Well personally I feel that any man that believes he is specially blessed and designated by God and uses this belief as the general reason to do
anything it wants is a threat, and even more so if it is an ideology of a party that runs an advanced political, economical, and militarized nation
that is actively asserting its dominance as it pleases, committing war crime after war crime and who has been threatening to invade or bomb my nation.
Yes, I would consider the Zionist regime a threat. I don't think you can morally justify illegal occupation by saying the nations around you are a
threat to your own security, and that this certain land is supposed to be my land as was gifted by God millennia ago, and therefor you simply take it,
especially when those nations considered a threat have changed socially and politically, where the perceived threat of them is developed not out of
sincere ideological distaste and hatred for Israel and its people, but from the discrepancy for the precise organization of people that direct the
course of Israeli policy, those being the Zionists, that abuse their religion just as much as any radical Islamist, but on a national scale.
Israel wants a pure Jewish state, and they are trying to achieve this as humanely as possible, by cordoning off Palestinians into isolated cities and
villages and making normal life just as bureaucratic and hostile as it was for the Jews during the Nazi era in Eastern Europe, which does not make
sense to do unless you are a bastard. If Palestinians require personal identification documents and Israeli government administered registry papers
just to travel, just to prove who they are, why shouldn't the Israeli's? Palestinians are not even allowed to make use of the many new roads built
by Israel that interconnect the illegal settlements. Why? Because radical Palestinians pose a threat to these new developments?
First off, the threat should not exist because the developments should not be there. Second, using force to forward a discriminatory and ignorant
policy requires a force to push back, as there is no action without a reaction, and when you are using sophisticated lethal force to assert yourself,
the opposing force will have to use something of equivalent in power. Basic rule of nature, the stronger force will dominate the weaker force unless
the weaker force is persistent and has the capacity to strengthen over time. Why should Palestinians be subject to curfews? For security purposes? Why
not set a curfew for Israeli citizens as well? Force Israelis to be secure if they are going to continuously place themselves in danger, just as if
you are going to force Palestinians to be tame if they are constantly wreaking havoc. Prevention is the best cure, right? So force Israelis to take
preventative measures for their own security. Seems logical to me if security and peace is what is desired. Hell, my own country the USA is doing it
to me and so far I haven't fallen victim to deliberate attempts of terror, though the definition of domestic terror in regards to US policy could be
pretty hypocritical. But that is a separate issue.
The only way Israel can justify their actions is by searching through the past and identifying in large all the acts of aggression taken upon it and
saying 'now is my turn'. But wtf. The Romans died out 2000 years ago, get over it. There is no progress when you exist for the past, and that is
what Zionists in Israel are practicing with their religious ideology as the foundation and source of motivation for their cause. Israel is a clear
result of the consequences when Church and State are allowed to dominate politics. You cannot use myth as reason. Religion is myth, no matter what you
say. You can believe in the myth or not, but truth of the fact is that you cannot defend ancient myth against the present reality. It's like taking a
theory and never experimenting with it but saying anyways the results are conclusive and subject to our determination and you can't argue against
this because we believe this to be, without any tangible reason as basis for anyone to refute our claim. The question is, where the hell did you
derive the conclusion from in the first place? In your head is the answer, and to use your own conclusions and reasoning to decide myth is fact
without evidence and make this the basis of your actions is completely maniacal. Use present reality and reason based off facts and that is at least
intelligible and allows for a reasonable logical debate, where your soul is not the victim or benefactor of the potential persuasion from or for your
current belief, but human material life is the sole reaper of the consequence, which is what government is supposed to promote and protect. It is the
job of the individual to promote their own spirituality, which in itself is a surreal ideal. Without taking responsibility for reality, you are
denying reality. This is the result of religious ideology in political policy, the consequences of which will always be contested with violence if the
policy is forced upon those who don't have the same religious ideology as you, who have a different value for their soul as you, but have the same
value for their bodies as you.
And violent rebellion is always the case whenever divinity and God is introduced to a completely human debate over right and wrong on an international
or even domestic stage or even personal level. God is completely unreasonable when it comes to politics and governance. Just look at any depiction of
heaven and hell. All serve one in heaven, and any hint of rebellion against this golden rule, and you are punished considerably harsh. It's the
natural process of the universe, its a divine law. God is authoritarian, totalitarian, and as time will come to show, an undeniable dictator, as all
doomsday prophecies claim that all who don't believe in the one true God will perish in flames and those who do will survive in eternal bliss,
serving the Almight forever in and for his glory, but in bliss, don't forget bliss, you will love eternal service, you will... Using this sort of
authoritative Godly symbol as your influence, and using this sort of influence to determine your action, results, if not immediately then over time, a
behavior that is synonymous a with a dictatorial authoritative attitude where your reigning ideal must be the only ideal, because it is the only one
that is right. This is magnified if your ideal is based on the belief that you are basically divine, wholly unique from the rest of humanity. It's
spiritual slavery to this megalomanic ideology where you will become what you believe because you have to believe. Reminds me of the American Civil
war and what it was partially fought for- equality for every man and woman on one side, or authority for whites over blacks on the other. Same thing
goes for religious politics, otherwise you are a bad devotee.
All collective human attempts at governance will result in a totalitarian state, this is the natural evolution of government. Look at the US, look at
the World! We're all headed towards a totalitarian oligarchical world government if we can't control our individual corporatist nations, and yes, we
all live in corporatist nations, some more than others, but this the inevitable result of capitalism when it succeeds as it has in the western nations
and is thriving now in the Asian and African nations. The only way you can control a corporate nation, is with a dictator. Some will say a nation
devoured by corporatism is fascism which is essentially a dictatorship, but there is much difference between corporatism and and a dictatorship. One
rules the other. Anways...
The rate at which this transformation from democracy to totalitarianism occurs can be manipulated according to how and by what means the state is
governed initially and from then, whether you start with a religious republic or a democratic republic. A religious republic, such as in Israel, will
always be biased and will always move in a specific direction in a predictable manner (especially when the initial policy of Israel has been to create
a nation of one belief), until the majority is socially divided, like what is occurring in Iran, where the general population has developed a sense of
social awareness and social responsibility rather than maintained a religious responsibility as their leaders struggle to project, resulting in a
people wanting a less Islamically inclined state and a more socially representative state, a democratic republic that caters to the needs of a present
realistic society rather than an idealistic religious society, though with Iran this change is caught in a quagmire due to the religiously challenged
oligarchical structure of the government- a pseudo-democracy they have, which I think is similar to the USA, except that devotion to religious ideals
which brings spiritual development takes the place of devotion to ideals which bring material profit when it comes to the functioning of Iranian
A democratic republic facilitates deviation of the nation at capricious rates as it changes with the real present factors that are a conflict to the
society as a whole. Both a democratic and religious republic have the possibility of varying course, but when the large majority of the populace has
one religious or ideological belief, and your basing your national policies off of this belief already and have been since the inception of the state,
well its like the proverbial two wolf and a sheep deciding what to eat. You are subversively inclined to go in one direction, though there may be a
few detours here and there.
I believe this is the eventual scenario for all governance on earth, but occurs even more rapidly when religion is intermingled in political policies.
Don't make the mistake of using the USA or any other current democracy as an example when I refer to democratic republic. All if not most current
democratic republics are corporate democracies, as these democratic nations have thrived only due to capitalism and their current policies policies
remain dedicated to the success of the corporations that practice capitalism, making the current democracies just as politically singular in their
direction as a religious republic is. They just have different Gods.
What Israel needs, and many other nations as well, is a policy based on a social ideology, something everyone can believe in, not a policy based on a
religious ideology in which only certain people can even be ALLOWED to accept or have the capacity to accept. For example, Zionism's core motivation
is the expansion of the Jewish state, something all Israelis, if they are good Jews, should believe in and should support-IF they are good Jews. This
directly contradicts every other ideology in the world. Doubtless the education system and political propaganda in Israel floods this belief into the
younger Israelis, just the same way our education system and media propaganda flood our children with the feeling of self-righteousness and immunity
to all evils; just like any other nation would want to teach their children to love their nation and what it stands for with their whole mind, body,
and soul! This indoctrination process is probably the reason why the Zionists are still in power in Israel- they push the Zionist version of
nationalism onto the kids while they are growing so that the actions of the current government are seen as righteous and the future government will be
elected to continue the same righteous policies. No different from America, Russia, China... Patriotism, nationalism, Zionism, Capitalism,
imperialism, totalitarianism...the goals and results are always the same- self righteousness and self justification expressed through a single or
small group of leaders who represent the ideology itself, AKA the government officials who doubtless believe in the ideals as well, so would do what
is (or isn't) in their power to make sure all in their nation (and eventually beyond) believe in this as well. Examples are Communism and Russia,
Democracy and the USA, Islam and the Jihadists....
Religion and spirituality just doesn't work in democracies, nor does capitalism, and the Jewish religion is the influence for Zionism, the ruling
political ideology in Israel, just as Islam is in places like Syria and Iran. When you have two highly sentimental and personal beliefs such as these
directing the course of the nations, you will have problems, guaranteed, because the argument is not for the people any longer, it is about divinity
and God, something beyond reality and material. You begin to fight for what is not there, which makes no sense. Two entities that have two separate
conclusions about something eternally inconclusive fighting over whose conclusion has the right to determine every other earthly conclusion...once
again, that is maniacal. Conclusions need to be drawn from material facts, because we live in a conclusive material world, where one is one and two is
two, no more, no less. Iranian government influenced by Islam and Israeli government influenced by Zionism, both are on the same path politically and
nationally because they both are fighting in the name of nothing essentially. A bit of realism needs to be intravenously injected into these
governments so that there can be conclusion based on what is real and material. You'd see a much more peaceful middle-east if the nations that
existed there adopted a bit of materialism into their politics. You'd see a much more peaceful world if the materialistic world had control over
itself, but it doesn't. It's just another vicious cycle.
I forgot what I was responding to now lol.