#Shia-Sunni Tensions

[tamamita]

What's the difference between a Shia & Sunni? And why do they hate each others? (I'm an atheist so I don't know shit about religions)

Keep in mind that this is no way trying to shame or denounce my Sunni siblings, but I do believe it's important to highlight a historical fact and how it's detrimental to the current geopolitical situation, since we're embittered by historical events, while at the face of imperalism and colonialism.

Shi'as are a political group of people who iunitially held that Ali (a), the cousin of Muhammed (pbuh&hf) was the successor of the Prophet. This is evident in numerous hadiths, such as Hadith Ghadeer Khumm, the Hadith of Mubahila and the Hadith at Thaqalayn. Nevertheless, the issue steems from the incident at Saqifa, which was a council met by some companions by the Prophet, who held an abrupt meeting, discussing who'd lead the Muslim nation following the Prophet's death. The meeting was held without consulting Ali (a) and they chose Abu Bakr to become the caliph. As a result, Ali (a) did nor approve of the selection and did not pledge his allegience to Abu Bakr. the incident at Saqifa serves as a catalyst to the incidents that would befall the Muslim community, such as Fatimah's (a) miscarriage and the subsequent wars against Ali (a) by some of the Prophet's companions, Ali (a) and his sons Hassan (a) and Hussain's (a) martyrdom.

This caused the rift in the nascent Islamic community, the Shi'as were any Muslim who held that Ali (a) was the successor by divine right, and swore their allegience to Ali (a), while the rest of the Muslims were nonpartisans. Sunni Islam is the standardization of Islamic scholastic and jurisdictional opinions which were formed in the Abbasid caliph. So it's errounous to assume that there was a split between Sunnis and Shi'as, when Sunni Islam was formed a few centuries later.

The reason for the hate is because of fundamentalist attitudes toward Shi'as. Some Sunnis and Salafis believe that Shi'a Muslims are heretics, because of their veneration of saints and the importance of Shrine visitations, the other reason is because Shi'a Muslims practice the doctrine of dissociation, which is the belief that any of the enemies of the Prophet's household should be cursed, thus some of the personalites of the Sunnis are cursed by Shi'as. Ancient scholars, suchs as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim placed some fatwas declaring Shi'a Muslims to be heretics. These scholars' opinions are still popular today and used as pretext for prejudice against Shi'as.

In a geopolitical context, Iran is often considered to be rivaling power to Saudi Arabia's Wahhabism, and have often threatened the Saudi hegemony. Because of the Axis of resistance and their growing influence in the SWANA region, the Gulf States have attempted at all cost to undermine the growing sympathy for Shi'as. Bahrain is upholding an apartheid against it's Shi'i majority, The Saudi refuses to ackowledge the Shi'i Houthis in Yemen, but supported the Hadi government, thus imposing a devastating blockade. The Iraqi war saw the Shi'as gain power, while the Sunnis were often a disenfranchised group following the Blackwater massacre, which contributed the rise of various militias and terrorist groups, such as ISIS. While in the Syrian Civil War, Shi'as mostly made up the bulk of resistance fighters that sided with Assad against the Free Syrian army and Salafi Islamist groups, such as, Tahrir al-Sham, Jaysh al-Sunnah, Islamic front, Ahrar al-Sham and etc. These have contributed to the increase of tension between Sunnis and Shi'as. However, the fight against Israel have united Muslims, but the biggest obstacle the Muslim community must get through are the Salafist and Wahhabi clerics, espousing tayyafiyah (sectarianism)

[darkmaga-returns]

To Help Syria, America Must Walk Away

by Lora Karch | Dec 11, 2024

The short-lived Assad dynasty has a complex history that ironically came to power by participating in a series of coups that ultimately established the family’s leadership in 1971. Bashar’s father, Hafez, was a key player in the 1963 Syrian Coup d’Etat that brought the Ba’ath party into power; and eventually declared himself president after initiating a third coup from his role as defense minister in 1970. Since then, Hafez and his son’s reign entrenched corruption over all public and private sectors across the country.

As an Assyrian-American, I visited family often in northeast Syria growing up, and distinctly remember my confusion as a child when I observed portraits of Assad on every building, school, and street billboard. My aunts begged me to be quiet when I raised concerns about his control.

It’s no secret that the Syrian people have been oppressed across many facets of their lives under the Assad regime. Some family members in Al Hasakah argued that this made life safer, others believed the opposite. Regardless, the Arab Spring in 2011 demonstrated the breaking point of an oppressed population, further burdened by the effects of western sanctions on a dictatorship that citizens did not elect in the first place. Though we are still waiting for the dust to settle, the global celebrations by the Syrian population and diaspora are well deserved.

The downfall of the Assad regime in Syria should be seen as a canon event that was bound to ensue the domestic upheavals of the last decade. It’s natural that an unelected reign would also face its own demise. Though we don’t know Syria’s imminent future, one should consider historical context when watching the recent chaos, and keep in mind the reasons why America should not get involved in the rebuilding process.

The case of Iraq from 2003 to present serves as a blaring example as to why American involvement in Syrian domestic affairs post-Assad is not a good idea. Historically, western involvement in regime change in the Middle East does not bode well for the locals. The United States under George W. Bush first invaded Iraq under the infamous guise of weapons of mass destruction and the dethroning of an oppressive Saddam Hussein. After the “liberation campaign” led by American soldiers, over 200,000 civilians were dead, many more displaced, and a complete obliteration of all infrastructure had taken place. Additionally, the post-Hussein elections yielded a grand shift in power from the Sunni faction to the Shia and Kurdish, which produced escalation of sectarian tensions and bombings, beheadings, and kidnappings.

[kick-a-long]

ISIS has targeted and killed Iranians and locations several times. ISIS is a sectarian Sunni extremist and they hate the Shia-majority Iran and government.

well like all terrorism in the middle east there is a lot of bullshit and misdirection.

I read more and anon is right that isis is fundamentally against iran and their pet terrorists, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthi's although there might have been times they worked together against america as a marriage of convenience. i was wrong when i said isis works with them in the middle east.

that said, at this point in history isis has far less reason for a multi coordinated attack on Americans and specifically the incoming trump presidential team (which was a very obvious message from the tesla car 'bomb'. idk how propain tanks and fireworks in a tesla truck would be more destructive than just crashing the damn battery into something but, whatever.)

the reason i thought the terrorist in New Orleans was affiliated with iran is pretty simple. iran and their racist obssession with destroying israel, loss of hezzbollah troop power which lead to losing syria and the assad dictatorship, and recent targeting of the houthis by the US, the houthis who are bombing and pirating the shit out of one of the most used shipping lanes in the world, which is kind of an american thing (you won't believe how pissed off America gets when there's maritime bullshit afoot) made me immediately think iran was behind the terror attacks to send a message to the incoming administration. this is iran's fucking playbook and they are the ones most pissed over trump.

so I am wrong about isis being affiliated with iran, but i don't think that the flag an american born terrorist flys behind his car is truthful or reflective about who is funding and benefiting from the attack.

isis has a vested intrest in keeping tensions low in america, i would think, because an isis related (isis trained but not current isis) group has taken over syria, and is trying to rebrand as a legitimate gov that isn't going to go on an ethnic cleansing spree. they even appointed a non arab woman to a position in the syrian gov as well as tried to open diplomatic channels to the west so they can hold the region against russia and iran who want that area back to run weapons and drugs through to support attacks on israel.

there isn't a lot of information released but this attack STINKS OF IRANIAN GOV TERRORISM. imo.

[beardedmrbean]

At least 103 people have been killed by two bomb explosions near the tomb of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani on the fourth anniversary of his assassination by the US, Iran's state media report.

State broadcaster Irib said dozens more people were wounded when the blasts hit a procession near the Saheb al-Zaman mosque in the southern city of Kerman.

It cited Kerman's deputy governor as saying it was a "terrorist attack".

Videos showed bodies on a road and ambulances rushing to the scene.

It was not clear who was behind the explosions and there were no immediate claims from any groups.

But Arab separatists, Islamic State (IS) and other Sunni jihadist groups have said they have carried out deadly attacks on security forces and Shia shrines in the country in recent years.

Soleimani was seen as the most powerful figure in Iran after the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, before he was killed in a US drone strike in neighbouring Iraq in 2020.

Wednesday's incident comes amid heightened tensions in the region after the deputy leader of the Iran-backed Palestinian group, Hamas, was killed in an apparent Israeli drone strike in Lebanon.

Footage broadcast by state TV showed hundreds of people had gathered on the eastern outskirts of the general's hometown of Kerman when the two explosions took place.

Iranian media reported that the first reportedly occurred at 14:50 local time (11:20 GMT), about 700m (2,300ft) from the Garden of Martyrs cemetery around the Saheb al-Zaman mosque.

The second took place about 15 minutes later, around 1km away from the cemetery, they said.

The hard-line Tasnim news agency, which is affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, cited sources as saying that "two bags carrying bombs" were apparently detonated "by remote control".

"We were walking towards the cemetery when a car suddenly stopped behind us and a waste bin containing a bomb exploded," a witness was quoted by Isna news agency as saying.

"We only heard the sound of the explosion and saw people falling."

State media cited the local emergency services department as saying 103 people had been killed and another 141 wounded by the blasts. Some of the wounded were in a critical condition, they added.

The Iranian Red Crescent said the dead included at least one paramedic who was dispatched to the scene of the first explosion and was hit by the second.

Footage appeared to show that Soleimani's tomb was not damaged.

As commander of the Revolutionary Guards' overseas operations arm, the Quds Force, he was an architect of Iranian policy across the region.

He was in charge of the Quds Force's clandestine missions and its provision of guidance, funding, weapons, intelligence, and logistical support to allied governments and armed groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Then-US President Donald Trump, who ordered the 2020 assassination, described Soleimani as "the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world".

[mariacallous]

The Blue Line that separates Israel and Lebanon is one of the most volatile borders in the world. Whenever the rhetoric between Israel and Iran escalates, or even when shepherds on either side cross over, anxieties of another conflict between Israel and Lebanon heighten. Conventional wisdom dictates that the mildest of confrontations on the border could provoke an all-out war.

But for the first time in a long while the fear of such a war is palpable. The Lebanese have started to stock up on basic necessities and are buying food, fuel, and diapers in bulk. Some Western countries have put their forces on alert to be ready to carry out evacuations, and more have called on citizens to leave the country while some commercial flights are still available.

There was chaos last week at Beirut-Rafic Hariri airport, the only international airport in the country, which was bombed in the last Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006. Israeli fighter jets have been flying low in Lebanese airspace, breaking the sound barrier and smashing windows, while an Israeli drone blares out an Arabic message calling on residents in Bint Jbeil, a town in southern Lebanon, to turn against Hezbollah.

Everyone in Lebanon agrees that the likelihood of a full-blown war with Israel is higher than any time since 2006. But if Israel’s goal is lasting deterrence of Hezbollah, a war may not be its best available strategy.

Some argue that the status quo with Hezbollah before Oct. 7, 2023, may have been the best-case scenario for Israel. The border had been mostly quiet since the 2006 war. Meanwhile, opposition to Hezbollah inside Lebanon was growing, as its alliance with Iran irked the influential Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman—Saudis are big investors in Lebanon—and the Beirut port blast angered the public.

One strategy the Israelis are now mulling is to keep any assaults limited to Hezbollah-dominated areas of southern Lebanon, a suburb of Beirut, and the Beqaa valley. This would further disrupt Lebanon’s already crumbling economy, but the main strategic goal would be to push the group’s Shia supporters into other areas of the sect-based country and thus increase social tensions. Israelis believe this could deter Hezbollah domestically. “I feel concerned about the Shias,” said Eran Lerman, former deputy national security adviser of Israel. “A lot of people have scores to settle with Hezbollah since the Beirut blast or since the killings of Sunnis in the Syrian war.”

He said that Israelis have nothing against the Lebanese people and even if a full-scale war unfolds, Israel will try “not to attack Lebanese infrastructure, and look for people we can work with on the ground,” he said in reference to anti-Hezbollah players in the country.

Over the last few years—as Lebanon’s currency plummeted, the country plunged into an economic crisis, and a port blast killed more than 200 people—opposition to Hezbollah has become more vocal, even among a section of the Shias. But there are no clear numbers, and some analysts believe that it is uncertain how the Lebanese will react when confronted with the Israeli enemy. Israel’s strategy to bank on domestic opposition and look for local allies may work, or it may not if Lebanese rally behind the group in national solidarity.

However, the biggest reason unaligned Lebanese can’t revolt against Hezbollah is the fact that the group is armed to the teeth and has a committed army of supporters.

During the Beirut protests, people found the courage to add Hezbollah’s name and the image of its leader Hassan Nasrallah on the same posters where they condemned other politicians for being ineffective and culpable. Hezbollah responded without hesitation. Hundreds of young Hezbollah supporters carried out bike rallies in downtown in a show of strength and conveying a message of what could erupt on streets if Hezbollah felt threatened.

The Lebanese Forces, a dominantly Christian political group that was once a militia and continues to be Hezbollah’s chief political adversary in Lebanon, is treading cautiously. Georges Okais, a Lebanese lawmaker with the group, ruled out a civil war. “Only Hezbollah is armed,” he said. “There’s no war between unequal sides.”

It’s not that all Lebanese back Hezbollah, but that they can’t yet afford to take the group on. If Israel wants to create suitable conditions for the group to be demolished by fellow Lebanese, it first needs to figure out what to do with Hezbollah’s weapons and followers and how not to go overboard in a way that has the opposite effect on its campaign. That’s a tall order. In times of war, it is unlikely that all pieces fall in place perfectly for Israel to achieve its goals.

Furthermore, Hezbollah isn’t just a group of a few thousand fighters. It is part of a community that sees the group as its defender and expresses faith in its chief, Hassan Nasrallah. The group enjoys the support of most people in Lebanon’s Shia Islam community (although not all) and others may side with it if Israel launches a full-scale invasion of Lebanon.

“The Sunnis opposed Hezbollah when the group fought on the side of [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad who was killing Sunni rebels; but now they back Hezbollah, which is helping Hamas, which is Sunni, and Gaza, which is Sunni,” Sami Nader, a Lebanese political analyst, added.

While Hezbollah may have anywhere between 20,000 fighters, as some analysts have argued, and 100,000, as Nasrallah has claimed, it has many more supporters spread all over Lebanon.

Hezbollah’s network of support and spies is extensive. Its functioning is highly secretive. Most Hezbollah fighters lead normal lives, have day jobs, are committed to offer their services when called upon, and are discreet enough to hide their identities. Since it is hard to identify Hezbollah fighters, Israel wouldn’t know how to distinguish them from civilians even if it invaded.

In 2020, when I received a tip-off about the location of Hezbollah’s weapons stockpiles, I found myself in a visibly Shia village on the Lebanon-Syria border. The walls were plastered with photos of Hezbollah fighters who had died in the Syrian conflict, posters of Iran’s ayatollahs, and of Qasem Soleimani—the leader of the Quds Force branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who was assassinated in Baghdad in a U.S. strike.

It was a simple village with concrete homes, shops selling flour, sugar and candy. As I stopped to take a break and engaged in what I thought to be a casual conversation with a local farmer, he seemed to quiz me.

After he let me go, a farm vehicle chased my car and blocked my path. The driver, dressed in a dirty yellow shirt and wearing a cap, gave me a good look, asked me who I was, interrogated me a little longer, and asked to see my passport before he gestured I could be on my way.

However, that’s not where the adventure ended.

Two days later I received a call from Lebanon’s general security department. I was called in for an interrogation, and after several hours of questioning, I was let go with a warning to not wander around too much. It was an indication of how deep Hezbollah’s support network runs in Lebanon, how its fighters are residing amid unarmed civilians, and how it operates under the cover of state agencies.

If Israel carpet bombs Hezbollah-dominated areas, there will be a massive loss of life; and yet it cannot control these areas unless it occupies Lebanon, which will almost certainly lead to an indeterminable long war and strikes deep within Israel.

Hezbollah is not a group of people wearing uniforms or wielding arms but a community inhabiting entire villages, neighborhoods, and cities. Will Israel eliminate entire populations to defeat its adversary? And will that bring it safety or an extended conflict?

Elias Farhat, a former general of the Lebanese Army, said that while there was no doubt that Israel is militarily stronger with a conventional army and weapons, “Hezbollah resorts to asymmetric warfare.”

“It deploys its units in hideouts, tunnels, and caves with no appearances,” he said, implying that Israel wouldn’t know who the enemy is. “A full-scale invasion allows Hezbollah to cause heavy damages in the heart of Israel between Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Jerusalem. … We don’t rule out an advance of Hezbollah in Galilee.”

Lerman said Israel was aware of the costs but if Hezbollah did not back off—which would mean stopping attacks on Israel and withdrawing to the Litani River as agreed upon in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701—Israel would be forced to carry out an assault.

Israelis are in a tight spot. They can perhaps weaken Hezbollah if they attack, but they cannot defeat it definitively. On the other hand, Hezbollah’s insistence to stay put on the Blue Line with missiles aimed at Israel is a constant source of tension and anxiety among the Israeli people.

But Hezbollah has also measured its response—partly because it understands that Israel has much more fire power, but mainly because the Lebanese people do not want a war. It has said that the group doesn’t want a “total war” and that it would only invade northern Israel “in the context of any war imposed on Lebanon,.” Even Hezbollah needs some legitimacy to operate in Lebanon, and staying in control of the country is the biggest prize for both Hezbollah and its patron Iran.

However, Hezbollah has continued its limited attacks against Israel and has vowed to keep going unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza.

There is one way out of the mess: politics. By starting peace talks with the Palestinians and resolving that dispute, Israel could deny its raison d’être, and two existential problems will be solved at once.

[the-celestial-bitch]

Hey! I saw your tags in my post. Just curious about why you can't trust the Chinese government? What did they do to you?

Hello! ill try to give a comprehensive answer, but i apologize in advance if it feels like rambling and my sources are weird, bc im mostly used to following politics in my own language.

that being said, I'd like to first clarify that my apprehension and distrust in chinese government is different from the anti-chinese propaganda currently happening in america. from what ive seen, the fear of chinese government meddling in us politics and economy is fearmongering for the sake of increasing the military budget. china wouldnt start a war like this. china would, instead, join a war in middle east.

first id like to point out that im iranian, and so ill be talking about chinese government in relation to iran. i know some stuff about other countries, but ill leave the matter to people who know it better than me.

china has been known to sell arms to iranian military and aid them in using new technologies in war. this might seem like a positive matter to a leftist westerner at first glance, bc they are doing it under the guise of helping middle easterners defend themselves against us military's invasive actions, but in reality its not a good thing for several reasons—most obvious of them all: giving the military even more power will only lead to more tension in the region. currently most of the fights in middle east are bc of the sunni/shia dispute. on one hand, you have saudi arabia, advocating sunni, and on the other hand, iran is the one advocating shia. shia is significantly less popular than sunni, but iran has its way of appealing to marginalized shia groups in sunni-majority countries. bc of the iran-saudi proxy conflicts, and the power-hungry governments, saudi arabia and iran have been at war, but not in their own countries—in other countries such as syria, iraq, lebanon, etc. for more information on this, you can check out this source. china has sold arms to both saudi arabia, and iran, for many years. they have, indirectly, added fuel to the flame of wars happening here. (sources: 1, 2). china has also been helping iran in developing nuclear weapons (source), despite it being a bad idea (for obvious reasons, i dont think i need to explain why giving nuclear weapons to governments are bad. but if ur wondering just look at us government and the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki).

i think i should point out a certain hypocrisy, and that is the issue of the genocide of the Uyghurs. if you dont know what exactly is happening, its basically like holocaust, with concentration camps, taking the children away from the families, and persecuting people for their religion and their race. for more on the matter, check this and this, but be warned, its pretty brutal. youd think that, considering that the current tension in the middle east is bc each branch of islam deems itself the true salvation of all muslims, their collective silence on this is deafening. yet its not really silence, is it? they have publicly defended chinese governments horrendous inhumane actions, as u can see it reported here. the real reason behind it is bc the chinese government has been supporting and aiding many of the governments who have yet to speak against the genocide happening right now. again, iranian government claims itself to be the true leader of the muslims, so why are they covering their eyes when they see uyghurs who have no one stand up for them?

thats bc the chinese government also does the same for these countries! for example, i dont know if you know about the protests happening in iran since last september. an innocent girl was murdered by the morality police, and since then hundreds have been murdered, thousands have been captured without even knowing where they are being kept, tortured, raped, abused. aside from that, the internet connection has been limited, often cutting off entirely when a huge protest has been happening. chinese government has not only aided iran in suppressing the protesters by granting them weapons and the technology of controlling the internet (for real, google is on safe-lock unless we use vpns. we cant use twitter, tiktok, instagram, whatsapp, twitch, and we dont have access to many websites such as bbc news, iran international, etc. they have also been controlling the vpns, killing them one after another. you'd be lucky if a vpn works for more than a month for you, and i cant stress this enough: u cant do anything without the vpns. its just the hell we're living in), they have also publicly defended irans rights to oppress the people, saying that the UN shouldnt interfere with a countrys affairs. (source) dont get me wrong, i dont believe that any of the western countries are trying to help us for the good of their hearts or whatever—they just want to omit a rival from the board, thats all. but siding with the oppressors leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, especially since i know they have also been brutally oppressing their own protesters, as we saw in the hong kong protests a few years ago.

aside from that our country has basically signed a contract with china that literally sells our everything to china to get arms and stuff (heres the whole contract shared in a propaganda website run by the iranian government and heres the wikipedia page for it breaking it down).

tldr: the chinese government has been actively aiding iran in the recent murdering of the protestors, and also the fact that they have been an indirect benefiting factor in the various middle eastern wars makes me suspicious of the sudden peacemaker mask theyre putting on.

[el-smacko]

From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.

Look man, I can’t blame Europeans for not knowing “American” history and being unable to draw parallels between the Nakba (oh Apple, you don’t know that word? weird) and the violent dispossession of every indigenous people in the “Americas,” but Israel-Palestine is YOUR history, you dumb fucks. The Hashemite dynasty, ruling the West Asian Sunni world after leading the Arab Revolt against the genocidal Ottoman Empire during the First World War, was betrayed by the Allies, particularly Britain and France. The colonialist empires divided Greater Syria, Palestine, and Iraq into “mandates” (colonies), expressly because they did not think the Arabs were ready to govern themselves.

Prior to Stalin, the Bolsheviks had had many Jews in their ranks, and why wouldn’t they? The Tsars had dictated the Pale of Settlement and perpetrated extensive pogroms along the Eastern Front because they bought into the dual loyalty trope. The Allies, being monarchists and oligarchs, supported the nationalist resistance of Poland and Ukraine, the latter of which was in the middle of a pogrom. Later, during the Second World War, the Nazis would exterminate a staggering 70% of Ukrainian Jews and 90% of Polish Jews, which would’ve been impossible without the help of nationalist collaborators. Back to post-WWI, the fledgling German socialist movement, with its own popular Jewish leaders, was smothered in its crib by the Allies’ harsh punishment—remember, of course, that the German Kaiser and military command were no longer (and had never been) representative of the German people who bore the burden of this vengeance. Without a corridor to the USSR, the doomed German socialist movement was hijacked by nationalists and purged of any resistance to fascism.

During WWII, Free France operated out of Syria and crushed indigenous resistance, making it rather obvious they considered the territory a colony. The Sunni Hashemite the French had deposed from Syria had been made king of the majority-Shia Iraq, to give you an idea of how flippantly the British governed their “mandate.” Some Iraqis were accordingly susceptible to Axis propaganda, but neither the Axis nor the resistance viewed the other as a long-term ally with any kind of intellectual harmony. This is where a parallel with American history would be useful, because indigenous nations would make alliances of convenience with rival European empires, until a firmly established Anglo colonial monopoly turned the great diversity of indigenous nations into a monolithic enemy race. It’s an old imperial trope of utilizing regional ethnic tension (or fabricating it by heaping investments on amicable minorities) until a substantial foothold enables ethnic cleansing, assimilating the amicable and exterminating the hostile.

Anyway, when the British brutally suppressed Iraqi independence, many Iraqis were even more susceptible to Axis propaganda. Baghdad saw the Farhud, roughly equivalent to the Tulsa race massacre, with some key differences: Iraqi government officials did not participate because they didn’t exist; Jews in Iraq were not living under apartheid, so the violence was unique and localized; the perpetrating Iraqi mob was suppressed by indiscriminate automatic gunfire by the British; the majority of displaced Iraqi Jews returned to the area.

You see, before the British betrayal and subsequent Mandate of Palestine, the Hashemites had accepted the Balfour Declaration. A homeland for the Jews would be established in Palestine expressly without the disruption of the communities already living there. Of course the Arabs would gladly accept the peaceful settlement of Jews, they had been living together for the better part of three millennia as fellow Semites. That’s right: Arabs are Semitic. The cultures of Arabs and Jews exist on a Semitic continuum, but a similar “Judeo-Christian” milieu in the West has not existed since the Apostolic Age almost two millennia ago. Assertions to the contrary are anachronistic, aspirational interfaith outreach at best, but are far more often antisemitic, modern Anglo mythologizing. The safest place on the planet for Jews was the Arab world, especially since their competition was 20th century Europe and the United States, whose ethnic cleansing of the American West and parallel Anglicizing of European diversity was the explicit ideological model for Nazi expansion to its East. Particularly regrettable was Stalin’s antisemitic and anti-indigenous consolidation of power and the subsequent forced secularization, especially since, prior to WWII, Stalin had at least ostensibly been a federalist. The course of the war, however, had logistically essentialized the military and the subsequent Cold War—in which the US constantly signaled it would destroy the planet if communism wouldn’t commit suicide—made the Russian majority suspicious of ethnic or religious minorities, whom the West were constantly trying to cynically leverage against the USSR.

That is obviously not at all to say that any degree of imperialist suppression is ever justified, or that there is ever an excuse for it, whether against Ukraine or Tibet. It is only to say that there is a materialist explanation for the evil perpetrated by an empire, which helps us to avoid it in the future much more than absolutist moral condemnation could. Not to get too far off topic, but this is the ideological core of abolition: crime and punishment only ever plays whack-a-mole with evil as opposed to remedy, which seeks to turn off the machine or at the very least predict the moles’ pattern and do everything short of whacking it to make it not inevitably pop back up.

The relative safety of Jews in the Arab world was compromised, of course, by Europeans and their ideology, which had spent the 19th century without exception finding ways to convince itself of its own supremacy. The British enabled and often participated in the ethnic cleansing of Arabs and then, when it was no longer politically expedient, forbade the practice they had initiated. Then they imagined they could fairly partition the territory after having premised the previous conversation on all for one rivalry with an obvious favorite. Doomed to failure, the British pawned the partition off on a committee in the UN comprised of “neutral states.” Arab authorities boycotted the process because the obvious favor toward partition would not address reparations to dispossessed Arabs and deny the possibility of a federal republic, or even just any kind of harmonious coexistence at all. The minority of states wanting one state included India, whose fraught, enduringly contentious ethno-religious partition after being a British mandate was ongoing, and Yugoslavia, whose UN-mediated post-Soviet partition would feature the genocide of a hundred thousand Muslims. “Neutral states” in favor of the partition were Canada and Australia, who shared a queen with Britain and whose legislatures were almost entirely derived from Anglo oligarchs. Perhaps worse, Czechoslovakia voted for the partition and then, when Israel announced it would own the entire mandate, UN be damned, the country provided arms in the ensuing genocidal war.

The bipartisan, fair partition is a myth that the Israeli government and its allies like to hold over the resistance, the carrot always replaced with a stick, the football Lucy keeps yanking out from under Charlie Brown. The partition plan is worth looking at, to see why it was so egregious and why Arab Palestinians might only ever begrudgingly accept it, if only to ever have a brief respite from ethnic cleansing and apartheid: the Israeli areas, in which Arabs were to be foreigners, were almost entirely places from which Arabs had been removed; the Israelis received a slim majority of the territory—already disproportionate—but received an even more disparate proportion of Mediterranean coastline, as well as access to the Gulf of Aqaba; this not only confirmed the already well signaled intent of the West to normalize relations with Israel as a peer while treating Arabs as subjects, but the border would conspicuously divide the Arab Muslim world in two, North Africa from West Asia. Indeed, the West, usually the United States, succeeded in quashing every attempt at recovering the pan-Arab unity they briefly tasted in the 1920s. Utilizing nationalist elements to undermine federalist socialism has some pretty obvious consequences, though: after several coups and more than one US-facilitated or -perpetrated genocide, Iraq and Syria became fragile military dictatorships and Israel’s “defensive” genocide of Gaza is ongoing.

But let’s talk about Israel. I swear on the soul of my yet-unborn child that I am not being sarcastic or in any way ironic when I say: It is the homeland of the Jews, promised to them by the Most High God. I believe that because I am not an asshole, not because I am convinced of the existence of any god, nor because I think the present actualization of that belief is at all done in good faith. Temple Judaism has been so entirely supplanted by rabbinical Judaism that Jeremiah is a canonical prophet. The Torah is pre-Temple, since Moses had died in the desert. The past two thousand years of Jewish history has been spent trying to find the most benevolent empire they could to wait out the time until the promise of the Song of Songs would come due. I cannot blame any Jewish person ever for believing that the foundation of Israel was a Davidic unification or a Persian liberation (notice that the hyper-Oriental Persians are the uncontested villain in the Western mythology of the Greco-Persian Wars, but Cyrus had been the Messianic restorer of Judaism). Unfortunately, just like Messianism arising from an injection of Indo-European philosophy via the Persians, the Anglos implanted their own interpretations of the original, ancient Israelite settlement of Israel, namely that it conveniently fit the exact model of Anglo colonization.

That is all to say that the state of Israel, contrary to fundamental pillars of historical Jewish thought, pretends to be representative of the global Jewish community. It presumptuously calls its governing body the Knesset, as if it has the authority to dictate Jewish orthodoxy. It compelled and continues to compel Jews to self-deport and be citizens of Israel, which attempts to affirm rather than combat the “dual loyalty” trope (this has entirely uprooted half of all Jewish communities and transplanted them in Israel, where they are not safe, especially since they are subject to conscription). It obfuscates anti-Arab apartheid with the Holocaust and frames any resistance to its apartheid as antisemitic, affirming rather than combatting the “racial guilt” trope. The IDF command is certainly not committed to dispelling the blood libel when by malice or carelessness they massacre Arab children.

Again, I feel the need to say that Jewish sovereignty in Israel is a necessity for a world of justice and peace, but the Israeli state—not the Jewish people of Israel, but the territory’s antisemitic secular government—is manifestly more interested in volatile supremacy than tranquil safety. I always fall back on the story of Moses Maimonides, the stiffest competition Rashi has for greatest Medieval Jewish scholar. He lived in Almoravid Spain until the Almohads compelled him to leave. He went to Egypt and was the personal physician of Saladin, who freed Jerusalem from her oppressive Crusader dynasty. He wrote in Arabic and early attempts at translating his works into Hebrew were characterized by neologizing and Arabic borrowing. He certainly did not emigrate to Europe, where their mythology was invariably either antisemitic or so anti-Moor it was collaterally antisemitic. The Roman Catholic Church didn’t officially absolve the Jews of guilt for the “murder” of Jesus until the 60s. After the “Reconquista,” many Sephardim, that is, Iberian Jews, hid their faith and/or emigrated, like my wife’s family. Despite recent propaganda, Jewish history among Arabs or Muslims generally has been orders of magnitude safer than among Christians ever.

A reconciliation interim government toward the establishment of a one-state republic is the only path open for safety, for beating swords into plowshares, for lion to lay with lamb. This will necessarily involve the overthrow of the apartheid government, which must be done by a popular uprising of Israelis.

10/7 was an act of terror, but so was 9/11. The illusion of safety they shattered was a reflection of the lack of safety for an oppressed people necessary to fabricate that illusion. The over-reliance on cheap oil in the Anglo-dominated global market, embodied in the World Trade Center, necessitated that Anglos keep the Iraqis out of the oil business.

(But wait, I’ve made an error, haven’t I? Iraq didn’t do 9/11. Afghanistan didn’t even do 9/11, it just refused to give up Osama bin Laden without due process—he was eventually killed in Pakistan [the pariah Muslim state after the partition of British India] without the knowledge of the Pakistani government. The US government denied allied intelligence contradicting the supposed danger to itself presented by Iraq and fed the lie to its own people through corporate media, having long ago appropriated and defanged the journalistic activism which had precipitated American withdrawal from Vietnam. Recently, these same corporations tried to sell themselves as nothing less than the vanguard of democracy by… selling Hillary “my unfaithful husband didn’t rape you,” “pan-African and pan-Arab sentiment is undesirable” Clinton as a feminist icon while relentlessly platforming Trump and his supporters until he seemed like a viable candidate. Then, they heroically resisted/platformed Trump until the damage could be done and he could be replaced by his Democrat clone, polite but only a single degree politically to the left, the man who had explicitly been the conservative counterweight to Barrack Obama’s vanishingly mild and already impossibly embattled socialism.)

Regardless of whether it was a deplorable act of terrorism—and it was—the World Trade Center was not attacked because Al Qaeda is evil. It was attacked in a misguided attempt to end or at least protest the subjugation of the Muslim world for Western industry and finance. Regardless of whether it was a deplorable act of terrorism—and it was—10/7 was not perpetrated because Hamas is evil. The “Gaza Envelope” was attacked because its communities are strategic settlements, dotted with military industry, and used to quarter IDF troops. The line between civilian and combatant was not erased by Hamas on 10/7, but by the Israeli government: all Israelis native or immigrant are compelled to serve in the IDF, all Palestinian males are tried as adults in military court, and the constant violation of all proposed treaties with new or expanding settlements utilizes civilians, many of them vulnerable refugees, in paramilitary strategy. Now, “artificial intelligence” targeting and other morally bankrupt modern tactics are being used to pioneer industrial murder in the digital age, even as media enablers cynically pretend it is for the sake of “Never Again.” The Nazis did evil because they were evil, so any similar evil means the perpetrators are Nazis and therefore evil, so: worth exterminating. This line of reasoning is how the US military justified the nuclear ethnic massacres of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, each the numerical equivalent of one Bosnian genocide.

Likewise, both Stalin and the British loved this tactic of identifying any nationalist resistance to empire with Nazis to justify a people’s continued repression. No surprise then that Anglo leftists love comparing Israel to the Nazis, which is rather ghoulish, especially since Israel had declared its independence from Britain after years of armed resistance, albeit culminating in the most mild non-Anglo separation.

To allow Netanyahu to be Israel’s Bush Jr. AND Bush Sr. in Palestine is utter folly. If Israelis want to avoid turning Hamas into the next ISIL, instead of their present state of being the IRA, Israelis must end the nationalist project pretending to act on their behalf. The aggression of Russian oligarchs in Ukraine is imperial and genocidal, but the United States has greatly exacerbated the conflict, just like it did Vietnam, Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, to name a very few. Likewise, the conflict in Israel is an essential component of the US military industrial complex, wherein half the funds dedicated to the largest area of public spending end up enriching private entities, that is, mercenaries, industrialists, or the people they trick into giving them money by offering “stocks.”

Yes, allow me to demystify the stock market while I’m at it. A bunch of rich men make a company “public,” which here means “private, but people can donate to it betting that it will do well.” Most rich men sell their stake in the casino now that it’s flush with cash, while the few who remain and the new owners must now pay off this huge investment in addition to providing the original product or service which had been made possible and appealing for acquisition in the first place by crowdfunding, a shit by any other name smelling, etc. Costs are cut and revenue is maximized. In media, safe bets like nostalgia or fan service make art insufferable and projects tend to be cheap and underwritten (or do everything short of not being cheap and underwritten in order to pretend not to be cheap and underwritten) despite having unprecedentedly large budgets. It has become a soul-crushing, mind-numbing chase of “the next big thing” like streaming or VR to inorganically synthesize a dedicated revenue stream to pay down the latest merger or copy the latest challenger. There are three categories to owning stocks, arranged in order of least to most fucked if a company fails: enfranchised board member, disenfranchised subordinate, and gambler. The house always wins, the servile help take the fall, and the vast majority of gamblers bust. It is an evil system integrated into public services so that rich men could further enrich themselves by being tax-farming publicans disguised as casinos, or worse, as charity and vital industry. Booms and busts are inevitable in such a system in which competition is essentialized, necessitating ever more losers and ever stronger—and fewer!—winners.

The United States’ cynical financialization of the national defense creates perverse incentives like militarizing police, pushing a hazardous volume of civilian gun-sales, equipping oppressive regimes, and even starting massive conflicts, all to maximize profit. The industrial murder machine grinds the bodies of friend and foe alike into money. Meanwhile, the majority of Americans regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof have the gall to pretend they are morally vindicated by God or “civilization” to defend industry by any means necessary. Domestically, the market pioneers new societal frontiers to antisocially atomize for maximum porousness to financialization; abroad, peripheral populations are found to exploit as slaves in everything but name, particularly as a way to avoid having to provide even the barest benefits to workers to make up for the retreat of the state and the corresponding privatization (not reduction) of bureaucracy.

Yet again, the deputizing of the Israeli government and IDF command in these repugnant imperial endeavors by the United States affirms antisemitic tropes of greed and conspiracies of a Jewish globalist “cabal.” The United States-Israel nationalist axis, despite its posturing, everywhere affirms antisemitic tropes while denying their ostensible realization. These states advance harmful stereotypes of Judaism while claiming to represent or protect Jews. They purposefully fabricate a narrow definition of antisemitism which conveniently includes any resistance to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and colonialism.

This post is so fucking long because it’s been gestating for almost three months as I grimly watch the Gaza genocide and become increasingly convinced of liberalism’s inability to ever actually depart from its fascist roots. We will not stop genocides, we will not eradicate slavery, and we will not move to renewable energy while the best we can hope is for the next Obama to be “checked and balanced” into negative progress. Half the global Jewish population will not know safety as long as the Israeli government and the IDF pursue victory over diplomacy. An American socialist revolution is far beyond our present scope.

But an Arab-Israeli detente is possible and necessary.

[parachinar-a-pakistani-gaza]

87 Days Under Siege: Parachinar is a glaring example of sectarian tensions and government neglect

By Khalid Khan Peshawar, Pakistan: The siege of Parachinar has entered its 87th day, plunging the region into a humanitarian crisis as severe shortages of food and medicine persist. The ongoing blockade has left the local population—comprising both Sunni and Shia communities—struggling for survival. Reports confirm that 113 children have tragically lost their lives due to a lack of medical…

[faithinlouisfuture]

Would love to hear your input into this discussion https://www.tumblr.com/silverfoxlou/770401900959023104/okay-so-i-have-somewhat-articulated-some-of-my

omg hi, first of all you think way too highly of me and my intellectual abilities for you to have messaged me that and i wish i had the same belief in myself lol

okay so i tried to catch up on the post you mentioned and the context behind it, it was actually really interesting reading sanju’s anons thoughts and interpretations of the tracks and the merch and the connections between them!

i have always maintained that it would be a great disservice to louis’ genius to believe that his lyrics can only be interpreted in one way, and that’s why i love reading varied interpretations from different people! it’s like a web weaving of sorts and they expressed the logic behind their weaving very well

i really don’t believe that i can express myself well enough to put to pen my interpretations of otb or copy or louis’ merch but just to illustrate my point from above about different people being able to interpret louis’ lyrics in different ways, i have a little story. i recommend listening to copy to friends of mine who ask which louis songs they should start with if they wanna know why i rave about him so much, and one of them came back to me saying that he was able to relate the lyrics of copy to the long standing strife between sunni and shia muslims! now this complicated theological & political divide has led to centuries of conflict, tension and even bloodshed and as someone who has surface level knowledge of the conflict i can totally see why he would interpret the lyrics that way! but when my friend initially told me his thoughts, my mind was totally blown thinking about how that’s somewhere my brain never would have gone when listening to copy - all this just to say that it’s definitely so special having that kind of ability! the ability to form words that SO many different people from vastly different worlds can mould to their own experiences

[timelessnewsnow]

The ongoing sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims in Pakistan’s Kurram district has reached new heights, leaving at least 68 people dead and hundreds of homes and businesses destroyed. The conflict, rooted in historical tensions between the two communities, has escalated in recent days, resulting in widespread destruction, fear, and a growing humanitarian crisis.

Read more 👆🏻

[williamchasterson]

Dozens killed in Pakistan sectarian violence

More than 80 die in a tribal area of Pakistan riven by tensions between Shia and Sunni communities. from BBC News https://ift.tt/GMOUnb4 via IFTTT

[tamamita]

I know that there were jewish people who hunted down nazi officers after world war 2 do shias have a similar concept during isis invasion?

Most of the Shi'as who fought against DAESH in Iraq formed into one militia called the Hasdh al-Shaabi or the Popular mobilization force. The main purpose of this group was to purge Iraq from any Sunni Islamist and Baathist elements. Of course, this did lead to sectarian tension, especially in places like Fallujah, Mosul and other cities in the Sunni Triangle. While some Sunnis and Christians made up sections of the PMF, they were mostly overshadowed by vast number of Shi'as.

PMF is split into several factions due to ideological differences between the Shi'as. You had the Pro-Iranis, the Anti-Iranian Sadrists, the al-Sistani followers and etc. One thing they had in common was that they were driven by vengence and reprisal attacks were not uncommon. Unfortunately, that meant that even innocent Sunnis were harassed.

[darkmaga-returns]

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

Decades of Islamophobia, relentless propaganda campaigns and heavily financed lobbying efforts have made it difficult to understand the political realities of the Middle East. John Mearsheimer, prominent political scientist, University of Chicago professor and self-proclaimed realist, has consistently demonstrated the courage and ability to bypass the noise, delivering honest and well-informed analysis on global affairs. He joins host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report to lay out what’s happening in the Middle East, from Israel’s genocide in Gaza to its escalating attacks on Lebanon and Iran.

Netanyahu and his cabinet have resorted to violence and escalation every step of the way thus far and any prediction of what’s to come involves more of the same. “I see [Netanyahu] escalating at every turn,” Mearsheimer tells Hedges. “And I think if you look at what's happening in Lebanon, that fits the pattern that you were describing. They're just going up the escalation ladder, looking and hoping that they can find a solution.”

Israel’s decisions are transforming world politics, with alliances hardening in response to their aggression: Russia and Iran on one side, the U.S. and Israel on the other. Even long-standing religious divides between Shia and Sunnis are beginning to fade as they join forces against Israel’s brutality and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Sunni Hamas, Shia Hezbollah and the Houthis, even the Saudis and Iran are starting to find common ground. “I think what's going on here is that Israel's behavior is so horrible. It's so terrible what they're doing, and America's support of that behavior is so horrible, so terrible, that what's happening is that the divide between Shia and Sunnis is beginning to melt.”

Despite this shift in the region and rising tension with Iran, the U.S. continues to be drawn deeper into the turmoil, with every Israeli provocation pulling its leadership further in— regardless of popular opinion. Mearsheimer says that while the majority of Americans do not support U.S. involvement in Gaza, “that doesn't translate into policy, because the lobby is so deadly effective on Capitol Hill and in dealing with the executive branch.”

He has little hope in change, especially given the precedent of U.S. involvement in the Middle East and its complicity in the genocide thus far. “I think the lobby remains as powerful as ever, if not more powerful in terms of influencing the actual US policy,” Mearsheimer asserts.

[hopevibesblog]

The Mughal, Ottoman, and Safavid Empires: A Historical Overview

The Mughal Empire

The Mughal Empire, founded in 1526 by Babur, was one of the most significant empires in the history of India. With its capital in Delhi, the Mughal Empire is renowned for its rich cultural heritage and remarkable achievements in art, architecture, and governance.

Key Events in Mughal History

Battle of Panipat (1526): This decisive battle marked the beginning of the Mughal Empire when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi.

Akbar's Reign (1556-1605): Akbar the Great is celebrated for his policies of religious tolerance, administrative reforms, and efforts to integrate diverse cultures within his empire.

Shah Jahan and the Taj Mahal (1632-1653): The construction of the Taj Mahal during Shah Jahan's reign is a testament to Mughal architectural excellence and remains a symbol of love and beauty.

---

The Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire, founded around 1299 by Osman I, emerged as a dominant power in Southeast Europe, Western Asia, and North Africa. Its capital, Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), became a cultural and political hub.

Key Events in Ottoman History

Conquest of Constantinople (1453): The capture of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed II marked the end of the Byzantine Empire and established the Ottomans as a major world power.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566): Under Suleiman's reign, the empire reached its zenith, expanding its territory and implementing significant legal reforms.

Battle of Lepanto (1571): This naval battle marked a turning point in the Ottoman Empire's maritime dominance and highlighted the rising tensions between the Christian and Muslim worlds.

---

The Safavid Empire

The Safavid Empire, established in 1501 by Shah Ismail I, was primarily located in present-day Iran. It is known for promoting Shia Islam as the state religion and influencing the region's culture and identity.

Key Events in Safavid History

Battle of Chaldiran (1514): The first major conflict between the Safavids and Ottomans, resulting in a significant Ottoman victory.

Shah Abbas I (1588-1629): His reign is marked by military conquests and the flourishing of arts and architecture, solidifying the Safavid identity.

Treaty of Zuhab (1639): This treaty established the borders between the Safavid and Ottoman empires, reducing tensions between the two powers.

---

Interactions and Relations

The relationships between these three empires were complex, marked by both alliances and conflicts.

Safavid and Mughal Relations

Initially, the Safavid and Mughal empires maintained friendly relations, particularly in cultural exchanges. However, their relationship soured due to religious differences—Shia vs. Sunni Islam—and territorial disputes, especially during the Deccan campaigns.

Safavid and Ottoman Relations

The Safavids and Ottomans frequently clashed over territorial disputes and religious rivalries. The Battle of Chaldiran and subsequent conflicts highlighted their contentious relationship, but the Treaty of Zuhab ultimately established a temporary peace.

Mughal and Ottoman Relations

The Mughals and Ottomans maintained diplomatic ties, often recognizing each other's sovereignty. They engaged in military alliances against common foes, especially the Safavid Empire, and exchanged ambassadors to strengthen their political relationships.

---

Conclusion

The Mughal, Ottoman, and Safavid empires significantly shaped the political, cultural, and religious landscape of their time. Their interactions—ranging from alliances to conflicts—highlight the intricate dynamics of power in the Islamic world. The legacies of these empires continue to influence contemporary society, making their histories a vital area of study for understanding the past and its impact on the present.

[fandom-blahs]

I have a few (Western/Euro) period dramas I want to watch but my biggest fear is that they won't explain political or socio-political conflicts because the core audience already knows it and the larger conflict will be lost to me. Like I don't think many shows will bother explaining why Catholics and Protestants or Orthodox or whatever other Christian sect I'm forgetting hate each other and the context for the conflict will be lost on me because the show is Doing It's Own Quirky Thing.

Like imagine watching an Egyptian show about the Sunni-Shia split or the Fatmids but it's Doing It's Own Thing And Has A Creative Twist, the show won't really explain the religious tension or difference between Sunnis/Shias that much (let alone Islam lol) because if you're an Egyptian you probably know it, understand it, are have a few fb zingers ready to fire at Iranians unprompted. The social context goes over your head if you're not Muslim/Arab/MENA/from a Muslim majority country because you just don't know that split

[connectinglines]

Same applies to Fatth, Hamas and Hezbollah? (about KGB involvement)

The roles of Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle Eastern context are distinct, shaped by their ideologies, origins, and relationships with external powers, including the Soviet Union and, later, Iran. Here’s an overview of each group:

1. Fatah

Origins: Founded in the late 1950s, Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO and was led by Yasser Arafat. It emerged as a response to the need for a unified Palestinian national movement.

Ideology: Initially focused on armed struggle against Israel, Fatah gradually shifted towards seeking a political solution and engaging in negotiations, especially during the Oslo Accords in the 1990s.

International Relations: Fatah has historically received support from various Arab states and the West, particularly the U.S. and European nations. It has positioned itself as a moderate voice in Palestinian politics, advocating for a two-state solution.

2. Hamas

Origins: Founded in 1987 during the First Intifada, Hamas emerged as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Its formation was partly a response to the failure of Fatah's leadership and the Israeli occupation.

Ideology: Hamas combines Palestinian nationalism with Islamic fundamentalism. It rejects the legitimacy of Israel and advocates for armed resistance, maintaining a military wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades).

International Relations: Unlike Fatah, Hamas has received support from Iran and other Shia entities. Its rise in power, particularly in Gaza, has complicated the peace process, as it refuses to recognize Israel and has engaged in armed conflict with it, including several wars since it took control of Gaza in 2007.

3. Hezbollah

Origins: Formed in the early 1980s in Lebanon, Hezbollah emerged in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the perceived need for a Shiite resistance movement.

Ideology: Hezbollah combines Lebanese nationalism with Islamic ideology and aligns itself closely with Iran, viewing Israel as a primary enemy. It has a military wing that operates independently from the Lebanese state.

International Relations: Hezbollah has received extensive support from Iran, including military training, arms, and funding. Its role in Lebanon extends beyond military engagement, as it also participates in Lebanese politics and provides social services.

4. Interrelationships and Context

Fatah and Hamas: Fatah and Hamas have had a tumultuous relationship characterized by rivalry and conflict. After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections, tensions escalated, leading to a violent split in 2007, with Hamas taking control of Gaza and Fatah maintaining authority in the West Bank.

Hezbollah and Hamas: While Hezbollah and Hamas operate in different contexts (Lebanon vs. Gaza), they share a common adversary in Israel. They have expressed mutual support and solidarity, particularly in their resistance against Israeli actions.

Geopolitical Dynamics: The relationships between these groups and external powers like Iran (for Hezbollah and Hamas) and Western countries (for Fatah) reflect the broader geopolitical struggles in the Middle East, including the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia Islam.

Conclusion

Fatah, Hamas, and Hezbollah each play critical roles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader Middle Eastern landscape, driven by their unique ideologies, origins, and relationships with external powers. Their interactions and rivalries complicate efforts toward peace and stability in the region.