Circle of Curses – I

Summary of Thoughts on Israel and Hamas

“..When he is asked for what sin the child was killed for,  every person will know for what he has prepared..” Surah Takwir, 9-14

The article titled ‘The Circle of Curses’ consists of four parts:

I. General, II. Israel, III. Hamas, and IV. Conclusion. To keep it brief,

we only publish section I in this article. General and II. Israel. Sections III. Hamas

and IV. The conclusion will be presented to readers

in a subsequent release.

I- General

In the past few days, another addition has been made to the chaos that has prevailed in the region known as the Middle East over the past centuries. In this tumultuous environment where children, women, older people, animals, plants, and all vulnerable beings have suffered unimaginable pain and destruction, the first and most urgent thing that needs to be done is to keep these entities away from these destructive actions and to save them. Particularly for children, this matter is unquestionably a top priority. No child is an integral member of the violent circles woven by the adults called ‘disconnected’ over the years. Every child born is an innocent, originating from a realm beyond the records of such circles, and they are a “new” entity, free from all worldly conditions. Without exception, All destructive circles of disconnected adults are “old.” Moreover, these violent circles, primarily and initially, have attacked “innocence” alone by imposing the penalties of their internal disputes on the innocent. A direct attack on innocence can never have any valid justification. No ideology, political agenda, belief system, or any facade of science can serve as a reasonable basis for such a crime. The fundamental connection between a mission within these destructive circles and an innocent individual depends exclusively on the inherent relationship between the innocent and their place of origin. If there is no intrinsic connection to the innocent child born, the referred circle and its mission are merely a later-established construct. Therefore, there is no right to harm the newborn child; one cannot consider them an integral part of their mission. In this regard, an attack on innocence and the destruction and “exploitation” of innocence is pure betrayal and, from a universal standpoint, an unadulterated crime from the moment of birth. Moreover, considering that every child born has the genuine potential to change and reform these cultural environments legitimately they later become a part of, this crime and betrayal are also a massacre committed by people against their saviors. In the context of destroying their saviors, this crime and betrayal are also sheer foolishness. Pure betrayal, unadulterated crime, and sheer foolishness all come together in one place: where the accursed gather.

In this article titled “The Circle of Curses,” we are attempting to examine the conditions and principles of forming this cursed circle, focusing on the rights of a newborn child. In doing so, we aim to shed a clear, concise light on the cursed oppression directed at innocence. In this article, we will primarily present these principles as conclusion statements. Going into comprehensive groundwork and uncovering implied connections and evolving judgments is left to the reader rather than attributing it to the author, as in that case, a significantly longer and more extensive piece of writing is needed.

First and foremost, it’s essential to acknowledge this fact: Every child born into the world and its culture originates from a place external to the Earth. Hence, children and other beings that fundamentally experience life through birth are not initially a part of the Earth and its cultures. Saying otherwise would be contradictory to the concept of “birth” and the fundamental concept of “being” based on “birth.” If it’s clear that the concept of being based on birth is the cornerstone for “change,” “existence,” and, in this sense, the existence of the “universe,” nor the significance of bringing this attention to the forefront can be readily appreciated. Because we can not separate the universe nor anything related to it from the record of “being based on birth,” and consequently, one cannot speak of a “universal nature” of being or a justification basis without considering “being based on birth.”

How can the legitimacy of anything be established without being? First, forming a being is fundamental. Being is shaped first based on birth and then on the principle of formation. Birth precedes formation. An example of the being that comes with birth is newborn children.

The existence of the universe and the culture within it is fundamentally tied to birth and based on birth. Therefore, for the universe and its culture to ultimately exist, it is contingent on first establishing birth and its basis on birth. The universe and the culture within it, such as the Middle East and the political conflicts in the Middle East, form a realm of being that has emerged later than its origin; in other words, it is a circle of existence formed after its ‘being based on birth.’ Therefore, taking the universe and the culture within it as the reference of being in the general sense, especially as the basis of “born being,” is impossible. Therefore, when anyone thinks or takes action concerning the being, they have no right to put forward something that contradicts the concept of “birth” and “being based on birth” or to rely on incomplete thoughts by ignoring it. Discussing law, politics, belief, or thought without understanding this ontological framework is meaningless. Birth is the fundamental basis for beings born into the world. Every child (or being) born into the world is under the record of “original birth.” However, the Earth and all its cultures, such as the Middle East and the conflicts in the Middle East, owe their existence fundamentally to “original birth” but come into existence later through a “formation” process. Original birth is outside of this “formation” realm. In short, the universe and culture are within the “formation” realm, whereas every child born is fundamentally within the realm of “original birth.” The sphere of original birth is fundamentally outside the realm of formation, and the domain of formation, in turn, depends on the realm of original birth. Understanding these matters is only possible by distinguishing between Birth and Formation. In the article titled “End of Ignorance – II,” we discussed the distinction between Birth and Formation, as well as the differentiation between “Kainat (the created universe)” and ” the universe.” From there, one can understand our approach to this subject.

The realm of birth is outside the realm of formation. Those who are originally born come from outside the “formation” domain. Therefore, every child born comes from a place outside the culture of the Earth, and their fundamental belonging is tied to this external place. The same applies to every identity with birth, including individuals like the prophets. In this regard, prophets are similar to children born into the world.

This means: Children born are not connected to the Earth and the cultures on it, their causes, interests, conflicts, and other schemes. In contrast, born children are inherently connected to the original place that envelops the Earth and its cultures; their homeland is this authentic place, which fundamentally constitutes the location on Earth. Those who, by losing their original birth, include themselves in the cultures of the Earth and base their existence on them do not have such a homeland. In other words, they are essentially “stateless,” like Israel.

This judgment we have presented, the “statelessness judgment,” cannot be fully understood, critiqued, defended, or challenged through narrow interpretations such as politics, philosophy, theology, international relations, or legal frameworks, or even through analyses of the Middle East. To comprehend this judgment, one must acknowledge the born child and see the world through their eyes. That’s the essence of it.

Secondly, it’s essential to note the following: The existence of anything cannot be comprehended without considering the concept of “identity.” To understand, perceive, and be aware of something, one must uncover its “identity.” In this regard, identity is categorized into two types: a) original identity and b) non-original identity.

The original identity is based on an individual’s essential nature and origins; in this sense, it is connected to one’s birth. Therefore, an original identity has an authentic “inner self.” An identity without a true inner core still has an inside, but this internal self forms with the outside of that identity; in this sense, it is an artificial inner self. The fundamental issue in matters of identity is related to the concept of the inner self, and it depends on distinguishing between a “false inner self” and a “true inner self” within that concept. An identity with a false inner self is not an authentic identity. Therefore, the “inner foundations” are not legitimate and universal in such a case.

The identity of Israel lacks legitimate inner foundations because it is primarily based on theological principles and patterns from Jewish history in terms of its inner core. These are not genuinely internal in essence. As a result, Israel does not have a genuine inner core, meaning it lacks an authentic identity. Yet, Israel claims its existence’s inner foundations are original. These points are “equally” applicable to Hamas. The ongoing cycle emerged, involving Israel and Hamas, where those without an inner core entangled with each other and where the “original identities” are encompassed by a circle of oppression resulting in unsolvable disasters.

Other structures within the Middle East and external structures influencing the region are also part of the elements of this circle.

Let’s briefly discuss Israel and Hamas to try to unravel the circle.

II. Israel

One of the fundamental components of the current accursed circle in the region known as the Middle East is the so-called state of Israel. The existence of this self-proclaimed state is based on several key points, which include;

• A theology-based religion known as Judaism,

• The historical-cultural narrative of Jewish identity in chronological terms,

• Opportunities acquired through the approximately two-century-long economic and political organization called Zionism.

• Lands acquired through purchase and primarily through occupation and international political maneuvers,

• Pursuit of so-called legal justifications for the de facto presence resulting from military superiority on these lands or the imposition of the de facto presence.

These points can be summarized as mentioned. To delve into the details, it is sufficient to refer to relevant sources. More than relying on the cited sources is required to address these points as we are attempting here comprehensively. For example, understanding the nature of the theology-based religion known as Judaism cannot be accomplished simply by reading the literature descriptions. It’s necessary to look beyond the literature’s records to grasp its essence.

The points briefly summarized above should be categorized into internal and external foundations. This way, the “inner true self” issue can be seen more clearly from an open perspective. The basis of Israel’s innerSelf’s foundations for its existence includes:

• A theology-based religion.

• The cultural conditions that have influenced the formation of Jewish identity and their responses to changing circumstances in the world.

In terms of Israel’s outerSelf’s foundation includes;

• The impact of the organization known as Zionism regarding political and economic capabilities.

• The imposition of a de facto presence was finally gained in the Middle East through political, legal, and military means.

Utilizing relationships with regional elements (such as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and others) and leveraging the influence of external elements outside the region (like the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia during the Soviet era and afterward, and the United Nations) should be considered part of this external justification.

Israel’s current existence is based on both these internal and external justifications.

Any questioning of Israel’s existence should be conducted through an examination of both its internal and external foundations, as outlined above. If the legitimacy of the inner foundations is questioned and found to be missing, Israel is reduced to a mere economic, political, and military entity. Its internal structure, which it has established, would become subject to the control of this external structure in a naked form. Suppose the external foundations are questioned, and Israel is reduced to a state with an internal system solely defined by external factors. In that case, the legitimacy of these external foundations will also come into question. If no such legitimacy is found, in that case, Israel is reduced to being solely a “de facto” entity, existing through force, either through so-called legal justifications or military superiority, and as an oppressive structure.

Understanding the Israel issue and finding a foundation to address it can only be discussed by clearly specifying all these points.

In a concise summary without delving into detailed justifications, Israel is a self-proclaimed state primarily based on imposition and coercion, lacking genuine internal foundations.

Based on existence based on original birth, it’s important to emphasize that no one has the right to claim existence through imposition and coercion. Furthermore, it is essential to realize that original existence is unattainable through these methods. Consequently, those who seek to exist solely through imposition and power will inevitably vanish as circumstances evolve as a destiny. The conditions in question, of course, are subject to change. Israel has no choice but to establish internal foundations to remain stable and withstand these changing conditions. However, as mentioned earlier, it’s only possible to acknowledge whether Israel has a legitimate internal foundation by questioning the theology-based religion and the narrative of Jewish identity as its core. As a result of questioning these aspects and making it evident that this internal core lacks foundation, it would also reveal that Israel has not established an authentic inner self. In that case, it means that Israel essentially has no inherent identity. An Inner-less Israel would exist solely based on external conditions. An inner-less entity based on external conditions is inevitably bound to vanish, as dictated by the very nature of those external circumstances.

It should be remembered that in history, one of the first communities to establish an “innerSelf,” “ethnic,” and “monotheistic religion” as the basis for their “identity” was the Jews. The current state of Israel, often referred to as a pseudo-state, has been formed as an external facade relying on this inner self, with contributions from the questionable histories of the so-called superpower states over the two centuries of Zionism. Demonstrating that this “internal” has no connection to a fundamental or birth-based “innerSelf,” as opposed to what is claimed, leaves the Jews, who initially stood out as the first form of “innerSelf,” without an “innerSelf. If this can be accomplished, for instance, it would demonstrate that the Prophets, who were inherently “innerSelf,” were not Jewish, contrary to what is claimed. So, it would show no connection between the Jews and the Prophets. Only a Jewish identity formed based on chronological, social, and other psychological narratives remains. Since these also have no connection to an “authentic innerSelf” aspect, the Jewish identity, contrary to the image it has presented so far, “again” presents itself as “inner-less” now. So, the “innerSelf” presented before is understood to be fake. This way, it becomes clear who one of the impostors throughout history truly is.

An identity without an “innerSelf” cannot sustain its existence. In other words, to exist, it needs to establish an inner core, an inherent identity. This way, it can also rightfully claim its right to self-defense.

In fact, this is a general principle. Any entity can only indeed exist if it has an inherent “innerSelf”. As a result, with its authentic existence, it gains the ability to defend itself and maintain its presence based on that foundation, even under changing conditions. Any society lacking such an inherent foundation cannot truly sustain its existence. Unfortunately, such an understanding is lacking in current international relations, political theories and practices, and parameters of international law. Therefore, it is impossible to form an “authentic society” based on existing international relations, political ideas and practices, and parameters of international law. Furthermore, without embracing the foundational understanding we have presented or a similar one, it is unrealistic to anticipate establishing a sustainable and functional order based on these parameters among global societies. In other words, international organizations, such as the United Nations, are not equipped to generate sustainable solutions globally and specifically in the Middle East without incorporating the minimum foundational principles we have articulated. Even the United Nations itself lacks an “innerSelf”. The foundations of the United Nations, ( which was formed under the conditions of World War I and World War II, within a narrow framework that was essentially limited to being under the control of inherently weak structures like the British, American, and Soviet, but only strong in an external sense, and primarily as a condition for being against the Germans) are fundamentally flawed in a universal sense that they fail to encompass nations with “innerSelf.” The United Nations was born with a fundamental flaw. None of the subsequent revisions can genuinely fix this issue. The Security Council, one of the enforcement arms of the United Nations, is not less flawed and dangerous than Israel in this context. To keep it concise, let’s not go into further detail. What we have discussed is not something to be fundamentally understood solely through the history of politics and international legal theories.

Demonstrating that the foundations on which Israel has built its identity as an “innerSelf” are not as substantial as believed would fundamentally destroy the very core of Israel’s existence. What remains is only an external entity that operates based on changing conditions. In other words, if we remove what is believed to be the inner self, Israel is eradicated from within. Once Israel is destroyed from within, its external existence is subject to the influence of external conditions.

The way to eradicate Israel from within depends on awakening the “children” within Israel. So, reviving those born as authentic and reminding them that they are not the actual internals of the innerless Israel, which uses them as its internal tool, will inevitably lead to Israel’s internal collapse. Such a collapse, however, is not the exact nature as Israel’s destructiveness because Israel’s destructiveness relies on its false-innerSelf and variable external nature. In the context we’re discussing, the legitimacy of destruction derives from the inherently universal nature of the “born child.” This child, for example, is a child born in Israel. Or someone else born as authentic. For instance, he is the authentically born Prophet Moses and relies upon the Revelation. We won’t say more on this matter.

Israel regards its Judaism and the experiences of Jews throughout history as the internal foundation of its existence. It presents this foundation as a universal essence. However, it is not Israel’s true self. Contrary to what it’s attempting to demonstrate, Israel’s essence is to massacre the ‘authentically born’ in a universal sense.

Today, Israel, which kills the “child” authentically born, has also massacred the “Prophets” who were authentically born beings.

In the end, Israel places its baseless identity as an “innerSelf “instead of those it kills and pretends to have ‘universal foundations by attacking the truly universal ones and replacing them with its neurotic innerSelf, but in reality, it is an illegitimate, identity-less, innerless, fake, oppressive state, and, one day it will inevitably be destroyed by those it massacred.

The Israel “Circle of Curses” section is complete for now. In the following article, we will touch on the III. Hamas section and the IV. Conclusion section.