#religious minorities in iran

[swiftsnowmane]

Iran deploys a sinister tactic against the Baha'i religious minority—fabricating legal cases and relentless summonses, creating a web of oppression.

Recent revelations expose the extent of government hostility, leaving Baha'is in constant uncertainty. 

IranWire's interviews with members of the community highlight the fear of arrests and hindrance in burying their dead, showcasing an ongoing assault on their rights. 

Baha'is interviewed by IranWire express that they cannot plan for their lives and careers due to the uncertainty surrounding who will be summoned or arrested tomorrow, whose homes will be searched, or whose businesses will be shut down.

A significant and increasing number of Baha'is are awaiting the implementation of sentences, even as many have been released on bail and are awaiting trial.

Roha Emani and Firozeh Sultan Mohammadi, two Baha'is women living in Kerman, were recently summoned to the Kerman Prosecutor's Office and faced charges and interrogation over allegations of "Baha'i propaganda" and "educational activities against Sharia."

Emani and Mohammadi were previously detained for 17 days in November last year and subsequently released on bail.

Korosh Rezvani, a Baha'is citizen of Bandar Abbas, was summoned to the Intelligence Department of the city and was later released following interrogation.

Rezvani is the son of Ataullah Rezvani, who was kidnapped and fatally shot in Bandar Abbas in August 2013.

Ataullah was a prominent Baha'i figure in Bandar Abbas who had received numerous threats from the intelligence department and the city's Friday prayer leader office before his assassination.

Ten years have passed since Ataullah's death, yet the case remains unsolved, with no identified perpetrator.

Furthermore, several Baha'i citizens in Hamadan were summoned and interrogated over the past few weeks.

The Baha'i International Community (BIC) has also reported the summoning and interrogation of 16 Baha'is from Isfahan.

The systematic persecution of the community reveals a chilling reality wherein the fundamental rights and freedoms of Baha'is are undermined.

"Baha'is are not only deprived of citizenship rights in Iran during their lifetime, but they are also deprived of human rights after death, and the deceased Baha'is and their families are harassed," a Baha'i citizen told IranWire.

The particular incident refers to the misconduct of Behesht-e Zahra cemetery authorities in burying the deceased in the Baha'i cemetery in Tehran.

Over the past year, Behesht-e Zahra has refused to release the bodies of Baha'is and has only allowed Baha'is to bury their dead in their own cemetery of Khavaran for a hefty fee.

As this fee collection lacked legal grounds and was enforced under pressure from the Ministry of Intelligence, many families of the deceased have refused to comply.

The most recent reported incident was the authorities refusing to release the body of Esfandiar Ghazanfari to his family for burial in the Baha'i cemetery in Tehran, with the deceased's body remaining in the morgue for over 20 days.

Finally, Artin Ghazanfari, the son of the deceased, revealed on his Instagram page that his father's body was taken and buried in Khavaran cemetery on March 1.

Authorities have allegedly buried the bodies of Baha'is in mass grave sites of political prisoners executed in the 1980s. This was reportedly done without informing families or performing religious ceremonies over the past year.

[theupfish]

One of the world's oldest and most persecuted religions is making a comeback

If you live in "the West," you might not have heard much about the Zoroastrian religion, outside of that memorable monologue in the first "Austin Powers" movie. But as priceless as that speech is, the Zoroastrian religion deserves to be known for more than just shaving Dr. Evil's balls. Actually, if you follow any Abrahamic faith, your religion owes its existence in part to Zoroastrianism.

Originating in Iran, Zoroastrianism is one of the world's oldest monotheistic religions. It's founder Zarathustra, AKA Zoroaster, lived some time between 1,500-1,000 BCE. He was one of the first in his part of the world to preach the idea of a single, non-corporal deity, as well as the idea of an eternal battle between good and evil. Fire factors into many Zoroastrian rituals, but they don't literally worship it, which is a common misconception.

In Hebrew school, my teachers taught us that ours was the first monotheistic religion. In my Hebrew teachers' defense, it was the 90s, and information was nowhere near as easy to come by as it is now; plus, half of them were in still high school themselves (our synagogue was tiny). In any case, Judaism took inspiration from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is to Judaism as "Dune" is to "Star Wars." And by extention, Christianity, Islam, Baha'ism, and the Druze religion have a bit of Zoroastrianism in them.

Zoroastrianism uh, declined after Islam became the main religion of Iran. Some Zoroastrians chose to remain in their homeland despite persecution. Others emigrated, and moved throughout the Middle East and South Asia before finally finding refuge in India. This group is now known as the Parsi people.

Freddie Mercury of Queen was a Zoroastrian Parsi.

Zoroastrianism has remained a small religion in numbers, not only due to the persecution, but also because like Judaism, Zoroastrianism has red tape for converts, which it doesn't seek out, and sometimes the kids of mixed marriages aren't counted as members of the faith. (Link)

However, Zoroastrianism is now making a comeback in Iran. The Islamic Republic of Iran has backfired, causing many Iranians to secretly leave Islam for other faiths. Since apostasy is punishable by death in Iran, the exact numbers of those who do so are hard to pinpoint, since they won't exactly broadcast it. Zoroastrianism, Baha'ism and Christianity are all popular choices, while many others are simply Atheist or Agnostic.

Zoroastrianism growing particularly among Kurds rediscovering their roots, and who particularly tend to feel disillusioned with Islam, what with the oppression and genocide and all that.

Many Iranian Muslims have a positive view of Zoroastrianism, recognizing its influence on their culture. Some more fundamentalist individuals on the other hand deny the identity and authenticity of this indigenous faith (And if you're Jewish, you're now saying to yourself, "Woa, deja vu!") But there are also many Muslim leaders who defend Zoroastrians, and call for peaceful coexistence.

And peaceful coexistence should always be the goal.

[ghelgheli]

I don't think now, at the time Iran is viciously defending against US imperialism, is the time to be making left-communist critiques of them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not some unimpeachable bastion of anti-imperialism in western asia and it is dangerous to withhold critique just because it is opposed to US hegemony. The IRI is a theocratic ethnostate pushing back against euro-american imperialism while enacting its own centuries-long imperialism on the ethnic and religious minorities that fall within and around its borders. On a weekly if not daily basis, the IRGC, the paramilitary basijis, as well as the regular police harass, arrest, and kill not only such minorities as Kurds, Balochs, and Ahwazi Arabs (don't have to look far for this), but also ethnic Persian political dissidents and gender and sexual minorities.

The history of the 1979 revolution speaks to the development and rise of Khomeinism in the 1970s as a bourgeoisie opportunism that claimed the martyrs of Iranian communists while at every turn promising the disenfranchised baazaaris the protection of their private property. The purge of the Mojahedin in the months after the revolution, the associated purge of all deemed communist, and the immediate suppression of Kurdish autonomy movements in the northwest, all form the legacy of Khomeinism. It is important to be honest about this, to be honest about the reformulation of institutional misogyny and the other ills of Pahlavi Iran under the IRI, while simultaneously recognizing that the revolution was successful in one thing: exorcising the puppeteering hands of the united states from the country. It is important not to fall into the trap of valorizing an imperial power, while understanding that the only liberatory future for the people on the plateau and surrounding regions is revolution from within and below, not external intervention. These are compatible and, indeed, complementary halves of a whole politic!

As a Tehrani, and particularly as an ethnic Persian/Iranian Azerbaijani (Iranian Azerbaijanis being subject to linguistic and cultural suppression, but nonetheless perhaps the most integrated minority), it strikes me as my responsibility to talk about this. And it is something I talk about regardless of what is going on. As an esoteric Shi'a, it especially seems like my responsibility to talk about what Khomeinism has wrought.

And all of that is to say nothing of the fact that in my post I was just critiquing left-Shi'a infatuation with Khomeinism qua ideology, with no mention of the IRI—whose relationship with Khomeinism is varied, nebulous, and I would say secondary to the three decades of theocratic nationalism that has developed since Khomeini's death.

[nicklloydnow]

“May I be permitted to say a few words? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic & Islamic History under William Montgomery Watt & Laurence Elwell Sutton, 2 of Britain ‘s great Middle East experts. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge & to teach Arabic & Islamic Studies at Newcastle University . Naturally, I am the author of several books & 100s of articles in this field.

I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs & that, for that reason, I am shocked & disheartened for a simple reason: there is not & has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality should anyone choose to visit Israel.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that many students are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, & that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

Hating Israel

Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel . I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies & myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a “Nazi” state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws?

None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When?

No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is a way to subvert historical fact. Likewise apartheid.

No Apartheid

For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled how things were in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a day in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous this is.

The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan & elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; or anyone else; the holy places of all religions are protected by Israeli law.

Free Arab Israelis

Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran , the Bahai’s (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran ?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews — something no blacks were able to do in South Africa.

Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews & Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

Women’s Rights

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men & women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays oftn escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.

It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel & say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief.

Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

(…)

I do not object to well-documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations.

(…)

Israeli citizens, Jews & Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations & call for no boycotts against Libya , Bahrain , Saudi Arabia , Yemen , & Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the ME that gives refuge to gay men & women, the only country in the ME that protects the Bahai’s…. Need I go on?

(…)

Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more.”

[buddhistmusings]

Let's remember to keep an eye on the human rights abuses in Iran.

The Butcher of Tehran may have died, but the Iranian government's attacks on it's people, and the stifling of women, gay people, and religious minorities, such as their indigenous Zoroastrian population and Persian Jews, continue.

Mahsa Amini is not the only victim of this regime, and her passing will not be in vain.

ایران آزاد!

[fromchaostocosmos]

In the war between Israel and Hamas, there have been far too many casualties­—thousands of innocent civilians have died, primarily in Gaza. But this war has another less visible casualty: the hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants to Israel from the Middle East and North Africa known as Mizrahi, whose history is being erased from the popular narrative about Israel. My community is among them.

When angry protesters hurl charges of apartheid and colonialism at Israel, they are, knowingly or not, repudiating the truth about Israel's origin and the vast racial and ethnic diversity of its nation.

I was born and raised in Iran in a family of Jewish educators. I came of age during the tumultuous years of the Iranian revolution, just as Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in 1979, and soon thereafter, annihilated his opposition­—feminists, leftists, even the Islamic Marxists who had long revered him as their spiritual leader. Until 1979, if anyone had told my observant Jewish family that we would someday leave Iran, we would have laughed. In fact, at our Passover seders, the words "next year in Jerusalem," were always followed by chuckles and quips, "oh, yeah, sure, Watch me pack!" all underlining our collective belief that we were exactly where we intended to remain. We loved Israel, but Israel was a Nirvana­—a place we revered but never expected to reach.

The 30 years preceding the Islamic revolution had led the Jewish community to believe that the dark days of bigotry were behind them. And for good reason! When my father was a schoolboy in the late 1930s, he was not allowed to attend school on rainy days. In the highly conservative town where he grew up, in Khonsar, his Shiite neighbors considered Jews "unclean," or Najes. They barred them, among other things, from leaving their homes on rainy days, lest the rainwater splashed off the bodies of the Jews and onto the Muslim passersby, thus making them "unclean," too. Yet, that same boy grew up, left the insular town, attended college in Tehran, earned a master's degree, and served in the royal army as a second lieutenant. (To his last day, my father's photo in military uniform was among his most prized possessions.) After service, he became the principal of a school, purchased a home in what was then a relatively upscale neighborhood of Tehran. The distance between my father's childhood and adulthood far surpassed two decades. It was the distance between two eras­—between incivility and civility, bigotry and tolerance.

Yet, as if on cue, the demon of antisemitism was unleashed again. The 1979 Islamic revolution summoned all the prejudices my father thought had been irretrievably buried. One day, on the wall across our home, graffiti appeared, "Jews gets lost!" Soon thereafter, the residence and fabric store my aunt and her extended family owned in my father's childhood town were set on fire after a mob of protesters looted it. Within days, she and her family, whose entire life's savings had burned in that fire, left for Israel. As young as I was, I could see that the regime was indiscriminately brutal to all those it deemed a threat to its reign, especially secular Muslims. But the new laws were specifically designed so that non-Muslims, and women, all but became second-class citizens. Members of religious minorities, especially the Baha'i, could no longer eye top jobs in academia, government, the military, etc. Restaurateurs had to display signs in their windows making clear that "the establishment was operated by a non-Muslim." In a court of law, members of religious minorities could offer testimony in criminal trials, but theirs would only count as half that of a Muslim witness. Jews were once again reduced to Dhimmis­—tax-paying citizens who were allowed to live, but not thrive. Then came a handful of executions of prominent Jewish leaders in the early months after the revolution, which sent shockwaves through the community. Jewish schools were allowed to operate, but under the headmastership of Muslims who were officially appointed.

Within a few years after the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini to power, the Jewish population of Iran, which once stood at 100,000, shrank to a fraction of its size. Today, of the ancient community whose presence in Iran predates that of Muslims, only 8,000 remain. For centuries, Iran has been home to the most sacred Jewish sites in the Middle East outside of Israel. But those monuments have either fallen into disrepair or are targets of regular attacks by antisemitic mobs. Only last week, the tomb of Esther and Mordecai­—the memorial to the heroine and hero from the Book of Esther who saved the Jews from being massacred in ancient Persia, was set on fire.

How is it that the 90,000-plus who left Iran, many for Israel, are now deemed as occupiers? How do Iranian refugees fleeing persecution become "colonizers" upon arrival in Israel? These families, my aunt among them, were not emissaries of any standing empire, nor were they returning to a place where they had no history. For them, Israel was not a home away from their real homeland. It was their only homeland. The vitriolic slogan that appeared across my home in 1979 demanded that we "get lost!" In 2024, once again, the same Jews are being called upon to leave, this time Israel. Where, then, are Jews allowed to live?

Iranian Jews were not alone. Jews from Iraq, especially in the aftermath of the 1941 pogrom called Farhood, similarly fled their homeland. So did the Jews of Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, Morocco, Algeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, etc. All, destitute and dejected, they took refuge in Israel. Today, they make up nearly 50 percent of Israel's population. To call such a nation colonial GRAVELY misrepresents the facts about Jews and Israel.

In his timeless essay, Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell said that in the Spain of 1937, he "saw history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various 'party lines.'" With the alarming rise of antisemitism around the world, and in light of the bloody attacks on Israel by Hamas on Oct. 7, the greatest massacre of Jews since World War II, 2024 bears an uncanny resemblance to Orwell's 1937. But perhaps in no way more ominously than the way truth has been upended to serve an ideological narrative­—one in which Jews, who have lived uninterruptedly in that land for more than two millennia, are cast as white non-indigenous interlopers, with no roots in what has always been their ancient homeland.

A public scholar at the Moynihan Center (CCNY), Roya Hakakian is the author of several books including, Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran (Crown, 2005).

[luminalunii97]

The Islamic Republic: we canceled the morality police!

Iranians: so?! Does that change the fact that you have committed genocide in Kurdish cities and Zahedan? Does that restore people's eyesight that you took from them with your rubble bullets? Does that bring back to life almost 500 murdered protesters in the last 3 months, among them at least 60 children? Does that bring back to life 1500 people you massacred in 2019 and those you executed afterwards? Or the 30000 people you executed in the first decade of your rule? And everyone you've arrested, raped, tortured and executed in between simply because they didn't agree with you? Does that mean current executions are stopped? Does that mean tens of thousands of arrested protesters are free? Does that mean fired or suspended students are back to classes and can get an education? Does that mean the poverty threshold is no longer so absolutely high that even the once above average families are considered absolutely poor? Does that erase 40 years of apartheid? State racism? State misogyny? Inequality? Have you stopped bothering religious minorities and are giving them their basic human rights back? Does that mean there's no more child marriages? Legal rape? Does that mean you no longer kill and torture LGBTQ people? Does that make up for the environmental disaster you've caused in Iran? Water shortage? Bewildering fuel shortage? All the lakes and water bodies that are dry now and the jungles that has been destroyed? Currently northern jungles are on fire, are the trees restored? Does that mean you no longer execute environmental activists because they object your unscientific environment policies? Does that mean all censorships and restrictions are lifted? Does that end your meddling in other countries affairs? Does it mean you're not a bunch of thieves and murderers who know nothing about running a country? Does that make up for all the lives you've destroyed? And most importantly does that bring Mahsa Amini back to life???

It's too late for that. Iranians have been loud and clear. We won't sit down until this regime is completely and irreversibly changed. The whole government system, the constitution, and the people in powers. And those who committed crimes have to be put on trial.

(The morality police have been around under different names for almost the entirety of this regime. This is just a temporary stop. Even if the morality police is disbanded for good, compulsory hijab is still a law and it's illegal to not wear appropriate clothing. Any police force is able to arrest non hijabis since they're doing something illegal, it's not an exclusive morality police duty. Plus the morality police was just enforcing hijab in the streets. What about every governmental and private offices and institutions? They all have to enforce mandatory hijab on both their employees and costumers So this news means literally nothing. West media should research these things better before publishing misleading informations)

I strongly recommend everyone to go to #MahsaAmini in twitter and read iranians tweets. Like, I strongly recommend it. I even put the link to make it easier for you. Just click on it.

[girlactionfigure]

hunting Jews: the truth about Hamas

SEPTEMBER 15, 2024

Islam is a religion.

Islamism is a political ideology.

Recently rescued Israeli hostage, Qaid Farhan Alkadi, an Israeli Bedouin Muslim, gave the following testimony:

Farhan’s testimony, along with a plethora of other evidence, only makes what we’ve been saying all along abundantly clear: Hamas is not a “resistance” group against oppression. Hamas is a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group that targets Jews.

ISLAMISM IS AN INHERENTLY ANTISEMITIC IDEOLOGY

Hamas is an Islamist terrorist group. What does this mean? 

Islamists believe that the doctrines of Islam should be congruent with those of the state. Islamists work to implement nation-states governed under Islamic Law (Sharia), emphasize pan-Islamic unity (in most cases, hoping for an eventual worldwide Islamic Caliphate, or empire), support the creation of Islamic theocracies, and reject all non-Muslim influences. For this reason, Islamists tend to portray themselves as “anti-imperialist,” while in truth they are striving to swap western imperialism with Islamic imperialism.

Islamist ideology can be traced back to Hassan al-Banna and the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928. Al-Banna viewed the 1924 dissolution of the last Islamic Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, and the European colonization of the Middle East, beginning with France’s 1830 occupation of Algeria, as an affront to Islam. The early 20th century was a period of rapid secularization in the Middle East, when Arab nationalism threatened to replace pan-Islamic identity with a pan-Arab identity. Al-Banna opposed all of this, hoping to return to “authentic” Islamic practice through the (re)establishment of the Islamic Caliphate.

Islamism is an antisemitic ideology. Islamists hate Jews -- and by extension, the Jewish state -- because of the Prophet Muhammad’s conflict with the Jewish tribes of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century. Islamistsbelieve that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in a struggle between Muslims and their “eternal enemies,” the Jews.

Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, viewed the dissolution of the last Islamic Caliphate (empire) and the secularization of the Muslim world as an affront to Islam.

ISLAMISM, DHIMMITUDE, AND THE JEWS

Islamists seek to revive “authentic Islamic practice,” by which they mean, essentially, that they wish to go back in time. This desire to turn back the clock puts them in conflict with Jews for two reasons:

During his earliest conquests, the Prophet Muhammad and his army came into fierce conflict with a number of Jewish tribes that had settled in Arabia, some of which had refused to convert to Islam and even accused Muhammad and his followers of appropriating figures from the Torah. For Islamists, this initial conflict between Jews and the earliest Muslims is “proof” that Jews are “eternal enemies” of Islam.

Following Muhammad’s death in 632, the Arab Islamic empires conquered lands exponentially quickly. As a result of this rapid colonization, the Muslim authorities were faced with the “problem” of how to handle the conquered Indigenous peoples that resisted conversion to Islam. This “problem” was solved with a treaty known as the Pact of Umar. This so-called treaty allowed select religious and cultural minorities, known as dhimmis, or “People of the Book,” to practice their beliefs so long as they paid the “jizya” tax and abided by a set of restrictive, second-class citizenship laws.

Under Islamist regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Jews are, to this day, still treated as dhimmis.

THE GENOCIDAL ANTISEMITISM OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

Hamas emerged as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, worshipped Adolf Hitler.

Like Hitler, al-Banna sought to exterminate all Jews…in his case, from the Middle East.

According to German documents from the period, in the 1940s, the Nazis trained some 700 members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nazi Germany heavily funded the Brotherhood, which contributed to its massive growth. In 1938, the Brotherhood had some 800 members. By the end of World War II, it had grown to a million members.

In 1939, Germany “transferred to al-Banna some E£1000 per month, a substantial sum at the time. In comparison, the Muslim Brotherhood fundraising for the cause of Palestine yielded E£500 for that entire year.”

Naturally, Nazism deeply influenced the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology. 

The father of Palestinian nationalism, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a prominent member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Yasser Arafat, the most influential Palestinian leader of all time, began his “career” fighting for the Muslim Brotherhood. Which brings us to Hamas. Hamas’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Ismail Hassan Yassin, was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and was responsible for establishing the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. In 1987, he founded Hamas.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s hatred for Jews goes far beyond its original Nazi affiliations. During the 1936-1939 Arab Revolt in Mandatory Palestine, during which Palestinian Arabs revolted against Jewish immigration and carried out a number of antisemitic massacres, the Muslim Brotherhood began disseminating antisemitic rhetoric, often targeting the Egyptian Jewish community.

Al-Nadhir, the Muslim Brotherhood’s magazine, published openly antisemitic articles, peddling conspiracy theories and demonizing the Egyptian Jewish community for its success in various industries. Notably, Al-Nadhir even called for the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, accusing Jews of “corrupting” Egypt and calling Jews a “societal cancer.” Al-Nadhir made boycott lists of Jewish businesses.

Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood’s antisemitism is not a relic of the past. Mohammed Badie, the Muslim Brotherhood’s present day “Supreme Guide,” believes Jews “spread corruption on earth” and calls for “holy jihad” as an antidote.

THE ORIGINAL HAMAS CHARTER: EXPLICITLY GENOCIDAL

Hamas’s founding 1988 charter is explicitly antisemitic and genocidal. Below are some excerpts:

“Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious.” -- Introduction

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." -- Article 7

“In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” -- Aritcle 15 

“With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.” -- Article 22

“Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people.” -- Article 28

BUT...HAMAS CHANGED THEIR CHARTER!

Some Hamas apologists will tell you that Hamas no longer intends to exterminate all Jews, because in 2017, they “replaced their [openly genocidal] charter.” Well, lucky for you, Hamas is here to set the record straight. See, after releasing their “new” charter, Hamas co-founder Mahmoud al-Zahar assured the media that the 2017 document did not replace their original 1988 charter.

The 2017 document was thus not a “new” charter from a “reformed” Hamas, but rather, a propaganda document aimed at redeeming Hamas’s image to the west.

Since 2017, Hamas has made openly genocidal calls toward Jews. For example: 

In 2018, Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV media channel predicted “the cleansing of Palestine of the filth of the Jews.”

In 2019, Hamas Political Bureau member Fathi Hammad said, “You seven million Palestinians abroad, enough warming up! There are Jews everywhere! We must attack every Jew on planet Earth –- we must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help.” In 2021, Hammad called, via Al-Aqsa TV, for the Palestinians in Jerusalem to “cut off the heads of the Jews.”

In May of 2021, the leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar, led a rally in which the crowd was encouraged to chant, "We will trample on the heads of the Jews in front of everyone..."

ISLAMIST INFLUENCE ON PALESTINIAN NATIONALISM

The earliest Arab nationalists in Palestine were not necessarily Islamists. Falastin, an influential anti-Zionist, Arab nationalist newspaper, was founded by two Palestinian Christians in 1911. Khalil Beidas, who was the first Arab to identify as Palestinian, in 1898, was a Christian. Nevertheless, the Palestinian nationalist movement soon fell under the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Initially, Palestinian Arab nationalists advocated for a unified Arab state in Greater Syria. In 1920, Haj Amin al-Husseini began advocating for an independent Palestinian Arab state. To draw people to his cause, which was not yet well-known to the average population, he began emphasizing the importance of Palestine to Islam, and particularly the importance of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Soon, he began disseminating the libel that the Jews intended to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque. This libel has cost thousands of Jewish lives and is spread widely to this day.

Early on, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt adopted the Palestinian cause. After World War II, Haj Amin al-Husseini, who had spent the war working as a propagandist for the Nazis in Berlin, escaped to Egypt with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood fought against the State of Israel in 1948, along with other Islamist militias, such as the Army of the Holy War. Among its fighters were Yasser Arafat. In the 1960s, Arafat came under the influence of the Soviet Union and shifted his image to that of a communist counterrevolutionary, as opposed to an Islamist, though his rhetoric in Arabic continued emphasizing the importance of jihad and Al-Aqsa Mosque to the Palestinian movement. Nevertheless, after Islamic Revolution in Iran, after which the Islamic Republic adopted the Palestinian movement, and with the establishment of Hamas and groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Palestinian nationalism has once again been undergone an Islamization.

rootsmetals

as always: this post is not an endorsement of any given Israeli policy or politician. You can be highly critical of Israel’s handling of the situation without obfuscating or whitewashing the origins and goals of this ideology. It always, always came down to antisemitism. I won’t engage with straw man arguments in the comments 😗

MAIN SOURCES on Instagram

[leroibobo]

some notes on specifically "middle eastern" (mashriqi + iran, caucuses, and turkey) jewish communities/history:

something to keep in mind: judaism isn't "universalist" like christianity or islam - it's easier to marry into it than to convert on your own. conversions historically happened, but not in the same way they did for european and caucasian christians/non-arab muslims.

that being said, a majority of middle eastern jews descend from jewish population who remained in palestine or immigrated/were forced (as is the case with "kurdish" jews) from palestine to other areas and mixed with locals/others who came later (which at some point stopped). pretty much everywhere in the middle east and north africa (me/na) has/had a jewish population like this.

with european jews (as in all of them), the "mixing" was almost entirely during roman times with romans/greeks, and much less later if they left modern-day greece/italy.

(none of this means jewish people are or aren't "indigenous" to palestine, because that's not what that word means.)

like with every other jewish diaspora, middle eastern jewish cultures were heavily influenced by wherever they ended up. on a surface level you can see this in things like food and music.

after the expulsion of jews from spain and portugal, sephardim moved to several places around the world; many across me/na, mostly to the latter. most of the ones who ended up in the former went to present-day egypt, palestine, lebanon, syria, and turkey. a minority ended up in iraq (such as the sassoons' ancestors). like with all formerly-ottoman territories, there was some degree of back and forth between countries and continents.

some sephardim intermarried with local communities, some didn't. some still spoke ladino, some didn't. there was sometimes a wealth gap between musta'arabim and sephardim, and/or they mostly didn't even live in the same places, like in palestine and tunisia. it really depends on the area you're looking at.

regardless, almost all the jewish populations in the area went through "sephardic blending" - a blending of local and sephardic customs - to varying degrees. it's sort of like the cultural blending that came with spanish/portugese colonization in central and south america (except without the colonization).

how they were treated also really depends where/when you're looking. some were consistently dealt a raw hand (like "kurdish" and yemenite jews) while some managed to do fairly well, all things considered (like baghdadi and georgian jews). most where somewhere in between. the big difference between me/na + some balkan and non-byzantine european treatment of jews is due to geography - attitudes in law regarding jews in those areas tended to fall into different patterns.

long story short: most european governments didn't consider anyone who wasn't "christian" a citizen (sometimes even if they'd converted, like roma; it was a cultural/ethnic thing as well), and persecuted them accordingly; justifying this using "race science" when religion became less important there after the enlightenment.

most me/na and the byzantine governments considered jews (and later, christians) citizens, but allowed them certain legal/social opportunities while limiting/banning/imposing others. the extent of both depend on where/when you're looking but it was never universally "equal".

in specifically turkey, egypt, palestine, and the caucuses, there were also ashkenazi communities, who came mainly because living as a jew in non-ottoman europe at the time sucked more than in those places. ottoman territories in the balkans were also a common destination for this sort of migration.

in the case of palestine, there were often religious motivations to go as well, as there were for some other jews who immigrated. several hasidic dynasites more or less came in their entirety, such as the lithuanian/polish/hungarian ones which precede today's neutrei karta.

ashkenazi migration didn't really happen until jewish emancipation in europe for obvious reasons. it also predates zionism - an initially secular movement based on contemporaneous european nationalist ideologies - by some centuries.

most ashkenazi jews today reside in the us, while most sephardic or "mizrahi" jews are in occupied palestine. there, the latter outnumber the former. you're more likely to find certain groups (like "kurds" and yemenites) in occupied palestine than others (like persians and algerians) - usually ones without a western power that backed them from reactionary antisemitic persecution and/or who came from poorer communities. (and no, this doesn't "justify" the occupation).

(not to say there were none who immigrated willingly/"wanted" to go, or that none/all are zionist/anti-zionist. (ben-gvir is of "kuridsh" descent, for example.) i'm not here to parse motivations.)

this, along with a history of racism/chauvinism from the largely-ashkenazi "left", are why many mizrahim vote farther "right".

(in some places, significant numbers of the jewish community stayed, like turkey, tunisia, and iran. in some others, there's evidence of double/single-digit and sometimes crypto-jewish communities.)

worldwide, the former outnumber the latter. this is thought to be because of either a medieval ashkenazi population boom due to decreased population density (not talking about the "khazar theory", which has been proven to be bullshit, btw) or a later, general european one in the 18th/19th centuries due to increased quality of life.

the term "mizrahi" ("oriental", though it doesn't have the same connotation as in english) in its current form comes from the zionist movement in the 1940s/50s to describe me/na jewish settlers/refugees.

(i personally don't find it useful outside of israeli jewish socio-politics and use it on my blog only because it's a term everyone's familiar with.)

about specifically palestinian jews:

the israeli term for palestinian jews is "old yishuv". yishuv means settlement. this is in contrast to the "new yishuv", or settlers from the initial zionist settlement period in 1881-1948. these terms are usually used in the sense of describing historical groups of people (similar to how you would describe "south yemenis" or "czechoslovaks").

palestinian jews were absorbed into the israeli jewish population and have "settler privilege" on account of their being jewish. descendants make up something like 8% of the israeli jewish population and a handful (including, bafflingly, netanyahu and smoltrich) are in the current government.

they usually got to keep their property unless it was in an "arab area". there's none living in gaza/the west bank right now unless they're settlers.

their individual views on zionism vary as much as any general population's views vary on anything.

(my "palestinian jews" series isn't intended to posit that they all think the same way i do, but to show a side of history not many people know about. any "bias" only comes from the fact that i have a "bias" too. this is a tumblr blog, not an encyclopedia.)

during the initial zionist settlement period, there were palestinian/"old yishuv" jews who were both for zionism and against it. the former have been a part of the occupation and its government for pretty much its entire history.

some immigrated abroad before 1948 and may refer to themselves as "syrian jews". ("syria" was the name given to syria/lebanon/palestine/some parts of iraq during ottoman times. many lebanese and palestinian christians emigrated at around the same time and may refer to themselves as "syrian" for this reason too.)

ones who stayed or immigrated after for whatever reason mostly refer to themselves as "israeli".

in israeli jewish society, "palestinian" usually implies muslims and christians who are considered "arab" under israeli law. you may get differing degrees of revulsion/understanding of what exactly "palestine"/"palestinians" means but the apartheid means that palestinian =/= jewish.

because of this, usage of "palestinian" as a self-descriptor varies. your likelihood of finding someone descendent from/with ancestry from the "old yishuv" calling themselves a "palestinian jew" in the same way an israeli jew with ancestry in morocco would call themselves a "moroccan jew" is low.

(i use it on here because i'm assuming everyone knows what i mean.)

samaritans aren't 'jewish', they're their own thing, though they count as jewish under israeli law.

[mapsontheweb]

Religious minorities of Iran.

by atlas_cartography

[swiftsnowmane]

Baha’is are the largest unrecognized religious minority in Iran. They have been the target of harsh, state-backed repression since their religion was established in the 19th century. After the 1979 revolution, Iranian authorities executed or forcibly disappeared hundreds of Baha’is, including their community leaders. Thousands more have lost their jobs and pensions or were forced to leave their homes or country. For the past four decades, the authorities’ serial violations of Baha’is’ rights have continued, directed by the state’s most senior officials and the Islamic Republic’s ideology, which holds extreme animus against adherents of the Baha’i faith. While the intensity of violations against Baha’is has varied over time, the authorities’ persecution of people who are members of this faith community has remained constant, impacting virtually every aspect of Baha’is’ private and public lives.  In recent years, as Iranian authorities have brutally repressed widespread protests demanding fundamental political, economic, and social change in the country, the authorities have also targeted Baha’is. Authorities have raided Baha’i homes, arrested dozens of Baha’i citizens and community leaders, and confiscated property owned by Baha’is. Iranian authorities have intentionally and severely deprived Baha’is of their fundamental rights. Authorities have denied Baha’is’ their rights to freedom of religion and political representation. They have arbitrarily arrested and prosecuted members of the Baha’i community due to their faith. Authorities routinely trample on Baha’is’ rights to education, employment, property, and dignified burial. The Islamic Republic’s repression of Baha’is, particularly after 1979, is enshrined in Iranian law and is official government policy.

Read the full report here.

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Michael Rubin

Secretary of State Antony Blinken smells like desperation. After meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for more than two hours, Blinken said the current proposal to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and win the release of Hamas-held hostages is "maybe the last" opportunity.

Blinken is wrong. The last opportunity to win a ceasefire and release Hamas captives came when he agreed to negotiate with a terrorist group whose covenant embraces genocide and whose ideology envisions Islamic rule with religious and sexual minorities condemned to second-class status if not slavery or death.

When diplomats fall back on process, too often they lose sight of the forest through the trees. The fact remains: Hamas invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, during a ceasefire to which the terrorist group had agreed. Its members raped, slaughtered, and took civilians hostage. The return of those hostages should always have been the precondition to negotiations rather than the conclusion. If Palestinians in Gaza did not want to see their territories' collateral destruction, they could return hostages under their control or inform about their whereabouts. This is not farfetched considering that Hamas has kept hostages in supposedly civilian hospitals, in private homes, and even with U.N. employees.

To negotiate with Hamas over its blatant violation of humanitarian law not only empowers Hamas, but it permanently degrades international law.

Blinken's second mistake was his choice of mediator. A good rule of thumb: Never place strategic interests in a mediator ideologically committed to your destruction. Egyptians may be aloof and, as the tunnels under the Philadelphi Corridor show, double-dealing, but Qatar too often uses its vast wealth to promote the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology that at its core rejects all aspects of Western liberalism and democracy.

Blinken has also tried to include Turkey in any post-conflict order. This, too, is bizarre. Years of pandering to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan combined with the Turkish despot's similar Muslim Brotherhood-infused ideology makes Turkey far less a partner for peace than an undesignated sponsor of terrorism. To offer Erdogan influence over post-Hamas Gaza would be akin to putting white supremacist David Duke in charge of post-apartheid South Africa.

Blinken's third mistake is treating the Palestinian Authority as a moderate alternative to Hamas. Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is now in the third decade of his four-year presidential term. As Blinken has restored funding to Abbas, Abbas has shown his true colors. Speaking in Turkey just the other day, Abbas declared, "America is the plague and the plague is America."

There is no substitute for moral clarity. Moral compromise, meanwhile, substitutes groveling for justice.

After Iran released its 52 American hostages on President Ronald Reagan's first day in office, former Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher published a collection of essays by Carter administration alumni crowing triumphant for their success. Their thesis? The persistence of diplomacy led Ayatollah Khomeini to release his prisoners. Peter Rodman, a former Kissinger aide, responded in an article that Christopher and crew got it backward: The Islamic Republic let its hostages go when the cost of their captivity grew too high to bear.

Rather than pressure Netanyahu and have aides, underlings, and surrogates slime a duly elected leader, Blinken should be introspective. Had Blinken at every opportunity not indulged Hamas's conceits or played into the agenda of the group's enablers such as Qatar and Turkey, the hostages today might be free and the Hamas-imposed war over. President Joe Biden's base might hand wring and indulge in an orgy of antisemitism, but the road to peace rests on bringing so much pain to bear on Hamas that it has no choice but to release its captives and end its reign of terrorism over Gaza's 2.5 million Palestinians.

[humansofnewyork]

Iran is the first country outside the US where I ever collected interviews. I remember how nervous I was. This was over ten years ago. There hadn’t been a nuclear deal yet. I didn’t have a ‘fixer.’ I hadn’t even been working long enough to know what a ‘fixer’ was. I’d been assigned a full-time personal tour guide—a requirement for all Americans. He’d prepared a packed itinerary of museums and historical sites for us to visit. I still remember his surprise when I said: ‘Actually, I just want to stop random people on the street.’ But miraculously he agreed to the pivot. And over the next ten days we approached well over one hundred people. I’d spent so much time worrying that no Iranian would want to speak to an American with a camera. But of the hundred people I approached—only three refused my request. That’s the first thing you notice: the hospitality. The average Iranian is so welcoming: please come in and eat, please sit and have tea. It’s why I returned for a second time in 2016. There’s an openness there. A long history of humanism, art, and scientific discovery; it’s baked deep in the culture. But that openness is suppressed by an empowered minority. Iran is not a country that looks or sounds like its leaders. It’s much more youthful. Much more liberal. And it’s much, much more female. The current protests are being led by young women, of course. Because they’re living under laws created by old religious men. At the end of my first trip, I was getting frantic emails from well-meaning people, warning me to leave. Hardline journalists had begun calling for me to be stopped, from the unspeakable sin—of photographing Iranian women. It can be difficult to know exactly what is happening in Iran right now. We know the government is struggling to crack down on the largest protests they’ve ever seen. We know that many young women have been killed. It can be hard to know how to help. But in a letter to The Times this weekend, A. Maziar Zafari said the protestors need support from ‘all artists in open and democratic societies.’ So I’d like to say, especially to the young women risking the most: we see you, we hear you, and you continue to inspire us.

[curtwilde]

i have a genuine question, what is arab colonisation? Is it a real thing? The context where I have read about it was a bigoted islamophic hindutvabadi page so I don't know if it's true or just part of their larger lie. Do you have any readings, sources on it?

According to Marriam Abboud Hourani, Arabization is a sociological process of cultural change in which a non-Arab society becomes Arab, meaning it either directly adopts or becomes strongly influenced by the Arabic language and culture. After the rise of Islam in Hejaz, there were a series of conquests in the Middle East and North Africa, after which the Rashidun Caliphate, the first Muslim empire was established. Arab culture spread through the Middle East and North Africa along with the spread of Islam, and in some places pre-Islamic religions and cultures were violently suppressed. These days, most Islamic countries have reconciled elements of their older traditions with Islam. The older religions survive among minorities in some places - Christians, Kurds, Ezidis and Mizrahi Jews for example and are still oppressed under some Islamic fundamentalist countries, like Iran.

Often, the term Arabization or Arab colonialism is used interchangeably with Islamic fundamentalism. On paper they mean entirely different things. However, in reality Islamic fundamentalists revere Arabic culture because the Quran was written in Arabic and events of the Quran are set in Arabia. The difference between the two is a slippery slope and I will let you decide on that.

The term colonization is such a red herring these days and is used to fit a lot of problematic narratives. It is a favourite with zionists, which is probably where these hindutvadis picked it up. And if you come across it on the internet I'd advise you to re-examine the source as they may have an anti-Muslim bias. That said, Islamic fundamentalism is very much a real thing and I wholeheartedly believe that any form of religious fundamentalism, and especially those fundamentalists that try to gain administrative and jurisdictional power for themselves, are a problem. All government and administrative bodies, across the world, should be compulsorily secular.

Now, in the context of South Asia, Arabization in it's strict meaning of the word, has nothing to do with our geopolitical history. Our Muslim rulers were all of Turkish, Afghan, and Central Asian origins with no connection to Arabia. Even culturally, elements of Indian Muslim culture can be traced back to Persia rather than Arabia; and linguistically the Persian influence on Hindi/Urdu is obvious. The term Arab colonization is often used by hindutvadis to mean the spread Islam in the subcontinent but of course they see the Islamic world as a monolith and I doubt they have the reading comprehension to know the difference even if they bothered to look it up.

Books:

The History of the Middle East by Peter Mansfield is a great place to start.

Islam, a short history by Karen Armstrong - very quick read + unbiased take on the Arab conquests.

The Arabization of Islam by Al Mubarak Nadir Shabaz

History of North Africa by Charles Andre Julien

From the holy mountain: a journey among the Christians of the Middle East by William Dalrymple

The Kurds: a contemporary history by Patrick S. Clancy

The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon for a general idea of colonization.

Mutuals if you have any other recommendations please feel free to add.

[mariacallous]

Even Israel’s friends overseas often have trouble understanding its conduct in the Israel-Hamas war and its ancillary conflicts with Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis. While some may be forgiving about the high numbers of civilian casualties as an inevitable part of urban warfare, it is harder for many to swallow Israel’s reluctance to allow enough humanitarian aid to reach Gaza or its seeming indifference to the massive collateral deaths involved in rescuing hostages and targeting Hamas leaders. Many are mystified by Israel’s willingness to risk what could be a devastating war with Lebanon’s Hezbollah or Iran. The back-to-back assassinations at the end of July of senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh were unusual displays of state violence by the standards of any government, much less one that regards itself as a liberal democracy.

Israel has traditionally taken an aggressive military stance toward its enemies. But in the 10 months since the outbreak of the war in Gaza it has become more lethal than ever—killing some 40,000 people in Gaza alone. Israel’s harshest critics assert that its purpose is to destroy the last vestiges of Palestinian nationalism—or worse, to commit genocide against Palestinians. But the real explanation for the change is more complicated.

The aim of Israel’s ultra-nationalist right is, in fact, to make life unbearable for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. However, only a small minority of Israelis hold such extreme views, and the far-right ministers who echo them have little or no say over war policy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been careful to keep that under his personal control with a handful of like-minded officials.

Where the extreme right does have an impact—and mostly an indirect one—is on humanitarian issues. Far-right leaders don’t have so much a war strategy as a desire to see Palestinians suffer and for the war to go on. Anxious to ensure that the extreme right remains in the governing coalition, Netanyahu has bent to their will by taking a tough line on cease-fire negotiations and has only enabled sufficient humanitarian aid to reach Gaza when international pressure left him no choice. As Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the leader of the rightist Religious Zionist Party, told a conference of rightists on Aug. 5, he would have no problem allowing the people of Gaza to starve. “We bring in aid because there is no choice,” he explained by way of an apology to his audience.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has allowed inhumane conditions at the Sde Teiman detention facility for Palestinians arrested in the war to fester by refusing to move inmates to the civilian facilities under his control. He called nine soldiers suspected of sexually abusing a prisoner at Sde Teiman “our best heroes” and may have told police to back off when rightist extremists tried to block their arrest by military police last month.

To a degree, a desire for punishment and revenge is shared by the troops in Gaza, including the vast majority who have no use for the extreme right. The atrocities of Oct. 7, which remain very much alive in the Israeli consciousness, have inevitably left many soldiers at best indifferent to Palestinian suffering and at worst out for revenge. The military advocate general, Maj. Gen. Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, said in June that she was investigating some 70 cases of alleged wrongdoing, and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Some observers contend that Israelis have become more violent, or at least more tolerant of violence. Certainly, among extremist settlers violence toward Palestinians has grown and is regarded as a legitimate tool to further their political ends. But even among settlers, they represent a small minority. Overall, the rate of violent crime in Israel is low by developed-country standards and until last year had been falling.

In all events, the actions of soldiers on the ground in Gaza don’t explain what is clearly a change in Israeli policy at the top. Here, the decisions made by Israel’s political and military leaders to order assassinations, bomb the Houthi-controlled port of Hodeidah at a cost of 80 Yemeni lives for one Israeli, or risk war with Iran reflect a new realpolitik.

In the wake of their momentous victory in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Israelis had gradually come to feel that their country’s existence was no longer imperiled. It was a gradual process that developed as one Arab country after another either reached peace agreements with Israel and acknowledged its existence (Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Morocco) or lost the capability to mount a war (Syria). Normalization with Saudi Arabia looked to be on the horizon. The rise of the high-tech economy, growing foreign investment, and two decades of buoyant economic growth that turned Israel into a powerful and prosperous economy seemed to confirm that. The talk turned into how to “contain” the Palestinian conversation because no solution was needed.

This Weltanschauung had practical effects. From the early 1990s, defense spending as a share of gross domestic product declined. Of the three pillars of its defense strategy—victory in war, deterrence, and intelligence—Israel abandoned the first, allowed the second to erode, and therefore became overly reliant on the third. From the 1980s, Israel’s wars with unconventional forces never ended in decisive victory. With that, Israel’s ability to deter its enemies waned, as evidenced by Hamas’s willingness to repeatedly go to war with Israel from 2008 on. In place of decisive victory and effective deterrence, Israel came to rely more and more on defensive measures—walls, fences, and high-tech early-warning systems.

Israel paid a steep price for these policies on Oct. 7. Even if it quickly turned back the Hamas attack, Iran and its proxies appreciated the magnitude of the intelligence and organizational failure. Hezbollah began attacks over Israel’s northern border just a day later and the Houthis were soon firing missiles and drones at Red Sea shipping and Israel itself. In April, Iran crossed a red line in its long-running conflict with Israel by staging for the first time a direct missile and drone attack rather than using proxies.

The “total victory” that Netanyahu promises is unlikely to ever be achieved against Hamas, much less against Hezbollah or Iran. Restoring Israel’s deterrent ability is a more realistic goal, but not a painless one. Facing non-state actors with an ideological commitment to ending Israel’s existence, it is not enough to demonstrate effective defensive capabilities. It requires a willingness to strike out even in response to relatively small provocations and to go on the offensive.

For policymakers and public opinion in the United States and Europe, Israel’s recent actions seem dangerous and disproportionate, and there is no denying they risk sparking a regional war. But Israel doesn’t have very good choices. Despite its image as an always-triumphant military power, it is worthwhile remembering that Israel is a small country in terms of population, geography, and economy. It cannot afford to be taken by surprise, fight long wars, or maintain a heightened defense posture indefinitely. Israel now fully appreciates that for every new friend it has in the region, it has an implacable enemy. The Middle East remains a tough place.

The ordinary Israeli isn’t party to the calculations behind restoring deterrence. Public opinion nevertheless backs the country’s newly aggressive stance for more existential reasons.

The Hamas attack of Oct. 7 did not pose a fundamental threat to Israel, but its psychological impact was profound. For Israelis, the images of terrorists engaged in an orgy of murder, rape, and kidnapping were a tangible reminder that the threat to Israel’s existence was not idle talk by its enemies and that the consequences of even a brief moment of failure to secure the country’s borders would be severe. The months of pummeling of the country’s north by Hezbollah rockets, drones, and anti-tank missiles and the Iranian missile barrage in April have given Israelis a taste of how the end may come.

Yossi Klein Halevi captured the new national mood in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed: “Even as we maintain the pretense of daily life, a part of us is permanently alert. We tell ourselves that we’re steady and joke about the apocalypse, because that’s the Israeli way. But during one recent sleepless night, I literally jumped when a passing motorcycle sounded like an explosion.”

Opinion surveys bear that out. An Israel Democracy Institute poll found that those expressing optimism about the future of Israel’s national security had dropped from close to 47 percent in November 2023, when the war in Gaza appeared to be going well, to 31 percent in June. Another recent survey by the Institute for National Security Studies showed that just a quarter of Israelis have a high or very high sense of personal security.

Israel faces a unique threat among nations at war or threatened with it. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping would like to erase Ukraine and Taiwan, respectively, from the map, but neither wants to destroy or expel the Ukrainian or Taiwanese people. Not that life would likely be pleasant under their rule, but the Ukrainians or Taiwanese would be allowed to remain in their homes and live their lives, albeit as Russian and Chinese citizens. These are (or will be) wars of empire and conquest. Israel faces the threat of existence. For a time, Israelis thought otherwise—they no longer do.

[butchpeace]

Here’s what I think about the discussion surrounding pride.

Do I think there should be public indecency or kink at pride? No. Do I think corporations and alcohol companies should get the hell out of our parades? Yes.

Do I like the fact that so many straight people think it’s a fun conversation to talk shit about pride parades or pride month? Not at all. Because that rhetoric is coming from the conservative media, and it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what they really want to say.

Conservative politicians and influencers have a proven track record of saying things that feel reasonable on the surface, getting people on their side, and then upping the ante once they have their claws in you.

We could lose gay marriage. Look what’s happening to abortion. Conservatives right now talk big about how they’re “cool with the gays, but the trans and kink stuff goes too far”. They talk big about how TIMs especially are sexual predators.

How long do you think it’s gonna take for their goalposts to shift after they ban gender transition for kids? How long until the government goes after gay rights? How long until they start shifting the conversation and indoctrinating people into the belief that gay people are predators?

We still live in a predominantly Christian country. All abrahamic religions are homophobic at their core, or have homophobic sects. And even without religion, people tend to hate what they don’t understand. Laws or no laws, we’re still being discriminated against. We’re still losing our jobs. We’re still being bullied and called slurs.

We don’t actually have equality until we’re treated with respect by everyone we meet.

Just the fact that transition is happening so much is connected to how conservative and religious this country has become. There are parents out there who would rather their kids transition than just be gay. Many transitioning people have religious trauma in the list of causes for their transition. You know where else in the world that’s happening? Iran.

We think the US is so progressive, so we agree with people who say it’s “progressed too much”, but is that really what’s happened? Transition, at least in homosexuals, is regressive. And we will go back to the stone age of “protecting the nuclear family from the lavender menace” if conservatives get their way.

And here’s the thing - There’s probably a reason they’re only going after transition for minors. They’re probably not going to ban it for adults. First of all because transition is big business, and second of all because it actually benefits their ideology for us to trans the gay away.

Maybe your conservative uncle or neighbor will still be okay with gay people. But what about your nieces and nephews? What about all these kids now who are getting brainwashed by the conservative influencers on social media? It only takes one generation to send us backwards by decades.

So yeah, I think pride should be more kid friendly, and we should keep people with creepy motives out. But I also don’t think someone wearing leather or a dog collar is the biggest problem in our community right now, and I sure as hell won’t be buddy buddy with conservatives when I know for a fact many of them are lying through their teeth when they say they support us.

In reality, most straight conservative people who parrot these complaints have never been to a pride parade, and don’t want to. They have no need to be involved. So it’s suspicious to me to see them criticizing our community like it’s just some hot topic to gossip about.

The conservatives spreading this rhetoric are just saying what they think they can get away with, and they’ll start saying shit about gays again too when it becomes acceptable.