already changed their line on this conflict a great deal since it started. That is just stating the facts.

Sky'sGoneOut wrote: ↑Thu 04 Apr, 2024 2:17 pm Oh no, The Guardian is radicalising young ladies!!

I honestly don't know where to start with this, if it wasn't from the Telegraph I'd genuinely think it was satire.

The Left has no problem with radicalisation when they’re the ones doing it - Michael Deacon

Instead of vowing to combat the influence Andrew Tate has on boys, Labour should be looking at the effect The Guardian is having on girls

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/ ... ight-wing/

gilsey wrote: ↑Thu 04 Apr, 2024 10:40 am Alan Duncan telling it like it is.

refitman wrote: ↑Thu 04 Apr, 2024 5:36 pm So, the Kipper are just doing Harry Enfield, but seriously?