Many brilliant philosophers have written things without contemplating the full meaning of what they are writing. As such buried in their brilliant works are some deeply flawed and foolish ones.

Think about Russell writing the following:

"The aggression committed by Israel must be condemned, not only because no state has the right to annex foreign territory, but because every expansion is an experiment to discover how much more aggression the world will tolerate."

Using the Ukraine war as an example, the second part of what Russell said was true. Whether it is Russia seizing first Crimea and then attempting to seize Ukraine or Hitler seizing territory until Poland triggered WW2, there comes a time when the nations of the world say "no". That is an observable truth, which can be observed throughout history.

But the first part is not truth in the sense that there are two recognized claims to territory and those claims are based on "right of conquest" or "right of discovery". These truths are self-evident... the territory a people occupy is theirs by virtue of being first and far more often the last. And Israel was no different.

Neither was Russia after WW2 or France. Italy after WW1. Poland after WW2. America after its wars with the Native Americans. Canada with the Native Americans, the list is pretty extensive. Wars generally end with border changes. So, with respect to the first part of Russell's comment to what year is he suggesting we roll back the world map.

In that sense a more accurate statement might have said, the world in not intervening in Israel's wars because they believed that Israel was acting in response to attacks and that under the laws of Conquest, it was entitled to keep territory gained in a "just" war (using the 16th century definition of such). As a philosopher, he would have been acquainted with those ideas.

Bertrand knew that virtually all nations occupy their present territory by right of conquest and a few by right of discovery. So, one must question, why single out Israel as deserving of condemnation especially when most of the countries that would have condemned Israel occupy their lands by right of conquest and Israel had a better moral argument regarding seizing territory that had been used to launch attacks against it.

Yet by singling out Israel, he provides "cover" for antisemitism, since he blesses the condemnation of Israel for doing what virtually every country is guilty of. Did he realize that? Was he intentionally creating a "pass" for antisemitism. I don't think so... hence referring him to a fool or useful idiot is far kinder than to suspect him of antisemitism.

Do you feel he was an antisemite? What nation could have condemned Israel for keeping land it captured in a war? Does anyone think Israel was out to create an empire, that would require the world to intervene? Simply said, how is the war over the territory of Israel unique or different and why does Russell seem to treat it as such in his musings? Unless they are must that... musings... not particularly well thought out...