• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Wilber on Gaza Continued

A Deeper Dive into Selected Topics

Frank Visser / Grok

This is a response to the first 12 minutes of this video, covering the Gaza War.[1]

Include a section on "Israel does not have many friends"

Ken Wilber's casual dismissal—"Israel does not have very many friends internationally, so I would expect all of Israel's haters to call what they're doing as genocide whether it is or isn't"—is not just factually wrong in March 2026; it's a lazy, ethnocentric dodge that collapses the integral project into tribal apologetics. From an AQAL lens, this statement reveals a profound failure across multiple quadrants and levels: it ignores empirical Lower-Right data on diplomatic reality, selectively filters Lower-Left cultural narratives, and abandons Upper-Right behavioral evidence of shifting alliances. Worse, it pathologizes legitimate international criticism as mere "hate," regressing from teal worldcentric inclusion to amber "us vs. them" framing.

Lower-Right Reality: Israel Has a Robust Network of Allies in 2026

Wilber's claim that Israel "does not have very many friends" is flatly contradicted by the geopolitical map as of March 2026. Israel maintains formal diplomatic relations with approximately 163 of 192 UN member states (about 85%), including all five permanent UN Security Council members (US, UK, France, China, Russia—though the latter two are often critical). Core historic allies remain rock-solid: the United States provides unwavering strategic, military, and financial backing (with joint operations against Iran reinforcing the bond under Trump-Netanyahu alignment). Germany, despite occasional arms export pauses tied to Gaza concerns, continues as a major partner. The UK, Canada, Australia, India, and several EU nations sustain strong ties.

The Abraham Accords have endured and expanded influence, with Egypt and Jordan as stable peace partners. Netanyahu's February 2026 push for a "hexagon of alliances" explicitly includes India (Modi's high-profile visit highlighted shared tech/security interests), Greece, Cyprus, and emerging ties with Gulf states, African nations, and others to counter "radical" axes. Pro-Israel advocacy networks like the Israel Allies Foundation are expanding parliamentary caucuses in Europe and Latin America for 2026. Even amid Gaza fallout, countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia (neutral but pragmatic), Indonesia, Azerbaijan, and others engaged in ceasefire/stabilization talks—some contributing to or funding the International Stabilization Force (ISF) under Trump's plan.

Yes, outrage over Gaza's humanitarian crisis has strained relations: European states (France, UK, Canada, etc.) issued joint calls in 2025-2026 for the war to end, criticized aid blockages, and some (e.g., Germany in phases) slowed arms flows. UN General Assembly resolutions in 2025 overwhelmingly backed two-state paths, condemned aspects of Israel's conduct, and endorsed ICJ provisional measures—often with broad support including from traditional allies (142-10 on the New York Declaration, with US/Israel in the minority "no" camp). But this is not isolation; it's accountability pressure within alliances. Israel retains veto-proof US protection in the Security Council, massive military aid, tech/intel sharing, and growing non-Western partnerships (India as a counterweight to China/Russia dynamics).

Wilber's "not very many friends" erases this Lower-Right network. It's not empirical; it's projection of a besieged narrative.

Lower-Left Cultural Narrative: Framing Criticism as "Hate" Is Amber Pathology

Wilber reduces global condemnation—often from human rights bodies, UN experts, and even allied governments—to "Israel's haters." This is classic ethnocentric shadow: any dissent equals existential enmity. Integral demands holding multiple cultural truths: yes, antisemitism exists and poisons discourse; yes, some criticism veils deeper bias. But labeling widespread calls for ceasefire, aid access, and proportionality (from 28+ countries in 2025 joint statements, including Japan, Australia, most of Europe) as "hate" dismisses legitimate worldcentric moral concern over documented civilian devastation, blocked humanitarian operations, and ICC/ICJ findings.

This isn't "both sides" inclusion; it's cultural dominance. Palestinians' trauma narrative (Nakba, occupation, blockade) is sidelined, while Israeli security fears are absolutized. True teal would integrate: condemn Hamas's charter and Oct 7 atrocities and acknowledge how Israel's response has alienated even sympathetic voices, without equating critique with hatred.

Developmental Regression: From Transcend-Include to Defensive Tribalism

At teal/turquoise, one transcends ethnocentrism to hold paradox: Israel's right to exist/defend itself and the moral imperative of proportionality, distinction, and humanitarian law. Wilber instead offers a pre-conventional "they hate us anyway, so ignore them" reflex. This abdicates integral responsibility—especially egregious from the theory's architect. In 2026, with fragile ceasefires, ISF planning, and reconstruction debates, dismissing international bodies as hate-driven forfeits any claim to higher-stage wisdom.

This line isn't integral humility or balance; it's confirmation bias shielding a favored narrative. Israel has plenty of powerful friends—militarily, diplomatically, economically—who continue support despite Gaza's toll. The real imbalance is in Wilber's analysis: he privileges one side's isolation myth while ignoring the data that could foster genuine evolutionary dialogue. Step into full AQAL: include the alliances, hold the criticisms without reduction, and actually transcend the tribal frame he accuse others of. Anything less betrays the integral vision he built.

Include a section on the genocide denial

Ken Wilber's outright denial that Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide—dismissing the term with "that doesn't sound very much like a real genocide to me" and pivoting to hypotheticals about fairness while admitting he "hasn't followed" recent events—is not just outdated; in March 2026, it amounts to active genocide denial. This stance clashes violently with an integral approach that demands rigorous, multi-quadrant, evidence-based inclusion of evolving realities. Instead of transcending and including the mounting consensus from authoritative bodies, Wilber regresses into selective skepticism, echoing classic denialist tropes: minimizing intent, emphasizing warnings or self-defense, and framing accusations as biased "hate." From an AQAL perspective, this is epistemic malpractice—refusing to integrate data that challenges a preferred narrative—and it betrays the very methodological pluralism Integral Theory claims to champion.

Lower-Right Empirical Collapse: Overwhelming 2026 Consensus on Genocide

By March 22, 2026, the Lower-Right systems-level evidence is unequivocal and damning. Multiple independent, high-authority sources have concluded Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza:

• The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (September 2025 report, still operative in 2026) found Israel has committed and continues to commit genocide, documenting four prohibited acts under the Genocide Convention: killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and imposing measures to prevent births. It highlighted systematic destruction of reproductive healthcare, mass starvation, and intent evidenced by official statements and patterns.

• Amnesty International (multiple 2025-2026 reports, including March 2026 updates on compounded harms to women/girls) concluded Israel is committing genocide, citing dehumanizing rhetoric, deliberate aid obstruction, infrastructure annihilation, and intent to destroy Palestinians "as such." Their landmark December 2024 report ("You Feel Like You Are Subhuman") documented acts and intent, reaffirmed in 2026 annual reporting.

• Human Rights Watch (World Report 2026 and December 2024 findings) labeled Israel's actions as including the crime against humanity of extermination and acts of genocide, with escalation in 2025 involving war crimes, ethnic cleansing elements, and deliberate deprivation (starvation, water weaponization). They noted over 69,000 killed (including 19,000+ children), 170,000+ injured, and unprecedented destruction.

• Even Israeli organizations like B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel (July 2025) concluded genocide is occurring, marking a milestone in internal accountability.

The ICJ case (South Africa v. Israel) remains ongoing in March 2026, with provisional measures (January/March/May 2024 onward) ordering Israel to prevent genocidal acts, ensure aid, and punish incitement—orders repeatedly violated per UN and NGO monitoring. Interventions continue (e.g., US declaration March 13, 2026, rejecting the claim), but no merits ruling yet (expected 2027-2028). Provisional findings found "plausible" rights to protection from genocide, binding Israel to comply—compliance widely documented as lacking.

Wilber's "not real genocide" claim relies on outdated anecdotes (bombing warnings, which UN reports show were inconsistent or absent in emblematic strikes post-2023). In 2026, with ceasefires breached, aid bans escalating (e.g., sweeping restrictions on international groups in early 2026), and cancer patients dying from deliberate delays, this denial ignores the interobjective reality: conditions engineered for physical destruction.

Lower-Left Cultural Denial: Pathologizing Accusations as "Hate"

Wilber frames genocide claims as coming from "Israel's haters" or imbalanced discourse. This mirrors documented patterns of Gaza genocide denial (e.g., Wikipedia entry on the phenomenon, Lemkin Institute accusations against figures/governments downplaying it). Denial tactics include:

• Insisting on narrow intent definitions (e.g., "not methodical enough" per some op-eds).

• Emphasizing self-defense/Hamas intent while erasing Israeli statements evidencing genocidal rhetoric.

• Dismissing critics as antisemitic or biased, even when from UN experts, Amnesty, HRW, or Israeli NGOs.

Integral LL demands holding cultural shadows on both sides: Hamas's amber absolutism and Israel's ethno-nationalist narratives that dehumanize Palestinians. Reducing global/human rights consensus to "haters" is amber regression—tribal defensiveness, not teal inclusion.

Upper-Left/Upper-Right Moral and Behavioral Abdication

Wilber concedes ignorance ("What they're doing recently I haven't followed") yet assert no genocide. Integral UL requires curiosity and shadow work; UR demands data integration. Denying genocide amid this evidence abdicates post-conventional ethics—failing to hold paradox: condemn Oct 7/Hamas utterly and name disproportionate, intentional destruction as genocidal per Convention criteria.

This isn't "both sides" wisdom; it's one-sided denial that shields a narrative while civilians suffer extermination-level conditions. In 2026, with UN/Amnesty/HRW/ICJ-aligned findings dominant, persisting in denial without updating is not integral humility—it's willful blindness.

True integral consciousness transcends denial by including uncomfortable truths. Genocide denial—whether literal or interpretive—has broken as a dam in 2025-2026 scholarship/media. Wilber's position aligns with holdouts (e.g., some US officials, pro-Israel op-eds) but contradicts the evidence avalanche. Update with March 2026 reality: integrate the consensus, hold both atrocities and asymmetries, and evolve beyond regression. The integral vision requires nothing less—or it becomes just another partial ideology.

Compare Wilber's stance to Chomsky's

Ken Wilber's stance on the Gaza conflict, as expressed in his 2026 conversation with Rachel Torrent, stands in stark, almost polar opposition to Noam Chomsky's long-standing and consistent position on Israel-Palestine. From an integral perspective, this comparison highlights Wilber's regression into partial, ethnocentric framing versus Chomsky's rigorous, systemic critique rooted in power asymmetries, historical context, and international law—qualities that align far more closely with genuine AQAL inclusion across quadrants and levels.

Core Stance on Genocide and Israel's Actions

Wilber denies that Israel's post-Oct 7 response constitutes genocide, calling it "not very much like a real genocide" based on outdated claims about warnings before bombings and framing it as understandable retaliation against Hamas's explicit genocidal intent. He admits ignorance of recent developments ("What they're doing recently I haven't followed") yet dismisses accusations as coming from "Israel's haters" or imbalanced discourse.

Chomsky, by contrast, has repeatedly described Israel's actions in Gaza as genocidal or fitting patterns of extreme settler-colonial violence aimed at destruction and elimination. In interviews and writings from 2023-2025 (and echoed in discussions up to his health decline), he frames the assault as part of a decades-long campaign of ethnic cleansing, siege as an act of war, and deliberate infliction of conditions leading to physical destruction. He cites the blockade, "mowing the lawn" operations, and post-2023 escalation as genocidal in effect and intent, aligning with analyses from scholars like Avi Shlaim (who calls it "the crime of all crimes") and human rights bodies. Chomsky condemns Oct 7 atrocities but insists they do not justify collective punishment or erasure of Palestinian society.

From AQAL: Wilber's denial collapses Lower-Right empirical data (UN/Amnesty/HRW/ICJ consensus on genocidal acts) and Upper-Left moral curiosity, regressing to amber defensiveness. Chomsky integrates systemic evidence (LR), cultural/historical narratives (LL), and power intent (UL/UR), holding worldcentric accountability without excusing either side's violence.

View on Hamas and Palestinian Agency

Wilber reduces Palestinians to their 2006 vote for Hamas, treating the group's charter as collective guilt justifying extreme response ("the only way is to kill them... blast them off the face of the earth if necessary"). He minimizes civilian suffering by emphasizing "both sides" while privileging Israel's narrative.

Chomsky condemns Hamas's actions and ideology but contextualizes them within occupation, blockade, and despair—not as justifying genocide. He critiques Palestinian leadership divisions (e.g., Fatah vs. Hamas) but focuses on structural causes: U.S.-backed Israeli expansionism as the primary driver. He advocates for Palestinian self-determination without romanticizing militancy, seeing violence as a symptom of oppression rather than the root cause.

From AQAL: Wilber pathologizes the Lower-Left Palestinian cultural worldspace (trauma, dispossession) while absolutizing Israeli security fears. Chomsky includes both cultural shadows—Hamas's mythic absolutism and Zionist settler narratives—while transcending to systemic analysis.

Power Asymmetry, U.S. Role, and International Consensus

Wilber claims Israel "does not have very many friends internationally," expecting "haters" to cry genocide regardless of facts, and downplays asymmetry by hypothesizing fair responses to existential threats.

Chomsky emphasizes massive asymmetry: nuclear-armed Israel (with unconditional U.S. support) versus a besieged enclave. He frames U.S. policy as enabling occupation and ethnic cleansing, rejecting the "two-state" consensus only because Washington/Israel have sabotaged it through settlement expansion. He notes near-universal international agreement on pre-1967 borders (with modifications) as viable, blocked by power, not inherent impossibility.

From AQAL: Wilber's "not many friends" ignores LR alliances (U.S., India, Abraham Accords partners) and dismisses LL global consensus as bias—ethnocentric filtering. Chomsky's analysis embodies teal inclusion: power structures, historical settler-colonialism (which he calls "the most extreme and vicious form of imperialism"), and feasible resolutions.

Developmental Levels and Integral Integrity

Wilber's response regresses: amber revenge logic ("wipe them out"), orange rationalization of disproportionate force, and selective "both sides" that excludes Palestinian interiors and global data. Admitting ignorance while pontificating betrays integral methodological pluralism.

Chomsky operates at a higher post-conventional level: consistent worldcentric critique of imperialism (U.S./Israel tandem), insistence on evidence over tribal loyalty, and advocacy for structures (two-state or otherwise) that meet both peoples' aspirations in security and dignity. His lifelong engagement—from kibbutz days to recent interviews—shows transcend-and-include without denial.

In sum, Wilber's partial defense of Israel (despite claiming neutrality) betrays integral promise by excluding quadrants, regressing levels, and shielding from uncomfortable truths. Chomsky's stance, while uncompromisingly critical of power, better exemplifies integral virtues: full inclusion of asymmetries, historical traumas on both sides, empirical rigor, and evolutionary vision toward just resolution. From March 2026 reality—amid ICJ proceedings, breached ceasefires, and documented extermination conditions—Chomsky's position holds far greater moral and analytical coherence. Wilber's does not; it regresses the very theory he founded. True integral demands we transcend Wilber's blind spot here and include Chomsky's unflinching clarity.

Make critique more balanced

Ken Wilber's statements on the Gaza conflict in his 2026 interview with Raquel Torrent represent a well-intentioned but flawed attempt at integral balance. He explicitly aims for an "integral approach" by urging consideration of "both sides," highlighting Hamas's documented genocidal intent (from its charter and rhetoric), the 2006 election context, and Israel's defensive posture amid existential threats. This reflects a sincere effort to avoid one-sided polarization common in Western discourse, where he notes an "imbalance" favoring Palestinian narratives while sidelining Israeli security concerns.

At the same time, the response falls short of full AQAL integrity in several ways, leading to a partial view that privileges one perspective over comprehensive inclusion. A more balanced integral critique acknowledges Wilber's valid points while identifying the gaps, regressions, and missed opportunities—without dismissing his intent or reducing the analysis to tribal attack.

Strengths: Elements of Genuine Integral Effort

Wilber correctly identifies key amber-level pathologies on the Palestinian/Hamas side: the charter's explicit call for Israel's destruction, slogans like "from the river to the sea" interpreted as eliminationist, and the persistence of genocidal rhetoric over nearly two decades. These are real Lower-Left cultural absolutes that fuel cycles of violence and must be included in any worldcentric analysis. He also gestures toward Upper-Right behavioral realities—Hamas's governance failures in Gaza and Oct 7 atrocities—while rejecting simplistic "both sides are equal" equivalence. His call to consider "what it looks like from both sides" aligns with integral pluralism: transcending green relativism that might flatten moral distinctions.

Additionally, his emphasis on warnings before strikes (though outdated by 2026) draws from a historical Lower-Right practice Israel employed in earlier conflicts to minimize civilian harm—a point worth noting in assessing intent, even if inconsistent post-2023.

Wilber's frustration with discourse imbalance is not baseless: some Western progressive spaces downplay Hamas's agency or intent, framing everything through occupation alone. His pushback against that selective narrative shows an attempt at teal-level detachment from ideological capture.

Weaknesses: Where the Integral Frame Falls Short

Despite these strengths, the analysis regresses in key areas:

Empirical and Lower-Right Blind Spots — Wilber admits he "hasn't followed" recent events, yet asserts no genocide based on pre-2023 anecdotes. By March 2026, Gaza Health Ministry figures (accepted in broad strokes even by Israeli sources) report over 72,000 Palestinian deaths (mostly civilians, including high proportions of women and children), with independent estimates (e.g., Lancet studies) suggesting higher totals from direct and indirect causes like starvation, disease, and infrastructure collapse. UN, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch reports document acts fitting Genocide Convention criteria (killing, serious harm, destructive conditions). The asymmetry—1,200+ Israeli deaths vs. 70,000+ Palestinian—is not mere "imbalance in discussion" but a structural LR fact Wilber waves away.

Cultural and Lower-Left Selectivity — While condemning Hamas's mythic absolutism, Wilber largely omits Palestinian cultural interiors: generational trauma from Nakba, blockade, occupation, and daily dispossession. This leaves the LL quadrant incomplete. On the Israeli side, he underplays ethno-nationalist shadows (e.g., settlement expansion, dehumanizing rhetoric in some official statements) that fuel escalation. True integral holds both traumas without excusing violence.

Moral and Developmental Regression — Phrases like "the only way is to kill them... blast them off the face of the earth if necessary" echo amber revenge logic, not teal/post-conventional ethics that demand proportionality, distinction, and higher-order resolutions (e.g., enforceable ceasefires, two-state pathways, shadow integration). Suggesting collective punishment as "fair" abdicates worldcentric responsibility.

Epistemic Laziness — Admitting ignorance of 2026 realities (breached ceasefires, aid restrictions, ICJ provisional measures violations) while pontificating violates methodological pluralism. Integral requires updating with all data, not confirmation bias.

Comparison to Chomsky: A Mirror for Balance

Noam Chomsky's stance offers a counterpoint that highlights Wilber's gaps while sharing some common ground. Chomsky condemns Hamas's Oct 7 atrocities and ideology but frames the conflict through systemic power asymmetry: U.S.-backed Israeli settler-colonialism vs. a besieged population. He describes Gaza operations as genocidal in effect/intent, aligning with 2025-2026 human rights consensus, and critiques U.S. enabling of occupation/expansion.

Wilber and Chomsky both reject simplistic moral equivalence and emphasize structural drivers—Wilber via levels (Hamas's amber pathology), Chomsky via imperialism. But Chomsky integrates more LR data (asymmetry, blockade as war), LL history (Nakba, dispossession), and post-conventional ethics (proportionality, international law). Wilber's "both sides" gesture is narrower, often privileging Israeli fears over Palestinian suffering.

An integral synthesis would transcend both: include Wilber's focus on developmental levels and intent and Chomsky's systemic critique and empirical rigor. Neither alone suffices—Wilber risks ethnocentric tilt, Chomsky risks under-emphasizing Palestinian agency pathologies.

Toward a Fuller Integral Response

A truly balanced integral view in March 2026 would:

• Condemn Hamas's genocidal charter, Oct 7 barbarism, and governance failures unequivocally.

• Name Israel's disproportionate response, documented genocidal acts (per UN/Amnesty/HRW), and violations of humanitarian law.

• Hold both peoples' traumas and legitimate security needs in paradox.

• Advocate evolutionary paths: demilitarization, economic integration, cultural shadow work, and enforceable peace structures.

Wilber's intent—to foster spaciousness amid suffering—is noble and integral in spirit. But execution falls short by excluding key quadrants, regressing levels, and ignoring evolving data. The integral project thrives on relentless inclusion and transcendence—not partiality disguised as balance. Updating with 2026 realities and holding the full holon would elevate his contribution from defensive to truly evolutionary.

NOTES

[1] From an interview by Raquel Torrent with Ken Wilber, "KEN WILBER 2026 interviewed by RAQUEL TORRENT- POLISHED TRANSCRIPTION-PART I", raqueltorrent.blogspot.com, March 2, 2026. See also my critical review, Part 1.

Here is the full conversation about Gaza with Wilber.

RACHEL: So, this "0" Question is: What's your take on the Palestinian's genocide..?

KEN: Well, I think the Palestinian question is a very difficult one. I mean, they, the Palestinian people had a chance to vote in who they wanted to head them and they voted in Hamas. Hamas has been in charge of Palestine for something like 18 years and they haven't done anything good for the country that I can tell. Hamas still does insist on it's actually part of their governmental documents, so much so, that they insist on genocide for Israel. Thus, when we start talking about who's committing genocide, we have to be very careful. If Israel retaliated by taking genocidal actions against Palestine, it'd be hard to blame them since they have their fighting a group that has already sworn and has written documents saying: "we want the genocide of Israel". That's what they've kept on saying and what it means "from the water to the sea, Palestine will be free", it means to get rid of Israel. So, I always when we look at Palestine versus Israel type of situation, I always try to think of what it looks like from both sides. I mean, that's an Integral approach in itself. But it's very difficult because most people in America tend to choose one side or the other. And so, they are the ones that will call what Israel is doing to Palestine, a Palestinian's genocide. But they won't mention the fact that Palestine is already sworn to commit genocide on Israel. They just forget that. And I think that's not good. I'm not taking one side or the other. I'm not taking Israel's side. When I point out that Israel's side is generally not being given its fair do in any conversation between the two sides. So, recent events in Palestine have just reconfirmed my feeling that there's a fundamental imbalance going on between how these two sides are discussed. And I think that's very unfortunate.

RACHEL: Yes, very unfortunate imbalance, having in mind that even though it's true that Hamas has said that they wanted to get rid of Israelites or Israel, the imbalance on the number of deaths and killings and the humanitarian problems that they have created -not letting the wounded people or the sick people to receive help or give them food or other atrocities- is humongous. I mean that I don't see that as a very balanced situation neither, given that the civil population is not the guilty one, let's say, in order to receive all that horrible treatment. Even, they have signed some kind of "peace" among them and Israel has kept on bombing!

KEN: Well, Israel has a standing order that when they're going to bomb an area that includes civilian people they announce the times they're going to bomb so civilians can get out of the way. So, that doesn't sound very much like a real genocide to me. Maybe they've stopped doing that and that would be unfortunate but I know for a fact that they had that situation in place for many many years. They would simply announce: "we're going to bomb from 8 a.m. to noon and from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m." and the civilians could clear out if they wanted to. So, that doesn't sound like a real genocide to me. What they're doing recently I haven't followed that actually.

RACHEL: I see, well what they have been doing you know it's very unfortunate because it really appears as a genocide because of the imbalance on the number of victims that Palestine has had which it's not even at all on the opposite side. So, even though you are making the analysis of what Hamas has said at the beginning and has been telling for 10 years, is not balanced with the force, fury and meanness that they have put on the Palestine population. That's why it's the number of people dead and the devastation of the strip in which they live -because they are really living in a strip of earth- that make it very imbalanced and it's been too much and that's the reason why many people, internationally, are naming it as "genocide".

KEN: Israel does not have very many friends internationally, so I would expect all of Israel's haters to call what they're doing as genocide whether it is or isn't, but let me ask you this, if there were a group of people that swore that their sole aim is to commit total genocide on you what would be the fair response to that? Sure you shouldn't in fact keep killing them until they're all dead since if any of them are alive they're going to try to kill you. What's fair?

RACHEL: Oh, but one thing is to talk and another thing is to do, don't you think?

KEN: Well sure, but if you're the Palestinians, the Hamas inside has already spoken, they want genocide for Israel and they're not going to stop until they get it, so Israel that has got a fairly intelligent mind in terms of how to fight, has decided that all we can do is wipe out that other side since all they want to do is completely commit genocide on us, so we're going to go in with everything we have until we blast them off the face of the earth if that's necessary. That's the only way to get them to stop talking about genocide. The only way is to kill them, well, who's to say what's fair?