#i know he's talking about islamists

[former-leftist-jew]

"Imagine what it's like if you've been told you've got the Final Revelation from God, and the Jews are doing better than you. That's uncomfortable."

[mogai-sunflowers]

this will be a bit of a long post but i ask that you please please read the full thing if you want to know more about Sudan- i feel like not enough people ACTUALLY know what's going on in Sudan. a lot of people have a vague idea that a 'war' and genocide is going on, but it's important to know the specifics as well.

there is extremely little coverage of Sudan from non-Sudanese sources, and even those that DO cover it often paint it as a war between two different generals for power over a country- and to a certain extent, without context, that IS what's happening. for those unaware, the two 'warring factions' in Sudan are the official Sudanese military- the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) and the RSF (Rapid Support Forces).

in April 2019, during the Sudanese Revolution, Islamist dictator Omar al-Bashir was deposed by the SAF in response to a mass wave of revolutionary organizing, protests, and sit-ins. Immediately after, the TMC (Transitionary Military Council) was established, with SAF general inspector Abdel Fattah al-Burhan being appointed as the chairman. for a brief time, protestors engaged in negotiations with Burhan, and many believed that he was being ernest in his promises of a true civilian democratic government- but it soon became clear to protestors that he was not actually taking their demands seriously, so demonstrations once again intensified. on June 3, 2019, it was under Burhan's command that the Khartoum Massacre was committed, killing 118 protestors while they were participating in a sit-in at the military headquarters in Khartoum.

as the next few months went by, agreements came about to dissolve the TMC and form a Transitional Sovereignty Council based on a draft of a constitutional declaration. it was supposed to be that a military official would be the chairman for 21 months, then transitioning to a civilian chairman for the next 18 months- but Burhan staged a coup in October of 2021, and dissolved the council and effectively turned the Sudanese government back into a military junta, which was the cause of further protesting.

i want to emphasize the crimes and horrors of the SAF because they are often forgotten in these discussions due to the absolute atrocities committed by the RSF. there is no good guy here- both the SAF and the RSF are vying for dictatorial power. so let's talk about the RSF.

headed by genocidal war criminal Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known more widely as "Hemedti", the RSF formed around 2014 due to reorginization of the Janjaweed militias- which were the militias that formed across the Darfuri regions of southwestern Sudan to suppress demonstrations against Bashir's oppressive and racist regime which carried out the first genocide of Massalit and other ethnically non-Arab peoples across Darfur in the early 2000s. so to be succinct- the RSF has direct roots in dictatorial suppression of Sudanis protesting against ethnic cleansing, genocide, and oppression.

for around a decade, the RSF and SAF were different factions of the Sudanese military- both have their roots and a pattern of supporting dictatorial violence and anti-Black genocide. and, on April 15, 2023, these two dictatorial Arab-colonialist powers began fighting out of the blue. fighting has been most intense around Khartoum, the central state and capital city of Sudan, where now an estimated 35% of its residents have been forced to flee, with the rest trapped in the middle of an active war zone.

the RSF has been actively continuing the genocide of non-Arab Darfuri Sudanis that its predecessor the Janjaweed committed 20 years prior. they have been consistently launching attacks against Massalit villages in Darfur and El Geneina. Recently, they have completely ethnically cleansed several Massalit villages, killing hundreds in each one of them. in addition, they are committing so many other war crimes, like sexual violence, blocking access to humanitarian aid, occupying civilian homes and kicking the residents out, along with blatant ethnic cleansing campaigns, mass murder, and targeting of civilians.

but don't think that this is a 'civil war' as many are calling it. a civil war is an internal dispute, but this is far from that. both the SAF and the RSF are supported by external powers, namely the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Russia, who all provide funding to these groups IN EXCHANGE FOR SUDANESE RESOURCES LIKE GOLD AND OIL. this is, ultimately, not just some random war between two different military groups- it is a war funded by and for foreign colonial powers who have a vested interest in colonizing Sudan for its resources. as an example- the UAE's- and especially Dubai's- infamous gold and jewelry industry, is only made possible by the fact that the UAE illegally smuggles 80% of Sudan's gold- they fund this by sending weapons AND SOLDIERS to the RSF. Several of the gold mines in Sudan are owned and operated by the Russian government.

all of this, both the 'internal' AND the external, colonial aspects of this war and genocide, has led to the world's current WORST humanitarian crisis. not only do LOW estimates place the total murdered in the past year at 150,000, but out of Sudan's population of nearly 47 million, over half (25 million) are in severe need of humanitarian aid, and of those 25 million, over half are children. fighting between the RSF and SAF has lead to severe blockage of aid, and the UN's initial proposed budget of $1.5 billion in April of 2023 has not only not increased to accommodate the severe worsening of the crisis, but ALSO has not even been funded 20%.

2.5 MILLION PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO STARVE TO DEATH IN SUDAN BY THIS FUCKING SEPTEMBER. THAT IS LESS THAN 2 MONTHS AWAY.

additionally, due to both western colonization and the Sudanese governments' deliberate cutting of internet access across the entirety of Sudan, there is a huge lack of the proper infrastructure for generating awareness and spreading videos and info from on the ground in Sudan. this means that not only are people unable to effectively crowdfund support to leave, but they are also barred from accessing social media to spread awareness, and they're unable to contact loved ones outside of Sudan most of the time.

also, Sudan is HUGE- in order for displaced people to escape fighting, they usually have to walk, on foot, for hundreds of miles, often across literal deserts, with extremely little access to water. there has also been a surge of internally displaced people dying due to illness and scorpion stings in displacement camps. 70% of Sudan's hospitals have stopped functioning entirely. and even if they DO make it to a neighboring country, most of the options there are just as bad, if not worse- Egypt is extremely anti-Black, and doesn't allow work permits to most Black refugees, meaning they are relegated to being houseless and jobless if they go to Egypt- and westward in Chad, there is also crisis with food and resources, so the government of Chad quite literally can not materially support anymore Sudanese refugees. In South Sudan, there is also conflict, war, and crisis, and in Ethiopia, where the genocide is taking place in Tigray, the government is extremely hostile to Sudanese refugees. there are currently more than 6,000 Sudanese refugees stranded in the forests because of the hostilities they faced while in UNHCR camps.

and everyday that we're not doing something, this genocide, war, and humanitarian crisis is getting worse. doing something starts with being educated. i urge y'all to look more into this, don't just take what i'm saying and roll with it- truly learn and listen to Sudanese activists on this. i highly recommend following these accounts on Instagram:

@/red_maat , @/bsonblast , @/sudansolidaritycollective, @/forsudaneseliberation, @/darfurwomenaction, @/liberatesudan, @/zzeirra, @/yousraelbagir, @/modathirzainalabdeen, @/sdn.world, @/nasalsudan, @/sudanuntold, @/kandakamagazine, and @/almigdadhassan0

IF ANYTHING I'VE SAID IS INACCURATE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!

i'd like to spread this post for some education. could you reblog this @decolonize-the-left @incorrectmadrigalfamilyquotes @homoidiotic @heritageposts @el-shab-hussein

@fairuzfan @palipunk @silicacid @sissa-arrows @apollos-olives @

@northgazaupdates @our-queer-experience @intersexfairy @genderqueerdykes

[matan4il]

I’m muslim but I’m upset with the free Palestine movement especially as a woman. they are only making it worse for Muslim women subject to governments which are misusing the teachings of the Quran. they do not care even about Uyghur or Rohingya Muslims

I'm a day late, but I hope it's still okay to wish you Jumaat Mubaraka, lovely Nonnie! *hugs*

I feel you. A few years ago, I took a course and ended up becoming friends with the lady who happened to choose the seat next to me. She's a Muslim Israeli Arab woman. She had the audacity of divorcing her husband. She has a son who came out as gay, and she had the audacity to accept him as he is. Under Hamas or the Palestinian Authority's rule, she could be severely punished socially for either. Worse, her son would likely be terrified for his life, and might have ended up like one of my gay Palestinian friends, who have been forced into heterosexual marriages because the threat to their lives was so great. Instead, her son lives in Tel Aviv, is openly gay, and is an advocate for both the State of Israel and gay Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. She's an advocate for the State of Israel and Israeli Arab Muslim women. She gets to speak and be heard because she's an Israeli citizen. And it's not by chance that she is one. Her family made a choice in 1948, to stand by the Jews, rather than join the Arab attack on them. She once opened the Quran, showed me a specific surah, and told me, "This is why I know that as a Muslim, I must love the Jews, and stand by their state."

She has her own agency in choosing her position on the State of Israel, she has her well being, her son's, and that of many other Israeli Muslim Arab women and gay people to consider, and the anti-Israel crowd doesn't care about any of that. She's just an obstacle standing in the way of the narrative they've chosen, she shows reality is more complex than the black and white framing they embraced, which allows them to openly hate Jews while inflating their own egos, as if they're being righteous.

Not to mention coming up with ridiculous stuff like, "Palestinian men beat their wives because of the Israeli occupation!" This is honestly one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, only topped by "Israel is using cow/dolphin spies." But think of the practical implication. It means as long as Israel exists, no one's gonna hold Palestinian men accountable for the violence they're committing against their own wives. It's a betrayal of Palestinian women, all supposedly in the name of helping Palestinian nationalism.

(on top of the criticism voiced by UN Watch, it's insane how one of the speakers blaming domestic violence against Palestinian women on Israel is the UN representative of "Etat de Palestine," state of Palestine... What an easy way to avoid a state's duty to protect the women living under its rule from any and all violence, including domestic! If you're an independent state, and deserve recognition from the world, then you also have the responsibility to tackle domestic violence. If you're not independent, then why are you demanding to be recognized as such?)

And yes, the lack of care for actual Israeli Arabs and Palestinians is what I often talk about, but you're right that the damage caused by the anti-Israel crowd is bigger than just to Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians. Holding up an Islamist cause, backing up the Islamist movement and showing them how the west can be easily won, this will only serve to harm more people. Including Muslims who are more vulnerable to human rights abuses, like women and gay people.

In the vid above, as another example, the UN Watch speaker asks the UN to compare the data on domestic violence suffered by Palestinian women, to that suffered by Jordanian, Lebanese, Egyptian women and so on... Maybe if they couldn't use Israel as their punching bag, they'd have to look at domestic violence against women in the whole region, and actually do something about it. But nah, it's easier to write off Israel as the guilty party when it comes to Palestinian domestic violence, and pretend like that's the only place in the entire Middle East where this violence stands out as an issue. And that's before we talk about observing the levels of anti-women violence in non-Arab Muslim countries, such as Iran, where the government itself has imprisoned and even killed women for not wearing a hijab correctly. This is a betrayal of Muslim women at large.

And in addition to all that, like you said, this crowd also doesn't give a shit about the Muslims being persecuted in any conflict that doesn't allow the blame to be laid on the 'evil Jews.' Even when the numbers targeted are much greater, and the scope of abuse far more severe.

Thank you for the ask, and I hope you're okay! I hope the world cares more about Muslim women, rather than posturing as if it does, but only when it can be used against Jews. xoxox

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[gryficowa]

The strangest thing about being an agnostic is the fact that you don't just piss off Christians, but also atheists, because you honestly criticize the faith you grew up in (For me it's Christianity, that's why I mentioned Christians) and how fucking hypocrites they are, and talking about it out loud makes Christians angry because it is an attack on their faith, or "Not all Christians are like that!" because according to them, being a bigot and trying to force God down your throat in order to "convert you", or treating you like shit because they think you're stupid is something God told them to do

And less daring to explain why you don't like God himself (Because of his narcissistic personality, if you don't obey him, you are evil, even if it's an order to kill someone, and you have too much empathy, it's bad because you disobey the order) then you they will come and say that you have to criticize Judaism and Islam, yes, christians still deny that all three faiths have the same God, but from different time zones

You piss off atheists because you talk about Christians and how they frustrate you, or because you don't attack Islamists, please, I won't attack a faith I don't know, I have some inhibitions

Christians and atheists have one thing in common, they are Islamophobic (Not all of them, but it's something they both have in common and it's terrifying), and yet they attack each other, which is comical

I also met atheists for whom you are not religious enough if you do not obey the church 100%, so my mother is not Catholic although she is older than these freaks in cassocks

This pisses me off, Christians and atheists think that if you are religious you automatically have to listen to people who lie about the Bible, my mother believes in God, not in the church, so according to them she is not religious -_-

Moreover, according to Christians, you are an atheist, but according to atheists, not so much

As an agnostic, you don't need God to live, you won't say 100% that he doesn't exist, because let's face it, we don't know the world 100%, although he may not be the only higher being, because it should be mentioned that Judaism was the first faith with one God , and Yahweh was not entirely of their faith, in short, they took one God from paganism and began to say, that he is the only God and the rest are impostors

So yes, we cannot confirm or deny whether there is a God or whether he is the only God as the Abrahamic faith says

Since there are hints of reincarnation, or the existence of spirits themselves, and this is not from any Abrahamic faith, you can guess that we cannot 100% say whether things from other faiths are lies or not, you can believe in one God , but don't harass others for believing in more, even if it's a sin, it's none of your business, because it's their life and you have no right to interfere with it with your shoes

So yes, being an agnostic is just weird

You are pissing off both, believers and atheists, because you have the nerve to talk about what you don't like about the behavior of believers, just as you are talking about atheists, it pisses me off because Christians used to persecute atheists (And tortured them in order to convert them), so that's it sucks that atheists do the same to other people today

And that's depressing

[witchboychan]

✨️Story Time✨️

If you evet hear an American republican [cough Trump] say the term "The enemy within" in reference to the left/liberals, you do your best Phoenix Wright style objection and point to Iran.

Back in around the 1953 a while after a democratic not so crazy person named Mohammad Mosaddeq (Prime Minister at the time) was in power, overtaking the dictator shah

Insert Cold War here.

In 1953 Britan and the US were such pussies Operation Ajax was in place, which was a successful secret operation to reinstate the dictator Shah. From then on until 1957 the Shah ruled as a dictator, supported by America.

Around this time there were two forms of opposition: Liberals (yay democracy and human rights western style) and Islamists (more Islamic style, conservative equivilant.) My source for this is Khomoini's work, Uprising of Khardad 15. I don't know how to link a PDF file but I'm citing directly from my history professor.

Anyways in this work Khomoini was arguing for the Islamists side, because when it came to human rights at the time the US wasn't in the top 5 because Cold War, Red Scare that leds to more weird technically imperialism blablabla heres where it gets interesting.

Khomoini believed that making Iran an Islamic style theocracy was a good thing, because Islam cared about humanity (comparing to Cold War version of America), Islam worked successfully for 1,400 years without too much damage, and my favorite quotes; that this was a war against the devil within. In reference to the liberals, who believed in US/outsiders ideals. He also erased their contributions to the revolution in his work to make his side seem more credible. He insulted liberals, calling them xenomaniacs (people who really loved outside ideals). Why were these ideals popular? Many reasons, but relevant ones being nationalism and religion.

Did Khomeini sound familiar? Because the things that Khomeini said in this piece are surprisingly similar (if not less disgusting in some cases) to what our least favorite moldy cheesepuff has to say.

"The enemy within", "the devil within", same message different noun.

Look at the state of Iran today, I hope those MAGA people like it becausw that is America's destiny if we continue. The fact that I just took these notes several hours ago, and my dumbass made this nauseating connection in a few seconds over some TikTok shows how relevant history is, and it shows how little we learned from the 20th century.

Thank you for reading my little Ted Talk

[girlactionfigure]

On Israeli television, right now: A 23 year old woman is inside the shelter in her house in a Kibbutz in the south, she knows her father was kidnapped by Hamas because his photo was distributed by them in social media. He was stripped and handcuffed and put on display in the streets of Gaza. She has no idea if her parents are alive and she can still hear shooting outside. Another young woman took part in a nature party that was invaded by terrorists, dozens of them. They recklessly attacked and blindly fired at the hundreds of young people dancing there. The stories are horrendous, some people’s houses were set on fire while they were in them, and we believe most of the stories have not come out yet. Israel is experiencing a terrorist massacre. There are almost 800 wounded, dozens murdered, dozens of civilians kidnapped and taken into Gaza. People here are falling apart. I have to put this in perspective, because the immediate media framing turns to “occupation”, but Gaza has not been occupied by Israel in the past 20 years. It is ruled by the Islamist terror organization Hamas, which believes Israel should not exist and should be replaced by an Islamic state. It’s important to understand what we’re talking about.

Lilac Sigan

[alpaca-clouds]

Yesterday there was a terror attack on a German Christmas market. Obviously people quickly talked about it being a terror attack - and about the current suspect being from Saudi-Arabia... Which was until it turned out that he was not an Islamist, but in fact motivated by his loyalty to the German right-wing party AfD. And suddenly people were becoming a lot more hesitant to talk about it as a "terror" attack. And spoke about it being "wrong" to speculate about motivations.

So all in all it seems, that right now it seems only Islamist motivated violence will get discussed in terms of motive.

We will not talk about right-wing attacks, because there are no right-wing attacks and when there are, those are just very confused single people who are mentally ill.

And we will also not talk about the motivation of left-motivated attacks, because lets face it, most people will agree with quite a lot of those. Which is why the media is not talking about the supposed "manifest" by Luigi Mangione - who, I will once more remind tumblr - is still just a suspect. We do not know if he really is the Claim Adjuster.

Great. Got it.

[dizzymoods]

of course being a radical communist islamist marxist infidel i do have #thots but Bassem Youssef on the Theo Vaughn show was really good.

in my experience, talking to lay people about politics plainly and simply is very effective. Getting people to a place of neutrality is a heavy lift. Is it ideal? No. But is it better than them being ideologically invested in empire, reflexively zionist, or (feigning) apathy? Sure.

And I know im ornery on #here but it's to ppl who are ideologically aligned with empire or being willfully ignorant. I'm quite patient with people who may ask leading, regurgitated bad faith questions in pursuit of clarity. Super easy to spot the difference. And as a recipient of several people's patience on issues, I know how long that goes.

The clarity, ~*humanity*~, humor, grace, and facts that Bassem displayed was admirable. Like motherfucker would set up a joke, drop a fact, tell the fact checker which article from which publication from which year he got it from, then drop the punchline.

And while I have more #thots on Vaughn's interview with a zionist (which i couldn't finish), the comment section was surprising. Overwhelmingly the people noticed how this guy was appealing to authority, religion, and emotion. Speaking generally and with PR voice. Compared to Bassem who was clearly biased, but upfront about that and matter of fact about everything.

The disparity of view count is crazy. 1mill for Bassem; 166k for the zionist.

Idk Theo from nobody. he's very clearly not knowledgeable and actually quite dumb (affectionate) and I think that works well for the Palestinian case (NOT so much for the zionist interview). Confusing Blinken for the israeli sec of state for example proved Bassem's point about how our politicians work on behalf of israeli interest which is of course ours. Mistaking hezbollah for hasbulla is just comedy gold. But it speaks to what happens when someone is really a blank slate and is asking questions genuinely; not gatchas or with agenda. It's a rare look at how clean the Palestinian cause is.

Now im not naive and don't think this is going to result in new recruits to The AQB (American Qassam Brigades) — of which mr. nsa I am most assuredly not a part of!— nor members of the uncommitted movement. But such a conversation and response from an audience was unthinkable even during the Great March of Return. This was a weather vane moment. and one that bodes well for us.

[sortyourlifeoutmate]

So JD Vance, the lump of gristle that Trump has selected to stand nearby while he makes bad choices after becoming president again, has said (in jest, presumably, or at least semi-jest) that the first ‘truly Islamist’ country to get nuclear weapons is the UK, because Labour won the election.

Obviously we’ve had the merry-go-round of politicians here saying this is wrong but they’re couching it in polite terms because, well, this sack of shit is going to be vice president before too long so they can’t start off on the wrong foot. However, it is worth bearing in mind how ridiculous what he said is, and remembering that he probably meant it, either whole or in part.

There is a class of person who uses the word ‘Islamist’ just as a general, catch-all term for anything vaguely Muslim-y (does your country have Muslims in it? That’s Islamist! Probably) and, naturally, the unspoken implication is that anything Muslim-y is by definition bad and evil. That they don’t really know what the fuck it is they’re talking about is neither here nor there – they say it, and it’s how they view the world.

Similarly, I do love all these high-level (usually right-leaning) ideas about how, oh, Islam is running rampant in Europe and oh, they’re taking over and it’ll be Sharia law from here to breakfast any minute now and it’s all just obvious, obvious, obvious bollocks. It is exhausting to even think about where you’d start on picking apart this tissue of bullshit, because you could start literally anywhere because it is bullshit all the way to the core, which is also bullshit.

They’re just wrong. Let’s be blunt. They’re just wrong. And they’re too dim to have the capacity to even realise why they might be wrong, and too cuntish to ever even care. The world works a certain way, they are sure, and nothing will ever move them. UK is Islamist? Sure, sounds about right, let’s go with that. That’s a fact now, and I will make decisions accordingly. If reality ever bumps against me, well, we can just push it gently to one side. It hardly matters.

I am very tired of human beings. Sapience has brought nothing but despair.

[hero-israel]

Honestly, some times I think our mistake as Zionists was giving our ideology a name. Anti-Zionists get to claim that we have an ideology and they just oppose that ideology, and pretend that they don't have an ideology (which often includes assumptions about how the only proper residents of the Middle East are Arab or Muslim or both which subsequently doesn't get examined--just to be clear there are plenty of Anti-Zionists who aren't Arab Chauvinists or Islamists, but there are also plenty who are one or both). And "Zionism" is just easier to say than "Palestinian Nationalism", which just makes it easier to talk about (which makes it easier to talk about in ways that characterize it unfairly).

"Zionist" should be an obsolete and irrelevant word, like "abolitionist" or "suffragette." The debate is over, the goal achieved.

The word still has currency because it is so very crucial to the sense of identity for many, many people and groups that they must be superior to Jews, that they are held back and oppressed and conspired-against by Jews, so as soon as Jews started working towards ANY goal, that goal became evil and will be seen as evil forever. It's why you still see literate, college-educated Westerners talking about "the Jewish Question" (looking at you, Jordan Peterson fans) - a phrase that EVEN IF IT WEREN'T LINKED TO AN ACTUAL GENOCIDE is still straight out of 1790, was used by the same people who thought the evil humours that cause malaria could be cured by leeching.

When Jerry Falwell said women voting and working caused them to get abortions and become Satanic lesbians, I'm sorry to say he wasn't doing anything particularly strange. I used to think he was acting out in a manner of disgusting cruelty and stupidity particular to evangelical Christian fundies, but I now know he wasn't. He was just speaking the way reactionary conspiracists speak, and people like that are everywhere. They all have bafflegab code words about how advancements for the designated undergroup will destroy normal life unless righteously and violently suppressed.

[maaruin]

can you explain the bin laden thing and answer the questions you posted that should be "attached" to the letter? im kind of ashamed to admit how little i know about bin laden, but i was also only born in 2001... id appreciate some context on why people are into his letter, why leftists are latching onto it, and how this connects to what's going on in gaza. i'll read as much as you wanna write. thanks so much.

in reference to my previous post Yes, I can do that. Thank you for the ask. And I can assure you, many people who lived through 9/11 as adults don't really understand Bin Laden's motivations all that well either. If you want to read the letter yourself, you can find it here on WikiSource.

First for the questions: 1. Are bin Laden’s descriptions of political events and relations in this letter accurate? What could he have misunderstood? What could he be lying about?

When bin Laden lays out his reasons for attacking America, he says America attacked first and then claims that America is responsible for basically every bad thing that his happening to Muslims (in his view) anywhere. So America is not only responsible for its interventions in the Middle East and military aid to Israel, but also for the Russian suppression of the Chechnyan attempt at independence, Indian control of Kashmir, the Philippine government fighting Islamist rebels, and governments in the Islamic world not implementing Sharia. He implies hostility towards Islam is the reason for America's actions, for example, he thinks American soldiers in Saudi-Arabia were stationed there so that the mere presence of non-Muslims in the country with Islams most holy sites will humiliate Muslims. (When in fact they were stationed there in 1991 at the request of the Saudi government to protect it against a possible invasion from Iraq after Iraq had already invaded Kuwait.) This is classical conspiracy-theory-thinking: Assuming that behind all the bad things that happen to your group there must be a plan by someone (often a particular group) to hurt your group and that the motivation is hatred towards you. You will find bin Laden parroting conspiracy theorist talking points in the later sections of the letter as well, for example that America created AIDS, or that Jews are secretly controlling American politicians. The problem with conspiracy theories is very simple: they tend to be wrong. For example, if you want to explain the actions of the Russian military in Chechnya around 2000, don't look at America, look at Putin's ruling ideology. If you want to explain why Muslim governments don't implement Sharia, think about if it would help or hurt their ability to stay in power. Many problems all around the world start from local conditions, not because there is an evil mastermind behind them. I don't think bin Laden is lying very much in this letter, except maybe to himself. He is just falling to his own pattern matching bias that wants to ascribe all bad thing that happen to Muslims to a single cause - America. (Probably because that would mean if you could just defeat America, all the problems in the Islamic world would go away.) 2. Are bin Laden’s goals outlined in the letter worthwhile? Should Americans implement his suggestions? The latter has bin Laden's requests for Americans. Some are goals that an American may support as well, like stop military interventions in the Islamic world or ending support for countries that oppress Muslims. Though even there he sees American support where there wasn't really support, like the Russian operation in Chechnya. The US government did in fact condemn Russian actions. So this goal is not worthwhile because it is based on false assumptions about reality - the conspiracy theory about American Influence listed above. The hugest chunk of requests however is the demand for America to convert to Islam, end the separation of religion and state, and adopt social conservative policies (ban alcohol, ban sex work, ban homosexuality, ban interest on loans, stop employing women in service industry jobs where they serve man, etc - but he also mentiones that he wants the US to sign the Kyoto protocol, so it isn't 100% identical to what US conservatives want). Arguments for or against social conservatism would make this post far too long, but I doubt many left leaning Americans would be on board for these policies. Right leaning Americans might support some of these policies, but they would certainly not want America to make Islam the state religion.

3. Were the 9/11 attacks and similar operations by al-Qaeda an effective way to achieve his goals? Did the terrorist attack on American civilians lead to Americans wanting to convert to Islam - NO, it made Americans hate Islam. Did it make America withdraw from Islamic countries - NO, it made America invade Afghanistan and Iraq. I have read a bit of context on Bin Laden's goals in the past. During the Lebanese Civil War, a number of US soldiers were killed in a suicide bombing (iirc) and after that the US withdrew its soldiers. Bin Laden misjudged this and thought that an even larger attack on American civilians within the borders of the US would have the same effect on a larger scale. He was wrong and caused the opposite reaction. Killing American troops that are deployed in/are occupying another country does make Americans sour on the war if you can keep it up over time. But attacking civilians, especially in their home country, tends to increases the will to fight in the West (with few exception - spain pulled out its troops from Iraq after a terrorist attack on trains in Madrid). In the last decade the Taliban managed to make the US retreat and took over Afghanistan again by limiting their attacks these way, constantly killing US soldiers and their allies, but leaving civilians in America alone. The Islamic State on the other hand got the whole world into uniting against it by its display of cruelties like the beheading of journalists and aid workers and by its terrorist attacks in France and other countries. So even within his own values Bin Laden made the wrong choice when he initiated the 9/11 attacks. Context on why the letter may have had a sudden spike in popularity recently

The more immediate reason is that the letter talks quite a bit about American support for Israeli oppression of Palestinians. And that is one of the statements in the letter that are based at least somewhat in truth - yes, Israel does oppress Palestinians and yes, the US government generally supports Israel. It is somewhat doubtful if America withdrawing support would make Israel oppress Palestinians less. (In fact, it might make Israel more aggressive because it felt more threatened, but that also isn't for certain.) This is, I suppose, the reason why people ended up reading the letter. But the reason for them saying things like "I now realize he was right" is a specific kind of leftist gullibility/refusal to think. Leftists are opposed to oppression. They see that the United States is the most powerful country in the world and is involved, directly and indirectly, in a number of cases in which people are oppressed around the world. And then they think "If oppression is bad and the US oppresses people, people who fight against the US must be good." But the world of international politics cannot just be divided into good and evil. There are in fact things like better and worse. Bin Laden's letter overestimates the influence the US has and that its ability to change things, his vision for the world is worse than the world looks under US hegemony, and the means he chose to pursue his goals did not even help him achieve these goals - instead it just caused a number of bloody wars that got many Muslims (including himself) killed.

And I just wish leftists would think such things (statements like "Bin Laden was right") through. This isn't the first time. During the protests of 2020 after the murder of George Floyd the statement "Abolish the Police" gained tractions. Probably brought into the protest by some anarchists, other leftists thought "well, if the police oppresses people, abolishing it is the obvious solution". Without considering a) how much support by less ideologically committed people it cost them (it was an extremely unrealistic goal) and b) the risk of institutions arising in the vacuum left by the police could be worse (would private security beholden to cooperations be better than the police?, would a mafia that demanded protection money from you be better than the police?). And right now with Gaza we see the same thing: Does calling the 7/10 massacres "decolonization" make people likely to support decolonization? - NO Does Hamas have a shot at conquering Israel and restoring a Palestine "from river to sea" and did the attack further this goal? - NO If Hamas controlled all of current Israel, would the situation be better for the people who live there or would return there, even if you only consider Palestinians ? - DOUBTFUL

I think some leftists latch on to this letter because they have the same conspiracy-theory-thinking bin Laden had and saying "bin Laden was right" sounds really really radical and that makes them feel good. Their politics are very emotion driven with insufficient though put into it. Well, I hope my long post helped to a better understanding.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Tom Slater

Published: Nov 30, 2023

Why do so many leftists struggle to condemn Hamas? Why do so-called progressives make excuses for Jew-killing, misogynistic, gay-bashing Islamists? It’s a long and damning story. Here, Tom Slater traces the history of the Islamo-left, an unholy alliance between left-wingers and Islamists that has once again burst out into the open following the pogrom in Israel on 7 October. Watch, share and let us know what you think in the comments.

Tom Slater: Is Hamas a terrorist group? Most people wouldn't struggle with that question. After all, this brutal Islamist organization, which rules over Gaza with an iron fist, just butchered 1,200 people on the 7th of October. The youngest victims were infants, the oldest were Holocaust survivors. Women were raped, hostages were taken.

When former UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was asked this question on talk TV a few weeks back, he couldn't bring himself to utter the t-word.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can we have a discussion? Piers Morgan: Can you call them a terror group? Corbyn: Can we have... Morgan: Can you call them a terror group? Corbyn: Is it possible to have a rational discussion? Morgan: Are you prepared to call Hamas a terror group? Corbyn: Is it possible to have a rational discussion... Morgan: You can't, can you? Corbyn: Is it possible? Come on, answer that question? Morgan: You can't, can you? Corbyn: You answer it. Morgan: No.

Host Piers Morgan invited Corbyn to describe Hamas as terrorists no fewer than 15 times. But he refused. He couldn't. Instead, Corbyn just wittered on about needing to start a process that leads to a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. He has since found the mineral to call Hamas a terrorist group in an article for Tribune. But that would perhaps be more reassuring if it wasn't for his long history of cozying up to Hamas and other Islamist terror groups. In 2009 addressing a public meeting, Corbyn infamously referred to Hamas and Lebanese Islamist Hezbollah as quote, "friends," unquote. He went further, railing against the designation of Hamas as a terrorist group.

Corbyn: And the idea that an organization that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region should be labelled as a terrorist organization by the British government, is really a big, big historical mistake, and I would invite the government to reconsider its position on this matter and start talking directly to Hamas and Hezbollah. That is the only way forward to bring back...

Slater: And that's not all. In 2011, Corbyn invited Riyadh Salah, an alleged Hamas fundraiser who believes the Jews were behind 9/11 to tea in Westminster. During a visit to Tunisia in 2014, Corbin was filmed laying a wreath near the graves of the Palestinian Black September terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.

You can see why, after all these sordid details trickled out, Corbyn proved to be such electoral cyanide, helping to deliver Labour's worst election defeat since 1935.

But there has been an unhelpful tendency to see Corbyn's dalliances with Islamists as a kind of personal moral failing on the part of him and his hangers on. The truth is that the rot runs much deeper. Corbyn is just one useful idiot among many on the dregs of the British left who have come to see Islamism not as the fascistic terroristic menace it is, but as a movement at the vanguard of global resistance to a malevolent West.

This is the unholy alliance that we've seen out in force on British streets in recent weeks, where Islamists and left-wingers have marched side by side, united in their hatred for Israel and barely batting an eyelid as antisemites shout Arabic War slogans and wave Jew hating placards.

Welcome to the Islamo-Left, a sinister marriage of convenience that all good people, whether left or right, religious or irreligious, must confront and reject.

This story begins with the radical left's abandonment of the working class and its decision to seek out new constituencies and embrace identity politics.

From the 1980s onwards, figure son the left perversely came to see working-class Brits as a reactionary block on progress, while mistaking radical Islamists, among other groups, as a potentially revolutionary force. This coincided with the rise of state multiculturalism, which had the effect of elevating and funding reactionary Muslim community leaders who were falsely presented as the supposedly authentic voice of British Muslims.

It is from this ecosystem of a growing Muslim identity politics that the grassroots British Muslim campaign against Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses sprung up in the 1980s. Indeed, some of these groups were instrumental in pressuring Iran's supreme leader to issue his Infamous fatwa against Rushdie.

During the 1990s, sections of the Left, these supposed radicals and progressives, became increasingly, disturbingly sympathetic to the fundamentalists who continue to rage against Rushdie and his supposedly blasphemous book. Muslim identity politics was particularly appealing to a disoriented Left because it mapped onto their support for Palestinian self-determination. Many Leftists were prepared to overlook the dark heart of even full-blown Islamists in the interest of backing the supposed struggle against Western imperialism. The Palestinians became merely pawns in some grand conflict between the west and the rebellious global OIther. This is why today you'll notice that many Leftists ignore Hamas' trampling of the rights of the Palestinians and Islamism's usurpation of the Palestinian national cause.

Back in 1994, Chris Harman, then editor of the Socialist Worker, the party newspaper of the Socialist Workers Party, wrote a bizarre but revealing pamphlet entitled "The Prophets and the Proletariat." In it, Harman admitted that Islamism has some pretty fascistic qualities. From its opposition to modernity to its murderous intolerance and its brutal treatment of minorities. Which is all very good of him.

But the Islamists aren't all bad, he concluded. Islamists, Harman wrote, had opposed the state and elements of imperialism's political domination, particularly Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza. In this, he presented Israel as little more than a Western imperial outpost. And so Islamism, Harman concluded, is born of a quote, "feeling of revolt that could be tapped for progressive purposes," unquote.

Failed Western revolutionaries were increasingly keen to outsource radical agency to Islamists, and to whitewash these reactionaries as a progressive force. This marriage of convenience was then consummated in the 2000s in the aftermath of 9/11 and amid the war on terror.

In 2002, the Stop the War Coalition, dominated by the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party of Britain, formed an alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain. Both Stop the War and the MAB had a pronounced presence on the anti-Iraq war protests of the early 2000s. And both groups are among the most prominent organizers of the quote, unquote, "Pro Palestine" demos that have recently been roiling London.

The Muslim Association of Britain might sound benign, but it was founded by none other than Mohamed Solwa, a former Hamas chief who now lives in London. His son is its vice-chair.

Over the years, leading figures from Stop the War have' been pretty open about their fondness for Hamas. One of Stop the War's co-founders, John Reese, once dubbed these antisemitic terrorists a, quote, "legitimate resistance movement," unquote.

At a Stop the War conference in 2006, Lindsey German a leading SWP figure said quote, "whatever disagreements I have with Hamas and Hezbollah, I would rather be in their camp. Democracy in the Middle East is Hamas, is Hezbollah," she said. Followers of the conflict will know that there hasn't been an election in Hamas-run Gaza since 2006 when German made that ridiculous speech.

Jeremy Corbyn was, of course, chairman of the Stop the War Coalition from 2011 till 2015 when he became Labour leader. German served as his vice chair. Stop the War consolidated the fledgling relationship between sections of the hard Left and actual Islamists. In doing so, it also fatally undermined many of the things that used to be essential to being left-wing, such as universalism, reason and humanism.

Anti-imperialism was reduced to little more than anti-Westernism, transforming regressive Islamists from Iran or Gaza into anti-colonial heroes in the process. And all this has fuelled identity politics here in the UK, transforming us from citizens with interests in common, into members of competing ethno-religious groups.

In particular, this anti-war Left and their Islamist allies have cultivated a divisive Muslim identity politics. Their cynicism paid off for the 2005 general election, when Respect, a Stop the War spin-off party led by George Galloway, won the East London seat of Bethnal Green and Bow, which has a large Muslim population. it was a triumph of militant anti-Westernism and pork-barrel identity politics.

These malign trends have since spread to the broader bourgeois left. Take Novara Media, a popular Corbyneaster YouTube channel and website run by a group of perennial postgraduates. In 2014, the Novara website published a glowing profile of Muhammad Deif as part of a Radical Lives series. It described him as an, "uncompromising and shrewd freedom fighter," who has contributed to the, "impressive evolution of the resistance in Gaza." Deif is the commander of Hamas' military wing and a vicious Islamist. Nine years after Novara's puff piece was published, he became one of the architects for Hamas' brutal incursion into Southern Israel earlier this year.

No wonder that one of Novara's editors, Rivkah Brown hailed the events of the seventh of October as a quote, "day of celebration for supporters of democracy and human rights worldwide."

After Hamas launched its brutal pogrom in Israel, many were shocked at the apologism and even cheerleading that some on the British left engaged in. The Socialist Worker, the paper once edited by Chris Harman, greeted the massacre with the headline, "Rejoice."

But while we certainly had a right to be shocked at such inhuman and depraved talk, we probably shouldn't have been surprised. For decades now, Britain's radical Left has been morally self-immolating. Its deranged alliance with Islamists has stripped it of any claim it might once have had to the moral high ground. So now, weekend after weekend, we see supposed anti-racists and anti-fascists march alongside people chanting for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Israel.

They can dress this up as resistance or anti-imperialism all they want, but it really is nothing of the sort. The supposed left-wingers have embraced barbarism. They've got into bed with bona fide fascists. Identity politics has rotted their brains and their souls.

==

A while ago we were hearing that "pro-Palestine does not mean pro-Hamas." Except it does and it always has. ever since Hamas was elected in the region. They've been endorsing and supporting terrorists for almost 20 years.

The irony is that there's no more imperialist, colonialist ideology than Islam. The entire objective of Islam is to establish a worldwide Caliphate under which everyone will be subjugated to Allah's sharia, per the quran and the sunnah. And where you won't get to march in the streets chanting pithy slogans against those in power. Instead, you'll be publicly beheaded.

[matan4il]

Daily update post:

The biggest news in my country today, is that Israel has agreed to appear before the International Court of Justice, despite not recognizing the ICJ or its authority.

Why would Israel not recognize it?

The ICJ is the judicial arm of the United Nations. This international body has a KNOWN (and even academically researched) bias against Israel. Which in a sense, is almost unavoidable. The UN as an idea has international representation, with equality for all. No sanctions or a lesser status for non-democratic countries, no sanctions or a lesser status for abusers of human rights, and no sanctions or a lesser status for countries biased against Israel or against Jews (and therefore against Israel, as a Jewish state). Generally speaking, the ADL estimates that about 26% of the global adult population holds antisemitic views. That means that if the UN correctly represents the global population, about 1 in every 4 of its members, is antisemitic. That's before we talk about blocks coming into play (think of the anti-Israel Arab block alone, with its oil and influence. An Israeli diplomat once said, that if Algeria introduced a resolution that the world was flat, and Israel had flattened it, this resolution would pass automatically), or about countries or heads of state, that hold institutional antisemitic positions, such as Iran (where the Islamist regime denies the Holocaust, and has openly been threatening Israel with destruction for years, meaning they are explicitly stating they are looking to kill the biggest Jewish community in the world. Oh, and Iran is currently chairing the UN human rights council).

To appear before the court, is to legitimize it. But there's a catch 22 here. If Israel is being accused at the ICJ of committing war crimes, or even a genocide (which should be harder to prove, because it involves proving intent), and Israel knows it isn't, but it won't appear before the court (to not legitimize it), yet other countries do recognize the ICJ, and no one will defend Israel there if it doesn't appear before the court itself, then how can its innocence of the charges be proven? By not appearing, Israel's conviction is almost a given, regardless of what it actually does.

Yet appearing before the court, and being innocent of the charges, doesn't guarantee an acquittal, when the ICJ is biased. What is worse, a conviction when Israel is absent, where it's clear the trial wasn't fair (since the accused didn't get to defend themselves before the court), or a conviction despite Israel's appearance and innocence, where the trial still isn't fair, but it might not be as immediately evident, since Israel did participate in the trial?

For now, it seems Israel chose to hope the ICJ is not so biased, and decided to appear before it. Let us hope that's not a mistake.

But I can testify from my own experience as a soldier, that we were very much taught to pursue minimal harm to the enemy as an ideal, as a part of the IDF's code of ethics, one of the first things you learn as an Israeli soldier. We were taught that if an order we were given strikes us as immoral (because it carries harm to someone), it is our moral duty to refuse to follow it. I've also heard an interview, with an Israeli fighter pilot, who said he feels calm, knowing every target that he's sent to strike, has been checked by a legal team, that a strike against it does not constitute a war crime. I've also seen strikes being canceled when an Israeli soldier recognized civilians near the target. I'll also say I have heard foreign military seniors say that the IDF fights with a moral standard that they've never seen from any other army. I don't think that's something that any soldier would easily say, since it indirectly criticizes their own army.

So I am as confident as I can be, without serving myself during this war, that if Israel got a fair trial, no court would convict it. Now the only question is whether we would get one. I guess time will tell.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

[gryficowa]

You know what's the worst? Poland supposedly actively helps Syria, but it is full of Zionists and Islamophobes, so I don't know what to feel

Because it supposedly helps, but on the other hand it is silent about everything, there is more talk about Ukraine than about Syria, the same with Palestine, Sudan, Congo and all the others, which depresses me, and Islamophobia and the fact that Zionism is common here make me very sad disturbing

It's just strange to see that he helps a country full of Islamists, and then spreads hatred towards Islamists and supports Israel, hello, there is silence about Islamophobia in Poland, when hate speech mainly targets Islamists (Because only boomers who are angry at "Woke" use Jews " and "Political Correctness", so it's hard to take it seriously, when it is pure hatred towards Islamists)

This aid to Syria simply seems hollow when the country harms other Islamists and supports Zionism

I know it's trivial, but it just kills me that it seems so duplicitous…

[papirouge]

I had bad experiences with some of those trad wife accounts on IG in the past as well, mostly how many of them downplay rape and consider a rapist to be a baby’s father when I had to correct them and call those men a criminal that should be locked up for the rest of their life for harming women. I’d get called a liberal a lot (lol) with that stance (I don’t know why they’re so willing to protect rapists) despite also wanting to fight for babies unborn and born and stronger criminal prosecution for rapists, but there was this weird underlying theme of submissiveness and how women needed men (even the violent and dangerous ones) with them that made every interaction feel like a fetish. Or that maybe their boyfriend or husband (with a rape fetish?) was actually running those accounts

With that other anon that felt defeated, I’d say to pick and choose your battles. I learned that mostly for online. It’s getting harder to ignore how many false Christians there are polluting the church with their degeneracy and violence. But their apathy and clout chasing on social media will produce no good fruits. We see that already with how many false Christians are rejecting Christs teachings for being too soft now. They want to create a new false idol out of their insecurities but out of the likeness of Christ yet, their idol will be vicious and cruel towards everyone that isn’t them.

You will know your people by their works. There are true considerate pro life Christians who will never forget Palestine and are trying to do something to help those there 💕🇵🇸 god sees our hearts and your intentions

Oh girl, I've been accused of being a leftist, a communist, an islamist, a conservative tradfem pickme, countless times... I'm too left leaning for the average Christian on this hellsite, but I'm not enough progressive to be accepted by actual leftist xD I'm not a political person anyway so I don't care the slightest about whatever people put on.

Yeah that anon felt quite defeated and reading my reply, I felt like I didn't encourage them enough (girl, if you're reading this I'm sorry 🙇🏾‍♀️). But the thing is, since I don't attend church I struggle to realize the extent of feeling letdown by their own local church community, which sucks. I'm a VERY individualistic person and know that we can't save people - only God does. You perfectly said it: we have to pick and chose our battle. Profess truth wherever we are, and let go if it's rejected

I'm a very small blogger and sometimes feel discouraged by people with much bigger communities but using their influence for the worst, bewildering young Christians, etc. But years ago, God clearly told me to "do my part". That's what I do. God keeps talking to me and reassures me He's still there so I know I'm good and He's still backing me up. That's why I'm so serene whenever people attack me for my theological statement. Whenever they do I'm like "when was the last time God spoke to you?" "When was the last time that you asked God to open your eyes and see the truth in who you are, whatever you need to fix in your life, etc.?" bc if you did, God would've shown you I'm right. I know bc God shown me through dreams/visions when some Christians with a public voice were anointed by him

"They create an idol out of their own insecurities"

You are absolutely right anon. That's one of the best indicator of genuine Christians vs opportunists. Opportunists won't be changed by the Word of God, they will twist the Word of God to fit their own bias. I don't know about you, but becoming Christian changed me. It changed some my beliefs to the core. But the opportunists? they will twist the Bible in any way possible to NOT change their ideological stand because they are uncomfortable with the idea of moving thrm5. That's how you have Christians defending murder, racism, stealing (not paying owed taxes), etc. They might read the very specific passage condemning such acts, they will constantly find ways to deny them. Interestingly, they will have no problem acknowledging other passage that confirm their bias, such as those condemning homosexuality or adulterers (very handy to dunk on sex posi women/liberals they obsessively hate)

"you will know your people by their work"

Yes, yes and yes💞 I think it's interesting one of the people (who got mad at my post calling out the hypocrisy of pro lifers sleeping on what's happening on pregnant women & babies in Palestine) told me that prolifers didn't owe me to speak up about what fit my politics, when first of all, caring about the wellbeing of newborn and mothers are the staples of the prolife fight -those are not my "politics"- so it makes sense to paint out the complacency of so called prolifers regarding the struggle of said mothers and newborns in a war ridden area🤔, but also, as a Christian, I believe we do owe something, not to me, but God.

The "Saved through faith alone" slogan unfortunately deluded Christians into thinking their actions, or lack, didn't have consequences. They do. Ananias and Sapphira were Saved - God still killed them for their disobedience. Jesus talked about "fruits" and Paul about different sort of crown we earn in heaven based off our work/how we conduct while on earth.

Resisting AND denouncing evil is part of the basic lines of being Christian. We're lucky the antichrist has yet to come and we can still freely condemn evil as we see it, but it's like it was already too much to ask for some.

God definitely listen to our prayers : a few days ago, there were call to pray for the rain to come so Palestinians can drink, and rain eventually came. God is good 💜✝️

[ridenwithbiden]

Worth reading.

"No American diplomat is more familiar with the long history of enmity between Israelis and Palestinians than Dennis Ross, who played a leading role in shaping U.S. involvement in the Middle East peace process in both the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. As special envoy, Ross was one of Washington’s key Middle East negotiators in the Oslo peace process, beginning with the historic agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993 and 1995. Ross also served as director of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff in the first Bush administration, and later as special assistant to President Barack Obama and special advisor on Iran to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On Saturday, just hours after the Islamist militant group Hamas launched a surprise attack on Israel unprecedented in its scope, POLITICO Magazine reached out to Ross to help explain how and why the conflict began — and how it might ultimately be resolved."

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Michael Hirsh: Hamas’ military leader was quoted as saying that it launched this new war because “enough is enough.” Why is this happening now and why are they doing it?

Dennis Ross: I think the main reason this is happening now is because of the prospect of the U.S.-Saudi-Israeli deal. Hamas understands this is a huge transformative event, and they are trying to create a circumstance where it will be difficult for Saudi Arabia to do it right. This is not spur of the moment. What’s interesting is you had the Iranian supreme leader giving a speech this past week where he attacks the idea of normalization with the Zionist entity. This attack was clearly something planned over a long period of time: the fact that they had hang gliders, they had prepared to breach the fence, they did a barrage of rockets as a way of overwhelming Israel’s air defense system, Iron Dome.

There are reports I have seen that yesterday, Hezbollah [a Lebanese militant group backed by Iran that has links to Hamas] was telling UNIFIL [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] to stay on their bases. Meaning, they knew this was coming. The scope of the intelligence failure in Israel is almost equivalent to literally 50 years ago [when a coalition of Arab states attacked Israel on Yom Kippur, starting the Yom Kippur War]. This surprise is equivalent, although in 1973 we’re talking about Arab conventional armies. Now we’re talking about non-state actors, although backed by a state, Iran. [Tehran, Israel’s avowed enemy, has long supported proxy groups opposed to Israel].

Hirsh: In 1973, you also had much more of an equivalence of forces to the point where Israel almost lost. I mean, now you have a modern military and air force going against Hamas as a non-state actor, as you say. It seems almost like an act of communal suicide by Hamas to do this.

Ross: It is, but think about what they’ve done. They have grabbed hostages. And they’re hoping the hostages will be a deterrent against Israel coming in on the ground. To show you the stakes, they were prepared to do this knowing what the likely Israeli response is going to be. And in a sense, Hezbollah is sort of being held at this point as kind of a possible hammer that if you [the Israelis] come in, then we’ll come in from the north. They have the ability to do something similar, at least in terms of grabbing and holding for a few days, or taking hostages back to Lebanon. There are Israeli villages that are close to the border in the north so that’s a very real option. And no doubt right now it’s affecting the Israeli choice on how and what they’re going to do in response.

Hirsh: To what extent do you think the government of Iran and Hezbollah were actively involved in planning this, if they were?

Ross: I believe they were. There clearly is very close to coordination between Hezbollah and Hamas. As I said, if it’s true that Hezbollah was telling UNIFIL to stay in their bases yesterday, they for sure had advance warning.

When you look at the character of Israeli intelligence to be surprised in this fashion, it’s like any strategic surprise: In retrospect, you may find you had all the information that you needed to have, but you had made a series of [wrong] assumptions about how the other side is operating. Also, in the last couple of weeks, you had Hamas going back to sending protesters to the border in Gaza, creating turmoil. Then there were negotiations [indicating] that Hamas just wanted to get the Israelis to increase the number of workers in Israel and Gaza. And to me, it now looks like this was all part of a feint.

Hirsh: In some respects, the most astonishing thing about this is the intelligence failure. Is it fair to ask to what extent do you think the Biden administration might be responsible? They were caught by surprise as much as the Israelis were.

Ross: There’s no particular reason why the U.S. would be training enormous intelligence assets on Hamas, which has never been a threat to us. So it’s pretty hard to say this was a failure on our part. But I think it's unmistakable that it's an Israeli intelligence failure.

Hirsh: Can you talk more about why Hamas felt this was necessary to do now, and how this is related to the Israeli deal with Saudi Arabia?

Ross: I think this is where the hand of Iran is also a very prominent one — that Iran clearly began to think that if there is this kind of a normalization deal, it’s a transformative event in the region. And not because suddenly it’s this coalition arrayed against them. It’s that you’re taking the religious content of the Arab-Israeli conflict out by having the custodian of the two holy mosques be in accord with the nation state of the Jewish people. In addition, there is just the prospect that you’re going to see these countries that are successful economically joining together and becoming more successful at a time when Iran economically is continuing to fail. They call themselves the resistance coalition but in truth, they’re the coalition of the failed and the failing states. So [Iran and Hamas] are being confronted by what could make them lag even farther behind.

Hirsh: You co-wrote a Washington Post op-ed piece a few weeks ago with David Makovsky about how Oslo could still be revived because there’s still no alternative. How do you see that prospect now in the face of what’s going on today?

Ross: During the heat of what is now a war and what looks to be a terrible one, I think no one is going to be thinking about the future. When this is over there is going to be this reality that’s going to cut in two different ways. There are going to be those who will say something has to be done with the Palestinians or we’re going to continue to face things of this sort. And others will say, look, we have no margin for error. You saw what the threat is and so forth. So you’ll have that debate. There’s going to be a lot of soul-searching in Israel when this is over. We cannot ignore the Palestinians as an issue — this will be part of the discussion after this war is over.

Hirsh: Let’s talk a little bit about the history of this, because Benjamin Netanyahu has been very, very involved going back to the late nineties, his first stint as prime minister. And there was a sense that Netanyahu’s goal even then was to destroy the Oslo peace process. And it seemed as if he succeeded, but without putting up any kind of alternative other than the Iron Dome and pretending that what effectively became a giant concentration camp, which is Gaza, wasn’t there. Could you talk a little bit about that?

Ross: Look, one of the most interesting things is he was obviously a major critic of Oslo, but when he first became prime minister, he said, “We’ll respect it.” And the truth is he did the Wye River and Hebron accords, [two agreements that furthered implementation of the Oslo process in the late 1990s]. And even now he has said, you know, they've said we don’t want the Palestinian Authority to collapse. So in a sense, he has certainly acted in a way that weakened the P.A. over time, even as he understands there isn’t a real alternative to it. I always felt historically that in the end, he understood you have to reach some kind of deal with the Palestinians because they’re not going to go away, but he always wanted to build Israel’s leverage. Look at how he talks about the breakthrough with Saudi Arabia. He said once this happens, this will help with the Palestinians, too, because they’ll have to become more realistic in terms of what’s possible.

Hirsh: But “realistic” is a loaded term, one that came up after Jared Kushner’s effort to resolve the conflict, because what it meant was essentially that the Palestinians were going to simply going to have to accept Israeli diktat, which meant no state and no military, and no one expected that that would ever happen. So is Netanyahu’s approach a realistic one or was it always sort of blowing smoke?

Ross: I don’t know that it was always blowing smoke, but I think you have two poles of opinion. You recall [then-Secretary of State] John Kerry saying that nothing would be possible with any Arab states until you solve the Palestinian issue. And then you have the Abraham Accords where Arab states were saying, look, we’re not going to deny ourselves what’s in our interest because we have to wait for the Palestinians who we think have a leadership that will never allow them to do anything. And you see what’s been going on with the Saudis, once again reflecting that, “Yeah, we need to do something for the Palestinians, but we’re not going to wait until the end of the occupation and the creation of a Palestinian state with borders and a capital.” So the Abraham Accords was, “Let’s do something that materially improves life for Palestinians and allows you to ensure that two states remains as an option.” So it’s a far cry from where things used to be.

The irony for me is how far Hamas is going, given what the potential for destruction in Gaza is going to be.

Hirsh: What do you expect the Israelis to do now, looking ahead?

Ross: They will hit hard from the air. They will try to carry out some operations that will be just as surprising to Hamas as what Hamas has done to them. You can bet that all of Hamas’ leaders went deep underground. There’s just the general reality we’ve seen over time, that every time there’s a war of this sort there’s a lot of sympathy to begin with for Israel, but the longer it goes on and the more they inflict on the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, the more there’ll be pressure to try to bring this to an end.

Israel also faces the prospect of a multi-front war with some extreme Israeli Arabs trying to disrupt movement within Israel itself. So they have to think about that. Hamas has hostages in Gaza, and the Israelis are not going to simply turn a blind eye to that. They will try to find out where they are. They’re going to try to rescue them. But Hamas won’t keep them in one place, they will disperse them. They’ll also have them deep underground. Hamas has literally tens of miles of tunnels. And all the tunnels are booby-trapped where the entrances are. So Israel’s options are very difficult.

But Israel, in the end, will also want to inflict an unmistakable defeat. Israel will want to destroy as much of Hamas’s military as possible. With Gaza being a dense population, it means there’s going to be a lot of Gazans who get killed in the process as well. And Hamas did this knowing full well what the likely consequences would be.

Hirsh: Do you think that this is as consequential as, say, the 1973 war?

Ross: I don’t see it that way for the reasons that you said at the outset, that there are no Arab states involved. Then you had over 2,800 Israelis dead; now you have probably hundreds dead. But I think it’s still a kind of earthquake within Israel. Israel’s sense of security will have been fundamentally altered. There’s certain to be a kind of state commission after this to investigate how this kind of a surprise could have happened. In 1973, the recommendation was just for the head of military and intelligence to be the ones to pay the price. The reservists came out in the streets and forced [Prime Minister] Golda Meir and [Defense Minister] Moshe Dayan to resign. I don’t see anything like that now, but we’re going to see a very thorough soul-searching in the aftermath of this in Israel as well.

Hirsh: Is there any possibility at all, do you think, this becomes a wider war, given Iran’s alleged involvement already, and the other Arab states?

Ross: I don’t know whether Arab states will become involved. Israel will not attack Iran right now because it will have enough that it’s doing with Gaza potentially as well. You’re going to see them bolster the northern border. To try to anticipate that Hezbollah might try to do exactly what Hamas has done. It is inconceivable that Israel won’t go in on the ground in Gaza at this point, but they don’t want to go into Gaza in a way that plays into what and where Hamas is kind of positioning itself to deal with this.

Hirsh: What, if anything, can the Biden administration do right now to help Israel?

Ross: There is a high probability of exhausting Iron Dome missiles, so the Americans should be prepared to provide that help, though Israel isn’t going to need a lot. Also additional money for supply lines and the like and publicly not just standing by Israel, but saying Israel has the right of self-defense and then resisting calls for an early cease-fire. An early cease-fire means that Hamas has a big victory. The worst thing in the world for the Middle East is for Hamas to look successful and say this is the answer for dealing with Israel. You don’t want Hamas to determine Saudi Arabia’s future.

Hirsh: Is there any reason to think that Russia is involved, given the closer relations it has with Iran, including weapons sent to aid Russia in its conflict in Ukraine?

Ross: I don’t know that they’re involved, but they’re not unhappy. They’d like everyone’s attention to be diverted. So the idea that there can be turmoil elsewhere, from their standpoint, that’s a positive.

Hirsh: Going back a few decades, do you think anything could have been done differently? I’m thinking in particular of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s decision to withdraw from Gaza and then the 2006 elections that brought Hamas to power. And then, of course, they seized power undemocratically. Those elections were pushed by the George W. Bush administration at the time.

Ross: At the time I said to Sharon, “Your declaration of withdrawal is perfect, but it should be tied to some behaviors by the Palestinians assuming responsibility.” One of my arguments was that you don’t want to put Hamas into a position where they can claim credit. Their violence drove you out. The Bush administration should have brokered a set of understandings about how to do some test cases to show that the P.A. was in control so that the withdrawal was the victory of [President of the Palestinian Authority] Abu Mazen and the Palestinian Authority, not a victory for Hamas.

What Sharon said to me is, “I can’t let their irresponsibility define our future.” Meaning, if they don’t do what they’re supposed to do, then I’m stuck there forever. It was a powerful argument, but it overlooked that at least this should have been tested. I was not in favor of the elections when they were held by Sharon at the time. People forget that Hamas boycotted the original election in 1996 because we had criteria in there that you were supposed to be against violence and supposed to be signing agreements and so forth. And I was saying to the Bush administration in 1996: “Apply the same standard.”

Hirsh: And what did they say?

Ross: Well, they didn’t do it because they said Abu Mazen doesn’t want to look like he's preventing Hamas from voting. Yeah. Except that Hamas doesn’t want to vote to begin with! I think the withdrawal from Gaza was not exploited the way it could have been. This was a big move, but it needed to be able to be part of a strategy. So in a sense, it was a kind of missed opportunity.

Hirsh: Do you think that had there been a different Israeli leadership over the past 10, 15 years or so that it could have gone differently?

Ross: Six months before the assassination of [former Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak] Rabin, I was sitting with him on a Shabbat afternoon and he said to me, “What do you think’s going to determine the next Israeli election?” I was trying to prove to him how maybe I really knew the inner workings of Israeli politics, so I said, “Shas [the religious party].” And he says, “No, guess again.” And I said, “No, no, I'm not going to play the game. You tell me.” He said, “Hamas will determine the next Israeli election through two suicide bombs.” What killed the peace camp in Israel was the second intifada, so I don’t think you can put it just on who would’ve been the Israeli leader.