Imagine a world in which most people have deeply held beliefs, which affect their perceptions on reality and morality, but that these beliefs are false

Should Israel exist, may I ask?

Talk given to the Atheist Society, 9 April 2026

This is a slightly different question to "does Israel have a right to exist". But it is a question, I think, that I may ask, but I am not allowed to answer. To answer this question in the negative is now deemed antisemitic. Hence I will speak hypothetically. It is not my intention to vilify anyone.

First I would like to comment on the Iran war started by Israel and the US on 28 February 2026. This war had no justification. Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities were destroyed in June 2025. They were not being rebuilt. Iran posed no immediate threat. It is a war crime. Recently, whenever the US and Iran are in negotiations, Israel starts a war. This happened last June, in February, and it is happening now in Lebanon.

This is a religious war. For religious reasons, Israel believes it has the right and the destiny to commit genocide against its enemies. The Islamic State of Iran believes it has the right to use war to advance its religious cause. The ancient enmity between Sunnis and Shiites led the Arabs to side with Israel and the US against Iran. Religion is part of America’s motivation, but who can possibly read the mind of a maniac. Trump threatened genocide against Iran: "a whole civilisation will die". This is a debacle from which America will never recover.

How did it happen? Lets imagine a hypothetical world

Lets imagine a hypothetical world of mass delusions, in which most people have deeply held beliefs, which affect their perceptions of reality and morality, but that these beliefs are false. They are deluded in these beliefs. How would this affect the functioning of society? How would it affect the world?

Imagine there are delusions that give people comfort, and a sense of belonging. Local communities may be devoted to fostering these delusions. The communities provide rituals on the occasions of births, marriages and deaths. They may be based on creation myths. They may even suggest to people the alluring prospect that when the die, they are not really dead.

Imagine the delusions may be so ingrained and the beliefs so deeply and emotionally held, that to challenge the veracity of any of these beliefs could cause offence, and be considered as an attack on someone’s identity. So, in polite society, and in normal discourse, the truthfulness and authenticity of these beliefs would be rarely challenged.

Those who do bother to question the historical and scientific accuracy of the creation myths on which the delusions are based, may find that there is no evidence to support them. There is nothing to justify these beliefs. There is every reason to reject them. The beliefs are plainly false. So, plainly, they are mass delusions. But few bother to question.

How could it be possible that such delusional beliefs could remain widespread, entrenched and unchallenged? One reason may be that they are maintained and endorsed, if not mandated, by governments. The people in government themselves may have one of the delusions. Possibility children are indoctrinated, passing delusions between generations. There could be this and other forms of coercive control.

Maybe people simply would not care whether what they believe is true or not. The delusions may be comforting. If all family and friends have the same delusion, there may seem no reason to question it. They would not realise it is a delusion. This would be despite the obvious existence of contradictory alternative delusions.

There may be no real incentive to debunk false beliefs. Believers and promoters of one form of delusion would not wish to highlight absurdities and inconsistencies in another, for fear that their own delusion may be challenged. If they are not adversely affected, non-believers may have little to gain from the opprobrium of disabusing people of their cherished delusions.

Now, imagine that the delusions were not just randomly distributed between populations but are were ethnically based. Different nationalities, cultures or ethnic groups have loyalties to different delusions. These belief systems are mutually exclusive: adherence to one precludes adherence to another. They make mutually contradictory truth claims. So, the world would be divided up into different delusional belief allegiances.

What if these beliefs cause conflict between nations and peoples? Those adhering to one delusional belief may be pitted against those of another. Such beliefs may lead to a sense of superiority of one over another. This could lead to disputes over doctrines, where one would attempt to oppress another out of a sense of righteousness.

What if in this hypothetical world, the doctrines of the delusions contained specific references to violence against others, even suggestions that other groups should be completely wiped out? This could lead to terrorism, wars of conquest, even genocide. A breakdown of world order.

If we imagine such a hypothetical, then what we would observe is exactly what we see today. Observations exactly match the hypothesis. So far in this hypothesis, I have not mentioned religion.

Let’s look at the nature of religious beliefs.

Every society on earth had its creation myths. In the past, people had no other explanation of our origins. However belief in these myths has been debunked for at least 150 years. More recently, archaeological and historical findings have exposed the foundations of all major religions as false.

In the 2001 book The Bible Unearthed archaeologists Finkelstein and Silberman, found that the first ten books of the Bible are purely mythical. The Prophet Abraham, the founder or the three so-called Abrahamic religions, did not exist. The Exodus did not happen. There was no great ancient kingdom of David three thousand years ago. These were all made up stories used to justify ancient territorial claims. Judaism is not a justified belief.

Two thousand years ago, the Romans kept good historical records. There is no record of anyone resembling the Jesus of Nazareth in their contemporary historical records (i.e. mid first century). No record. No preacher with huge crowds, no disruption of the temple. No trial before Pontius Pilate of a "King of the Jews". Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. Nazareth did not exist at that time. Tacitus was not yet born. The references to Jesus in the writings of Josephus are later insertions. No reference is made to Josephus’ Jesus until the third century. There was no biblical Jesus. How can you believe in Christianity without Jesus?

Islam depends on the story of a great conquering hero riding from the desert and conquering the Byzantine and Persian empires in the early 600s and spreading a new religion. This did not happen. Mecca did not exist at that time. There was no water at Mecca. It is not an oasis. The Arabs in Syria and Iraq were Christian. They minted Christian coins. They had Arabic writing and Christian crosses. I have such an ancient coin myself. It is actual and authenticated. It came from 7^th century Homs and cost £200.

Islam arose from an anti-Trinitarian Christian sect. The doctrines of Islam were contrived up to 200 years after the supposed events (see my Atheist Society presentation March 14, 2024, Arab Prophet: Fact or Fiction). For original references see https://inarah.net)

Of course Islamists go to great lengths to try to intimidate and cover up the truth about their completely and elaborately fictional Prophet Muhammad. However given that their scriptures rely on the equally non-existent, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, they already have no basis in truth. Most historians fail to recognise or articulate the non-historicity of religious narratives because they themselves are religious, or otherwise just conform to the cultural norm.

Belief is acceptance without proof. Religious beliefs are acceptance despite proof. Religions are not true. If religions were true, they would not be religions. Of course religions delusions are not clinical delusions because they are specifically excluded from DSM-5. They are cultural delusions.

The believers in these ethnically based religious delusions do not care that they are deluded. They do not want to know the truth. That is why religions are delusions. It is not possible to properly understand the worlds unless we see religions as mass delusions.

Humans are innately tribal. This enables ethnically based delusions to be powerful and dominating. However, it does not really matter because religions are basically benign, right? Unfortunately, not. We need to look at the religious texts themselves. Without that, we cannot understand how frighteningly dangerous religious delusions actually are.

I think we can identify three aspects of religious delusion. The counter factual delusion: people believe their own religion is true. The multiple-truth delusion: people believe that all religions are true or pretend that they are. The benevolence delusion: people believe that religions are always good, especially theirs. Because of the obvious existence of alternative delusions, people are compelled to believe in the superiority of their own delusion. This leads to a dangerous progression: religious superiority leads to ethnic superiority leads to violence justification. Religions are pathological delusions.

Please note: it is not my intention here to denigrate or vilify anyone. My criticisms are entirely directed towards the beliefs, not the believers. People are free to believe in delusions if they wish. We just need to be aware of the harm they cause.

Judaism

I do want to say something in defence of the Israeli people. We need to also consider their point of view. Their lived experience cannot be ignored. They have been persecuted for centuries. They live in fear that the Palestinians, Arabs and Iranians want to kill them. They see it, they know it. They argue that they were not the first ones to resort to violence. They say that everything can be justified by the need to defend themselves. They have maintained their communities over centuries by an imperative not to "marry out".

Regarding Judaism, we are all aware of the "chosen people", "promised land" contentions. It is obvious that this could be problematic. We can observe the consequences.

Lets look at a particular Jewish doctrine that has current relevance.

This is 1 Samuel 15:3: "Now go and smite the Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." This refers to the ancient Israelites quest to establish their land by conquering the land of the Amalek by wiping out all the inhabitants, the Amalekites.

In popular Israeli culture, the Palestinians are referred to as "sons of the Amalek". This was biblical passage was referenced by Netanyahu as justification for Israel’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza. This reference has been cited as inciting genocide.

When South Africa brought its case before the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocide, Netanyahu’s endorsement of the genocide of the Amalek was cited as proof. The physical evidence was supported by words indicating intent.

In late January 2024, the ICJ presented its interim judgement. It said some of South Africa's assertions were plausible, and issued provisional measures requiring Israel to prevent genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Note however, that this is the same South Africa that supported Russia’s plausible genocide in Ukraine.

The Amalek reference is not the only instance of religious delusion influencing Israel’s behaviour. There is increasing support for the messianic end-times concept of a Greater Israel. This is supposed to be the recreation of the mythical ancient Kingdom of David. It involves the defeat of Persia and the rebuilding of the "Third temple". Some Israeli soldiers have badges on their uniforms depicting maps of Greater Israel and the Third Temple. Religious delusion is now central to Israel’s motivation.

Not all Jews support Israel. Jews who supported the establishment of a Jewish state are called Zionists. Zion refers to a site near Jerusalem linked to Jewish mythology. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jewish.

Christianity

There are more Christian Zionists in America than Jews. Their motivation comes from the Book of Revelation, which is the last book in the Christian New Testament. With its rivers of blood, massacres and monsters, Revelation is surely the most maniacal religious text there is. At the end of days, Jesus will return to the Holy Land, trumpets will sound, and a chosen 144000 will be raptured up to heaven and everyone else will die. Christian Zionists believe in this and want it to happen, soon. It is hard to imagine a more absurd and dangerous religious delusion.

Zionists, both Jewish and Christian, have enormous influence in the US government. Vast amounts of money are devoted to promoting the cause. Sometimes it is called the "Axis of Epstein". Chief Christian Zionist in the US government is Pete Hegseth. He has religious tattoos on his body e.g."God wills it" in Latin. He renamed his department, from the Department of Defense to the Department of War. He uses biblical references such as Psalm 144: "Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle." He prayed during a religious service at the Pentagon that there be "overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy".

Hesgeth describes the war that he, Trump and Netanyahu started on 28 February 2026 as a Holy War. This illegal war was started supposedly to prevent a maniacal religious theocracy from obtaining nuclear weapons. Who are the maniacs here?

Islam

Now, we need to look at the doctrines of Islam, without which we cannot understand the world today. Iran is Shia and the Arabs are Sunni. Both regard each other as heretics in the manner of Protestant versus Catholic antagonism. The dispute between them did not arise because of the disputed succession to a non-existent Prophet. There was an ancient Persian legend of a prince on horse being assassinated. This was grafted onto the Prophet legend as a point of departure. They both use the same Koran.

When the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in the 1979 Iran revolution, he released a "Little Green Book" with his sometimes-bizarre theological musings. Some of the sayings warrant quotation. "Holy war means the conquest of all non-Moslem territories. (...) It will then be the duty of every able bodied adult male to volunteer for this war of conquest, the final aim of which is to put Koranic law in power from one end of the earth to the other",(p4). "Islamic faith and justice demand that within the Moslem world, anti-Islamic governments must not be allowed to survive." That is a Shiite perspective.

Islam divides the world in two, Darul Islam, the land of Islam, and Darul Harb, the land of war. This is a so-called "legal" ruling is derived from consideration the three sources of Islamic doctrine: the Koran, the Sunnah and the Hadith. The Sunnah refers to the life of the prophet and the Hadith refers to the sayings of the prophet. These are important to Muslims but have no historical authenticity, being devised at 200 years after the supposed life of the apocryphal prophet.

The biography of the heroic prophet is described in elaborate detail. The pious preacher from Mecca started from humble beginnings but managed to assemble a large devout band of warriors in Medina. From there, after a long series of battles he triumphantly establishes Islam throughout Arabia, then Syria and Persia. Along the way he beheads an entire Jewish tribe in Medina. He has a six-year-old wife called Aisha. This is fiction. Nothing of this exists in the historical record.

From this, we can understand something of Islamic ideology, but the most important document is the Koran. The origin of the Koran is actually quite old, and can be dated to the 7th century. It appears have been derived from and anti-Trinitarian Arab Christian sect.

It is important to know what is in the Koran, because all Muslims are required to be loyal to it and cannot contradict anything it says. This is despite the fact the vast majority of Muslims have little idea what the Koran says because they cannot read ancient Arabic

The Koran on women

Here is some of what it says on the subject of women. I give chapter and verse references.

It is stated that: "men have authority over women because men are superior (4:34), that disobedient women may be beaten (4:34), that women are feeble minded (4:5), and are created for men" (30:21). Also that "as a witness one man is equal to two women (2:282), and that a male may inherit twice as much as a female" (4:11). A man may "marry up to four wives but any number of slave girls: (35:50), and that a man "may have sex with his wives or his slave girls" (70:35). (Penguin, Dawood translation).

Women have to be veiled to avoid being molested: "Prophet enjoin your wives, your daughters and the wives of true believers to draw close their veils … so that they may be recognised and not molested" (33:59).

In the chapter on divorce, wives can be divorced after a waiting period of three months, including child wives. "For wives who have ceased menstruating, their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated. As for pregnant women, their term shall end with their confinement" (65:4).

The Koran on violence

The Koran says: "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends" (5:51), "Fight those that fight you but do not attack them first. Slay them where you find them" (2:191), "Fight them until no other religion is left" (2:193), "Believers, make war on infidels who dwell around you", and "slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them" (9:5).

But wait, there is more. "Those that make war against Islam shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished" (5:34). God’s punishment for antagonists will be to wear garments of fire, "Scalding water shall be poured on their heads, melting their skins and inside their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron". Meeting unbelievers in battle, "strike off their heads, lay them low" (47:4), "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers" (8:12). "Make war on them until idolatry ceases and Islam reigns supreme" (8:39). "He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted of him." (3:85). "Strike terror into the enemy", (8:60), and "make war on the unbelievers" (9:73).

It is good to have some knowledge of the content of the Koran, because when a reference comes up you know the original source. Regarding the Inquiry into the Bondi massacre, terrorism experts have said that an Islamic State hate speech entitled "Slay them wherever you find them" could have motivated the perpetrators. The experts appeared to have no idea that that title is a direct quote from the Koran.

Every atrocity committed by Islamic State was justified with a quote from the Koran. The oppression of women in Afghanistan and elsewhere is justified by reference to the Koran. Yet religion itself is never blamed. Blame is attributed to culture or extremist interpretations. Religion is always privileged and protected. This is a symptom of mass delusion. It is the benevolence of religion delusion.

Religious violence in Australia

The inquiry into the 14 December 2025 Bondi massacre is called the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The terms of reference do allow consideration of "religious and ideologically motivated extremism and radicalisation". I intend to make a submission. The Jewish Council of Australia has stated that the Gaza genocide is equivalent to 5000 Bondi massacres. The Bondi massacre was motivated by the Islamic religion. The Gaza genocide is motivated by the Jewish religion. The official mourning for the Bondi massacre was taken by the Jewish community as an opportunity to promote Judaism. Is it not time to recognise that "Houston, we have a problem"?

Every other threat to human health and safety comes with a government warning or supervision. Instead, religious institutions and schools are supported and promoted by governments. Religious schools compete for students by providing facilities worth millions. These schools indoctrinate our children. Despite a cost of living crisis more parents are sending their children to expensive private schools. Why?

Our society is totally oblivious to the fact that religions are both untrue and harmful. Despite the obvious detriment to social cohesion we fail to do anything to counteract them. Nothing is done to counsel against them. Is this not a symptom of mass delusion? Would it be possible to suggest that perhaps religions may not be a good idea?

The special religious envoys

After wave of serious antisemitic attacks across Sydney, and the firebombing of synagogue in Melbourne in December 2024, there was a public outcry. As a result, a Special Envoy for Antisemitism was appointed, who subsequently released a report The recommendation was to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. In this, questioning Israel’s right to exist, and comparing Israelis to Nazis, is antisemitic. The Royal Commission has adopted this definition. I think that unwise.

Following the Antisemitism Envoy, to square the ledger, a Special Envoy for Islamophobia was appointed. The introduction of their report was written by Australian cricketer Usman Khwaja. In lamenting the apparent Islamophobia after September 11 2001, he seemed to deny that those terrorist attacks had anything to do with Islam. It is not a phobia if they are actually trying to kill you. The recommendations of the report were that all public servants should be trained in Islamic doctrine and that Islam should be publicly promoted. This is nonsense.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution does not allow the promotion or establishment of any religion or allow any religious test for public office. The Envoys and their reports do just that. They are a public office that requires a religious test. They violate the Constitution. Did anyone notice? Their reports do not promote social cohesion. They sow division. The offices of these Special Envoys for Antisemitism and Islamophobia should both be abolished.

Following the Bondi massacre, the President of Israel, Isaac Herzog was invited to Australia. He has publicly endorsed the bombings of civilians in Gaza. For some people, his apparent complicity in war crimes was an issue. At protest in Melbourne, Palestinian advocate Hash Tayeh said "All Zionists are terrorists" For this, he was prosecuted and convicted of hate speech. I think this was unjust.

David Harper, a former appeals court judge, wrote an article in The Age on 7 February 2026, entitled "Herzog has big questions to answer". He raised questions of International law. I would like to summarise what he said.

Reconciliation needs a search for objectivity, he said. Upon its admission to the United Nations in 1945, Israel said that it unreservedly accepted the United Nations Charter, including compliance with the International Court of Justice. There have been serious violations including ICJ judgements and a Security Council resolution.

On December 23, 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334. The USA abstained. It stated: "The establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem has no legal validity. It constitutes a flagrant violation under international law, a major obstacle to the establishment of a two-state solution and a just and lasting peace. The Council demands that Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activity." This resolution was ignored by Israel and it non-compliance was also ignored.

The International Court of Justice has issued two pronouncements. On 26 January 2024 it said: "a plausible case of genocide in Gaza has been made out by South Africa". On 19 July 2024 it said: "Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian Territories is unlawful. The UN General Assembly should consider what action should be taken to end Israel’s unlawful occupation."

Nothing has happened. The settlers continue to claim that their religious belief entitles them to evict Palestinians from their land. Their brutality has only increased, now also with genocidal fervour.

Neither Israel nor Herzog provided any answer to the questions asked by David Harper in his newspaper article. Instead, in response to the protests at the Herzog visit, The Age headline read: "Herzog accuses protesters of seeking to deny Israel’s right to exist."

At the start of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism, the presiding judge, Virginia Bell said that they would adopt the definition of antisemitism whereby it is antisemitic to claim that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavour. She acknowledged that it may be controversial but said it was "basically sound". Is Jewishness a race, a religion or an ethnicity? Whatever it is, the whole purpose of having a Jewish State, with a Jewish flag, is to privilege Jewish people over others.

Zionism and racism

There has long been controversy over whether Zionism embodies racism. UN Resolution 3379 in 1975 declared that "Zionism is racism". It passed by a 72-35 vote with 32 abstentions. It was rejected by Israel. Under pressure from the USA in particular, the resolution was revoked in 1991, partly on the grounds that it implicitly challenged Israel’s "right to exist". Implicitly, the argument is that Zionism privileges a religion not a race.

The American Jewish Committee argues that being one of the chosen people is a burden rather than a privilege, that Israeli Jews are comprised of multiple races, and that some rights of Jews in Israel are also given to non-Jewish citizens of Israel. It is argued that Judaism is related to the need for a Jewish state, that it is racist to suggest that Zionism is racist (see AJC "Zionism is racism").

These arguments are convoluted. If Zionism expresses a religious characteristic then it would not be racist. However the charge of "antisemitism" appears to identify Jewishness as a racial or ethnic characteristic rather than a religious one.

If equal rights are denied on the basis of religion rather than race, then the result may be little different. The word "sectarian" is used to describe a "narrow-minded adherence to a specific religious or political group, often causing conflict, discrimination, or intense prejudice against other groups". So it would be appropriate to describe Zionism as sectarian. The fact that sectarianism is deemed acceptable but racism is not, can be attributed to the prevailing delusion of religions benevolence. In this case, rationality does not apply and need not apply, it seems.

The bombing of the synagogue in Melbourne was later discovered by ASIO not to be an act of local antisemitism but was carried out by agents for Iran for which the Iranian Ambassador was expelled from Australia. It was act of religious warfare carried out in accordance with the stated aims of Iran and Islam. Likewise, the Bondi massacre was not an act of antisemitism, but an act or religious warfare carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Islamic religion as specified in the Koran. Both of these religious attacks were in response to the acts of religious warfare carried out by Israel against the Palestinians.

The Royal Commission will likely achieve nothing in terms of community cohesion because in our deluded state of mind the fundamental problem, the malevolence of religion itself, cannot be recognised.

Jewish peoples every where have a right to exist and be free from prejudice, persecution and attack. The cycle of violence in the Middle East has a long history. The attacks of Hamas on 7 October 2023 were an atrocity, Israel had aright to respond. But where do we go from here? What is the solution? What is the end game? From the evidence we see, Isreal’s only solution is genocide. The Final Solution. It is not acceptable,

Right to exist?

There is nothing in international law that grants a nation a right to exist. People have rights, religions and states do not. Peoples’ rights are defined in the Universal Declaration. Looking at the Articles in that Declaration. Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians seems to entail multiple violations. These apply more to Palestinians in the occupied territories but also to the Palestinian citizens of Israel

We cannot say: "from the river to the sea". We cannot say "globalise the intifada". The questioning Israel’s right to exist is effectively prohibited. If Israel was to change its name would it still exist? If it granted equal rights to the Palestinians would it still exist? If it became a secular state rather than a Jewish or Judaic stare, would it still exist? Surely these are issues we may discuss.

I would like to quote from the wikipedia page: Legitimacy of the State of Israel

Claims based on 2000-year-old historical ties have no basis in international law. The Romans cannot reclaim Britain.
Jurists argue that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was illegal because Britain did not have sovereignty over Palestine. It was a mandate. That declaration proposed a homeland for the Jews while not disadvantaging the non-Jewish population. It ignored the wishes of the vast majority of the population of Palestine.(from wiki)

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 called for the partition of Palestine. Critics of this argue that the distribution of land proposed was unfair, that the resolution only passed after intense Jewish lobbying. All those in favour of the resolution were Christian and all those against were non-Christian (my observation). Jurists say that the United Nations not did it have power to partition land. (from wiki)

In the wiki page on the legitimacy of Israel, religion is never mentioned. But surely this is fundamental. The confiscation of other people’s land cannot be justified on the basis of religious belief. But this is exactly what has happened and is still happening in the West Bank. In what kind of deluded world can the main issue be ignored as it if does not exist? It is not just a mass delusion of religion, is it a mass delusion about religion.

The long history of Zionism and the creation of Israel is too much to go into here, but there is something else I want to mention. Following the Enlightenment, the world was on a long term trend towards human progress and humanism. Religion was fading in terms of global power and influence. Religious wars were largely a thing of the past. This all went into reverse with the establishment of the Jewish State. For the first time in modern history a religion was the basis of a national foundation and territorial expansion.

The PLO was a nationalist movement, not Islamist. After their defeat in the six day war in 1967 the Arabs decided that their god had forsaken them and they needed to become more pious. This pattern has been repeated through history countless times. When disasters happen, people turn to religion. After the September 11 attacks, perhaps the greatest crime ever committed in the name of religion, America became more religious.

The term Islamic terrorism was not really known before 1960 (Google ngrams). Islamism was a reaction to Zionism. Can we cite the Islamic Revolution Iran in 1979 as a reaction to Zionism? Would this have happened without Israel’s foundation fomenting sectarianism? Religious action creates religious reaction. From the 1990s the Saudis used their oil money to establish mosques and Islamic schools all round the world including here. Would this have happened?

I remember the 1990s when Malay girls wore miniskirts. Now practically all Muslim women and girls in Malaysia and Indonesia wear hijabs. There is a similar pattern in other countries, In Afghanistan, at least some women used to be more free. Now, hundreds of millions of women around the world are oppressed by Islam. Would this have happened had a Jewish state not been established? What other hypothesis do you propose?

If you want to know why Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023 look at the quotes from the Koran I mentioned earlier. If you want to know why Israel practices genocide look at the biblical reference to the Amalek.

The 24 February 2026 unprovoked attack on Iran instigated by Israel was motivated by religion. The US joined this attack because it too was motivated by religion. The Arab States joined the war on Iran because of their religious antagonisn to Shiites. (Why else?). Iran was attacked because of its religion and what that religion motivated it to do. This war on Iran is a religious war. Only in a world beset by religious delusion could a religious war occur without it being recognised as such.

This religious war is now causing damage and hardship to the entire planet. Fuel price increases may cause a global recession. Lack of fertiliser could cause famine. The disruption to world trade will cause many other hardships. The mass delusion of religion has never been more pathological.

If people put aside their religious beliefs, the land that is now Israel could be a homeland for both Jews and Palestinians. It could be a secular state, where all people have equal rights and where no religion predominates. The solution exists, if only we were not blind to it.