Group identity is far more important than many liberal thinkers have accepted in recent years. If you consider yourself part of a group, and you are convinced that group is somehow under threat, you feel the urge to defend the group. Whether that is done rationally or not doesn't really matter.

For reference, this is from a kind and well-educated Italian Jewish friend of mine whom I believe is generally well-reflected. Yet, because the heart wants to believe something (like ISIS somehow supporting a candidate in an election [and a Shia Muslim one at that]), the brain has to follow.

The reason I remember that film right now in relation to Gaza is that - at the time - Israel had a far more open discussion on right and wrong and democratic dialogue. And yet that film's focus didn't humanise the Lebanese at all. I can't imagine how Gaza will be remembered by Israelis in the future

In Waltz With Bashir, the entire premise of the movie is about soldiers sharing how hard their experiences were when invading Lebanon. Not how despicable the actual war was, but how it affected the infantry soldiers perpetrating the conflict.

Israel is an extremely introspective and self-oriented society. Everything worth noting is mentioned in relation to Israel itself (as reflected by its media and political narratives). Yet, it is so strange that the suffering from war is always thought of as trauma to soldiers themselves.

Most people (from my experience) who picture this as the ideal are very lonely in their day-to-day. I can't imagine a situation where you have to adjust to isolation more than moving into a rural area without a natural tie to that community. It takes time and effort that you could spend whre you are

I couldn't put it better myself. I lived in rural Sweden for four years after living in the city my entire life. There are lots of positives, but only like 5% of people daydreaming about it would be able to adjust to what it actually means to live like that.

Koreans (since they are apparently of Central Asian origin with Mongolians being some of their closest genetic relatives) are also on the list with some truly award-worthy babies.

She's free!?!? Amazing news for her and her family.

Det är inte det jag tror heller. Men vad jag undrar är de rättsliga processerna. Dvs, om målet är att i slutändan kunna se till att "fel" folk (till exempel svarta amerikaner eller andra som röstar på demokraterna) inte ska få tillgång till vapen så betyder den här processen mycket i slutändan.

Jag har inte klickat på länken så vet ej men undrar på vilka grunder de vill argumentera rent lagligt. Oftast, i auktoritära stater, så sker flera testfall innan man ger sig på sina mest betydelsefulla fiender. Man testar vad som går på de samhället inte bryr sig om alra först hursomhelst.

Just remember to start every major paragraph with "as I wrote in my previous (award winning) book,...".

I can't really look up resources right now as I'm with my kids, but this is based on my memory of opinion polls measuring European ethnonationalism comparatively. If you remind me at a later date, I can probably look them up again and try to find relevant data :)

The UK is an extremely interesting case in a European context since ethnonationalism is uncommonly weak and unpopular. It is the connection to crime and poor integration that seems to be a driving force for RW anti-immigration populism.

Talking about being tough on immigrants loses a lot of the base for the centre-left and doesn't really attract the right vote as it is incompatible with their identity.

The only way to frame this properly is talking about how to increase legal pathways to reduce people smuggling etc.