Raze

Israel / Palestine News Thread

5,477 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Arrasar

 

Honor and Humiliation: The Hidden Engine of the Palestinian Conflict

Beyond politics and religion, one of the deepest forces sustaining the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a cultural code rooted in much of the Arab world: the logic of collective honor.
This ethic, older than the states themselves, helps explain why the cycle of violence persists even when rational compromise seems possible.

1. Humiliation as the Core Experience

For many Palestinians, especially the older generations, the Nakba of 1948 was not merely a territorial loss but a collective humiliation —the defeat of an Arab people by a smaller, non-Muslim community on what they regarded as their land.
That event was transformed into a wound of identity, passed from generation to generation.
The Palestinian cause therefore seeks not only sovereignty but the restoration of dignity.
When honor becomes the goal, survival alone is no longer enough.

I thought all of this started because Jews got humiliated by Germans?

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

2. Martyrdom as Redemption

In this symbolic framework, death in resistance is not senseless; it restores balance.
The shahīd (martyr) reclaims collective worth through sacrifice.
Families who have lost children sometimes speak of pride rather than despair —not because they lack feeling, but because their culture links value to endurance and honor more than to comfort or safety.

No it's because there is no choice but to stay on the land and die. Leaving their own land is not a choice they have 

Jews are the martyrs because they die on land that isn't even theirs, sacrificing themselves for nothing

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

3. Israel as the Mirror of Humiliation

Israel embodies, for many Palestinians, the visible proof of that humiliation:
a small, technologically advanced, Western-aligned state dominating millions of Arabs.
To accept Israel’s permanence feels, for some, like accepting eternal shame.
Thus, even when reason suggests that war is futile, the moral structure of honor forbids surrender.
To live without dignity would mean to cease existing as a people.

Israel had backing from the UK which was the biggest power in the world at the time. Now it's the US which is the biggest military power in the world

It's not humiliating for Palestinians who don't even have a proper army to be oppressed by the biggest power in the world

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

The Tragic Impasse

When the axis of identity is honor, rational peace becomes almost impossible,
because any agreement implies defeat for one side.
And a community built on dignity cannot accept defeat —even at the cost of its own survival.

Axis of identity? What's that even mean?

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Conclusion

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only a clash of interests but a collision between two existential grammars:

Israel’s logic of security and individual survival,

and Palestine’s logic of collective dignity and restoration of honor.

Until that symbolic wound of humiliation is transformed into a new form of shared dignity, any political settlement will remain fragile —a ceasefire, not a reconciliation.

 

What are you willing to do as a European Jew living in the Middle East to bring about this reconciliation? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Islam deserved to be humiliated, because it's mainly a shit.  Rigidess, abuse, consanguinity, narrow minded. Israel put Islam in the right place: down. Let's see if the Muslims take advantage of this lesson os humility to change.

You will hate the new world then. Where half of all people on the planet are Muslim and people like you will be considered backwards beasts 

It's coming sooner than you think. Statistics and demographics 

It turns out Muslim people reproduce at a much larger rate than Jews or Christians. Let me guess, they only have a lot of babies so they can sacrifice them in war right? That's what you think haha. And Jews and Christians don't have many babies because they are too developed and smart? Not because they have broken families lets forget about that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Muslims hate Israel only because Israel humiliated Islam again and again. Not because they feel solidarity for the Palestinians, and Palestinian move for pride more than for it's own benefits, that's why the cheer the 7oct in gaza. 

Islam deserved to be humiliated, because it's mainly a shit.  Rigidess, abuse, consanguinity, narrow minded. Israel put Islam in the right place: down. Let's see if the Muslims take advantage of this lesson os humility to change.

Anyway It's impossible to have a conversation with you; you're just a sad, self-righteous narrow minded incapable of independent thought.

1. “Muslims hate Israel only because Israel humiliated Islam again and again.”

This is a historically illiterate claim. Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel has been driven by colonial displacement, occupation, and systemic injustice, not religious humiliation. Secular Arab nationalist movements — including Fatahand the Ba’ath Party — led resistance with secular, socialist ideologies, not Islam. The early PLO even distanced itself from religious rhetoric.

And if this were about Islam alone, how do Christian Palestinians fit in? Figures like Hanan Ashrawi have been vocal in opposing Israeli policy. Are they reacting to "Islamic humiliation" too? The argument implodes under its own absurdity.

2. “Palestinians move for pride more than for benefits; that’s why they cheer 7 October.”

This is a dehumanizing generalization that conflates millions of Palestinians with Hamas. Many opposed the October 7 attacks, and Palestinian civil society and diaspora groups condemned violence against civilians.

Moreover, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued nonviolent and diplomatic paths — from the 1988 PLO recognition of Israel to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the BDS movement. To ignore all that and claim Palestinians act purely out of "pride" is both dishonest and insulting.

And cheering violence isn’t exclusive to Palestinians. Far-right Israelis have been filmed chanting “Death to Arabs” and celebrating Gaza bombings. Is that “Israeli culture”? Of course not — so why apply that logic selectively?

3. “Islam deserved to be humiliated... rigidity, abuse, consanguinity, narrow-minded.”

This is not analysis — it's bigotry. It echoes colonial-era racism used to justify domination. Islam, like any religion, is diverse and internally complex. Thinkers like Ibn Sina, Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Khaldun shaped philosophy, ethics, and sociology. Modern reformists continue to engage with democracy and human rights within Islamic frameworks.

And consanguinity isn’t unique to Muslims. It’s common in many societies, including Christian and Jewish communities. Weaponizing it here is just pseudoscientific racism meant to justify discrimination.

4. “Israel put Islam in the right place: down.”

This isn’t an argument — it’s a confession. A gloating celebration of subjugation that mirrors fascist rhetoric, not liberal democracy. If someone said the West “put Judaism in its place” in the 20th century, we’d call it what it is: incitement and moral depravity. The same standard applies here.

Ironically, this mentality fuels the very extremism it claims to oppose. It’s not about peace or security — it’s about dehumanization as policy.

5. The Historical Reality and the Hypocrisy

Let’s talk real history. Israel didn’t “humiliate Islam” in 1967 — it occupied territory. And when Egypt dealt Israel a bloody nose in 1973, Israel suddenly found returning the Sinai negotiable. Not out of dominance, but necessity. So much for humiliating Islam — that war forced Israel to reassess Arab military strength. That’s realpolitik, not religious superiority.

And if the author hates Islamist extremism so much, maybe they should ask why Israel helped fund Hamas in the 1980s to weaken the secular PLO. You don’t get to bankroll Frankenstein and then act shocked when the monster wrecks the village. That’s not strategy — that’s shortsightedness on fire.

6. Conclusion: What This Reveals About the Speaker

The final insult — “you’re a sad, self-righteous narrow-minded incapable of independent thought” — is pure projection. The speaker refuses to engage facts, ignores history, and collapses complex political realities into a lazy narrative of religious inferiority. It’s emotionally-driven tribalism disguised as analysis.

This isn’t someone defending a country — it’s someone venting their insecurities through bigotry. The conversation didn’t fail because of ideological differences — it failed because they had nothing to offer but bile.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

thought all of this started because Jews got humiliated by Germans?

I don't think the Jews felt humiliated by the Germans, it was more a matter of absolute horror.

58 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

No it's because there is no choice but to stay on the land and die. Leaving their own land is not a choice they have 

They can stand in the land and be friends with the Jews.

54 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

You will hate the new world then. Where half of all people on the planet are Muslim and people like you will be considered backwards beasts 

I'd like they can evolve and be open-minded. 

 

54 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

turns out Muslim people reproduce at a much larger rate than Jews or Christians. Let me guess, they only have a lot of babies so they can sacrifice them in war right? That's what you think haha. And Jews and Christians don't have many babies because they are too developed and smart? Not because they have broken families lets forget about that

You are right, a lot of broken families and problems in west culture, nobody denied that. 

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

This is historically false and deeply reductive. The root of Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel is not religious humiliation, but colonial displacement, military occupation, and systemic injustice

Sure, the Turkish are very worried about the injustice to the Palestines, they can't sleep because that. Are they worried about the injustice in congo? There are many. You are...well, I don't want to put adjectives. Put the adjective that you think it's correct 

Just a question: have the Muslims ever protest about any injustice to any non Muslim? the christians did many times, for example now.

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't think the Jews felt humiliated by the Germans, it was more a matter of absolute horror.

They can stand in the land and be friends with the Jews.

I'd like they can evolve and be open-minded. 

 

You are right, a lot of broken families and problems in west culture, nobody denied that. 

Sure, the Turkish are very worried about the injustice to the Palestines, they can't sleep because that. You are...well, I don't want to put adjectives. Put the adjective that you think it's correct 

On Jewish Humiliation and the Holocaust

Saying “I don't think the Jews felt humiliated by the Germans, it was more a matter of absolute horror” shows a shallow grasp of the Holocaust’s full brutality. The Nazi regime didn’t just kill — it dehumanized, humiliated, and erased dignity through forced ghettoization, tattoos, shaved heads, medical experiments, and mass degradation. To deny that humiliation was central is not just historical amnesia — it’s moral illiteracy.

Why make this distinction? Because the speaker wants to delegitimize Palestinian resistance: “Jews suffered quietly; Palestinians lash out.” It’s a dishonest comparison. Jews had no state, no army, no allies. Palestinians face a nuclear-backed occupier enforcing military rule and apartheid. The circumstances differ, but the instinct — resisting humiliation and erasure — is deeply human. Ironically, the speaker proves the point: humiliation matters.

“They can stand in the land and be friends with the Jews.”

This is the benevolent occupier myth: Palestinians can live in peace if they smile and forget the ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, checkpoints, home demolitions, blockades, and the nation-state law that denies them self-determination.

It's like saying enslaved people could’ve just “been friends” with their masters — if they gave up their land, language, and dignity. Palestinians don’t oppose coexistence; they reject subjugation. Israel’s decades-long refusal to allow a viable two-state solution and its militarized control over millions make real “friendship” impossible.

“I’d like they can evolve and be open-minded.”

This might be the most condescending line of all. It reduces a colonized people with deep cultural and intellectual traditions to backward primitives awaiting "civilized" enlightenment. It’s white man's burden — in Hebrew.

Calling for Palestinian “evolution” while backing a state that, as of October 14, 2025, is bombing refugee camps and besieging hospitals, is hypocrisy in full bloom. Palestinians don’t need to evolve to demand freedom — and there’s nothing “open-minded” about applauding apartheid and occupation. If resisting that makes them backward, what does it make the ones justifying it?

On the Turkish Deflection

“Sure, the Turkish are very worried about the injustice to the Palestines, they can't sleep because that” isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a sneer wrapped in cowardice. The original point wasn’t about Turkey’s sincerity, but that Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel is rooted in history and injustice, not wounded religious pride.

This response dodges that entirely. It’s like being told the house is on fire and responding, “Well, the neighbor didn’t call 911.” It’s irrelevant, petty, and reveals you’ve got nothing left but sarcasm.

And ironically, it concedes the argument: if your only move is mocking another country’s inconsistencies while ignoring your own, you’ve run out of facts. This isn’t debate — it’s deflection.

Final Verdict

The speaker shows a shallow, self-serving, and ahistorical grasp of both Jewish and Palestinian realities. They weaponize Jewish trauma to erase Palestinian resistance, whitewash Israel’s policies, and package bigotry as reason. Faced with evidence, they sneer, dodge, and collapse into deflection.

They accuse others of lacking adjectives, but can’t produce a single original thought of their own. Here’s one for them: pathetic.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

I don't think the Jews felt humiliated by the Germans, it was more a matter of absolute horror.

They can stand in the land and be friends with the Jews.

I'd like they can evolve and be open-minded. 

 

You are right, a lot of broken families and problems in west culture, nobody denied that. 

Sure, the Turkish are very worried about the injustice to the Palestines, they can't sleep because that. Are they worried about the injustice in congo? There are many. You are...well, I don't want to put adjectives. Put the adjective that you think it's correct 

Just a question: have the Muslims ever protest about any injustice to any non Muslim? the christians did many times, for example now.

Leo did a bad job at teaching you consciousness and life. He made 500 videos and somehow you speak as if you are fresh out of the matrix. Something went wrong in that student teacher dynamic 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@BlueOak Too many comments that our discussion just gets lost.

On 08/10/2025 at 11:14 AM, BlueOak said:

Smaller nations don't war as much, because large nations and militaries keep them in check. Force checks force. In our current dynamic, smaller nations also don't go to war if a large nation is going to give their opponents weapons.

  • As Russian power slips you see war breaking out in Central Asia. Azerbaijan vs Armenia
  • As America pulls back from NATO and BRICS rises you see it in Southeast Asia. Cambodia vs Thailand.
  • As China grew strong enough we saw it in Tibet and East Turkestan. China's done plenty of war over its history in recent memory, its strong enough it just rolls through without much resistance.
  • Russia thought they were strong enough, So did Israel. So did India to pressure Pakistan over Kashmir. 

Its not fatalistic to show you what happens the world over and to really get you to understand at their base level humans are the same the world over. As soon as you can accept that we can dismantle bias and actually rationally look at systemic problems, but without that understanding, you are unduly biased in your assessment.

*The Cold war didn't move into a full war as nukes were more feared and the military strength of both sides was more balanced. Plus WW2 was still in those generations minds. I always feared what would happen when the last of the veterans died off, their respected voices no longer speaking out by experience against war. Then this was reinforced when fascism became a more accepted ideology, and racism more accepted, without socialist controls stopping, balancing or framing it differnetly.

I'm acknowledging nature exists, but adding in that context shapes how that nature / power manifests itself.  For example as you've said - smaller powers don't war as much when larger powers keep them in check - that's acknowledgment that the context / structure they exist within is affecting how they behave, how their nature is being expressed. Nature is the base or starting point, not the end point which is shaped by the context.

Power imbalances affect behavior - but why do some power imbalances produce stability (US-Canada, EU internally) while others produce war (NATO-Russia, Israel-Palestine)? The answer isn't simply because humans are humans or nature is nature (all the same). It's because of how power is structured and whether security concerns are addressed. We nurture nature towards better ends to live in a civil-ised world.

NATO members don't war with each other despite massive militaries because they're inside a cooperative security framework. NATO vs Russia wars because there's NO framework that addresses Russian security concerns. Russia / Putin called for that after the fall of the USSR but it wasn't taken seriously despite Western analysts themselves blaring about the consequences of crossing red lines and provocation. Rejecting Putin's calls and warnings was due to the arrogance of being atop of the current world order which gives no incentive of considering others in.

Your Cold War point shows how structure shaped outcomes. Mutually assured destruction, arms control treaties, hotlines / back channels, institutional frameworks - made war irrational despite massive militarization and ideological hatred. The system channeled behavior toward managed competition instead of annihilation.

Militarism without sound security architecture creates issues. It's not inevitable that having or increasing military leads to war. China has one of the largest and hasn't yet used it to the degree the US has. If militarism lead to war then we'd see war all over the world as every country has a military. 

On 08/10/2025 at 11:14 AM, BlueOak said:

Putin has refused all negotiation with Ukraine repeatedly. He won't even recognize Zelensky as legitimate to negotiate with. The only way Russia is stopped is on the battlefield, almost everyone has finally come around to that understanding, which Eastern Europe have known for centuries. Or more specifically, its economy wrecked enough that it cannot support these increasingly wasteful attacks.

Personally I advocate for the Russian country being broken up in into its native populations; they'd be far better off than draining all their food, oil, lifeforce and wealth into Moscow and St Petersburg anyway. I understand this is unlikely, and Russia will bankrupt itself long before that.

As for negotiations with fanatics like many of those in Hamas, that isn't easy either when many of them just want you dead, your culture and religion erased. After Israel's brutal campaign, I doubt its got much easier.

By that logic London should break away from other areas of England because it has a disproportionate economic and political power compared to the rest.  This naturally occures in countries because capital cities concentrate power and money. Looks like UK will breakup (with Scotland) before Russia:

https://youtu.be/0u9owvUbY_Y?si=-mewvHBAoloLkrbf&t=2

Israel got its hostages in the past via negotiations with Hamas. Hamas also came to the current negotiated peace deal with Trump and co. Peace is possible if we don't view nature or the psychology of actors as inevitable.

On 08/10/2025 at 11:14 AM, BlueOak said:

I do feel your pain, I assume everyone has these types of moments. But unlike the rest of the world. I won't support selling out subsequent generations so I can live a better quality of life. Even if I am the last man alive holding that position. I would rather over-regulate than anything. Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to be.

Population controls are necessary, as are AI workers if we mean to sustain the biosphere. Regulating housing development is useful in this regard, as without a home large enough, it discourages people from having kids. Call it a soft form of population control, and incidently this is why migration at 500,000 net in the UK is destructive longterm, beyond people's cultural or racial concerns or preferences (I have none).

Africa is definitely a possibility, certain parts of it anyway. South Africa for example early on aligned with BRICS, but in this two-pole world we have now, there are some more neutral powers like Nigeria and others we can work with, I agree there. Africa could well decide which of these two powers comes out on top, or mediate between them, as its rise will be quite drastic in the decades ahead. Or at least those parts of it BRICS isn't actively fighting NATO over internally.

Dismantling Western Influence would be a bad move, however, as we've seen it just invites Chinese and Russian influence in its place. Whether you or anyone think that is 'better' or 'worse' doesn't change that's what happens when we pull back.

We have become soft however. We can agree on that. You are missing one key problem in your analysis: that without NATO the EU is somewhat divided on the course of action. People labelling us all 'The West' often don't understand it or even see it.

It's fine to have stage green values and think about the planet, but it needs to be prioritized correctly. Security and geopolitics needs to be accounted for before those - because without security their won't be future generations to begin with, or they will be left in a economically weaker position due to less competitiveness against Chinese industry who places sovereignty and power at the forefront whilst simultaneously aiming towards sustainability in the long run. We can't complain about others (BRICS) rising and outcompeting the West otherwise.

A quote from a youtube analyst regarding the recent rare earth situation:

''This is how we find ourselves in the predicament that we have created. It's easy to blame the Chinese. But our own system chased profit margins. It then supports profit margins and celebrates profit margins and that you'll only ever get it if you can deliver the cheapest product. While enforcing emission standards and reductions that are optical only because the emissions haven't reduced. It's just getting made elsewhere instead of right here. So we can bang on a drum and wear a bloody hippie outfit. But the excessive red tape has meant that these businesses can't do anything in a lot of these states.''

I didn't mean dismantling influence, but increasing it via a equitable approach that beats what Russia/China have to offer. The spectrum is influence, intervention then imperialism. The current relationship between the West and ''the rest'' is tilted towards intervention/imperial (especially the CFA Franc system). 

Edited by zazen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, zazen said:

A welcome end to the killing but not sure if latter phases will be implemented or things will fall through - many logistical issues which can easily be used as a excuse to continue operations ie Hamas not yet fully dis-armed.

Just takes one spoiler of a rocket or shot fired / false flagged to kick things off.

Also - nothing fixed at the root cause ie occupation / Palestinian statehood. Even if they acknowledge this path as leading to Palestinian statehood - I don’t see one being established in West Bank due to settlers who are armed and hard line + the security risk a “armed” Palestinian state poses from that vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv. Would they even agree to a disarmed state? If so, how is it even implemented? Third party peace keepers. But settlers are still there requiring  IDF protection ie de facto occupation.

So we’re simply left with Gaza to be a state if it ever comes to it.

Also - Defense Minister Israel Katz tweeted: https://x.com/israel_katz/status/1977253298580160601?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

“Israel’s great challenge after the phase of returning the hostages will be the destruction of all of Hamas’s terror tunnels in Gaza, directly by the IDF and through the international mechanism to be established under the leadership and supervision of the United States. This is the primary significance of implementing the agreed-upon principle of demilitarizing Gaza and neutralizing Hamas of its weapons. I have instructed the IDF to prepare for carrying out the mission.”

Ie back to business after hostages retrieved and a temporary break to ease global pressure / anger.

As I was saying:

They will get hostages back and continue it seems, under any pre-text or reason. Jared Kushner's Art of the Deal logic is:  Get to a yes first, and hash out the details later. Well, those details include Bibi and his far right coalition he depends on flopping the entire peace process and handling Trumps temper tantrum at making him look bad as a minor inconvenience in fulfilling their true aims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raze said:

They weaponize Jewish trauma to erase Palestinian resistance

When I said that? Seems that your IA is inventing things. Your use of the IA is pathetic btw

Anyway Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute. Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas. We'll see how long the peace lasts. I doubt it will last long. Difficult situation for Jews, surrounded by hate everywhere . Let's see if Iranian regime falls, would be a consequence of this. 

Just a question: imagine that Israeli were Muslims. Anyone would care if they expulse the Palestinian? Many Muslim countries are oppressing people, like Kurds, Sudan, etc, and who cares? 

Just a Rhetorical question, it's obvious that your need to be with the good guys against the bad American devil is preventing you from thinking clearly.

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Just a question: imagine that Israeli were Muslims. Anyone would care if they expulse the Palestinian? Many Muslim countries are oppressing people, like Kurds, Sudan, etc, and who cares? 

I haven't seen pro-Palestinian politicians in the US that have enough political power to be able to make the government biased against Israel and support Palestine, ignoring how the Palestinians are using that support against other countries and also their citizenry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@zazen Excellent work. Your posts are exactly the kind of indepth, nuanced political discussion I come to this subforum for. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

When I said that? Seems that your IA is inventing things. Your use of the IA is pathetic btw

Anyway Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute. Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas. We'll see how long the peace lasts. I doubt it will last long. Difficult situation for Jews, surrounded by hate everywhere . Let's see if Iranian regime falls, would be a consequence of this. 

Just a question: imagine that Israeli were Muslims. Anyone would care if they expulse the Palestinian? Many Muslim countries are oppressing people, like Kurds, Sudan, etc, and who cares? 

Just a Rhetorical question, it's obvious that your need to be with the good guys against the bad American devil is preventing you from thinking clearly.

First, let’s look at the core evasion: “When did I say that?” — referring to the line about weaponizing Jewish trauma to erase Palestinian resistance. This is the rhetorical equivalent of pretending you didn’t say something just because you didn’t use the exact words. But the logic of their prior statements is clear: by denying Jewish humiliation under the Holocaust (a demonstrably false historical claim), they attempt to draw a contrast with Palestinians, painting them as irrational, over-emotional, and inferior for resisting. That’s not just historical revisionism — it’s using one group’s trauma to delegitimize another’s struggle. They can try to dodge the implications, but the subtext is screaming.

Then comes the laughably crude declaration: “Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute.” Setting aside the grotesque phrasing, what does this even mean? Humiliation of Islam? The original critique explicitly debunked the claim that Palestinian resistance is rooted in wounded Islamic pride, not material injustice — and instead of addressing that, the speaker doubles down on a civilizational fantasy of Israel “humiliating” Islam. This isn’t political analysis — it’s Clash of Civilizations cosplay with a messianic sheen.

The comment about being “surrounded by hate everywhere” is the classic rhetorical crutch of Israeli victimhood nationalism. It’s the eternal siege mentality: every criticism is antisemitism, every act of resistance is terrorism, and every surrounding country is existentially committed to Jewish destruction. This allows the speaker to avoid reckoning with power: with the actual reality of who holds the guns, who drops the bombs, who enforces the checkpoints, and who has nuclear weapons. This isn't nuance — it's narcissism disguised as realism.

Then, of course, we get the tedious whataboutism: “If Israel were Muslim, no one would care about the Palestinians.”This is a recycled and lazy talking point. Yes, there are atrocities in Muslim-majority countries — and many people docare. But the fact that injustice exists elsewhere does not negate the injustice of settler-colonialism and apartheid in Palestine. This is not an argument — it’s a moral shrug. It’s the ethical equivalent of saying, “Other people get away with murder, so why can’t we?”

Finally, the snide ending — “your need to be with the good guys against the bad American devil…” — is the cherry on top of this rhetorical landfill. It’s a transparent attempt to project ideological tribalism onto the opponent, when in fact, the original critique was grounded in historical fact, human rights principles, and actual argumentation. This kind of dismissal is the last refuge of someone who’s been intellectually outmatched: insult the motives, don’t touch the ideas. It’s cowardice dressed up as cynicism.

Final diagnosis: This person has poor grasp of history, no interest in honest debate, and an allergic reaction to complexity. Their worldview is built on cartoonish binaries, laced with cultural chauvinism and propped up by juvenile taunts. They can’t defend their position, so they hide behind rhetorical smog and pretend it’s clarity. It isn’t. It’s lazy, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raze ohhhh the little puppy sooooo cute with his passive aggressive IA. Look what mine says, seems different. Then, why do the 🤡 with the IA just to troll? Why are you in this forum? To win any medal? Good, you are a champ, so cute and so cool. Then stop trolling 

1. “Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute.”

This line reflects a perception rather than a literal fact.
Objectively, Israel has demonstrated military and technological superiority over actors such as Hamas or the Houthis, but it has not “humiliated Islam” as a religion.
What happens instead is that many in the Muslim world interpret Israel’s victories as religious humiliation, because Islamic identity is deeply intertwined with politics.

This creates a symbolic cycle:

Israel views its actions as self-defense.

The Muslim world interprets them as an attack on Islam.

That perception sustains the ideological conflict.

2. “Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas. We'll see how long the peace lasts.”

This is an accurate summary of the regional alignment: these groups and states form an informal anti-Israel axis under Iranian influence.
Every Israeli strike against one of them destabilizes the region.
Right now there is a tense ceasefire, but no real sign of lasting peace.

Stability depends on three factors:

How long the Iranian regime withstands internal pressure.

Whether Hezbollah maintains deterrence in Lebanon.

Whether the U.S. and Saudi Arabia manage to prevent a wider escalation.

3. “Difficult situation for Jews, surrounded by hate everywhere.”

Historically true. Israel exists in a hostile environment, not only militarily but also symbolically.
From the Israeli perspective, the war is not merely about land—it is about existential legitimacy, the right to exist as a state and as a people.

4. “Let's see if the Iranian regime falls; it could be a consequence of this.”

Possible, but unlikely in the near term.
Iran faces serious economic and moral pressure, yet the regime remains solid thanks to three pillars:

efficient repression,

religious-ideological control,

and anti-Western nationalism, now reinforced by outrage over Gaza.

Ironically, Israel’s offensive may temporarily strengthen the Iranian regime by rallying its population around an external enemy.

5. “Imagine that Israelis were Muslims. Would anyone care if they expelled the Palestinians?”

This points to a valid observation of the global double standard.
When Muslim regimes commit atrocities—Sudan against southern Christians, Turkey against Kurds, Syria against its own population—the international reaction is far weaker.

The difference is symbolic:

Israel represents the West.

Palestine represents the oppressed Global South.

This emotional framing overrides moral consistency: the world reacts according to identity, not ethics.

Summary

The reflection captures an accurate intuition:

The conflict between Israel and political Islam is less military than symbolic, and global opinion judges it through emotion, not coherence.

Israel cannot afford indifference—its survival depends on strength.
Political Islam cannot yield—its identity depends on confrontation.
And the rest of the world responds according to moral sentiment, not logical consistency.

 

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze ohhhh the little puppy sooooo cute with his passive aggressive IA. Look what mine says, seems different. Then, why do the 🤡 with the IA just to troll? Why are you in this forum? To win any medal? Good, you are a champ, so cute and so cool. Then stop trolling 

 

 

1. “Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute” — reframed as “a perception”

The author tries to soften the grotesqueness of this line by claiming it's just a "perception" held by some in the Muslim world, as if they’re simply reporting a social phenomenon rather than endorsing it. But this doesn’t neutralize the original intent — it reaffirms it by implying that Israel’s military victories inherently carry symbolic religious weight. This is nonsense. Not only are many of Israel’s opponents secular — the PLO, for example, was a secular nationalist movement, not an Islamic one — but treating every Palestinian act of resistance as religiously motivated Islamism erases decades of material struggle over land, sovereignty, and human rights.

Consider the First Intifada (1987–1993), a largely grassroots, secular uprising against occupation, involving civil disobedience, boycotts, and mass protests — not driven by Islamism, but by national liberation. Or take the statements from figures like Edward Said, a Christian Palestinian intellectual, whose opposition to Zionism had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with justice. The notion that the Palestinian struggle is a religious war is a deliberately reductionist fantasy — one that serves Israeli nationalist mythology and allows its defenders to wave away legitimate grievances as theological extremism.

2. “Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas... destabilize the region”

This is standard fare in Israeli talking points: create an axis of evil-style bloc and use it to justify every act of aggression as preemptive or defensive. But this framing falls apart under scrutiny. The claim that Israel is simply reacting to regional threats ignores that Israel has consistently initiated conflicts, often for domestic political gain or as part of a long-standing doctrine of deterrence by overwhelming force.

Look at Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009), where Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, in what even U.N. reports described as disproportionate use of force. Or the 2021 bombing of Gaza, during which Israel flattened residential towers, including the building housing AP and Al Jazeera, using the vague pretext of "Hamas activity." In both cases, it was Israel — not its “Iranian proxies” — that escalated. Or take Lebanon 2006, where Israel's disproportionate response to the kidnapping of two soldiers involved killing over 1,000 Lebanese civilians, destroying critical infrastructure, and leaving behind cluster munitions that still maim civilians today.

This isn’t defense. This is a regional hegemon asserting itself through overwhelming violence and then crying wolf when those it brutalizes dare to resist.

3. “Jews are surrounded by hate everywhere”

This is perhaps the most morally manipulative claim in the entire reply. The author presents Israeli policies as a rational response to a world that is inherently antisemitic and wants Jews gone — which is not only unprovable as a universal claim, but historically and politically misleading. It is an inversion of reality: Israel, a nuclear-armed state backed by the world’s most powerful military (the U.S.), continues to act as though it’s a 1942 ghetto fighting for survival.

Yet in the Middle East, Jews have historically not always been persecuted. In fact, Jews lived for centuries in Muslim-majority countries — often with more tolerance than they experienced in Christian Europe. Mizrahi Jews came from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, and Iran. Their expulsion and displacement coincided not with ancient antisemitism, but with the rise of Zionism and the founding of Israel, which ignited new tensions. Even today, countries like Iran still host Jewish communities (albeit under pressure), and Turkey maintains a longstanding Jewish minority.

And if Israel is “surrounded by hate,” what explains its normalization deals with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and even the ongoing détente with Saudi Arabia? This siege mentality is less a reflection of reality than a narrative used to justify perpetual militarism and exceptionalism — a mythology of victimhood to mask the reality of power.

4. “Maybe the Iranian regime will fall” — thinly veiled wishful thinking

The idea that Israeli aggression could catalyze regime change in Iran is not only baseless, it is historically disproven. In fact, every Israeli or Western act of aggression against Iran — from Stuxnet to the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists to Trump’s killing of Qassem Soleimani — has strengthened the Iranian regime by reinforcing its legitimacy as the last line of defense against imperialism.

The 2009 Green Movement, which posed the last serious threat to the Iranian regime, collapsed partly because the state was able to paint the opposition as being aligned with the West. Similarly, Iranian hardliners used the Trump-era maximum pressure campaign to consolidate control. Israeli belligerence does not destabilize Iran’s regime — it reinforces its ideological framework. The author of the reply misses this entirely because they are invested in the fantasy that military pressure alone can redraw the political map of the region.

5. “If Israelis were Muslims, no one would care about Palestinians”

This is not an argument — it's a moral tantrum. The claim that the world only cares about Palestine because Israel is Jewish is both factually inaccurate and ethically obscene. The Palestinian cause has been supported globally not because Israel is Jewish, but because the evidence of systematic injustice is overwhelming.

Moreover, the claim collapses under historical scrutiny. The Bosnian genocide — Muslims killed by Christian Serbs — prompted NATO intervention. The Uyghur crisis in China has drawn global outrage. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar has triggered massive protests and U.N. condemnations. These are Muslims suffering under non-Muslim regimes, and the world does care — just not always enough to act.

By contrast, Palestinians have lived under military occupation for over 50 years, been denied citizenship, had their homes bulldozed, their lands confiscated, and their families displaced, often with full impunity. That global attention is finally shifting to this reality is not bias — it’s belated accountability.

Conclusion:

Their worldview is not only intellectually weak — it's morally impoverished. It’s the view of someone who cannot tolerate moral scrutiny, so they retreat into abstraction, myth, and deflection. No amount of rhetorical varnish can cover that up.

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Raze said:

Moreover, the claim collapses under historical scrutiny. The Bosnian genocide — Muslims killed by Christian Serbs — prompted NATO intervention. The Uyghur crisis in China has drawn global outrage. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar has triggered massive protests and U.N. condemnations. These are Muslims suffering under non-Muslim regimes, and the world does care — just not always enough to act.

By contrast, Palestinians have lived under military occupation for over 50 years, been denied citizenship, had their homes bulldozed, their lands confiscated, and their families displaced, often with full impunity. That global attention is finally shifting to this reality is not bias — it’s belated accountability

You haven't understood anything. No one in Islam really cares that 20 million Muslims in China are being repressed and their religion banned, or that they are being massacred in Serbia.

Have you heard about the Bosnian Nakba 150,000 times? Or the Uyghur one? Do you think there were no displacements, land thefts, or murders there? It's serious but temporary.

What is intolerable is that a country is governed by non-Muslims in the holy Muslim land. It's a purely religious matter. In Islam, religion and politics are one. But those rigid close minded dogmatic people who have given their freedom in exchange of stability and belonging have to bow the head. That's life. They live around a lie, and in time lies always are revealed 

 

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

You haven't understood anything. No one in Islam really cares that 20 million Muslims in China are being repressed and their religion banned, or that they are being massacred in Serbia.

Have you heard about the Bosnian Nakba 150,000 times? Or the Uyghur one? Do you think there were no displacements, land thefts, or murders there? It's serious but temporary.

What is intolerable is that a country is governed by non-Muslims in the holy Muslim land. It's a purely religious matter. In Islam, religion and politics are one. But those rigid close minded dogmatic people who have given their freedom in exchange of stability and belonging have to bow the head. That's life. They live around a lie, and in time lies always are revealed 

 

Let’s be clear: no, the final reply does not meaningfully dispute the arguments presented to them. It doesn’t address the secular foundations of much of Palestinian resistance, ignores the well-documented evidence of Israeli-initiated escalations, and pretends the global pro-Palestinian movement is entirely religiously motivated, rather than rooted in anti-colonial, humanitarian, and legal critiques of occupation and apartheid. The person doesn't even attempt to refute any of the cited examples (e.g., Edward Said, the First Intifada, disproportionate use of force by Israel). Instead, they retreat into a cartoonish narrative about Muslim psychology and monolithic religious obsession — a narrative so lazy and outdated it wouldn’t even pass muster in a freshman-level political science course.

What does this tell us about their intellectual capacity? Not much that’s flattering. This is not someone engaged in good-faith reasoning. This is someone out of their depth, grasping at civilizational tropes because they lack the tools — historical, ethical, or analytical — to reckon with the criticisms they've received. It’s the classic defense mechanism of the ideologue who has been thoroughly debunked: retreat into metaphysical pseudo-anthropology and talk about how “those people” are just wired differently. It’s the hallmark of someone who cannot bear to concede even a sliver of moral ground, because their worldview depends on painting the other side as fanatical, irrational, and subhuman.

Their claim that "no one in Islam really cares about the Uyghurs or Bosnians" is not only factually false — it's intellectually bankrupt. It erases the very real protests, campaigns, and solidarity efforts that have emerged across the Muslim world and beyond. What they call a "serious but temporary" crisis in Bosnia involved rape camps, genocide, and the largest mass killings in Europe since WWII — if that’s “temporary,” then words have no meaning. But even more grotesque is the implication that only Islamic religious outrage explains global concern for Palestine — as though non-Muslims haven’t been on the front lines of solidarity movements, as though Jewish voices haven’t stood against occupation, and as though the issue is fundamentally theological instead of being about land theft, military occupation, apartheid laws, and decades of statelessness.

Their hypocrisy is grotesque: they defend Israel’s ongoing atrocities — including the mass killing of civilians, the deliberate starvation of Gaza, and the leveling of entire neighborhoods — by flinging around other war crimes as rhetorical smokescreens, as if the existence of global injustice somehow absolves one’s own side of committing it. This isn’t moral reasoning; it’s the logic of a war criminal in denial — the ethical equivalent of saying, “Others rape and pillage too, so why can’t we?” By invoking Sudan, the Uyghurs, and the Kurds not to demand justice for them, but to justify Palestinian suffering, they reveal a conscience not guided by empathy or principle but by tribal loyalty and moral rot. What it says about their morality is damning: they are not interested in human rights, only in the weaponization of other people’s pain to defend the indefensible. This is not just intellectual cowardice — it is a profound moral failure, the kind that festers in the minds of those who would rather rationalize state terror than confront their own complicity.

In short: this is not a serious thinker. This is someone addicted to simplistic civilizational narratives, allergic to nuance, and profoundly unserious in the face of real human suffering. They can’t argue, so they essentialize. They can’t listen, so they project. And they can’t accept complexity, so they reduce the world to comforting binaries: West vs. Islam, reason vs. faith, civilization vs. barbarism. This isn’t clarity — it’s intellectual cowardice dressed up as cultural insight.

 

Edited by Raze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Donald trump currently trying to end a war...by threatening war?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now