Previous title apparently :
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
445 points (92.9% liked)
Not The Onion
12273 readers
1988 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He's the director of the World Health Organization, and many articles are talking about many U.N. schools, the most recent one has been linked to this video, and when you look at one of these schools, here, it's not hard to imagine it being bombed in regard to the surrounding desolation. It's more symbolic of their unwillingness to create safe zones than anything else, they even bombed refugee camps, and are used to kill innocent civilians in order to settle on their lands anyway.
You can't depose Hamas, even if they managed to kill all of their leaders(, who don't reside in the Gaza strip anyway), they'll just elect new ones, i thought that this was obvious to everyone else. Even if Hitler was killed the third reich would have continued existing, the same goes for Israel if you kill Netanyahu, or the u.s.s.r. if you killed Stalin, there are a few modifications but the state doesn't suddenly disappear, sry but i shouldn't have to explain such obvious things and i'm afraid that a lot of other people think like you even if it's so obviously delusional.
Game theory ? They were attacked because they stole these (holy )lands, and were continuing to steal more and more of them, committing atrocities almost every day(, or at least week,) in a complete silence from "the free world". What's the point, would killing 100 persons in retaliation deter palestinians from fighting back ? 1000 ? 3000 ? 5000 ? When does it stop ? I wouldn't think that someone really say that the more Israel kills and the safer they'll be, how could it make any sense, they'll only be hated even more, do you think that they're acting guided by their emotions when they're expressing themselves so calmly ? Are palestinians allowed to "deter" israelis from acting like they do by killing even more of them ? Westerners had even more attacks on their territories once they wanted to "avenge" the first attacks by killing so much more people, in truth it's obvious to almost everyone that vengeance wasn't our goal, but our objectives were geopolitical, and were attained by burning everything held by the islamists, and torturing&killing the prisoners. I hope that they're not thinking that their only way to prevent such attacks is to mass murder thousands of innocents, especially considering that their walls were effective for decades.
Netanyahu is already at the end of his political career, your explanation is awful if true, but i've already talked about the blinded desire for revenge without any aim, i can't think that they're only guided by emotions when acting so rationally, they're head of states not teenagers in a video game, if they're doing something like that it's in order to gain something that couldn't be obtained otherwise.
I don't agree with you because i can't see the point : is it really a blind/stupid desire of revenge ? Just killing innocents everywhere without any other goal than that ?
That has yet to be established, but it sounds like you're making a case for annexation. If they are unwilling to pacify themselves, that seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Israel safe.
Those lands were annexed because Palestinians declared war on Israel and lost, funny how the anti-Israel crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the Palestinians as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors.
If they are reasonable, yes it would. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of intifada and a one-state solution where they deny rights to Jews certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation.
I have much to learn by talking with a pro-israeli, my sincere thanks for engaging.
As i said with Benjamin Netanyahu : killing him won't destroy Israel, just as killing their leaders wouldn't destroy Hamas.
We have to solve the root of the problem, because "Hamas"(palestinians) have the moral high ground here, « If israelis are unwilling to pacify themselves, the destruction of Israel seems like the most humane remaining option that keeps Palestine safe. », wouldn't you agree ?
« Palestine was annexed because israelis declared war on Palestine and won, funny how the Anti-Palestine crowd always conveniently forgets this and portrays the israelis as victims when they were absolutely the aggressors. »
« If israelis are reasonable, yes [killing them would be enough to deter them from killing more palestinians and occupying (more&more of )their land]. It would encourage them to find a path to peace. Perhaps they are not reasonable, their history of poking the bear, popular support of settlers and a one-state solution where they deny rights to palestinians certainly seems to indicate an unwillingness to compromise, which led to their present situation. »
I can't understand how you could paint the israelis as the victims here : they were the ones who stole the lands(, and are continuing to steal more of it), they're killed way less than they're killing, both before and after Oct.7, with less material destructions, yet i can't wish for them to permanently excuse themselves for existing, even if they should. There's a few solutions possible other than a two-state solution, i can only regret that public debates don't turn around this research of solutions instead of simply supporting one side, the anger of palestinians is legitimate, but what's the plan. Israel is asking for a lot and can't offer much in exchange, if i was arab i could consider that such weird locations could have a weird civilization different from the rest there, after all the muslims have expanded so much that they could accept to 'paint in another color'/~lose one of their heart, but not without consequences for israelis/westerners, it should result at the very least in a huge boost for the ummah, something deemed worthwhile by all of them, which won't happen since we(sterners) won't give any of our "hearts".
A crazy idea would be to plan for all countries to ally together in order to colonize and terraform Mars(, with commitments to certain realizations), from 2070 to 2177 for instance(, or longer if necessary), and our collective effort will be entirely done in order to give the whole planet Mars to countries claiming to be islamic. It's a good situation in the solar system, and despite many problems and uncertainties could be deemed a huge gain without being more than a financial loss for other countries. Other possibilities exist even if this one may seem/be far-fetched.
Casualties inflicted is not necessarily indicative of aggression. I say that Palestine is the aggressor not because they have a higher body count, but because they literally started the conflict, both by instigating the earliest massacres against Jews in mandatory Palestine, making a one state solution impossible, by declaring war on Israel with their Arab allies in '48, and later trying it again unsuccessfully in the 6-day war. They also instigated this latest reprisal even though their attack wasn't as effective as Israel's response.
Just because Israel's self-defense is way more effective than Palestine's constant attacks against them does not mean they are the aggressors. They didn't start this fight, but they consistently respond to attacks and threats quite effectively as they are on the winning side of asymmetrical combat.
Jews started out legally buying lands in Mandatory Palestine until they were massacred and had war waged on them on when they declared statehood. Any lands annexed is a result of this.
Polling indicates Palestinians want intifada and a one-state solution where Jews are denied equal rights, and they outnumber Israelis. For obvious reasons letting those they are at war with choose their leadership is a non-starter.
No doubt, I wish their appreciation for realpolitik was as great as their anger, because that's how one finds a path out of this situation; rationality and compromise and diplomacy and logic. Anger will not change their situation, it has led to things being this way.
They are asking for security and a return of hostages, and they have a lot of freedoms and land they can offer if Palestine is willing and able to deliver it. Because they are bargaining from a position of strength Israel probably won't have to make as many diplomatic concessions for a viable peace. The alternative, of course, is that they remain belligerent, continue intafada, settlements continue and Palestine is eventually annexed entirely. Palestine should really be trying to make a viable peace lest they end up with nothing.
If ummah were a factor here I suspect Egypt wouldn't be keeping Rafah closed, they clearly care more about using them as pawns with claims to land than they do the lives of Gazans stuck there. While there is only one Jewish state there are many Arab/Islamic ones in the area and none of them seem willing to help Palestine, probably because those who did historically suffered for it with military losses, coups, and terrorist organizations operating within their borders.
This is the first time I've heard, "send Muslims to Mars," pitched as a solution. Somehow I don't think they'll go for it.
The Ottoman Empire forbade them to buy these lands during the XIXth century, and would never have accepted the british decisions, were the arabs just supposed to let them declare statehood ?
And what do israelis want ? A two-states solution ? Why won't they put an end to the settlements then, and why is it anything else than a net gain for them and a loss for palestinians ?
What are the compromises that we(sterners) are making ?
The anger of israelis led to them killing thousands of people, no ?
But yeah, you're probably right, i don't really know what they expected, some kind of victory perhaps, they're at war as well, and seized an occasion.
If Egypt cared about palestinians they would help Israel in deporting them ?
Most of them are still suffering because of their support/principles. Every single one of them is willing to help Palestine, but the more you're trying to put pressure and the more you're exposing your citizens for reprisals, so the extent of their actions may vary, i still think that they could win but what do i know really.
(And realpolitik don't look at morals, it is machiavelism, looking for what's fair/right/virtuous and then the realist ways to do this seems a better practice)
Yes. You skipped a few steps in there though, the Ottomans were deposed, the British allowed them to buy land, Arab nationalists started massacring Jews because they didn't like them legally buying land, a 2-state solution became impossible, the UN divided them into countries because of this, Israel declared themselves a country with the borders the UN drew, Palestinian Arabs declared war on them and tried to destroy their state, they lost, and those were were belligerent or left had lands annexed (Nakba.) Not murdering your peaceful neighbors for legally buying seems like a low bar to clear, as does letting them have their own home where you can't murder them. If they had remained peaceful the levant might be one multiethnic country today. Heck, if they had stopped trying to murder the Jews at any time for the past 70 years Palestine might not be in this situation.
Good question, I'd be interested to see polling on this matter if you've read any.
Probably because:
These nations are at war, which is arguably a zero-sum game. Israel is negotiating from a place of strength, which means they can further their own interests far more effectively than Palestine can.
I don't follow. Why should westerners make any compromises, and for whom?
They were able to do that because of a modern military, not because of anger.
A Pyrrhic victory at best, given the destruction the attack has caused their nation.
If Egypt cared more about Palestinian lives than land claims and putting pressure on Israel, they would let Gazans voluntarily leave en masse, (even if Egypt were not their final destination;) deportation implies they are forced to leave.
The kinds of "help" they are offering are very limited, diplomatic stuff mostly. Many of the surrounding countries that let Palestinians stay have to deal with terror groups launching attacks on Israel from within their borders and reprisals, like Hezbollah in Lebanon who are now part of the government. The PLO caused civil war in Jordan when too many Palestinians settled there.
Every Arab nation that went to war with Israel on behalf of Palestine got their asses handed to them, and many lost territory for it. That's how Egypt lost Gaza (which they no longer want back, refusing it in the Camp David accords.)
It's good to have morals, but morals don't win wars, nor does righteousness. Acknowledging the reality of one's political and military situation is nessicary if one is to improve the situation of their nation.
Your answer for the past is that Israel should have been allowed to take "back" these (holy )lands, important for all the "children" of Abraham, perhaps that the arabs are also attached to these lands and would prefer to see them ruled by arabs/muslims, and not israelis/jews, they also had/have an importance for christians(, crusades). If they ever agree to lose one of their "hearts", then fairness would require to give one of our "hearts" in exchange to palestinians(, with a lot of money, e.g. 0.1% of the g.d.p. of every country for a year, as well as the promise to leave the Middle-East alone, to lift sanctions, to ensure the security&'total separation' of both Israel and this state, etc.)
I think that it is the root of our disagreement, you're starting from their right to take these lands to explain that the sins done by Israel were necessary(, if so are they still sins ?,) since they had hostile neighbours who wanted their destruction. Destroying Israel would be awful, but destroying Palestine is justified because they didn't accepted Israel in the first place. Perhaps, i think that their desire to expand their borders is more important than their desire for security, but to get back to the "root" of our disagreement, you've seen that i'm not among those who want israelis to g.t.f.o., but i can't blame those who do(, would you have accepted if they took one of our "hearts" by force ? It's not Mecca or Medina but still).
You may think that it's not such a big deal to take/keep these lands, perhaps you're right, everything is relative, then perhaps that in the same sense it wouldn't be such a big deal to give them a territory as well(, it could be the occasion to seal an alliance).
If you'd like a one sentence summary : You probably wouldn't have accepted it either if islamists took a portion in the heart of our lands, not by might at least, but possibly if you/we were given something which would 'be satisfying'/'made it acceptable'.
Now that i think about it, i can't resolve myself to say that they don't have any legitimate right to revive their culture on their ancient lands(, still don't agree with their refusal to be christian or muslim as well though, John and Muhammad ﷺ were prophets, the disagreements aren't worth such profound schism, we follow Abraham, and more importantly (virtues and )God, christianity and judaism could be considered as sects of islam, or all of them sects of abrahamism(, that's diversity without unity here)), but i know that we(sterners) wouldn't owe arabs anything in exchange if it was totally just/fair to take these lands, so i'll stay with my conclusion : the problem isn't that Israel's existence isn't accepted by palestinians&muslims, but that we didn't made its existence acceptable, in other words it's up to us to make this right.
You'll probably say that we won't make their loss acceptable, then i don't see why they should accept it, or why they should care if Israel disappears, if it's the law of the strongest then they have a chance to win( for all i know).
I appreciate your tone and demeanor, it's nice to have a civil discussion with someone who disagrees, especially in this domain where emotions can run so hot.
I know that's the motivation for many Jews and Muslims, I don't personally care about ancient claims nor do I believe they are very relevant to the present conflict. What matters more is who controls it now, and fighting over holy cities just ensures that this will never end because it's hard to compromise with people who believe God is on their side and granted them access to specific lands. On some level I think the world would be better off if neither party had Jerusalem and it was independent, like the original partition plan called for, but now that ship has sailed and Israel controls it. I don't see this changing any time soon.
Unfortunately I don't think any of that is viable except perhaps for the security and separation part, it would be hard for the losing side to get the winning side to agree to such terms and pay war reparations for a war they didn't start and won.
I'm not sure they have the right, legally speaking annexation hasn't been legal internationally since WWII although it still happens, but it's certainly justifiable in the name of self-defense. Returning territories while their enemy remains belligerent seems like a bad strategy. The problem is that war is not a transitory state in this part of the world like the UN assumes are their nature, it is a permanent condition. Palestine refuses to concede despite being defeated time and time again. From the polling I've seen, most Palestinians don't want to compromise for anything less than the '48 lands back with a one-state solution they control, which is a non-starter. International laws regarding war seem to be written with the idea that wars end when peace is sued for, and this conflict doesn't fit into that mold because of a desire for endless resistance regardless of realpolitik.
I don't think either should be destroyed, but that's probably what will happen if Palestine doesn't surrender and pacify itself. Endless intifada will just push Israel to keep responding to violence with harsh responses and annexations, and they hold all the cards militarily speaking. If I were in charge, I think the best solution would be to eventually make the entire west bank the state of Palestine, contiguous and autonomous, provided it remains peaceful. This is not possible while the population wants revenge more than viable peace.
I just looked up current polling regarding what Israelis want regarding Palestine, evidently it's a contentious issue with the Israeli public generally split regarding how to proceed:
Certainly I can understand their outrage, but how to logically respond would depend upon a nation's ability to change that situation. I'm reminded of the saying, "give me strength to change what I cannot accept and wisdom to accept what I cannot change."
We're arriving at the end of the discussion then, because we can argue about their chances but in the end none of us (can pretend to )know.s the future. Here's why i think that the law of the strongest doesn't necessarily work against them :
Afghanistan is the best modern example of people who won against impossible odds.
Since you mentioned "realpolitik", and while you may have heard of it before, you could have heard it again recently with John Mearsheimer and others during the war in Ukraine, it is linked to Afghanistan in that, if all ukrainians were (traitors )like those in eastern Galicia, i doubt that Russia could have kept these territories : they would have had to face constant "terrorism" by more numerous inhabitants.
In the same spirit, wars for decolonization could also count as other examples of successful fights against overwhelming odds.
Yet when i'm thinking of such examples it's about locals united in their perception of foreign armies as the enemy, and couldn't be applied for Israel(, not occupied by a majority of locals/palestinians).
Even without that, they can win(, i.d.k. if they will,) if the ummah was united.
If it wasn't enough of a weight(, i doubt it), they would certainly change the scale by uniting with Africa, the rest of Asia, Russia, and also South America. That'd mean even more coups by the west in order to keep control, and then by the rest, we(sterners) are lucky that they're still closer to us.
(What interest me more is whether they should win(, and on what terms), the law of the strongest shouldn't matter, but even through that lens, )Here's a (naive )picture of how it could happen :
If 'fairness is excluded'/'might makes right'/'the only factor is strength', then they're not weak.
Only God would know how to solve this situation in the most perfect manner(, ideally if we were perfect/'never doing anything that another being would consider bad for h.er.im' then we wouldn't rely on states, laws, borders, ..., for protection, just freely join and leave communities with their own rules and paradise would come unto Earth, lands wouldn't belong to anyone and we wouldn't possess anything else, only living to do good to each other, but since we're not perfect it's useless to point that out(, Israel would be destroyed if they acted like that, and Palestine wouldn't be recovered, and more generally societies would collapse, Christ is/shows the Way but if the other don't also believe that he's one with you it obviously quickly becomes useless, sry for the unproductive rambling).
Israel is literally fighting for its existence and has nowhere to retreat to should they lose. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, was not an existential threat to the US. It's not really comparable because of this.
For Israel this isn't a fight to colonize, it's a fight to exist. There are many Arab nations that could take in Palestinians, not so for Jews who have already been expelled from the Muslim world, and are facing enemies who quite explicitly want to genocide them.
Wasn't that what happened in '48 and '67? It didn't work out well for other nations who went to war on their behalf. Israel is much stronger now than it was then.
Interesting
It is not the only factor but it is the most relevant one in this conflict, because it's so very asymmetrical.
If such creatures exist, they haven't weighed in, which is curious given that Allah/Yahweh supposedly care so much about their followers and who controls their holy cities. Funny how gods are always concerned with the same things that their followers and the men who claim to speak for them are, rather than what I'd expect from omnipotent creatures beyond our understanding. It would be like humans trying to control ant societies in our backyards, why would we care?
I hope we get there one day, albeit through secular means.
Really? ? A bunch of half starved poorly armed guerrillas are an "existential threat" to Israel? Get the fuck outta here with that bullshit.
Come on, if you are gonna try to be the one calling for rational discourse you have got to at least try not to be so intellectually dishonest.
Spare me your insults.
They are unlikely to win but if they did, yes, the consequences would be existential. It wasn't long ago that Israel was the underdog in this conflict.
So they are both weak and strong. Hrm right out of the fascists handbook.
Keep telling us who you are when you get back from your goose-stepping practice.
Clearly you have difficulties with the concept of time. They were weak they are strong. But any excuse to call those who disagree fascist, I guess.
LOL you are amazing at justifying your bullshit.
I noticed the zionists seem to like saying that gaza isn't being carpet bombed and such so how do you explain :
“Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne — some of the world’s heaviest-ever bombings are remembered by their place names,” said Robert Pape, a US military historian and author of Bombing to Win, a landmark survey of 20th century bombing campaigns. “Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history’s heaviest conventional bombing campaigns.” from the financial times (non paywalled no excuses link https://archive.ph/DSZ1b/ )
They even have pretty graphs showing how it is worse.
Oh and since you seem to think TIME is an issue for me tell me how fast was WW2 vs everything since Oct 7?? Nevermind I'll just tell you since your propaganda addled brain (yea that's an insult you dipshit) will try to block it out. "By contrast, over the space of two years, between 1943 and 1945, the Allied bombing of 61 major German cities razed an estimated 50 per cent of their urban areas, according to Pape."
Odd how these things seem bad even in the light of history, maybe Israel can get all the way to # 1 on the charts!!!
One of the most modern and well funded militaries in the world backed by the world superpower VS guys with ak-47s of vietnam era vintage. You cannot be serious.
If you really think this is true that Israel would be defeated by hamas you are beyond rational discussion and of in some fantasy world of victimhood.
How bout you spare me your inane fictions and we can talk. If you cannot manage that then just piss off.
Hi,
I was thinking about what you said.
In a word, you were saying that if Israel's enemies take every necessary step to ensure Israel's safety in a permanent manner, then a two-states solution(, including giving back the "illegal" settlements,) could be envisioned, that's a unilateral loss enabled by the law of the strongest. An inversed unilateral loss, in favor of the pro-palestinians, would see them taking back the holy lands. And a balanced exchange would have those who take(, western countries,) give something back(, of equal value,) in exchange.
At least expressed like that the first unilateral loss doesn't seem more moral than the second one, but it is true that this loss can be more or less important(, e.g., disparition of Palestine, or a two-state solution, or only a jewish territory in a small part of the current israeli territory). Yet the second choice could(should?) also be seen as the most moral of the three, when it takes the year 1900 as a baseline for saying that Israel's destruction is a neutral gain/loss for both sides(, instead of a unilateral gain/loss for one of them if we take the year 1960 as a baseline).
I'm in favor of making a trade by giving something worthwhile in exchange of the holy lands, but as you pointed out this is unrealistic, so let the strongest prevail i guess.
"I do agree that palestinians could get back the new settlements of the last decades and end any future palestinian persecution if they&'their allies' recognise Israel" is what i wanted to add, not sure that we would have followed the path of least resistance if the roles were reversed, but as you said giving them something of equal value in exchange is out of question
It's just an addition, please don't feel any obligation to answer, and thanks for the chat
It's not comparable because the disparition of Israel would be an existential threat to the u.s. ?
Without discussing what should be, only how to do it(, and usually without considering the morality of the path taken, only its assumed effectiveness, there're reasons to believe that Machiavel wrote The Prince as a criticism and not a support b.t.w.).
If i remember correctly J.Mearsheimer liked realism for its predictive power.
Only because Israel's territory isn't populated by palestinians, which is why i mentionned Ukraine, whose annexed/liberated territories aren't anti-russians like in eastern Galicia, perhaps because they believe that Russia is large enough to become a.n 'future continent'/'original culture' by itself, and want to believe in this idea, and/or perhaps for other reasons. But w/e.
They can go in "the first&free world" if that's your argument.
And they're colonizing more territories because it's a fight to exist ?
As this comment pointed out : palestinians are at most a threat in the future, but aren't strong enough currently to be deemed a serious threat, a fight for survival implies an enemy strong enough to kill you, and as you previously recognised, if we're only talking about palestinians, then they're not there( yet).
Israelis were relatively safe all these decades(, compared to their neighbours), and i could only imagine that Palestine's destruction would enhance their security if arabs/muslims accept it and refuse to stand for palestinians, and if israelis stop there, because they would still have to invade/coup such countries as Iran or political movements such as Hezbollah, and would continue as long as they're not accepted.
If you presented Israel's survival as 'a moral argument'/'what should be', which would probably not be "realist" to do so, then i could return the same argument for palestinians, and ask you why you don't support the intifada on these same moral grounds, but you more likely said that to explain their motivation and give an estimation of their strength/resolve.
As you saw afterwards, i wasn't talking of a military fight, but of a.n economic&diplomatic one(, even if coups generally imply a military role, sometimes bloodless but very often not).
Unreasonable because they won't ever win ? Well, who knows ?
I don't see them supporting Israel and abandoning palestinians(, only Morocco's gains would be significant, yet they're still seemingly hesitant), i'll agree that they still have a margin of retaliation/pressure towards the west though, perhaps are they forced to wait for a more opportune time to act or, as you said, have accepted such unconditional loss, not sure that we would have if the roles were reversed. As previously mentioned, they wouldn't win anything by complying, and i don't see clearly the extent of what they'd lose by resisting(, some could include their honor or other immaterial examples).
In my opinion Saudi Arabia has more reasons to be afraid of the u.s.a.&co than of Iran, since, except for the Gulf monarchies, every single one of their neighbours 'has been'/'is being' destroyed : the color revolutions, Mohamed Morsi, Lybia, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and even Lebanon is in an economic crisis(, and kinda Türkiye as well), you just have to open a map and list every country. If we're going a bit further then we have Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, almost all countries destroyed by the west, and i haven't counted kurd separatists or the islamic state, it's not a stretch to think that they desire stability, but what a f*cking world, we don't understand that, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Congo, Chad, Niger, central asian republics, Georgia, ..., these countries seems far away, if the realist choice is just to always follow the strongest regardless of what's right/fair, then i don't want to be a realist.
Is there a single non-western country more active than them around the world currently ?
As if they didn't lose enough historical territory in 1991, V.Putin's party isn't called United Russia for nothing, of course we(sterners) supported the separatists terrorists(, but hated them when these "orks" fought on the side of Russia&'south-eastern ukrainians' recently).
The first hostage released by Hamas was an israeli who also had a russian nationality, and there were other gestures if this kind of things matter, the timing of the l.g.b.t. ban may perhaps also be linked in some way, i.d.k.(, they also have their own muslim republics in the russian federation, Chechnya is apparently very homophobic, and it's not only inside their borders or in the Middle-East, but in Africa as well), just to say that i wouldn't count on their islamophobia.
The (uncaused )Cause is the only being which isn't a creature(, and the only to be the Being), i don't think a direct visible interference would be that desirable, everything would just be solved and there wouldn't be anything else to do, i prefer to feel free, but in any case there's always determinism and God as the Cause for this kind of interrogation.
Not sure that despite our imperfection we wouldn't be a part of the All/One, and there's always the law of karma among other laws of our reality, parts of the All do care, and if we look/seek the Greatest we/ants do care.
You didn't wrote that to imply that we should only get there through secular means(, by fighting other paths), but i find interesting that we fight communism and islamism : apart from these two, and royalism, do you know of a single large ideology that survived the colonization and isn't the western one of a constitutional capitalist secular republic ?
I wrote about these communities with their own rules because i feel that we're unfortunately looking for unity at the expense of diversity, instead of looking for a permanent peace in harmony, ensuring both our unity and our diversity, we're not looking towards this direction, and there's even this selfish nationalism saying that it's not our role to help each other, i can't like it, we should aim to live together.