On the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict
by Rose Sybil
Rose Sybil explores the complexities of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, revealing overlooked aspects like the West’s double standards, Israel’s contentious origins, and the problematic portrayal of Palestinians as perpetual victims.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict highlights three main concerns:
the double standard of Israeli support in the West and Europe by those who push multiculturalism;
the foundations that Israel was founded upon conflate religious tribal feuding with racialism, patriotism, and nationalism;
treating Palestinians like a victim group removes accountability from Arabs and perpetuates a status quo of dependency of dysfunctional ethno-religious groups on Europids.
All of this must be unpacked instead of treating complex issues as simple because the details compound over time into our current mess.
Palestinians as a Muslim-Arab Politicized Identity
During the Obama era, when Gaza became a Palestinian settlement again, Copts were targeted and reduced from 15% of the population to virtually none as they were displaced, with no international attention. Coptic Christians in the Middle East are constantly persecuted by Muslim Arabs no matter if they share the same arbitrary ethnic identity — at best, they live as de jure second-class citizens under the protection (or rather, at the mercy of) Islamic law, where a blind eye is turned to their random — and not so random — victimization and displacement. Middle-Eastern Mizrahi Jews were expelled from Muslim lands and absorbed into Israel. Muslims have almost entirely eradicated and displaced Zoroastrians and Yazidis as well.
This idea that only Arab Muslims cannot be displaced mirrors the inconsistency of colonization demonization. Muhammedan Arabs occupy all Muslim land outside the Arabian Peninsula, but no one calls them colonizers. Why is this? The colonization narrative is weaponized only against the White race, and victimhood is equated to being more dysfunctional. Otherwise, the plight of more functional groups like Copts, Yazidis, and Zoroastrians would be as important. Muslim Arabs must reabsorb the Palestinians. They should not continue to be the only group exempt from displacement or helping their own.
The UAE and Saudis are both more a part of trader civilization than the Muslim world — other than in the superficial forms.
Before the decline of the Ottoman Empire, there was no distinction between Arab-Muslim ethnicities, nor were there the current national lines of Middle Eastern nations. Muslims choose not to accept their fellow Muslim Arabs because creating the “Palestinian” as a political tool is far more important than the lives of their “brothers.” Others should not bear the consequences of the selfish political priorities of the wider Arab and Muslim world. Palestinians are simply Arabs with a jihadist political agenda that draws them to the need for a distinct ethnicity. They have no specific ethnic allegiance alone; the importance of their fight is to expand the Islamic lands (waqf) and implement Sharia law. Palestinians, like all Muslim Arabs, give their first allegiance to the Muslim ummah.
Returning to the state of Israelis and Palestinians living together in the same nation with new peace deals is a ticking time bomb that only allows this dynamic to continue perpetually. According to the doctrines of Shariah law, all ceasefires and truces with an enemy are only for refreshing and rearming. They are never permitted with the intent of sincere settlement or peace. Muslims will only have peace according to their unconditional terms — that the world submit to Islam and convert, pay the jizyah, or die. Just because they cannot enact this does not change the jihadist eschatological principles governing their interaction with other groups.
A real two-state solution would require both halves of the current paradigm to compromise. The Palestinian territories would be Israel’s contribution. Since Arab Sunnis are never willing to give anything up, they must take their Sunni brothers. Jordan should be required to give up equal land as the West Bank territory to be added to it; likewise, Egypt equal land to Gaza (far less than when Carter made Israel return the Sinai Peninsula that was won in battle). This two-state solution would give a homeland to Middle Eastern Christians as a safe refuge where they no longer have to live under Islamic rule and could choose to absorb other oppressed Dhimmis like Zoroastrians. Israel can give up responsibility for Palestinians, and gaining an ally in the region would make them less dependent on the West for military aid.
Most do not realize Palestinians have the world’s highest welfare aid per capita, resulting in their population growing over 400% since Israel became a state.
No one wants a solution, though, it seems. Decadence from Arab-backed petrodollar oil deals have more real sway in Arab hierarchy, and only in the face of public outcry do they cater to religious sentiments in favor of Palestinians. What now bonds Sunni and Shia Islamist groups is that they care about Muslim interests and jihad. The UAE and Saudis are both more a part of trader civilization than the Muslim world — other than in the superficial forms. Their essence of religious vigor is corrupted by decadence. The trader civilization mirrors simplistic material and carnal drives of the original Islamic expansion, far more so than other universalizing religions. If my proposed solution were possible, it would be more opposed by Saudis for the sake of the costs than the loss of their potential jihad desires.
A real solution would also prevent a political reason to draw in a proxy of Russia’s to the Islamist north, harming more than Sunni financial power. Globalist hegemony relies on proxy conflicts in the Middle East, so they continuously perpetuate peace talks that never work. They keep things at a stalemate with high pressure between Israel and Iran. It is also evident that the only “ally” Israel is allowed is the globalist-cucked US federal government. I do not believe it was an accident that colonist narratives were pushed simultaneously as the Shah fell. Israel lost their Persian ally and the Sinai Peninsula in a “peace” deal before South Africa was targeted with that anti-colonial rhetoric.
Most do not realize Palestinians have the world’s highest welfare aid per capita, resulting in their population growing over 400% since Israel became a state. Their poverty rates are from rapid expansion (Jewish expansion is heavily due to Alyiah, not just reproduction) of a population with retarded level average IQ. IQ is not the only important thing and has limitations, but populations with an average of 80 IQ or below will live in complete dysfunction, no matter what. Israelis are as much at fault for the supposed living conditions of Palestinians as South Africans are for Bantus, which equally expanded somehow under such horrible oppression, i.e., dysfunction. The actual “oppression” is unnaturally expanding a far divergent race incapable of sustaining itself, and only in the absurdism of this era would this unnatural expansion be called “genocide.”
…you can be against the victim standpoint of the Palestinians without placing Israeli interests first.
The American tax base has been used to pay for the expansion of Muslim Arabs both directly and via the UN, which has a separate and unequal refugee program for Palestinians called the UNRWA. Israel was pushed to give back so much land, like the entire Sinai Peninsula, which could have provided a buffer zone. The proximity of Israel and its small physical territory made rockets devastating and necessitated the innovation of the dome system, advanced drone technology, and laser weapons. The conflict between Palestinians and Israelis helps globalists because the military aid is a one-of-a-kind deal that requires Israel to share its technological innovation with the US military-industrial complex while keeping constant pressure between the proxies there. The American taxpayer base has funded the expansion of Palestinians on one end and the drone system on the other — neither is in the interest of the West but in the interest of our globalist shadow government.
The right seems split between the two mainstream narratives, one being simplistic anti-colonialism (at the time of most colonization, there was low population density in the third and developing world, and most settlements expanded parallel to “indigenous” peoples) as if protecting all ethnic interests in some utopian nationalist world stasis is possible. It devolves into the liberal mindset of seeing all dysfunction as victimhood or the weaker or smaller group as inherently in the morally correct position, which lacks discernment. Yazidis, Zoroastrians, and Copts would be as much a focus if it were about that. Making it some tier system of oppression is an excuse not to evaluate the pitfalls of this victimhood worldview, but I digress.
For everyone thinking there is a global conspiracy, it is very simplistic to just oppose Jews instead of fleshing out the complexity of the entire situation. Seeing the enemy of your perceived enemy as your friend is one of the weaknesses of only a friend-enemy distinction outlook that has likewise harmed Israelis, which I will later discuss as a healthy tool and instinct but not an end in itself. We must learn from their mistakes, not just become a mirror image or complete opposite, because to do so is to be defined by them. The other end of this false dichotomy is to see Israel as the nationalist side or against allowing dysfunctional third and developing world groups as perpetual victims. This should not be a reason to espouse a pro-Israel narrative, and you can be against the victim standpoint of the Palestinians without placing Israeli interests first.
Israel should never have been created in the first place. The location fueled the reemergence of religious absolutism, corrupting organic local identity and being able to work together. It also flamed end-times eschatological positions for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. However, we are in this mess now, and Jews are the most stubborn people ever to exist. For everyone saying they oppose them because they do not want World War 3 and then calling for the end to the occupation of the land, there is no surer way to start WW3 than to try to displace Jews again. However, it is essential to look at the dynamics contributing to its founding and the double standard since a real solution was not the point of globalists allowing or supporting the creation of Israel.