Ali's Journal

In the early days of the war, an Israeli minister suggested using an atomic bomb in Gaza. Netanyahu apparently responded angrily. But the scope of the damage caused in Gaza equals dropping an atomic bomb. This explains why Netanyahu responded angrily. He was concerned that the global community would consider this war nothing short of an atomic attack.

As mentioned by Borrell, the Israeli government is using the hunger of civilians as a weapon too. This war is defying all values the free world is fighting for and undermines all those values. It’s not known what is going on behind closed doors in Israel, but the free world will have no other option but to stand firm against these destructions.

Based on Netanyahu’s recent interview, he relies on Israeli public opinion. The thing is, as mentioned before, his military interventions empower his opponents. Especially since there are different important elections and the aim is to provide mechanisms to reshape public opinion. So Netanyahu reinforces his opponents while his strength is very fragile. On the contrary, public opinion is the strength of the opposite camp. This is the weakness of Neanyahu’s camp, not its strength.

Netanyahu is attacking the opposite side via its strong front. He is building on top of something that is very fragile and at the same time reinforces the opposite side to destroy it. Once Netanyahu’s construct is destroyed, it’s time to build the future. It would be in the favour of Netanyahu’s camp if he was building a sustainable construct. His extremely unstable structure is a gift to the other camp.

Netanyahu’s camp has been the main driving force for the two-state solutions with the capitals of east and west Jerusalem. Stopping Palestinians from going back to their homes in north Gaza will make one of the most populated areas in the world even denser, close to humanitarian critical points where the global community will have no other option but to collaborate to make the two-state solution a reality.

UPDATE 1:

Different countries have expressed concern about Iran’s nuclear program. In the situation where people around the world are pushing harder for a world without nuclear weapons, the best approach to stopping countries such as Iran is for different countries to take real steps toward abolishing Nuclear weapons in the world. Failure to do so may encourage other countries such as Iran to pursue nuclear programs. However, this is one part of the issue. The other part is undoubtedly stopping hardliners worldwide from pursuing nuclear ambitions. These two approaches are intertwined.

Without a ceasefire, the conflict might escalate throughout the region, jeopardising all plans for sustainable peace developments. All parties must do all they can to stop the escalation of the conflict. This is a precarious situation in the Middle East and any attempt to decrease tensions should be welcomed.

UPDATE 1:

Reports about extensive human rights violations in Iran are very concerning. Economic transformations that are based on new social interactions require transformations in all social aspects including human rights issues. Economic processes are not separate from other social elements.

The US has sent military equipment to Israel during the war in more than 100 deals. When Israel’s government so openly neglects humanitarian concerns, it should not be treated the same as a government that upholds humanitarian issues during conflicts.

This pushes the global community to set stronger measures to restrict supplying military equipment to governments that neglect the damages done to innocent people to convince those governments to avoid such policies.

There are hardliners in Israel who think to change Iran it should be destroyed. Some other people think Iran can be changed by building it. The choice is yours. Your soldiers are among people. Sitting among them, talking to them. Use the power of your soldiers to build.

UPDATE 1:

It has been said numerous times that local cultures around the world should be retained. When the project is launched, different countries will adapt their versions of the platform. The issue is that if it is too restricted or the foundational ideas of the project are deformed, local people will abandon the local versions and use another foreign competitive version of the project.

One can claim they have a tool that is worth billions. Everyone can say that but the important thing is whether anyone is willing to pay billions for that. Different countries can adopt a modified version of the project but if locals don’t use that, it is worthless. This is a choice different countries should make. They should build a product that local people choose to use. It’s easy to impose restrictions, it’s very difficult to persuade people to use it.

I’m offered incentives and simultaneously being threatened. If the Iranian government wants to be involved in projects that aim to spread sustainable peace, I don’t ask for any incentive. The nature of the project is to establish peace, if you want to be involved, you are welcome.

UPDATE 1:

The situation in Iran is in total contrast to Israel. Some people in Israel benefit from conflicts. In Iran no one benefits from additional turbulence, adding to social and economic pressure. Solutions are reachable in these circumstances.