Just picture it. You’re going about your day as usual. Life is hard but essentially good and you’re happy to be alive. You have friends and family that you love. Your relationships with them are good or strained but you love them all.
Then the news comes in: the place where some of them are was attacked. Your attempts to contact some are successful but your heart sinks for the others. Then further news comes in: it’s a bigger attack than first thought. You yourself could be a target. For a moment it’s just you and your own personal methods for dealing with the prospect of imminent death. As it turns out, this is only the beginning of your tale of personal grief. By the end of the day you’re mourning multiple loved ones.
Today’s date will suggest that this thought experiment must be an allegory for an event that played out in real life for many on a particular day in a particular place three years ago yet it is for certain an almost daily occurrence for the oppressed and tortured neighbors of these particular people.
This date indeed marks the start of the world shifting its eyes toward that tiny strip in the Middle East and noticing the undeniable, unrelenting barbarism. A barbarism that is sometimes returned with retaliatory aggression: usually for the sake of liberty, sometimes for vengeance, but never in kind of scale. The delusion of one side of this conflict is such that, even at this point in the missive, some of them might still be unsure of which side is which. One small clue: the deluded side has “escalation dominance” which also means they dominate the barbarism to the point where the other side’s responses can reasonably be deemed individual instances of paltry comparison. As horrific as some of the individual instances of that day may have been, this conclusion of a paltry comparison cannot be false when you consider the entire horrific picture, including especially the undeniably more horrific body of events that have transpired since.
Three years into a genocide, do they really still want us to preface every condemnation of Zioterror with a declaration of sympathy to the victims of 10/7? Of course, because it helps their narrative and to no one’s surprise, this is exactly what the sell-out sections of the pro-Palestine side end up doing. A “both-sidesing” that tries to conflate and implicitly equate the suffering, which in itself is repugnant enough for its two-faced spinelessness but it also further reinforces the status quo: the oppression and mass murder of Palestinians. There are two sides, but one side is astronomically more guilty than the other.
This guilt is what drives the Zionist anti-narratives that fly in the face of clear and obvious truths. “Hurr durr you’re antisemitic” should be mocked for its sheer stupidity, laziness and desperation as much as its general falseness. What seems amazing but shouldn’t be is how prevalent this excuse for a retort is. It’s number one, two and three in the top ten list of Zio Genocide Apologia talking points.
Within this context, the specific events of 10/7 need not be fleshed out again. We know what happened. Those who want to discover the truth in detail can look into the now copious sources available. Needless to say, the Zionist sources cannot be trusted at all except when they’re talking bluntly and openly admitting to their crimes (usually in Hebrew). It’s also well past time to admit that most Zionists simply won’t change their minds. They’re either hardline, hardnosed vermin like Belialzebub Smotrich and Ishtar Ben-Gvomit or they’re in cognitive dissonance, trying to biasedly “nuance” their way into pretending the genocide isn’t as big of a deal as it really is when in fact it’s actually a deal breaker. The Zionist project – The Zionist Entity – far from having the right to exist, doesn’t deserve to exist.
