What is religious persecution today?

[Cliffycomeback]

As I have been directed by @lsz here is a new thread so we don't go off track with the Trump talk.

All the accusations of Islamophobia and the growing sympathy of Westerners towards terrorist organisations such as HAMAS has got me confused. There are well educated people excusing the horrific crimes of October the 7th as an act of defiance perpetrated against an oppressive regime. If a person speaks out against extremism they are called bigoted and hateful. We even have gays supporting Hamas, an organisation who would shoot them merely for being queer.

I find it all surreal, like I'm living in an alternate universe.

So, what qualifies as religious persecution today?

Why do so many of the people who mock, ridicule and slander Christianity jump to the defence of Islam whenever they perceive "Islamophobia" has taken place? Please someone help me to understand this madness.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

In October 2023, Sydney Imam Ibrahim Dadoun made headlines for describing Hamas's attack on Israel as a "day of victory". At a pro-Palestine rally in Lakemba, Dadoun's comments drew widespread criticism from political and religious leaders.

Imam Ibrahim Dadoun's comments
During the rally, which took place the day after the October 7 attack, Dadoun told the crowd he was "smiling," "happy," and "elated". He referred to the attack as:

• "A day of courage"
• "A day of happiness"
• "A day of pride"
• "A day of victory"

Call me strange, but to me, this qualifies as hate speech on every level. It is vile.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

France’s churches are burning – and no one seems to care

France’s churches are under attack, yet the media and political establishment are pretending not to notice. Last year, we saw blazes at historic churches in Rouen, Saint-Omer and Poitiers – each one another grim statistic in an escalating crisis. For years, we’ve seen Christian places of worship...

www.spectator.co.uk

 

[Cliffycomeback]

 

[Cliffycomeback]

Parliamentary question | The abominable massacre of Christians and Alawites in Syria and the urgent need for an immediate and decisive EU response | P-001051/2025 | European Parliament

Priority question for written answer P-001051/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Afroditi Latinopoulou (PfE)

www.europarl.europa.eu

 

[h27272727]

As I have been directed by @lsz here is a new thread so we don't go off track with the Trump talk.

All the accusations of Islamophobia and the growing sympathy of Westerners towards terrorist organisations such as HAMAS has got me confused. There are well educated people excusing the horrific crimes of October the 7th as an act of defiance perpetrated against an oppressive regime. If a person speaks out against extremism they are called bigoted and hateful. We even have gays supporting Hamas, an organisation who would shoot them merely for being queer.

I find it all surreal, like I'm living in an alternate universe.

So, what qualifies as religious persecution today?

Why do so many of the people who mock, ridicule and slander Christianity jump to the defence of Islam whenever they perceive "Islamophobia" has taken place? Please someone help me to understand this madness.

There is a possibility you are living in an alternate universe (lots of westeners were before October 7 too). Try to hear me out, I can at least explain why you get the sense that 'the tables turned'.

Even in that post you acknowledge that Hamas is an organisation. An organisation X that killed Y in country Z over a period of 1 day. A number of hostages were taken from country Z, supposedly to use as a bargaining chip.

Contrary to your words, most people think the initial action of organisation X was terrible; but lets skip past that point to not detract from your question.

Your perspective is that the appropriate response was for the victim of October 7, country Z, to blanket bomb people A over a period of 732 days and gradually strip fundamental human rights and needs (food, water supply). Who are people A? When did they enter this story? How does this save the hostages that are supposedly at the centre of this issue?

It is collective punishment to endlessly kill people A for the action of organisation X.

What's happened (in part due to videos circulating social media) is that people placed both the action and response on a weight scale.

The action by organisation X originally had enormous weight. People let country Z respond for a while, but gradually it became apparent country Z didn't intend on stopping. As concerning information became available and time progressed the scales tipped. Now, the actions of country Z are so heavy in proportion that the original action of organisation X is suspended.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

There is a possibility you are living in an alternate universe (lots of westeners were before October 7 too). Try to hear me out, I can at least explain why you get the sense that 'the tables turned'.

Even in that post you acknowledge that Hamas is an organisation. An organisation X that killed Y in country Z over a period of 1 day. A number of hostages were taken from country Z, supposedly to use as a bargaining chip.

Contrary to your words, most people think the initial action of organisation X was terrible; but lets skip past that point to not detract from your question.

Your perspective is that the appropriate response was for the victim of October 7, country Z, to blanket bomb people A over a period of 732 days and gradually strip fundamental human rights and needs (food, water supply). Who are people A? When did they enter this story? How does this save the hostages that are supposedly at the centre of this issue?

It is collective punishment to endlessly kill people A for the action of organisation X.

What's happened (in part due to videos circulating social media) is that people placed both the action and response on a weight scale.

The action by organisation X originally had enormous weight. People let country Z respond for a while, but gradually it became apparent country Z didn't intend on stopping. As concerning information became available and time progressed the scales tipped. Now, the actions of country Z are so heavy in proportion that the original action of organisation X is suspended.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree that it is a horrible situation all round.

 

[Cliffycomeback]

There is a possibility you are living in an alternate universe (lots of westeners were before October 7 too). Try to hear me out, I can at least explain why you get the sense that 'the tables turned'.

Even in that post you acknowledge that Hamas is an organisation. An organisation X that killed Y in country Z over a period of 1 day. A number of hostages were taken from country Z, supposedly to use as a bargaining chip.

Contrary to your words, most people think the initial action of organisation X was terrible; but lets skip past that point to not detract from your question.

Your perspective is that the appropriate response was for the victim of October 7, country Z, to blanket bomb people A over a period of 732 days and gradually strip fundamental human rights and needs (food, water supply). Who are people A? When did they enter this story? How does this save the hostages that are supposedly at the centre of this issue?

It is collective punishment to endlessly kill people A for the action of organisation X.

What's happened (in part due to videos circulating social media) is that people placed both the action and response on a weight scale.

The action by organisation X originally had enormous weight. People let country Z respond for a while, but gradually it became apparent country Z didn't intend on stopping. As concerning information became available and time progressed the scales tipped. Now, the actions of country Z are so heavy in proportion that the original action of organisation X is suspended.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Best explanation I have heard this far. However, I believe there are many who unlike yourself have just come to the conclusion that Israel and Jews are bad without really knowing why. My other concern is that Israel is surrounded by people who want to harm them. There is a plethora of evidence to support this.

 

[h27272727]

Best explanation I have heard this far. However, I believe there are many who unlike yourself have just come to the conclusion that Israel and Jews are bad without really knowing why. My other concern is that Israel is surrounded by people who want to harm them. There is a plethora of evidence to support this.

There'll inevitably be a number of people vocal against Israel simply because they don't like Israeli's/Jews. I truly have no idea what % (unfortunately there's no good way to determine such a figure quantitatively). Similarly, there will also be people who dislike Palestinians / arabs (it is not uncommon for people to only associate arabs with terrorism).

Sadly, there'd also be people that hate both!

Since Israel declared their independence from the British Mandate of Palestine in 1948, there was a movement amongst Arab territories to try unite and reverse the 1947 UN partition plan / destroy the state of Israel. But unity of Arab states was a challenge in itself (infact they failed to unify in the end, even pairing up with Europe to fight Iraq in 91'). The Arab-Israeli conflict worsened after the six day war of 1967. Following the 73' war, however, the broader Arab-Israeli conflict was more or less brought to an end. By the late 70s an agreement between Israel and Egypt took place. Six day war territories (such as Syria's Sinai peninsular) were all handed back by early 80s (minus Gaza and West Bank). Jordan agreement followed in the 90's. Then 1993 Oslo accords (mutual recognition, PLO recognised Israel, Israel recognised PLO as representatives of Palestinian people and set framework for two-state solution).

You can see the trend w.r.t Israel-arab relations from the 40s-90s via the timeline of the conflict below,

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Timeline

education.cfr.org

As a simple overview, that timeline does a fairly good job; it does skip past the influence of Zionist movements pre-1948 and overlooks a period of escalating muslim and jewish fundamental extremism during the 90s (to dismantle peace efforts). Other topics not addressed include Israel's presence in the West Bank/Gaza today, events leading up to each intifada, evolution of Palestinian peace methods (violent to non-violent, different factions) and the series of events culminating in Hamas gaining prevalance/power. There's so much involved in this conflict it is so hard to adequately try sum it up.

But to keep it purely on topic for now, that timeline does a good job at underpinning the notion that while Israel certainly was involved in wars with its arab neighbours (and was at real risk at a point in time), Arab states and Israel have largely come to the position of mutual recognition and the primary roadblock is a meaningful resolution to the local Israel-Palestine conflict.