Personal Rant

On this page, I will ask questions, make arguments, lay out the conclusions I have come to, and generally vent my frustrations over the logical inconsistencies presented by the pro Western side. I didn’t use the word genocide on the other pages because I wanted to keep those as objective as possible, and we don’t have a definitive ruling on this matter yet. That being said, I do believe that the Israeli government and IDF are engaged in a genocide, not as an end goal but rather as a means to encourage self deportation from Gaza.

What Hamas Truly Achieved with the October 7 Attack:

The true success of the Hamas October 7 attack on Israel was putting the Israel Palestine conflict in front of billions of eyes mostly because of Israel's cruel response. The fact that many, if not most, people currently see Israel as the aggressor is not because they have lost the "propaganda war", but because people can see the results of their actions in almost real time. If Israel had prosecuted this war in a more humane way, they wouldn’t have to fight a PR war with their hasbara, because the truth would have done that for them.

Preventing Western journalist to enter Gaza:

Until now, these are the reasons I have seen Israeli officials and pro Israel advocates give for not allowing Western journalists into Gaza:

1. Concern for their safety, and that if they get killed or kidnapped, Israel will be blamed:

Even if we take this at face value and assume this is really one of their motivations, I would argue that it is not Israel’s place to worry about the safety of journalists. This is something for the journalists and their employers to handle. Israel could publicly wash its hands of responsibility by giving a press conference and stating that they will allow them in at their own risk and that Israel shall not be held accountable for their safety. By denying access, they have created a problem far larger than being blamed for the death of journalists. The world is seeing this as a way to hide genocide, the crime of all crimes. Is the safety of some journalists worth damaging their country’s reputation to this extent? It makes no logical sense that they would cause this much harm to their international standing if they truly believe they are doing everything by the book and have nothing to hide.

2. Journalists will get in the way of the IDF:

There are many ways to mitigate this, such as having direct contact lines with the journalists and tracking them using GPS or other tools. That way, they can be warned to move away from areas in time. This would allow the IDF to make sure they do not strike areas where journalists are present.

3. Journalists are generally not allowed on the frontlines, and all of Gaza is a frontline:

So all civilians in Gaza are always on the frontline, and there is no safe place where they can avoid being killed at any moment? If that is not true and safe zones do exist, then there are places where journalists could do their work, right? But if they concede that all of Gaza is a frontline and civilians have no safe place, then this effectively erases the distinction between civilian and military space. That contradicts the principle of distinction and the principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law, and is highly problematic legally, to put it mildly.

How should Israel have responded to October 7:

After the attack, Israel had the world on its side. They could have responded in this manner:

• Assure the citizens of Gaza, through a binding legal document signed with Arab, European, and American representatives, that once Hamas is gone they will be able to return to their homes.

• Ask the world to help fund and setup one or more humanitarian zones for the Palestinians in Israel or Egypt, moving them there until only Hamas remains in Gaza.

• Ask the international community to help eliminate the individuals in Hamas responsible for massacring Israeli civilians.

• Use drones and autonomous weapons on a large scale to clear structures and neutralize fighters, and when necessary destroy entire buildings to minimize casualties on the Israeli side. Continue this until Hamas is fully removed.

• Acknowledge the unfair treatment that the Palestinians have had to endure and allow them to establish a state along the 1967 armistice borders, recognizing their sovereignty. No tricks, no settlements, no hidden agendas, just full autonomy with their own army, navy, air force, and institutions.

• Make it absolutely clear to the new Palestinian state and to the world that if this new state so much as farts on the wrong side of the border it will burn in nuclear fire.

I think this was actually possible. If Israel had announced such a plan after October 7, the Arab world and the rest of the world, in my opinion, would have showered Israel with love and praise, perhaps even setting the stage for a new era of peace in the Middle East. I would go as far as to say that even Iran’s government might have reduced its hostility towards Israel.

If Israel, from a position of strength, had chosen to show restraint and empathy for the other side and granted them what two-thirds of the UN considers the solution to this conflict, this gesture during one of Israel’s darkest moments could have been the act that finally ended the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis.

Some, like Konstantin Kisin, might say this is not a solution "in the real world". And what I would say to that is, what is the alternative? A few more decades or even centuries of occupation, ethnic cleansing, or the outright slaughter of tens of thousands like right now? You know what this produces "in the real world"? October 7, over and over again. People under subjugation will fight back, often through what we consider barbaric means, because when the other side is overwhelmingly more powerful and victory is impossible, the only remaining desire is to inflict as much pain as possible.

Palestinian Civilian Death Toll:

Israeli officials and pro Israel advocates, when asked about the number of civilians killed, almost always say that the IDF does not target civilians and therefore does not have a number for how many have been killed. From this, we can logically infer the following:

• If this is the case and they cannot be bothered to check how many non combatants are in a building before blowing it up, then that is indiscriminate bombing of civilians. If they do try to find out and at least have an estimate, that means they find it acceptable to snuff out the lives of tens of thousands of civilians. Neither scenario is good, but not having at least an estimate is without question a war crime, for it represents indiscriminate bombing.

They also state that they go to great lengths to warn civilians to move before bombing an area, but that Hamas forces civilians to stay in those areas, sometimes even at gunpoint:

• So let me get this straight. Civilians are being forced by Hamas to stay somewhere, and by Israel’s own admission they know this beforehand, and yet they still bomb those civilians knowing they are there? What chance do these people have? They are forced to become martyrs by Hamas, and Israel seems more than willing to give Hamas exactly what it wants. I don’t think we can expect anything whatsoever from Hamas, but I thought that the only democracy in the Middle East and the most moral army in the world would find a way to rescue those people, or at least use one or more quadcopters to show Hamas preventing them from leaving the zone before the attack. Are the lives of these people not worth at least that much?

My thoughts on this

Civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza "war", this cannot be justified. It does not matter that Hamas’s strategy is to have their own people killed. The world has already labeled them monsters. We expect nothing from them, and they are being eradicated as we speak. But when Israel plays directly into their hands, Israel’s argument is, “But Hamas wanted them dead”. If there is something in or under a building that must be destroyed, why not evacuate the building first before blowing it up with whatever is underneath? Killing those people cannot be justified by saying, “Hamas wanted them dead.” That is absurd.

The world does not expect anything from Hamas, but it does expect a lot from Israel. So stop with the “Hamas” excuse and own up to your own actions. For example, Israel has highly advanced quadcopters. Why not deploy a few with speakers and cameras to warn people in and around a building to get out, monitor and verify by inspecting the building with the quadcopters, and once all or most are out, then carry out the strike to destroy tunnels, bases and or weapons. There are countless solutions, especially in this technological age, that could significantly reduce civilian deaths if the attacking army actually cared and made the effort, especially given the resources and access Israel has.

The fact that Israel cannot or won't provide a high confidence estimate of how many civilians they have killed is, in itself, proof that they are not doing their utmost to prevent civilian deaths. Every time you drop a bomb, you should at least have an idea of how many civilians are likely to die because of it. It stands to reason that if you cannot provide a number, it is because you did not bother to check what the harm of your actions would be. If you do check, then where is the number? If there is no or little reconnaissance before an attack, that is evidence of indiscriminate bombing.

Blocking of aid & Hamas stealling the aid:

For months, Israel has insisted that Hamas steals large portions of humanitarian aid bound for civilians in Gaza. This claim has been used to justify limiting or outright blocking desperately needed aid. But recent reporting from Israeli outlets themselves, citing their own military officials, makes clear that no evidence exists of Hamas systematically stealing UN-delivered aid.

According to The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and Ynetnews, senior Israeli military officials told The New York Times in July 2025 that they had “no evidence Hamas routinely stole UN aid”. Even as the IDF tried to highlight looting in general, it did not dispute that the UN’s distribution system has largely worked. A USAID analysis of 156 incidents involving U.S.-funded supplies also found no proof Hamas systematically stole aid, and a Washington Post investigation pointed instead to criminal gangs and lawlessness as the real cause of large scale diversion.

Yet despite lacking evidence, Israeli officials continue to push the narrative. If Hamas really holds most of the aid, then cutting supplies won't achieve much. Hamas would be fine and able to weather shortages, while ordinary Gazans, the very people Israel says are being robbed, would simply be starved.

Israel sometimes argues that “enough aid” has already entered in past months, and that securing and distributing it is not their responsibility. But if that is true, then who ensures that aid reaches people across Gaza? Hamas, the same group Israel calls a terrorist organization willing to sacrifice its own people? By Israel’s own description of Hamas, relying on them to distribute food fairly is absurd. To then block additional aid while blaming Hamas is a deliberate decision that leaves civilians to die.

International humanitarian law is clear: the attacking power bears responsibility to protect civilians under its control. Israel, the overwhelmingly stronger party, cannot wash its hands of the consequences of its own blockade. It is inconceivable that Israeli decision makers did not know starvation would follow two and a half month of near total aid closure. To pretend otherwise is to deny reality.

And if Israel truly believed Hamas was hoarding food as a weapon, logic would demand the opposite policy: flood Gaza with food until Hamas cannot control it. International partners have already carried out airdrops, surely, many would have supported a mass aid surge to undercut Hamas’s alleged monopoly. But Israel never pursued this path. Does preventing Hamas from accessing food justify starving two million civilians?

Finally, the argument that Hamas uses the profits from aid theft to fund its fighters and recruit more is most likely true but I would argue the following: What is the point of money in Gaza now and in the foreseeable future? To buy an iPhone 16? Or maybe they use it to buy necessary things like food and other supplies, which are extremely expensive because of Israel’s blockade.

The conclusion is unavoidable: Israel has not credibly proven that Hamas is stealing aid at a scale that justifies cutting off supplies. Using this unproven claim as grounds for blocking food is not only absurd, it is evil. Starvation in Gaza has not been an accident of war, but the foreseeable result of Israeli decisions. And those decisions cannot be laid at Hamas’s feet.

The Gaza humanitarian foundation (GHF) problem:

There is so much to say about this, but for now I will keep it at this: if this endeavor is really above board and no shady things are happening, then why, for example, don’t they place multiple cameras with live feeds of the whole site? This way, they could show all the people coming and going and what actually happens during this time. The cameras could be placed in locations where the IDF can protect them, and this would demonstrate to the world that the GHF is operating humanely.

Many people, if not most, are saying that these are killing fields because dozens of people are being killed in or around this area every day. If journalists are not allowed in to show the world what is actually happening, then is this solution not a cheap and easy way to clear the GHF’s name? Let’s be serious here, they are being accused of intentionally killing starving people who walk many kilometers for aid. This is a very serious accusation. Would a solution like this, or other measures to the same effect, such as quadcopters filming the whole area from above, not be a no brainer to clear them of this horrendous accusation?

I cannot logically understand why they do not use approaches like this to clear their name, unless they are indeed doing unspeakable things and want to hide them. The Israeli government and IDF are likely full of people far more intelligent and resourceful than I am, and yet they cannot come up with a solution to show the world they are not monsters? To be honest, it just makes no sense.

The level of infrastructure destruction in Gaza:

The level of infrastructure destruction in Gaza has been immense. Israel’s Prime Minister has already begun spreading propaganda about why journalists will find so much physical destruction when they are allowed in, as seen in this In this press briefing by Benjamin Netanyahu.

One of the reasons given is that Hamas booby traps many buildings. To counter this, the IDF has reportedly places old armored personnel carriers packed with explosives and detonated them, blowing up the building and setting off those traps. But this raises a major question: why set them off at all? Why not simply mark the building as unsafe and move on, preserving them for Palestinians to eventually reclaim rather than leaving behind only rubble?

Israel’s government and military must know that destroying so many structures will create enormous political and reputational costs. If the goal is truly civilian and IDF safety, why choose to demolish entire buildings instead of blocking them off with warnings and physical barriers? The IDF does not need the buildings or it would not destroy them outright. So what purpose does this serve other than ensuring Gaza is left uninhabitable?

Is Israel really sacrificing its public image to that extent to protect Palestinians from booby traps while killing tens of thousands in other ways? That logic seems flawed. Demolition makes little sense if the only aim is safety, especially since the world now blames Israel for flattening Gaza’s urban landscape. Cheaper and faster options exist: posting signs, blocking doors, or isolating suspected sites. Instead, explosives leave piles of rubble and decades of resentment.

It is impossible to believe that Israeli decision makers did not anticipate the price of these actions. The question remains: what did blowing up these buildings truly achieve, beyond devastation and global condemnation?

Smotrich and Ben Gvir are not part of the war cabinet and have no influence on policy:

Without the support of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, the PM’s coalition immediately falls below the 61 seat threshold and loses its majority, risking collapse. Yet they supposedly have no input or leverage on the decisions being made by the PM? In what world is that how politics works? Let’s be honest here.

The January 2025 ceasefire:

The January 2025 ceasefire was meant to bring the war in Gaza to an end. The deal was already agreed upon: Phase 1 would see Hamas release 33 hostages in exchange for 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, followed by Phase 2 in which all remaining hostages would be released and Israel would agree to a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal. These terms are summarized here Wikipedia overview of the 2025 ceasefire.

But just as this deal came into effect, our two favorite ministers who supposedly have no influence on the war cabinet’s decisions, Bezalel Smotrich (Finance Minister) and Itamar Ben-Gvir (National Security Minister), publicly threatened to withdraw their support from Prime Minister Netanyahu if the war stopped. Reuters report on Ben Gvir and allies leaving the cabinet, follow up coverage on Smotrich’s threat and later retreat: Reuters report on Smotrich withdrawing his threat.

This context is essential. Netanyahu’s coalition depends on these men. Together their parties control 14 seats, the third largest caucus in the Knesset. Without them, Netanyahu loses his majority and with it his grip on power. That leverage gave Smotrich and Ben-Gvir the ability to dictate terms far beyond their weight in the electorate. They signaled clearly: end the war and we bring down your government.

Faced with that pressure, Netanyahu shifted. Instead of moving into Phase 2 as the ceasefire agreement required, a stage that would have ended the war and returned all living hostages, Israel suddenly demanded an extension of Phase 1. This was not in the original deal. It amounted to sabotaging the agreement: changing the terms midstream to avoid the decisive step of a permanent ceasefire. Hamas rejected this extension and insisted on following the original plan, Al Jazeera report on rejection of the extension request. Israel declared Hamas non compliant and resumed aggression. Within weeks Israel resumed large scale strikes that shattered the ceasefire, Guardian explainer on the March strikes. The war continued, and the hostages remained in captivity.

Here is how the timeline played out:

16 Jan 2025 – Ben-Gvir publicly threatens to resign if the ceasefire deal is accepted. Smotrich issues similar warnings, signaling they will collapse the coalition if the war ends.
19 Jan 2025 – Ceasefire goes into effect. Ben-Gvir resigns from the government, but his party makes clear they will return if fighting resumes.
Late Jan–Feb 2025 – Hostage-prisoner exchanges proceed as planned through Phase 1. Pressure mounts on Netanyahu as Phase 2 approaches.
1 Mar 2025 – Instead of transitioning to Phase 2, Israel demands an extension of Phase 1, citing security concerns. This was a new demand, not part of the signed deal.
2 Mar 2025 – Hamas rejects the extension, insisting on Phase 2 as originally agreed. Israel responds by halting humanitarian aid.
18 Mar 2025 – Israel launches surprise airstrikes, formally collapsing the ceasefire. Soon after, Ben-Gvir returns to government as war resumes; Smotrich withdraws his resignation threat.

The pattern is obvious. Each time peace seemed near, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich applied pressure, and Netanyahu shifted course to keep them satisfied. They had the power to end his government, so he gave them what they wanted: no end to the war. This is why the January ceasefire collapsed. Not because Hamas refused to honor its commitments, but because Israel’s leadership sabotaged the deal under pressure from coalition partners.

The conclusion is obvious: the war did not continue out of military necessity alone. It continued because Netanyahu’s premiership depends on the support of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. Their threats forced him to choose between ending the war or ending his government. He chose his government at the expense of the hostages and the civilians of Gaza. And we are still supposed to believe that these two are fringe ministers with no influence? Please, stop insulting people’s intelligence.

The radicalization of the israeli people:

The comparison between Gaza and WW2:

The start of this conflict:

The Trump plan for Gaza:

The situation in the West Bank:

The 1937 & 1947 partition plan:

Israel role in creating the pre oct 7 status quo:

"Israel never had partner for peace" & "The Palestinians always said no to a state":

How Iran Came to Hate the West:

For centuries, Iran was a monarchy ruled by kings, the Shahs. In the early 20th century, though, something changed. In 1906, after popular pressure, Iran established a constitution and parliament, turning the country into a constitutional monarchy. It was messy, fragile, and often undermined by foreign powers, but it was the beginning of something new: Iranians wanted to rule themselves, not just be ruled.

At the same time, however, Britain had discovered oil in Iran. The Anglo Iranian Oil Company, majority owned by the British government, took control of this treasure. For decades, Britain grew rich off Iranian oil, while Iranians saw almost nothing. It wasn’t colonization on paper, but it might have felt like it: their resources were being drained to fuel another empire. Iran officially received only about 10–16% of the profits, while Britain kept the rest over 80–90%.

By the mid 20th century, Iran was slowly moving toward real democracy. In 1951, the parliament chose a charismatic and popular Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. He believed Iranians should control their own resources, so he boldly nationalized the oil industry. For ordinary Iranians this was a proud moment, their country was finally standing up for itself. The U.S. was initially viewed more positively, even as a possible counterbalance to Britain and Russia. Mossadegh himself hoped the U.S. would support Iran’s democratic aspirations.

But the United States sided with its ally and Britain (with U.S. backing) responded with a global boycott and sanctions against Iranian oil, blocking Iran’s ability to sell it on the international market. So while Iran had legally taken all the oil revenues, in reality it could not sell much of it and the economy started to suffer. Then in 1953, Britain and America staged a coup d’état, known as Operation Ajax that overthrew Mossadegh. Tanks rolled through Tehran, the Prime Minister was arrested, and Iran’s young democracy was crushed. In his place, the Shah was restored to absolute power. Many Iranians came to see the West as hypocritical, preaching democracy but destroying it when oil or Cold War interests were at stake.

From then on, Iran was ruled as a pro Western dictatorship. The Shah modernized the country, but he also repressed dissent with his secret police, SAVAK, trained and backed by the CIA. For many Iranians, America was no longer a distant idealized land of freedom, it was the power that had destroyed their democracy and propped up a tyrant.

This anger simmered for decades. Finally, in 1979, it exploded into the Islamic Revolution. The Shah was overthrown, and the new regime, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, defined itself in opposition to the West. When people shouted “Death to America,” it wasn’t because they hated their freedom, it was because Britain and America had stolen theirs.

The Aftermath

Iran did not always hate the West. In fact, it was becoming more democratic and hopeful until the West intervened out of greed for oil and fear of losing influence. By crushing Iran’s budding democracy in 1953, Britain and America sowed the seeds of the bitterness and hostility we see today. And let's not forget the Iran Iraq War of 1980–1988: when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran right after the revolution, the West armed and supported him, providing weapons, intelligence, and even materials later used for chemical attacks that killed tens of thousands of Iranians. Around 500,000 Iranians were killed during that war, and all the while the U.S. and its allies looked the other way or actively helped. What could Iran have been today if not for Western greed?

I do not support the current government of Iran in any way whatsoever, and I do agree that they tend to behave like barbarians because of Islamic fundamentalism. However, to ignore history and the injustice done to them by the West and now simply vilify them and say they are unreasonable people who hate us because of our freedom is not only dishonest but outright evil. The people of the West need to recognize and own the role their governments played in making Iran what it is today. Only then can we start working toward common understanding, cooperation, Western style rights for the Iranian people, and, dare I say, friendly relations with them. We the people need to lead this movement and force it onto our Western governments, for the political class, is in my opinion, either too compromised in various ways or too unwilling to do this by themselves.