Coffee Conversations | Germany & Genocide

We were talking about the the Nicaragua filing a charge against Germany for complicity in genocide. And we were talking about how Holocaust. How ironic it is that that that Germany is proving to be very consistent historically in their support for genocide and denial of genocide. And that they seem to they seem to have lost the plot and misunderstood that genocide isn't something that's exclusively committed against Jews, and when it's not committed against Jews, it's not happening. The Jews actually made it easy for them to know the difference because they came up with a special word for theirs, holocaust.

You know, that they called the the genocide when it's committed specifically against the Jewish people, it's called the holocaust. And it's not called the holocaust when it's against anybody else. Everybody else just gets the same we all have to share the word genocide, but the Jews have a special word.

Oh, I mean, is interesting. I'll be curious to know why they came up with the word holocaust. I mean, like, who quieter?

To be honest, I don't know. And I yeah. I don't know. I I I don't know.

You know?

Because But they but they will get mad if you use it for anybody else. They they legit will get mad about it. I think there's even been lawsuits saying that you're not allowed to use that for anybody else. So they just use genocide. So the so the so the Germans don't I I guess they just think genocide is only bad if if if it if it get if it's against the Jews and maybe if they're the ones who were doing it.

But they supported it and they denied it, what, ninety years ago? And they are supporting it and denying now. I guess another people. Germany is not the only one who is historically consistent about that because The US is consistent in their ambivalence about genocide. Because in World War two, they were ambivalent and undecided about whether or not what was happening against the Jews was happening against the Jews or not.

And if it was serious enough, because that's not why they entered the war at all. It was inconsequential to them. Know, Hollywood likes to revise history and change history to make it look like America went to war for the Jews, but they didn't

It was the Russians who

Well, the Russians are the ones who liberated the the the concentration camps, but that wasn't it that wasn't the issue for the for for America. And so anyway, they were ambivalent about that. And now, right now, well, obviously, we we know that they're it's generous to say ambivalent about the genocide in Gaza, but by their public statements where they're expressing concern, but we haven't really seen proof of genocide. That's kind of the same kind of thing that they would have been saying about the the Jews in Nazis Nazi Germany. But then there's also just came up a conflict now between America and Rwanda because it's the anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda.

And Anthony Blinken, he either he either made a statement or it was a tweet where he was talking about, you know, all the people who died in Rwanda, the Tutsis and the Hutus and the like, didn't know which one was the the were the victims of the genocide. Just a lot of people died and it was a shame and it was really tragic. So the Rwandans are like

Wow.

Do you even know who would who was the target of the genocide was? I I legitimately think that it's not a matter of him of him trying to be diplomatic and saying, you know, like, well, a lot of people suffered and died. I think he really doesn't know. I think I I believe that he legitimately does not know who the victims of the genocide were in Rwanda, who was being targeted. Because they all look alike, You know?

He's for for for someone like him, it's all confusing. These these Africans, you know, killing each other. It's who who who can really tell who who's killing who? I I really think he doesn't know. So, yeah, they're they're they're also consistent in not taking genocide seriously.

The the it it will probably be most likely years before there is an actual judgment. Just like it will probably be years before there's a judgment in South Africa's case. It generally takes years. But but they make the case just like South Africa did for the for the purpose of being able to make a request for special emergency measures to be ordered by the court. And that's what Nicaragua wants also.

They want to have all aid from Germany to Israel halted, particularly, but not exclusively, but particularly, obviously, military aid. They they sell them weapons and they give them military funding. Interesting. Yeah.

I mean, this is this is to to to pick up from earlier on the on on the use of the word Holocaust. I mean, it's not the first time in European history where Jews are murdered en masse. It's not the first time. They have been consistently murdered, you know, massacred on mass. But like the I guess the biggest one before the holocaust must have been at the inquisition.

Yeah. But even that was even that was that was murder but also driving out.

Driving out. Yeah. Sure. But there's been like marauders who just encountered them and they will just eliminate an entire tribe of Jewish settlements, you know, in Europe. Now the thing here is the fact that they have a peculiar term for this genocide against a people.

Like, because of the the creation the need for the creation of the state of Israel and the architects behind this. Like, they didn't find Jewish people willing participants in this Who?

Zionism.

Yeah. The they were not accepting this. So they wanted some kind of a disaster that it take place to drive all Jews from Europe to populate the state of Israel that they're gonna create. So so in part, it sounds to me, it seems to me like this holocaust might have been a an agenda of the early Zionist project to have like this

A special time, you mean?

Yeah. Like, it could have been a I I I don't wanna be I'm not being conspiracy theorist, you know. I'm just saying because of the way it was engineered. In a way, you you can't deny that it was an engineering from the Jewish population. You they need to create some massive disaster.

Yeah. But they didn't they yeah. But you have to be careful where you're talking. They didn't create the holocaust.

Okay. Sure.

I don't think anybody wanted the holocaust. That's a that's a terrible thing to say. But but, you know, it you could you could go so far as to say that they wanted there to be a special term for what happened to them. Okay. They wanted to highlight what happened to them above all of the other genocides that happened in the world and that were happening even at the time, you know.

And they wanted they they I don't think they even want to have, for example, you know, mentally ill people, slow people, gypsies, homosexuals, they don't want them to be included in holocaust. The holocaust is just for the Jews. That word is like just for what the is exclusively what the Nazis did specifically to the Jewish people, you know, in, you know, in Germany. I mean, you could you could maybe make the argument and I don't remember it's possible that Norman Finkelstein might make the argument in his book, The Holocaust Industry about he I'm sure he talks about when and why and how and who decided to use this word.

Okay.

I'm sure I'm sure he does, but I don't recall. That might even be a good book

too To write it.

For the book for the book club. Yeah. Next book. That they might have they might have, you know, wanted to package it in a certain way. But but to but to to say that they they that they wanted a disaster or they wanted something like this to happen or that they made it happen is absurd.

I think that's not that's not real. I mean I mean, there's no there's no historically, it's it's accurate that that the Zionists committed acts of terrorism against Jews in many places

Because

to try to incentivize them to go to Israel.

Yeah. Because because they were they were also resentful of the religious Jews who refused to

Yeah.

Make Palestine their home. So that resentment, like, okay, so we resent you and you're preventing our project from materializing. We might as well facilitate the elimination of the people and also serve our interest. I know it sounds I know like I

don't know of any evidence for that.

Okay.

I don't I don't I don't know of any any evidence or proof for for the Zionist facilitating the Holocaust. I don't know any any proof for that at all.

I mean, if there were any evidence, it must be it must be so, like, buried and, you know

I mean, what we know what there is evidence of is that the Zionists, you know, fully cooperated with and sought partnerships and collaboration with anti Semites. That's known, you know, anti Semitic political leaders and, you know, movers and shakers in Europe. They

Just so they could drive the population to get

Well, because they they they want yeah. They want the same thing. They want the Jew they they they both want the Jews out of Europe, you know. It's a little bit like it's a little bit like how the how Elijah Muhammad and the nation of Islam wanted a separate place for African Americans, and they collaborated with the white supremacists according to Malcolm x. They collaborated.

But the the the the case the the interesting thing to me about the case is where it will go or where it can go because the I'm talking about the the case of a it's something about about complicity for genocide. First of all, the fact that the case is being heard and the fact that the case has been made even without a judgment, even without a ruling, it sets a precedent for any number of other countries, including in The United States. A case has been made against the the prime minister of Australia for complicity in genocide. And and all and these these doors are all being opened because of the ICJ case by South Africa. Because now we're we're we're bringing it right out in the open, this accusation and all of the proof the genocide is being committed in Gaza.

And so now anyone who is, you know, basically everyone who up until up until today really, but certainly up until they filed that case, who was saying we stand unconditionally with Israel. While Israel is making statements that are now being used as as evidence against them in the ICJ, evidence of genocide and intention to commit genocide. You're standing beside the politicians who are making these statements. You're standing beside the state and the administration that that while they're making statements and and and committing acts which are currently being used as evidence against them to to prove the case for genocide. You have you have all of these doors being opened because of the ICJ case that now Germany can be you can file a case with the ICJ for them to not send aid and and financing and funding and arms and weapons to Israel.

And you can make a case. You can refer someone to the ICJ for being an accomplice to genocide who is a by individual politicians. So that opens so many doors. So many people could be could be brought to the ICJ for that. People, states, governments, companies, all the the repercussions are mind boggling how far that could go.

I mean, if you're if you're a weapons company, the the repercussions are just massive on you. Like I like I've I've I've talked about many times even before this case against Germany. And and and that there were weapons companies and there were like some local governments and and some and like Canada said that they're not gonna send weapons.

Okay.

They're gonna have like a weapons embargo against Israel. And some people were saying in the in the group like Yeah. But they barely give them anything. Yeah. I'm sorry.

That's that's that's irrelevant. How much they give them is irrelevant. How many times in the past have they say have have they implemented an arms embargo against Israel? That's a massive sea change. It doesn't matter what they give them.

If they if they just send them pea shooters, it doesn't matter. The fact is you're making this statement. We don't want to we we can't be you you you you are that's basically like a testimony for the prosecution that you think they're guilty. You think that they are Complicit. That's incriminating.

That you think that they are not that they're complicit, that they are committing genocide, and therefore we can't be a part of that. And that's actually responsible on the part of the Canadian government on behalf of their weapons companies. Because if you don't if you don't take care of your weapons companies and you let them do this for your political reasons, like like in America, for your cheap political reasons, you have to side with Israel and say we stand with Israel no matter what, then weapons companies think they have carte blanche. And then when the when the when the the verdicts comes down, they're gonna face billions of dollars in damages, billions of dollars in civil lawsuits, billions of dollars in compensation, billions in dollars of fines.

So it's just a means of protecting their own interests?

Well, no. I mean, I'm saying it's a risk it's it's you don't even have to think about it as a moral decision, but just legally responsible decision on the part of Canada and on the part of anybody else to take, you know, you you can't let your you can't let your arms companies keep doing this when Consequences. Yeah. Ramifications are huge. That's like that that will that can and should and probably would be bankruptable ramifications.

Like, it it cannot I mean, I'm just thinking about all of the ways that it can go, all of the things that that can spin out from these cases. One is is regulations that can be, you know, people you'll you'll start you will probably start to see in different parliaments and and legislatures in the Western world new regulations on arms exports, export of of of arms and regulation more regulations on military funding, military financing, military aid, and so on, which is a very good thing. And let me think, what else is there? There was something else I was thinking of. Ah, yeah.

Very important one. Because like what because the I c the the South Africa made the case at the ICJ knowing, of course, that an actual judgment or verdict in the case is years away when if things continued, the genocide would already be completed by the time a verdict comes from the court. So they wanted to make the case so that they could make the request for emergency measures. And then with the they have to rule on the emergency measures. So then once the emergency measures are ruled upon, then that ruling can be taken to the United Nations for a resolution and a demand, which is why we got the ceasefire, which is why ultimately a ceasefire was passed.

Algeria took it and of course The US vetoed it, but you keep pushing the issue through these channels. So a potential action that could be taken if they if they rule on the emergency measures and they rule favorably on the emergency measures, that could lead to a United Nations resolution. Someone will bring it to the United Nations, probably Algeria, maybe Nicaragua, will bring it to the United Nations and call for a a a UN mandated embargo of Israel. They could they could mandate sanctions against Israel. Israel could be sanctioned by the UN.

And and they could even it it could escalate to, dare I say it, the United Nations ordering a no fly zone over Gaza, which is how which which is what was used to justify NATO attacking Libya. They were there the judge the justification for them for them being there and for them what is it For sure. The justification for NATO to be involved in Libya and for them to have air strikes and for them to have their air force and whatnot flying over Libya and bombing was supposedly to implement the United Nations resolution of a no fly zone to enforce that. Yes. But the point is that's a that's a precedent that then we can use.

If you wanted to protect innocent civilians in Libya whose casualty figures are nothing compared to the casualty figures in Gaza, then you should implement the same thing over Gaza. You should implement a no fly zone and you should enforce it.

Yeah. How I'm wondering how how they how do you enforce that?

The same way they enforced it over Libya.

Bombing their faces?

Say that's what I'm saying. You know? Do do do be consistent.

Yeah.

It was it was a matter of life and death to protect innocent civilians in Libya. Okay. I believe you. I believe you. You care about innocent civilians.

Sure.

I know that you'll do the same thing now. Of course, you will. You're good, decent, you know, honest, just people who love humanity and civilian life. Of course, you won't you won't have a double standard. Of course, you won't contradict yourself.

Know? So, yeah, do the same thing for the same reason. You can even just you can you can you can almost just just copy and paste the resolution that you passed about Libya.

And switch the names.

Yeah. It was I think it was it was UN resolution. I just looked it up the other day. Okay. UN UN Security Council resolution nineteen seventy three, one nine seven three.

Just copy and paste it and change the name Libya to Israel.

I called it.

Order a no fly zone and enforce it. Because because the thing is, I'm not I'm not just talking like nonsense, but because of the wording of the ceasefire that that that was not vetoed by by The US, the the ceasefire that's supposed to supposedly is in, you know, that's supposed to be happening now that Israel is not complying with. The the wording of that was that they said that the the the UN said or the Security Council said that we remain seized of this issue, which is like a legal term, a legal language of saying, basically, we reserve the right to to to persist on this topic and on this resolution to to see to it that it is enforced. Okay. You know?

So, okay. Do what you did last time with someone else. Do the same thing with them that you did with someone else. Do do with those Semites what you did with those Semites, you know. You were protecting innocent Arab lives in Libya.

Protect innocent Arab lives in Palestine and Gaza case. The South Africa case opened all of these doors. And the the this this one about Germany, I think, opens that door. It doesn't open it immediately, but it it it opens the way to that to that kind of a move and to that kind of a demand.

Has this been pointed out by any of the media conference?

Not that I know of.

It could be something, you know.

Yeah. Not that I know of.

Yeah.

But I mean, in America, I mean, I saw people talking in the chat about, you know, because like Biden saying that, you know, the the patience is running thin and and whatnot. Yeah. We know. We know. That's true.

That's not a joke. And even though they're still sending them weapons, they're they send them, you know, like Biden or Blinken or whatever will say something critical of Israel and, you know, and say things like the patient is wearing thin and support is waning for for for Israel and so on. And then like, you know, they say that out of one side of their mouth and out of the other side of their mouth, they say, yeah, but we're gonna send you more bombs. Yeah. They do that.

Sure. But I think that that's I I in my reading of that is that they know and the military industrial complex knows that the window of opportunity is closing to use Israel for what it's for for its function. So we'll continue to do this while we can, but the window is closing, Netanyahu. You know? The window is closing and the window is the that's a window that's closing, but for Netanyahu, it's the noose that's tightening.

The noose is tightening around his neck and it's all it's it's it's all his own rope, you know. But I don't I I don't have any question that that America wants to be done with Israel. But like I've talked about before in the videos, the neocons, old habits die hard. And they they have their own just like I've also talked about with with political geopolitical analysts. They leave the private sector out of their analysis completely, and they still think in twentieth century terms of nation states and so on.

They're not really up to date in my opinion in the in the way they analyze or they're that's an element of of what they do that's just propaganda. True. But the people who are working in people like Blinken and and so on, they're they're neocons from the old days. And they they probably still actually do think that way. So they're a bit thick headed in terms of getting the message from the owners and controllers of global financialized capital, which way we want this thing to go.