By Leonid Nevzlin

What is Israel's fault?

The global reaction to Israel's conflict with Hamas is entirely paradoxical. Reasonable Western governments have supported Israel, but suddenly, there is a striking unity of opinion from the Iranian ayatollah, who has become a mouthpiece for the Islamic world, to Putin and his brutal Russian gang, who joyfully support other murderers (and without a doubt, their patron and leader), to what is commonly referred to as the "progressive community": young and not-so-young Western defenders of the oppressed and insulted, the dying nature, historical justice, and universal equality - Western haters of the West. They all, as Putin expressed it as their common condition, "clench their fists and shed tears" over Israel's actions, and they all describe what is happening with the same words. These are the words.

"Israeli aggression."

Once you've unclenched your fists and wiped away your tears, you might contemplate the meaning of the word "aggression." An aggressor attacks. It's impossible to call the one on whom the aggressor attacked by that word, even if the aggressor ends up getting beaten. This applies not only to Hamas but also to another criminal community - Russia.

However, Russia, when it attacked Ukraine, clearly intended to capture it, albeit unsuccessfully. Hamas, despite all its medieval brutality, couldn't have been unaware that it was beyond their capacity to destroy the state of Israel. So why did they commit this act of aggression? They did it for one reason only: to create the current situation - for the united and vocal condemnation of Israel, not only by fanatic Islamists (not to mention the distraction from the Ukrainian war and the breakdown of reconciliation between the Jewish state and the Arab world).

Israel did not commit any aggression; on the contrary, it was subjected to the most horrendous form of aggression. Was there any other possible reaction, even theoretically? If Hamas lacked the strength to destroy Israel, should Israel simply understand, forgive, and not attempt to safeguard itself from such horrors in the future?

"Palestinian organization Hamas"

The attacking Hamas can only be called a Palestinian organization due to its geographical location. Its goal is not at all the creation of a Palestinian state. Hamas has clearly and openly stated its goal, which is to raise the Prophet's banner over all the countries on Earth. The first phase of this global project is defined as the destruction of the state of Israel, in the capital of which there is a very holy mosque, Al-Aqsa (which journalists consistently confuse with the much more impressive Dome of the Rock located nearby). The final phase is the destruction of America, as the stronghold of godlessness.

Palestinian Arabs play a very pathetic role in these grandiose plans - serving as human shields and providing images of "Israeli aggression" in news channels and social media. Hamas, in fact, does not hide its view on Palestinians, suggesting that the UN should take care of them.

"Barbaric bombings of Gaza"

The clenched fists and tears of Islamists, Putin, and the "progressive community" are primarily induced by images of destruction and exuberant, well-fed women, captured on Hamas iPhones. The destruction in Gaza is likely significant. If an underground bunker of terrorists, their rocket positions, or their commanders are targeted, the buildings above and nearby may collapse, especially if they are poorly constructed.

However, Israel (knowing full well that its every action will be scrutinized on the most critical scales, unlike the actions of its adversaries) never bombs residential areas just for the sake of it. Furthermore, Israel goes to great lengths to warn of impending strikes, even though this might allow the targets to escape. Israel's strikes are incredibly precise, and even on Hamas videos, this is evident.

However, these videos show none of Hamas' rockets falling into residential areas of Israeli cities that lack any military targets. These rockets fall just to cause destruction and the deaths of Jews, for no other purpose. Similarly, Hamas and Russia's actions in Ukrainian cities appear to follow the same pattern, making it difficult to discern which of them may be learning from the other.

"Shocking footage from Gaza"

Perhaps the gentleman who enthusiastically plays the role of a father tragically mourning his child while cradling an extremely surprised-looking baby, or the heroic doctor performing an MRI on a patient in a hospital without electricity, or the dying victim of the "Israeli military," or the determined militant, or the body bag-encased deceased who decided to take a quick peek at social media should be given an Oscar. Despite their relatively fair skin and clear male gender.

The real horror left over from October 7, no one dares to show, not even the Israelis. Perhaps it is to protect the emotional well-being of civilized folks who have never seen anything like this, not even in a horror movie on a streaming platform. It may be worth showing it, despite the risk of "progressive community" fainting spells.

"Humanitarian Catastrophe in Gaza"

It's amazing that not a single progressive journalist has bothered to think about where Gaza received its electricity, fuel, and water before the war. No, it wasn't from Egypt. It was Israel that supplied all of these to Gaza, including the ruling Hamas, purely for humanitarian reasons. Whether this was a wise decision is a complex question, but no one else did it, so Israel had no choice. Continuing to provide all of this to the enemy during the war would mean helping them defeat themselves. However, Israel still pumps water into Gaza. Is any country capable of doing this for a neighbor who aims to destroy it or, at the very least, publicly supports such an intention?

"Occupied Palestinian Territories"

Gaza is no longer occupied by anyone, and that's why it became a citadel for Hamas and other terrorists. However, other territories, which are called "occupied," have no connection to Palestine. There was no Palestine even in Arab plans in 1967, and Israel didn't conquer lands from Palestine during the Six-Day War. The Golan Heights were taken from Syria. The West Bank was captured from Jordan (which took control of it in 1948 and annexed it, leading to a renaming from Transjordan). Gaza (along with the Sinai Peninsula) was captured from Egypt. Israel gave back the Sinai, and it might give back Gaza, but Egypt strongly distances itself from this idea for understandable reasons, given the unique population in Gaza.

"Refugee Camps"

When you hear the words "refugee camps," your imagination immediately conjures up images of a tent city with women and children who have miraculously escaped from something, deprived of the bare necessities. But Palestinian refugee camps are something entirely different. These are regular urban neighborhoods where not the first generation but generations of Arabs who left newly formed Israel in 1948 live (and in its war for independence, Israel fought not against Palestinians but against all neighboring Arab countries that did not recognize its right to exist or any Palestine). These people did not flee anywhere, they were born and raised in their cities, yet they are still referred to as refugees, and their cities as camps. Following the same logic, a significant portion of Jews could also be called refugees—from Europe after the Holocaust, as only three years separate 1948 from 1945.

"The Arab Apartheid in Israel"

There is no apartheid for Arabs in Israel.

Those living in Gaza and the West Bank govern themselves and have no relationship with Israel except that Israel opposes the terrorism emerging there.

Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, are full citizens of the state. They have the same rights as Jews, with representation in the Knesset, the option to serve in the police and the Israeli military (if they choose, while Jews are required to serve), and the Arabic language holds official status. Instruction in Arab schools is in Arabic, and Jews respect Arab culture, religious life, and identity.

"Islamophobia"

This is as much a label as the term "Russophobia" has become for Putin's Russia. It doesn't inherently mean anything – Muslims are not persecuted in Israel. But just as Putin's policies have generated worldwide rejection of Russia as a whole (as an aggressor and terrorist country), the position of the Islamic world doesn't add appeal to Islam. This includes not only the radical Iranian ayatollah but also the previously relatively civilized positions of the Turkish ex-sultan, the Algerian parliament, or Qatar with its "Al Jazeera." Let alone the Islamist beheaders who have migrated to Europe.

All of this is quite evident to those who live in Israel or at least occasionally visit. The rest of the "progressive community" judges what is happening based on formally impartial news channels, whose bias has been evident in several recent examples, or from a general leftist "agenda" that has always condemned Israel. For them, everything mentioned may come as a revelation.