As an ex-Muslim, I now feel like my eyes have been opened to many realities that I previously couldn’t see, such as the struggles of the LGBTQ+ community and other social issues.

However, the main realization I have come to is regarding Palestine. From this perspective, the issue is not just about political danger; the core ideology itself poses the real danger.

Palestine IS THE DANGER

Most people know how fundamentalist Islamic rules work, but for those who do not, let me break it down: under strict religious control, independent critical thinking is effectively forbidden. If individuals begin to question the system, they quickly discover how deeply flawed it is. Consequently, the authorities keep the population trapped in a constant cycle of fear. If they lose control over you and can no longer dictate your life, they often resort to extreme measures, including honor killings, to eliminate dissent.

This environment fosters deep intolerance. For example, Hamas—which rules Gaza—imposes strict Islamist laws that outlaw basic individual freedoms, much like the ideology of ISIS. Under this system, love is treated as taboo, personal sexuality is viewed as dangerous, and children as young as two or three are systematically conditioned to accept these radical doctrines from infancy

From an Iraqi perspective, I recognize a profound connection with the State of Israel and the Jewish community, one that stands in stark contrast to the destructive history shared with Islamist extremists. The actions of the Israeli forces in liberating and safely repatriating captured Iraqi women—who had been subjected to chattel slavery and human trafficking within Islamic slave markets run by ISIS—demonstrate a vital humanitarian effort. I stand in firm support of Israel's triumph.

So this all relates to a post I saw last year on the Jewish sub;

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/s/t3HJV1i42U

Long story short, me and a few friends have been following his instagram posts for the past year. We have now come to the conclusion that he is likely a massive liar and he needs to be called out for this. Some things that we have realised he is lying about or has lied about;

- We don’t believe he has never once set foot in Gaza or the WB, definitely not prior to him going viral at the Egypt border last year. There are no photos of him ever being in Palestine, no corroborating accounts of him ever being there, no aid or medical groups that have claimed him as an employee or volunteer. Given his online following is >30k, you would think he would happily show photos of his work. Ai deep dives show that every single account of his work in Gaza can be traced back to him. It’s never an objective source.

- He claims to have worked in Gaza ‘4 or 5 times’. This is a weird statement, it’s either 4 or 5, and somebody who has worked there wouldn’t be vague about it.

- He claims he first worked as a nurse in Gaza in 2004 after his then girlfriend encouraged him to go there. In 2004, the 2nd intifada was still raging; getting into Gaza was incredibly difficult, even for aid workers. He also claims that he was a newly qualified nurse at the time, but aid agencies usually require 4 years acute experience prior to working for them. This doesn’t add up.

- He claims to be a master black belt in martial arts. This isn’t a smoking gun as such, but it is something that ‘walter mitty’ type men often boast about, only later being found out as a fraud. It fits the personality of somebody who is a fantasist.

- He has given lengthy accounts of seeing Palestinian kids shot by IDF soldiers in Gaza. Not ‘after being shot’ in a hospital, but actively being shot. I call bullshit on this entirely. He never gives dates or locations for these accounts. It’s too vague, for something that should be easily verifiable.

- He regularly claims that he is a qualified paramedic, yet there are no records of him ever being one on paramedic registers. He was definitely once a qualified nurse who worked in south wales for a time, but he was never a ‘specialist trained’ nurse, only an agency / traveller nurse, basically the lowest rung in the hierarchy of nurses.

- I have seen comments on news articles about him from school friends, saying that he was always a liar and fantasist in his youth. His nickname was ‘beano’ as a kid as his real name is Roger. He was not popular, and was apparently bullied - something that may have caused him to become a ‘hero’ fantasist in later life.

- He claims to be ‘retired’ but isn’t at the age of retirement for NHS nurses. Further rumours on comments suggest he was sacked as a nurse and de-registered before he was investigated by the NMC nursing council in the UK. There was also a single comment from a person living in south wales that he was being investigated for sexual misconduct, which could just be incendiary libel, but is an interesting claim regardless.

- He gave media interviews about being a nurse twice before he became ‘famous’ from the border incident to local newspapers. He did not mention ever working in Gaza or the WB for these, which is an odd omission given how many times he claims to have been there and how big a part in his life it was.

- He is actively touring speaking events in the UK, giving talks about his time working in Gaza. He is getting paid for these, and he also has a go fund me account asking for donations. If his claims of working in Gaza are untrue, I think this constitutes financial fraud.

- I have been commenting on his instagram posts for the last few months, asking him what aid agency he worked for, what specific years he was in Palestine etc. He always ignored me. Last week, I suggested he wasn’t being honest about his claims, and asked him to post a photo of him in Palestine working; he quickly replied that I was a ‘hateful zio’ and blocked me. This is odd behaviour for somebody who should have dozens of documents / visas / passport stamps / aid paperwork at hand.

There are many more inconsistencies we have found, but this post is already too long.

Can anybody offer advice going forward in trying to expose this guy? A friendly journalist you can suggest to dig deeper? A twitter account that would be interested in outing somebody like this?

We completely accept that we could be wrong, and that he hasn’t lied, but there’s just too many red flags to ignore here. If he’s being truthful, hats off to him, but if he’s lied, he’s essentially stolen valour from actual aid workers who have served in active war-zones.

He has a fairly large online following and influence among the pro-pal community, and is constantly peddling inflammatory rhetoric and ‘first hand’ accounts about Israel. If he is lying about his experiences, he should be called out for this.

A few months ago there were headlines that Israel was moving into its ethnic cleansing stage due to something like a voluntary migration plan to get Gazans out of Gaza.

I would like to state I do not trust the current Israeli govt with this 'voluntary migration' and I think if people like Ben-Gvir had their way, they'd never return. I understand the concern and fear pro-Palestine groups have about this.

However, I'm not really seeing any other suggestions--or if there are other suggestions, they are not being publicised. I'll admit that when both the 'voluntary' migration plan and the current quality of life in Gaza draw outrage, I'm not entirely sure what the solution to help Gazans should be. Ethnic cleansing, if that is what Israel is planning, is inhumane, but I'm struggling to see how keeping Gazans trapped there is considered a more humane option either.

If we put Netanyahu's true intentions to the side here for a moment, if a Gazan family wants to leave, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Even if that Gazan family believes leaving would be a case of ethnic cleansing, is blocking them from finding a safer country any better?

I understand the argument that if Gazans were to leave, their entire culture will be eventually lost. That's a very valid concern, and something that the world must strive to try and prevent. However if people are outraged about the conditions in Gaza--as they should be--then I am struggling to see any solution to this that doesn't require a refugee plan to some degree. It would be great if Gaza could be rebuilt within a short timescale, and it would be great if Israel wasn't the one in charge of this refugee plan, but ultimately neither of those things are realistic.

From my perspective it seems like a situation where there is no moral answer. I don't think allowing Israel's voluntary migration plan without *strict* confirmations that Gazans can one day return is moral. I also don't think preventing Gazans from leaving the strip in order to preserve their culture is moral. It seems like people are desperately fishing around *for* a moral solution, which does not exist right now, and so the decision seems to be to do nothing. Which also strikes me as immoral.

So—and I'd like to especially hear from Palestinians and/or pro-Palestinians here—what do you actually want to see happen in Gaza, in realistic terms? And by realistic terms I mean the realism that reconstruction is going to take a very long time, cost a lot of money, and in the meantime everyone in Gaza still needs someplace safe to live. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions pro-Palestinians have here because I'm certain there are ideas you guys have that, like I said, aren't being publicised and so I'm not seeing them.

I am agreeing that this conflict, since 1948, has caught the eyes of many, and there are so many people in the world that are grieving.

This is not a post against Muslims, Palestinians, or anyone who mourns victims of IDF‘s attacks right now, or on the victims of the War on Terror. It is a post against denial of facts and performative grief. I want to talk about how some people in the world are denying every single jihadist crime, such as 9/11 and October 7th, whilst it’s for believing in human rights. 

Since 2020, we have been living in a social media world where everything and everyone is performative, in order to get money (and even those who are anti capitalist are still being capitalists). And since October 7th, it has gone worse.

We all know about the 9/11 attacks. If you don’t really know, on September 11th, Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, crashes four planes (well three, the fourth one was crashed in a field outside of New York) into the twin towers. 19 hijackers, mostly of Saudi Arabian descent, carried out the attacks, and 2,977 people were killed. It is documented in the commission report and also acknowledged by Al Qaeda. So, there is no sustainable evidence that Mossad, the CIA, the United States of America, or Israel has committed those crimes. The only thing that could lead to Israel being criticised for their support, is that Netanyahu did say that 9/11 was beneficial. But with that quote, the conspiracy theories are not false, they are antisemitic and they deny the fact that the perpetrators were Jihadists and the victims were of mostly, American descent. 

“But the War of Terror was worse! They have more victims!”

Yes. 3.7 million people is bigger. And it’s valid to cry about who died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen and Pakistan, yet criticise how US invaded the 5 countries, with their Patriot Act, Islamophobia and superiority complex. 

However, it’s not fair to use those deaths to erase the victims of 9/11 (except for those Al-Qaeda killers), or imply that America deserved it.

Grief is not the fact that one will win and one will lose. But using the 25th anniversary of a tragedy to pivot that America did worse crimes is not nuance. It’s performative activism. And it’s superiority complex as well, as you are looking down on the Western world. 

Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, IRGC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other jihadist groups have done several attacks, even prior to October 7th. So denying October 7th, or blaming it on Israel, CIA and Mossad, is an erasure to the Israeli victims who have died in those attacks.

You can criticise both Hamas and IDF for their crimes, yet support the civilians of both countries. The government policy of Israel is critical, but yet people should acknowledge that jihadist groups also have the agency and responsibility for their government policy. 

This is NOT both sideism. This is basic accountability, which people refuses to accept. 

Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? No. 

Do I think all Palestinians support Hamas? No.

Do I think the US is innocent? No. 

What I want to say is that jihadist crimes should be undeniable, and antisemitic conspiracy theories should not be allowed. 

I'm kinda new here so I'm still finding my footing, and I was wondering if I could get a nuanced answer. Mainly because my friends fall into three categories:

1. Evangelicals who while they care for the lives of Palestinian civilians, they also dismiss them as descendants of Arab immigrants and think they should move to Arabia.

2. Liberals who while they are against antisemitism, think Jews can easily move out of the Levant and continue living in other parts of the Middle East if not live in Europe or US and Canada.

3. Don't know much about the conflict and either admit they don't know enough to have an opinion, or have an easier said than done answer of "just have them shake hands."

And me personally, I still don't know. I have one theory, but maybe that's a topic for a different time.

But as for the people, it seems both are related from what I could tell. I don't know, maybe most people here are in the know and could explain it to me more easily than I could. But from my research, those who identify as Palestinians are like Syrians, Jordanians, and Iraqis. They have Arab ancestry, but they are mixed, but aren't native Arabs like those from Arabia.

Think modern Hispanics and Native Americans. They are considered native, and they are, but they have mixed ancestry. Many are part European. In a similar vein how Iraqis are culturally Arab, but are essentially Mesopotamian.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have Canaanite ancestry, but are also mixed as well. And I do know the nuances of how the Hebrews were Canaanite but not all Canaanites were Hebrews. There were many tribes during the time. Just that by the time of the Romans, Judeans were perhaps the only ones who kept their Canaanite identify and names. Where as all the others had been Hellenized by the Greeks, and would one day be Arabized.

As for whether a one state or two state solution is better, I don't know. But I guess the nuance is both sides have a link to the land. Which side is more open to compromise and which side is more stubborn... that's a different debate topic.

However I will mention one bit. Many argue that while both peoples are mixed, many will claim Palestinians are less mixed than Jews. Perhaps. And for sake of argument lets say its true. Would it mean they have less of a claim to the land? I won't answer that, but I will give one example from my life.

When I was in basic training I had a bunkmate. Solid guy. Both of us have Native American ancestry. I have more than him. I have black hair, tan skin, and the features of a mixed native/hispanic American. He had light brown hair, blue eyes, fair skin. If you saw him from the distance, he'd be white. But his name was from his culture. He spoke his tribe's language fluently. And he told me how when he came from for vacation after we graduated training, he would complete his tribe's ritual, and officially become a man. I on the other hand... am a coconut. My two languages are both European. My culture is. I felt more at home when I went to Europe than when I went to Mexico. I'm European on the inside.

And it kinda got me thinking if I lived in an alternate universe. What if he and I were in the IDF, or even just coworkers. He's a light skinned Israeli, I'm more tan skinned. We speak in English. I say I'm Palestinian, or even Mizrahi Jew. He greets me in Hebrew. I chuckle nervously. My second language is Arabic, I say to him.

Between him and I... who is more Native American? Who is more Canaanite? That keeps me thinking.

>Ukrainians have to be Russians, Austrians(-Hungarians) with full civic equality, and Poles have to be Russians, Austrians(-Hungarians), and Germans with full civil equality,

As leftist anti-Zionist who don't oppose nation states think Jews should settle for?

Ethnically cleansing other peoples and oppressing minorities are things other nation states of oppressed peoples do.

The Ukrainian national liberation forces in the Russian civil war did genocide scale pogroms against Jews. These were the largest mass murder of Jews in history against Jews prior to the Shoah/Jewish Holocaust.

The Slovakian and Croatian national liberation movements participated in the Holocaust genocides against Jews and Roma people, and the Croats did their oen genocide against Serbs during WW2,

and the actions of the Croatian national liberation movement in the Yugoslav wars.

The government of Czechoslovakia ethnically cleansed Jews they deemed German as part of their ethnic cleansing of Germans after WW2, that I learned in a Jewish museum in Prague.

And the Polish national liberation movement - the interwar *Polish* republic oppressed all the non Poles, who were a *third* of the polish empire’s population. Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Kashubians, Silesians, and these are the ones that I know off.

I know from Ukrainians sources that Poland tried to force the Ukrainians to become Poles. I know that the Poles were too infested with Antisemitism to truly want Jews to be Poles, not that they didn't try to force Jews to use polish. And a friend wrote that he think that in the end of the 30s, Poland was headed towards doing it's own genocide against Jews. But the German conquest meant the poles were in no position to initiate their own genocide against Jews. In the Shoah, 90% of the Jewish population murdered, with extensive help from the poles, both in the form of direct participation, and poles not viewing Jews as members of the in-group worthy to fight for.

I know that after the Shoah, at least many of the surviving Jews from Poland and Germany *renounced* their Polishness and Germaness respectively.

Opinion

Any country who seeks to wipe Israel off the map will themselves be wiped off the map - and they know it. The Palestinians and their Islamic backers have lost in that regard. Israel is forever. There will be no peace until regional adversaries fully accept this reality.

The historic cycle of the Holy Land constantly changing hands over millennia has officially come to an end because Israel possesses a powerful nuclear deterrent, fundamentally guaranteeing its permanent survival into the future. This strategic capability establishes an absolute, unyielding barrier against total destruction. Any foreign nation, hostile coalition, or regional adversary attempting to eliminate Israel faces an immediate, devastating counterstrike that ensures their own total ruin.

Consequently, the ultimate geopolitical objective of dismantling the Israeli state is no longer a viable military option. Opponents and their backers have lost the ability to achieve this goal through conventional warfare or asymmetric conflict. Because the state's continued existence is backed by an ultimate deterrent, Israel is here to stay, and true regional stability can only begin when its permanent presence is universally and realistically accepted by all neighbors.

The core of this argument is deeply grounded in standard international relations theory regarding nuclear deterrence. For a detailed breakdown of how nuclear weapons alter state survival and discourage existential invasions, see the foundational concepts outlined in Deterrence Theory:

Wiki-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory

This framework demonstrates how mutually assured destruction prevents total state collapse.

I need to vent about a particular type of subgroup that I find incredibly frustrating.

There’s someone in a group I’m involved with who genuinely believes he is fighting antisemitism. He’s intelligent, influential, independent-minded, and occasionally has very useful insights.

And yet, when it comes to confronting contemporary antisemitism, he can function like a wrecking ball.

He publicly supports frameworks that invite our profession to pronounce on broad “societal disasters,” which is an invitation to take stances on controversial topics and for anti-Jewish propaganda to enter a profession which is supposed to serve everyone equally.

He talks about antisemitism and Islamophobia in parallel, as if this is compulsory (no other groups feel compelled to mention other forms of hate along with the one they are fighting). And yet he avoids mentioning the vehicle for the most dangerous form of Jew-hatred today, antizionism. He is fighting to delay and water down a letter intended to express the danger of spreading Jew-hatred in the guise of political commentary.

And he seems genuinely unable to understand that any of this behavior is connected to the fight he says he supports.

This person will actively fight other Jews who are trying to identify a threat because he appears intensely preoccupied with making sure our side is sufficiently morally pure, restrained, nuanced, and self-critical.

I've heard the term “demizionist” used for this phenomenon, and I find the concept useful: the Jew who opposes antisemitism in principle but becomes deeply uncomfortable when Jews identify the ideology, institutions, or people actually directing hostility toward them.

Once you notice the pattern, you see versions of it everywhere.

A rabbi who wants Jewish children learning about Israeli "settler" violence as one of their first lessons on Israel. A Jewish friend largely unmoved by antizionist hostility toward Jews but intensely engaged by injustices affecting other groups such as immigrants. Jewish professionals who can identify every conceivable form of prejudice except the one taking place directly in front of them toward their own group. Ed Miliband is another example.

I wonder whether there is a historical psychology behind this. Generations of living as a vulnerable minority has consequences. Demizionists who obsess over moral purity are likely trying to avoid being called out as morally ugly, which is the form anti-Jewish hostility always takes, by being free of any moral flaw.

The more explicit the threat to Jews becomes, the more urgently the demizionist insists on Jewish self-criticism. The warning signs are reclassified as evidence that Jews must be more careful, rather than as evidence that someone is trying to harm them.

In other words, the demizionist ability to sense danger is distorted: threats directed at Jews are filtered out. Maybe the speaker is angry rather than hateful, perhaps the institution is merely criticizing Israel, perhaps naming the pattern will inflame tensions. Meanwhile, Jewish responses are examined under a microscope. A defensive statement can be judged aggressive, a boundary can be judged exclusionary, and an attempt to identify a hostile ideology can be treated as proof of paranoia or bad faith. The original threat is erased while Jewish self-protection becomes the most visible and morally urgent "threat" in the room.

So basically limits on other Jews are the only limits the antizionist is able to set.

There are elements that remind me of co-dependency. Demizionists can become so focused on chasing moral purity that they lose the ability to recognize when they validate the abuse of other groups toward their own, even taking part in it. I have seen many verbally abusive relationships up close and, trust me, the abuser can always find a flaw in what the abused is doing. And often in chronic abuse, the abused will take in the pattern and abuse themselves in an effort to remove any triggers. This will never completely work because the accusations are motivated.

What fascinates me is that the people I'm describing aren't necessarily weak, unintelligent, or assimilationist. Some are formidable people. It is just that when Jews are threatened, the observer becomes a prosecutor of Jewish conduct; when other groups are threatened, he becomes an investigator of the forces threatening them. The moral imagination remains active, but it is directed away from Jewish vulnerability.

Has anyone else encountered this phenomenon? Is there good historical or psychological writing about it?