Top Israeli Declares “World World III” Against Islam

Israel is not actually at war with Islam. They are at war with a group of people whose land they stole. The religion isn’t really relevant to the initial conflict, all things being equal.

The issue is that the entire Islamic world feels a kinship with the Palestinians, and they feel that these attacks against Palestine are collective attacks on Arabs/Islam.


Israeli Energy Minister Israel Katz, a key ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said in an interview published on Monday that Israel’s campaign in Gaza is part of a “World War III against radical Islam.”

He also claimed that the US would have reacted to Hamas’ attack, which triggered renewed hostilities, by obliterating the Palestinian enclave.

Speaking to the German tabloid Bild, the minister, who has served in multiple cabinet positions over the years, defended his nation’s response to the deadly incursion by the Palestinian militant group. As a result of the attack on its territory, Israel has imposed a siege on Gaza and is gearing up for a ground invasion. Meanwhile, even staunch allies are concerned about the harm to civilians such a move would cause and the long-term outcome of the conflict.

The Israeli official, whose parents were Holocaust survivors, called the Hamas raid on October 7 a “Nazi attack” and described the ongoing hostilities as a “third world war against radical Islam – with Russian involvement.”


Yes, I kinda feel like the Russian element is not really getting enough play.

I don’t think Russia is funding Hamas, but if this guy is talking about a war on Islam, that would definitely have some pretty serious “Russian involvement.”

In terms of this “radical Islam” bullshit – this is a nonsense term. They just mean “Islam,” or, more precisely, Moslems (because they’re at war with the people, not the religion, right?).

Hamas and Hezbollah are not particularly “radically” Islamic. That’s a description that would apply to ISIS. Hamas and Hezbollah are “militarized,” but the root of the militarization is their geopolitical situation, not their religion.

Does that make sense?

I feel like this is maybe a pretty important idea, but I’m not sure I’m elaborating on it correctly. I do, you will recall, have a brain tumor.

Hold on. I’m thinking.


There are Moslems who are violent because of the same reasons anyone would be violent, and there are Moslems who are violent because of their religious beliefs.

ISIS are the example of a group that is violent because of their beliefs. I can’t really think of any other examples right now, but there are other examples. But you know, Iraq, Syria, Egypt – these are not even particularly religious societies. Lebanon isn’t really either. Iran and Afghanistan are very religious, but their militarism is not directly tied to their religion, Their militarism is tied to the fact that people are trying to destroy them. But of course, all of these countries, when they become militarized because of situational issues, use the regalia and language of Islam, in the same way that Russia is using crosses and icons and having big events with priests blessing bullets and shells, even though Russia’s war is not exactly a “holy war for Christendom” (in some ways it is, I know, but not directly – directly, it is a response to US bullying and attempts to destroy Russia).

The idea that Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, or whatever, are acting violently because of Islam is obviously false on its face.

Again, the only group I can think of that meets that criteria is ISIS, and ISIS was funded and trained by the CIA and supported by Israel.

Note: The actual truth is that most of the “radical Islam” stuff – the stuff that meets the definition of “violence driven by the Islamic religion” – is happening in Europe (and to some much lesser extent, America). And, obviously, all of these people using the term “radical Islam” to refer to justifiable geopolitical struggle are also big supporters of mass immigration into the West, either actively or passively.

It’s all bullshit.