May 2026 – a look at some countries

USA

Trump’s greatest achievement is that he kills or kidnaps presidents. If he merely killed or kidnapped presidents, that would somehow be fair in the world of gangsters. But the fact that he kills primary school girls as collateral damage, causes inflation, lowers people’s standard of living across the globe through the energy crisis, and stubbornly sticks to his ideas is, to put it mildly, a sign of a penchant for dictatorship and the mindset that the best course of action is to turn everything upside down, without a second thought.

And so a void is emerging in the USA, because if the Democrats come to power again, America will once more be destroyed socially and spiritually, ethnic replacement will continue, and fentanyl will be made ever more popular. The Dems (read: the demons) will resume their gender and climate change nonsense, will incite hostility towards Russia, and so on and so forth. The void is emerging because people have no sensible candidate to vote for. I keep asking myself: how is it possible that such a great nation can produce something entirely new? OK, the big tech firms, AI and their achievements have been breathtaking, but Europeans, Asians, South Americans and, above all, North Americans are waiting for breathtaking new leadership in Washington.

UAE

The United Arab Emirates is leaving OPEC because:

their so-called friends, such as Saudi Arabia, did not come to their aid during the Iranian attacks;
they have the largest oil production capacities in the Persian Gulf and want to exploit them as quickly as possible before they run out of oil. They want to sell it now at the highest possible price, and today’s price levels of over $100 a barrel represent an opportunity for them to hoard money in a stagnant global economy.
they follow Trump’s lead: away from multilateralism. Participation in international alliances and cooperation is pointless. This may well be the start of a potential avalanche of withdrawals: the US from NATO, Eastern European countries from the EU, and so on.

Hungary

Peter Magyar’s victory delighted the Brussels elite, but they don’t understand people, and Magyar will disappoint them, because:

Magyar is not a pro-Ukrainian leader. Like Orbán, he opposes direct military support and the dispatch of weapons from Hungary. Furthermore, he is strongly opposed to a fast-track route for Ukraine’s accession to the European Union.
Likewise, the new Prime Minister supports the strict protection of Hungary’s borders and firmly rejects any mechanism for the compulsory resettlement of migrants within the EU.
The same applies to social policy, where pensions are not being cut in 2013 and 2014. Hungary’s budget deficit is therefore growing ever larger.
Although Magyar has expressed his desire to gradually move away from Russian oil, he is continuing his predecessor’s policy on nuclear energy. The new government has stated that it will not halt the controversial expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant, which is being carried out in close cooperation with the Russian state-owned giant Rosatom. The key to the issue of energy resources from Russia seems to lie in these words from Magyar: “Russia will be here, and Hungary will be here. We will try to diversify, but that does not mean we want to part ways.” Everything suggests that the new Hungarian Prime Minister is, in fact, a ‘light version’ of Viktor Orbán, which may seem surprising at first glance, but when a country is so heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies, the room for manoeuvre is truly limited.

Israel

The country under Zionist rule is waging a merciless war against other religions. The Zionists want to reach the Euphrates and, who knows, perhaps establish a thousand-year empire. Their targets are not only Islamists, whether Sunni or Shia, but also Christians. The demoralisation of Israeli soldiers has reached such a point that they are destroying and burning down entire villages. Recently, everyone was shocked by a photo of an Israeli soldier in southern Lebanon destroying a statue of Christ with a heavy hammer.

Source: X

The hatred and the scale of Israel’s attacks on Iran mean that Tel Aviv is already running short of air defence missiles. It seems that the Israelis are overplaying their hand and that this could end badly for them.

Cat turned mouse

Three weeks into the war and it has emerged that the predatory cat – the United States (and Israel) – has turned into the mouse, while the mouse – Iran – has become the cat. What a turn of events! The United States has stepped into a quagmire and now has difficulties extricating itself from it. Is this the beginning of the end of the global superpower?

It was in 1979 that the Soviet Union deployed its troops to Afghanistan. The Western world condemned the action. The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan for a decade and then withdrew. They withdrew on the eve of the collapse of the first state of the workers and the peasants.

The same seems to be happening to the United States. Its troops have not put their boots on the ground as yet, but its air force and its missiles are operating against Iran, while Iran is striking back, and striking back successfully. Targets are hit not only in Israel but also in all the Persian Gulf countries that have American military bases. The leaders of those countries must have nurtured hopes of security once they had invited American soldiers on their soil, now they must regret it. It is also a signal to other countries having American bases: a warning to Poland, Romania, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Safe are they not.

In an attempt to save face, the American president has recently talked about negotiations with the Iranian leadership. The problem is that Iran denies ever taking part in any negotiations. President Donald Trump has issued a forty-eight-hour ultimatum, threatening that if the Strait of Hormuz was not made accessible to vessels from around the world, American troops would destroy Iranian power plants. The forty-eight hours did not elapse and the American president extended the period by a further five days. He is losing face. Worse, the American president is divorced from reality. And still worse, the American president has unleashed a war on purely ideological or religious grounds of ‘destroying the enemies of Israel, God’s chosen people.’ Wasn’t it the same in the case of the Soviet Union, whose military intervention in Afghanistan was dictated by the ideological urge to come to the aid of Afghan communists? Afghanistan did not threaten the Soviet Union at that time, nor is Iran a threat to the United States nowadays.

Tehran has become self-confident and daring. It is not waiting for the Americans and the Israelis to propose a ceasefire. Rather, Tehran has laid down conditions, and these are conditions of a victor:

[1] the US must withdraw from the region its military units,

[2] the US must unilaterally put an end to the hostilities,

[3] the US must pay Iran compensation for all the material damage and loss of human life.

One might say, it is Tehran that has issued an ultimatum rather than the United States.

It is not merely that Iran seems to be gaining the upper hand: almost the whole world is on Iran’s side. Why? Because the whole world saw that the United States and Israel attacked Iran unprovoked, during the negotiations; because the whole world perceives the hostilities as a war of aggression on the part of the United States and Israel; because the whole world has had enough of American bullying, of American policing.

Iranians have surprised the world with the missiles that they have at their disposal. Some of them develop speeds of more than 10 Mach. Some of them have a reach of 4000 km (Iranians attempted to hit the American base on Diego Garcia Island on the Indian Ocean). Iran has decentralized its command centre; Iran has learnt to strike back asymmetrically. Iran is militarily supported by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran is also backed up by Russia and China, both of which supply it with satellite data.

What if? What if the United States will be compelled to admit its defeat? Will it be another Vietnam or worse for America? The image of a superpower will have vanished in thin air. The Gulf states might as well demand that Washington withdraw its troops from their territory. Why should they have them on their soil? To further expose themselves to attacks? Iran – in league with China – might begin the sale of its oil and gas in return for the Chinese currency. That might lead to the end of the petrodollar. And if the dollar stops being in demand worldwide, the United States will spiral into a position of a country that will have difficulties solving its financial problems. Without the dollar as the international currency all American economic might will shrink. Till now, for decades nations would have bought dollars – i.e. sold goods and services – to stock them and to have currency for purchasing oil. Once this scheme comes to an end, America will cease to be flooded by foreign goods and services: America will be compelled to manufacture things on its own. Due to the outsourcing, there are not so many factories, engineers and skilled workers in the world’s most admired democracy. Rebuilding will take time…

The war against Iran was to be a walkover. The United States has already handled, in one way or another, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Venezuela. Americans thought that Iran was to be yet another intervention of the same small calibre. How wrong they were!

When you drink alcohol, you feel good after the first couple of drams. Then slowly but surely the substance begins to impede your speech and motor activity. Eventually one of the drams becomes one too many. They say proverbially: one over the eighth. Was the attack on Iran – after Venezuela, Libya, Syria – one over the eighth?

Mirror reflection

The similarity cannot go unnoticed. First Russia struck Ukraine because it felt threatened by it, now the United States has struck Iran because – well – because it felt threatened by it. Russia struck its neighbour, whereas the United States has struck a country thousands of miles away. Never mind, according to the Western political experts Moscow should not have felt threatened by neighbouring Ukraine, while the United States should feel threatened by a nation half a globe away.

The reverse phenomenon is also noticeable. While Ukraine is supported by the Western world and enjoys the inflow of mercenaries from many countries, including those located in South America, it is not Iran that is supported by the other countries but the United States: militarily by Israel, politically – by the Western world.

The similarity does not stop here. Russia attacked Ukraine out of fear that Kiev might join NATO and out of fear that Kiev might have its won nuclear weapon. Similarly, the official reason for attacking Iran is the possibility that Tehran is about to manufacture its own nuclear weapon.

And again a reverse phenomenon. Just as in the case of Ukraine the Western world claims to be defending itself from Russian aggression, so do Israel and the United States claim to be defending the peace in the region against Iran’s aggression.

In both cases oil and gas play a major role. Russia and Iran are some of the world’s largest suppliers of both fossil fuels. The hostilities in these two parts of the globe translate into raised prices of gas and oil, which in turn translates into difficulties in obtaining the fuels.

The Special Military Operation in Ukraine accelerated the outflow of people from Ukraine. Yes, it did not trigger but merely accelerated the outflow of people because Ukrainians had been fleeing their country for more than two decades prior to the outbreak of the hostilities. Now since Iran is effectively targeting industrial and military facilities in Israel and those Arab countries which support the United States, and since Iran itself is being hit by American and Israeli missiles, one can only expect another wave of refugees into Europe. Will the year 2015 be repeated? Will Chancellor Friedrich Merz follow in Angela Merkel’s footsteps and repeat after her ‘Wir schaffen das’?

During the four years of hostilities in Ukraine the West has desperately looked for acts of atrocities committed by the Russian soldiers so as to be able to present Russia as the heinous aggressor. They found none, or at least nothing particularly spectacular. The Western media attempted to turn the Bucha incident as a repulsive act of atrocity committed by Russians, but the case was flimsy, unfounded, and so it quickly died out. It is different in the case of the war in Iran. Almost at the start of it, American missiles hit a school and killed some 170 girls aged between 7 and 12. Nothing like that could have been pinned on Russians for the entirety of the four years.

Moscow had hoped to carry out the Military Special Operation within weeks and coerce Ukraine to sign a deal: no NATO membership. Now it seems that the United States and Israel had hoped for more or less the same: a few days of aerial combat, decapitation of the Iranian leadership, the resultant riots in Tehran, and the collapse of the regime – as they call the Iranian government – with the new authorities being all too willing to sign a deal with the United States, a deal turning Iran into an American colony. It looks like we are in for a protracted war.

Talking about the decapitation operation. Since Washington – in cahoots with Tel Aviv – tried to decapitate the Iranian leadership and was largely successful, Tehran has all the moral right to reciprocate the move. Who knows, it might be that an Iranian killer is already stalking the American president, lying in wait, and just about to pull the trigger. Or, an Iranian killer might be stalking Benjamin Netanyahu. If the Iranian leadership is a legitimate target, why should the American or Israeli leadership not be a legitimate target as well?

If Iranians pulled off something like that, there would be an outcry across the Western world: there is none if the Americans decapitate another country’s head of state. In the same vein, there is no outcry over the killing of 170 Iranian girls, but just imagine the uproar if it were the Iranians killing 170 Israeli girls!

The two wars reflect themselves in each other with similarities and dissimilarities. The judgement that is passed over the actors depends on political persuasion. Justice will not be rendered. We do not mean legal, international justice – we merely mean moral justice.

Iran in turmoil

Again and again, we hear news from Iran. We are hearing it right now. There are street demonstrations, there are street riots, there are arrests. We’ve been hearing about it for some time now, and we are hearing it at present. Obviously, the Iranian government does not suit the political plans of the powers that be or else there would be no riots, no demonstrations. What is happening in Iran has been practised in many other places around the globe, be it Syria or Libya, be it Serbia or Georgia, be it Venezuela or Kazakhstan. There is no evidence, but all the fingerprints point to the culprit behind the riots, and the culprit is always the same: CIA or MI6… or both.

What is again occurring in Tehran is a typical example of a colour revolution, of a revolution from outside. It makes one think about the two Russian revolutions of 1917. Those, too, were instigated from abroad. The result, initially at least, was astonishing. The grand Russian Empire disappeared; Russia sank into a prolonged, atrocious civil war that was also a war of attrition. When the country eventually surfaced onto the political stage, barely anyone reckoned with it because it was so weakened.

Such revolutions, or regime changes as they are called, have been applied very frequently during the second half of the former century, and continue to be applied in the current century. They are very often successful. They were successful in Serbia and Libya, in Syria and in Ukraine. Attempts were made in Belarus, Georgia and Kazakhstan, but they failed. Recently, in Venezuela, another approach has been adopted: that of abduction.

Iran is supported by (first of all) China and Russia. China purchases large quantities of oil from Iran. Iran is a BRICS member. Iran forms a slightly remote underbelly of the Russian Federation. But Iran is also a thorn in Israel’s flesh, and since the United States serves Israel just as the European Union serves Ukraine, so Washington feels obliged to support Israel. We do remember – do we not? — last time when Iran was bombed while the Washington-Tehran negotiations were under way?

The West will either achieve its goal of regime change – like in Syria – or it will lose its grip on Iran for good – just like it lost its grip on Belarus. Let us not forget that it was the British and the Americans who toppled Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and paved the way for the monarchical political system to be installed in Tehran. It might be that the same political actors would not mind at all if monarchy were to be restored in Iran. No, it is not monarchy that they are after, we know. It might be monarchy, it might be oligarchy, it might be as well as democracy – or, indeed, any other system of government so long as it is compliant with the managers of the world.

Rules for thee but not for me

On June 13 2025, Israel carried out air strikes against targets inside Iran. Tel Aviv has thus arbitrarily administered punishment to Tehran for allegedly developing Iran’s capabilities of constructing a nuclear bomb. A few remarks.

① There are politicians and journalists, political analysts and other pundits who condemn the Russian intervention in Ukraine, which began in 2022, and in the same breath they justify the military action performed by Israel. Both Moscow and Tel Aviv claim they were compelled to carry out strikes against Ukraine and Iran respectively because the said countries posed an existential threat to Russia and Israel respectively. Ukraine wanted to join anti-Russian NATO and possibly acquire nukes, while Iran sought to manufacture nuclear weapons with the intention of wiping Israel out of the surface of the earth.

Why is Israel justified in its action while Russia is not? Notice that Ukraine borders on Russia, while Iran is divided from Israel by Iraq, Syria and Jordan.

② Tel Aviv stands on guard not to let any of the Middle East countries to have nuclear weapons while Israel itself has an arsenal of such weapons.

Why should one country have nuclear weapons while any other be prohibited from possessing them? What is the moral or rational explanation? It might be that those who have weapons of mass destruction are likely to say that they are angelic warriors who are not likely to use them or to use them without justification while the other countries are the bad guys who certainly would use them without justification. Yes, such is the narrative, but then it does not require much stretch of imagination to realize that the so-called bad guys think along precisely the same lines with this difference, however, that they regard themselves as angelic warriors and others as villains.

What if South Korea wanted to acquire nuclear weapons? Reason? Because North Korea has them. Reason enough. We may rest assured the United States would have nothing against, so much so that South Korea might also be employed as an ally against China, allegedly America’s life-threatening rival. Why, the United States might not have anything against Japan acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, Japan might be used against China and – who knows – against Russia.

What if Tehran were rabidly anti-Russian? Would then Iran not be allowed to have nuclear weapons? If the idea of Ukraine possessing such weaponry was seriously considered at a time, then certainly an anti-Russian Iran would be given free rein in this respect.

③ Are American attempts at bringing international peace worth anything? President Donald Trump is helpless in brokering peace both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The question arises whether the American leader is simply incompetent or… or whether these peace initiatives are only make believe. If the United States is a superpower, why cannot Washington project its political leverage on Ukraine and Israel? If a superpower cannot control much smaller states, then something must be the matter. What? It might be that Washington does not serve American interests. Is such a thought substantiated? Of course, it is. One only needs to look at the European leaders and their entirely anti-European policies whether it is the ethnic replacement or green economy or the anti-moral agenda.

④ What is the credibility of the American president? The Israelis have decapitated some of Iran’s military and civilian management precisely while talks were held between Washington and Tehran. It is obvious President Donald Trump must have known about the preparations for the attack. If by any chance he did not because he would have been against and the American powers that be desperately wanted to hit Iran, then his reliability as an American leader is even worse: why talk to a president who does not control his own country, his own agencies and his own underlings?

⑤ Iran lashed out, and lashed out successfully. Israel was hailed with missiles and the famed Iron Dome that was supposed to protect the country’s territory proved to be quite penetrable. Now Tel Aviv might request missiles and anti-aircraft systems from the United States to make up for the depleted stocks of their own missiles. What will then remain for Ukraine? Certainly Israel rather than Ukraine is Washington’s priority.

⑥ Will the United States army be drawn into war against Iran? That might mean splitting American military and other resources between the Middle East, Ukraine and China. Is that not too much even for a superpower, especially a superpower with domestic problems caused by – some say – thirty million unregistered aliens who flooded the country during the Biden administration and earlier? A civil war or a wave of terrorist attacks at home, an involvement in Ukraine, a military engagement in the Middle East, and muscle flexing in Washington’s dealings with the Middle Kingdom – is that not a huge overreach?

Whichever way you look at the events, one thing should strike you immediately: one attack is justified while another is not. Rules for thee but not for me.

AU10TIX or how Israelis act

AU10TIX is an Israeli identity service that verifies people or companies on the Internet. For example, people who want to earn money on Twitter (X) have their identity checked and authenticated by AU10TIX. So far, so good, but there are two appalling facts about the Israeli company:

1. AU10TIX has close ties to Israeli intelligence. It was set up by members of the Israeli elite intelligence services Shin Bet and Unit 8200. Ton Atzomm, its CEO, was a member of Unit 8200 has been committed to the surveillance of Palestinians and has been utilizing the information gained in the process to politically persecute and divide them. Edo Soroka, the Vice President for Sales in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, previously worked for the Israeli startup AnyVision, which is accused of monitoring Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Erez Hershkovitz had earlier been employed by the Israeli company Voyager Labs, which was sued by Meta for using dozens of fake Facebook accounts to collect data from more than half a million users.

2. AU10TIX suffered a serious security breach that exposed the personal data of millions of its users. Customers that fell victim to the June 2024 scandal include some of the world’s most renowned companies, such as X, TikTok, LinkedIn, Coinbase, eToro, PayPal, Fiverr, Upwork, Bumble, and Uber. Names, dates of birth, nationalities and images of identification documents such as driver’s licenses and passports, facial scans and authentication metrics for documents and photos were disclosed. It was a massive security breach with unforeseeable long-term consequences. The exposed data could be used by cybercriminals for various illegal purposes such as identity theft, financial fraud or even blackmail.

Several questions could be brought up:

1. How does all that square with the U.S.-Israeli friendship and alliance?

2. Why does the Israeli intelligence agency want to collect – manage – control the data of millions of Americans?

3. Why do the US services do not hinder such deep intrusions into the security of US citizens?

A further seventy years of inaction?

In the Middle East we have – as usual – more and more of the same. Regardless of how old you may be, from time to time you will have heard about clashes, assaults, wars, conflicts – you name it – between Israel and the rest of the Arab – Muslim – world happening there incessantly. On and on and on. Since 1948, since the year when the state of Israel was founded. Even people who are not conversant with politics will have heard about Hamas or Hezbollah, about the Six-Day War (of 1967), about the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights or the West Bank (of the Jordan), about PLA (the Palestinian Liberation Army) or the Yom Kippur War (of 1973), or, or, or. You may not be able to say much about the events or people or places – where the heck is Jordan or Syria or Lebanon – but you will have heard about all of them, so that by now you will have doubtless associated the Middle East with a forever war interspersed with longer or shorter periods of ceasefire. The events of the 7th of October and the following retaliatory measures are yet another (latest but by no means last!) link in this never-ending chain of clashes.

Now why have we all been hearing about the ongoing, never-ending, incessant conflict between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, especially between Israel and Palestinians for these more than 70 years?

The state of Israel, as you may know, was established in 1948. Its creation was brought about by no less an international organization than the United Nations (an organization that unites sovereign political entities – countries, states – but, by Lord, not nations as such, but never mind the detail). The genesis (Genesis!) of Israel could not have been more legitimate, could it? The point is that the same United Nations Organization stipulated that also a Palestinian state was to be created along with the state of Israel. Now more than seventy years have passed and although we have had the state of Israel for these more than seventy years, the Palestinian state is nowhere to be seen. Supposedly American presidents have always wanted to have both Israel and Palestine as sovereign countries in the Middle East. Supposedly, because somehow the United States has never been able to convince, persuade, compel Israel to recognize Palestine as a separate, independent political entity, and to release the Palestinian lands that Israel has grabbed. How is that possible that the UN resolution was implemented half-way only? How is it possible that the big United States has not been able to make the small Jewish state comply with the ruling of the United Nations? Especially, if you consider that the ruling of the United Nations overlaps with Washington’s interests in the Middle East because these interests are STABILITY. You may say that the United States is no international bully and respects the sovereignty of even the smallest of states, so if Tel Aviv has for all these years refused to comply, the Hill has been helpless.

The claim that the United States has not been able to persuade or compel Israel to comply with the United Nations’ decision because Washington respects the sovereignty of even small states is – yes – laughable. Of the numerous examples showing unequivocally how the United States has enforced its will on other nations, let us choose Yugoslavia. What Israel is to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Egypt so was Serbia to Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Albanians in Kosovo. They all wanted to become independent of Belgrade, so – stepwise – they broke away from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and they were assisted in it by the United States. Whenever Serbia wanted to keep a republic inside the fold or claimed small pieces of a break-away republic’s territory, the United States would step in and by hook or by crook force Serbia to comply with “international” dictates. It did not take the United States seventy years to make the former Yugoslavian republic obey “international law”.

The comparison is even more to the point if we set our sights on Kosovo because Albanians in Kosovo invite a comparison with Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Just as Serbia views its territory as comprising Kosovo with little regard for the fact that it is predominantly inhabited by Albanians, so, too, Tel Aviv would like to view Gaza and the West Bank as part of (the Greater) Israel with little regard that these territories are inhabited by Palestinians. Somehow, in the former case Washington (and America’s client states) was efficient in tearing Kosovo away from Serbia and establishing there a state that is recognized by a large number of countries. How much time did it take? A couple of years? Somehow, the same solution in reference to Palestine (i.e. Gaza and the West Bank) is hard to implement by the same United States, which is so efficient elsewhere in the world. Why? Is it because the Israelis don’t want such a solution and they have influential friends on the Potomac?

Why what was possible and relatively easy to enforce as a many-state solution in Yugoslavia (which was broken up into 1 Slovenia, 2 Croatia, 3 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4 Serbia proper, 5 Republika Srpska, 6 Macedonia, 7 Montenegro, 8 Brčko District (look it up!) and 9 Kosovo) cannot be enforced in the Middle East? If we can have such a bizarre solution like that of having the sovereign state of Serbia (outside Bosnia and Herzegovina), the sovereign state of Bosnia and Herzegovina and that of Republika Srpska (not to be confused with Serbia proper!) inside Bosnia and Herzegovina (did you know about it?), why can’t we have a Palestinian state straddling Israel with its one part located in the West Bank and the other in Gaza? If we can have Brčko District, why can’t we have the City of Jerusalem turned into something similar i.e. a “self-governing administrative unit with a special status reflecting the multi-ethnic nature of the region” to quote Wikipedia’s words?

The Hamas attacks from October 7, 2023 and the ongoing war keep reminding politicians across the board about the necessity of creating a Palestinian state, but we may be sure that nothing whatsoever will be done, just as it has not be done for over seventy years.

It’s even worse than that. During the many fratricidal fights in the former Yugoslavia, the West (read: the United States) was quick to spot war crimes and to hold the “guilty” accountable for them by putting many (mainly Serbian) political and military leaders on trial. Why nothing of the kind is happening now or has been happening for the many years of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis? It is somehow hard to imagine that Serbs committed many war crimes against Albanians (and Croats) within a few years whereas Israelis have not committed any atrocities within more than seventy years! It looks like Serbs had to be intimidated by show trials while Israelis do not.

No wonder then that if nations of the world see this partisan approach in the Middle East (and elsewhere), they resort to arms rather than to international organizations, and (like Palestinians nowadays) they prefer to fight rather than talk.