The Israeli-Gaza War, is it a genocide or is it really just propaganda?

You know, there are a lot of voices out there that will say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You hear it on the news, you hear it on social media, and you hear it from celebrities. Israel is constantly maligned and attacked. But is it true? The short answer is no. The reality is, Israel is the underdog in all this. They are held to a double standard that no other country is held to. They are the only country that is vilified for defending itself and called genocidal when they do. You won’t hear that accusation in the Russian-Ukraine war or any other conflict. Of all the countries in the world, Israel is the only one that gets that ignominious label.

So, let’s get into it. In any discussion or debate, it’s important to ask questions. My first question is, what makes it a genocide? It has never been the policy of Israel to intentionally target civilians. In fact, they have gone out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. I’ll give an example from Israel’s previous conflicts. During Operation Cast Lead in 2008, Israel used guided bombs filled not with explosives but with cement. This was done because it still did damage to the target, but it minimized damage to the surrounding civilian populace. Another thing Israel does is warn civilians prior to an attack by making phone calls, sending texts, and even dropping pamphlets and leaflets. This is often to their own detriment because it also tips off their hand to their enemies.

If Israel’s true goal was genocide, they could have done so a long time ago and without much difficulty. The numbers, however, do not support the genocide narrative. According to The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, Gaza's population in 2015 was 1.76 million. As of mid-2025, Gaza's population is 2.1 million. Populations don't go up during a genocide, they go down. The only way to get around that is to redefine what "genocide" means.

In any war, civilians are going to get killed, that’s just the reality of the situation. But for anyone who thinks Israel's response is somehow disproportionate, they are being unrealistic. I can’t think of a single country that would be okay if terrorists came into their country, killed their civilians, and took hostages. Any country on the planet would respond with overwhelming force if that happened to them.

Now, let’s talk about the Palestinians and HAMAS, as they are both culpable in what is happening now. In 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip, even forcibly removing Israeli settlers in the process. At that point, Gaza was “free” and semi-autonomous (I say semi because they are still heavily dependent on Israel to function). So, what is the first thing the Palestinians do? They elected Hamas, a terrorist organization, to govern the Palestinian Authority. And what is the first thing that Hamas did? They fired thousands of rockets into Israel. Thus began a repeated cycle of attacks on Israel followed by military operations to end hostilities. Since 2005, Israel has been in seven major conflicts in the Gaza Strip. This, of course, culminated in the October 7th massacre in 2023.  By the way, why weren't their protests in the streets when Israeli civilians were massacred? It seems the outrage only goes one way.

You see, unlike Israel, Hamas actually does target civilians, and they’re not above using their own civilians as meat shields. It is well documented that Hamas routinely uses places like schools and hospitals to either launch their attacks or as a base of operations. They do this for two reasons. For one, they hope to deter or minimize any sort of Israeli counterattack. And two, when civilians die, it actually helps them, and that is what this is really about. Hamas knows they can never beat Israel militarily. They also know the West is sensitive to civilian casualties. The more civilians that die, the better it is for them because it’s the only way they can win. So, they use civilian deaths as part of their propaganda war against Israel. It’s a military strategy and one that has been very effective.

The Palestinians themselves are also not guilt-free. Remember, it is they who elected Hamas in the first place. Let’s talk about some other things the Palestinians have done. Palestinians cheered in the streets when America was attacked on 9/11. Many hostages from the October 7th attack were held in Palestinian civilian homes. According to the Arab World for Research and Development (AWRAD) survey*, 75% of Palestinians supported the October 7 massacre, and 85.9% reject coexistence with Israel. 74.7% support the creation of a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea,” which is itself a genocidal statement and one that has been adopted by useful idiots in the West. Everyone who uses that slogan decries one “genocide” by instigating another.

These are the type of people that those in the West are supporting. Palestinians are among the most radicalized people in that region, which is why Egypt built a border wall between them and no other country wants to take them in. Gaza and the Palestinians are in the state that they are in because of their continual refusal to live in peace with Israel. All their resources are put into fighting Israel. And guess what? Hamas and their Arab and Iranian allies want it that way. They don’t want conditions in Gaza to improve, because then they couldn’t use the Palestinians as a thorn in Israel’s side. They would rather have Palestinians used as political pawns. As a result, continual conflict is guaranteed, as well as deteriorating conditions in Gaza and an ever-increasing radicalization of Palestinian youths to perpetuate an endless cycle. There is a saying, “If the Palestinians put down their weapons, there would be peace; if Israel put down its weapons, there would be no more Israel.”

Let’s also get another thing clear: Palestinians are largely an invented people. They have no unique ethnic identity or language of their own. They are a hodgepodge of mostly Arab ethnicities. Incidentally, they share quite a bit of DNA with Jews. Palestine referred to a province of the Ottoman Empire. It wasn’t a people; it was a geographical region. For a time, prior to World War 1, even Jews referred to themselves as Palestinians the same way someone would refer to where they lived, regardless of their ethnicity. It really wasn’t until the 1960s when Yasser Arafat created the Palestinian identity and turned the issue into a human rights struggle.

Since I’m on the topic, let’s talk about whose land it belongs to. That little piece of contested land has changed hands many, many times during the past three millennia. At the turn of the 20th century, it was under the control of the Ottoman Turks. They sided with the Central Powers during World War I and lost. As a result, they lost control of their land. It then came under the control of the British in 1920. The Mandate for Palestine ended in 1948, at which point the land was essentially up for grabs. The Jews and Arabs immediately went to war over it, and the Jews won. It now belongs to Israel for that very reason. Land, any land, belongs to those who can occupy it and defend it, period. Every nation on earth exists because they fought someone else for it and won. I would add that after World War I, several empires collapsed, and many nation-states were created, including Iraq, Transjordan (now Jordan), Syria, and Lebanon. So, Israel was not unique in that regard.

*Source: https://jcpa.org/a-new-poll-of-palestinians-supporting-terror-and-rejecting-peace/

The new rules of war

As the Israel-Gaza conflict rages on, so do the accusations of civilian deaths and disproportionate use of force by Israel. These charges are nothing new, we've heard these same arguments during the first Gaza conflict in 2008. I began to wonder where did these new rules of war come from? It certainly hasn't always been the standard. During World War 2, while military and industrial installations were targeted, civilian targets were also fair game. Such as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the semi-indiscriminate bombing of Berlin.

Somewhere along the lines the rules of war changed. The first real shift occurred during the the Vietnam war. The news media and anti-war protestors were quick to pick up on communist propaganda and harp on civilian causalities. The American troops returning home were spit upon and called baby killers. These accusations were an obvious attempt to slander and shame the United States military, and it worked. Militarily we won the war, but politically we lost it. Liberals today have adopted these contrived rules of war and have applied them to every conflict since, with America and Israel bearing the brunt of the scrutiny.

In Israel's case, it does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties by dropping leaflets, sending out text messages, and even calling people's home. More than what anyone has done prior. Not only does this come at a strategic expense to Israel, but it's also exploited by her enemies. If Hamas knows Israel is reluctant to fire on civilian buildings for fear of killing civilians, they will use those buildings from which to launch their attacks, and those civilians as human shields. And if Israel does attack and kills civilians they can use it to demonize her. It's a catch 22 for Israel, their damned if they do and damned if they don't. In reality Israel isn't responsible for protecting another nation's civilians, they are only responsible for protecting their own civilians. And that's just what their doing. Wars are never fought fair, there fought to be won. One has to wonder if we could have won World War 2 under the same constraints as Israel is placed under today. I don't need a magic eight ball to tell me "very doubtful".

Bush invaded Iraq for oil, lied about WMD's DEBUNKED

This was something I was intending to write about for awhile now, and since Iraq has been in the news again lately it seemed like the perfect time. The two biggest assertions by liberals about the Iraq war is that it was about oil, and the false pretense of weapons of mass destruction. You know the mantra: Bush lied, people died. This myth has been perpetuated long enough, and it's time to set the record straight.

The policy for regime change in Iraq actually began under president Bill Clinton when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, which states that it was the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government. WMD's were only one of a litany of accusations against Saddam including: 

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
• Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
• Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
• Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
• Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
• The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power.
• Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

 If you recall, Saddam had previously invaded Kuwait 1990 and tried to annex it. It was only though military intervention that he was forced out. In 1991 he signed the Gulf War truce, which he continually violated over the next 10 years. Eventually George Bush Jr. gave Saddam an ultimatum, obey the Gulf War truce or else. Two months before the deadline, Bush went to congress to request the use of military force in the event that Saddam didn't comply with UN Resolution 1447. Both Houses of Congress including a majority of the Democrats in the Senate voted to allow military force in Iraq. Saddam ultimately refused to cooperate and the 2003 Iraq War began. Had Saddam agreed to cooperate the war would have never happened.

As previously mentioned, WND's were only one factor yet it is the one most singled out. The notion that Bush lied about WMD's is absolutely false. At the time the whole international intelligence community believed Saddam had WMD's, and rightfully so. It was well known that Saddam used chemical weapons on his enemies and his own people in the 1980's. And in 1981 Israel had bombed a nuclear reactor just south of Baghdad. The fact that he used chemical weapons before proved that he did have WMD's. In tape recordings discovered from the 1990's, Saddam admits to having chemical and germ warheads. The tapes also reveal Iraq's persistent efforts to hide information about their WMD programs form U.N. inspectors.  Later it came out that Iraq had concealed it's biological weapons program. So where did these weapons go? Former Iraqi general Georges Sada, who was the second highest ranked general in the Iraq Air Force, claims these weapons were transported to Syria shorty before the Iraq War. This is plausible considering Syria has one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world.

Lastly, if the war was about oil we wouldn't have wasted our time on liberating towns like Fulujia, and we certainly wouldn't have left. A truly malevolent country would have just taken the resources like the British Empire used to do, but we didn't. We pay for those resources like everyone else, and usually more than there worth. In truth the U.S. has plenty of oil on it's own.  The US is set to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production and become the world's biggest oil producer by 2016. And that's not even counting the oil that is largely untapped on federal lands. China has actually been the biggest beneficiary of Iraqi oil. They buy nearly half the oil that Iraq produces, and are angling for more. So there you have it. As Paul Harvey would say, now you know the rest of the story.
 
Sources used:
The Threat We Face
Here’s what Saddam Hussein said
 Saddam's Secret Tapes
Bush lied, people died?
China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom
U.S. surges past Saudis to become world's top oil supplier