the_dunk_tank

Losurdo’s Stalin book does provide some useful context, not that Zionists actually care:

First, al-Husseini only engaged Hitler after Hitler made a deal with German Zionists to transport 20,000 Jews to Israel. Hitler was clear about his plans for creating a Jewish “homeland” (more like country-size prison, but still). I think al-Husseini was reasonably concerned about how he sensed the winds were blowing. Everyone at some point made deals with or tried to make deals with Hitler, so to clutch pearls over al-Husseini (or Stalin) doing it is disingenuous.

But more importantly, Stalin’s attempt at a popular front strategy by first courting Britain and France to ally against Germany before Molotov-Ribbentrop cost him dearly in the colonies of those countries. A lot of his allies there were pretty angry about that strategy. To someone waging an anti-colonial struggle in India, Palestine, Vietnam, or Algeria… what did they care about a country that, evil as they may be, posed no threat to them? Their “Hitlers” were in London and Paris (Gandhi literally said this very thing). Same can be said for the IRA, too. I think that’s useful context - I think it’s only natural to focus on your most immediate enemy, the one who has the boot firmly on your neck. But again, not that Zionists care about that context.

Everyone has seen that image because Zionists love to share it despite the fact that Zionist leaders like Avraham Stern explicitly sought alliances with Hitler and that Zionists collaborated with fascist Germany to ship Jews to Palestine for their colonization efforts and with fascist Italy to train their militias (Betar Naval Academy), all of which Zionists justify by pointing to the dire situation faced and explaining how this necessitates "the enemy of my enemy"-ism as if the Palestinians didn't also face a dire situation with the British and Zionist colonization.