Help us to keep our home
Last Update : Sept 29th, 2025 : 08.36 PM


When people say they support Israel, it doesn’t always mean they agree with every action taken by its government or military. For many, supporting Israel is about recognizing its right to exist, protecting its citizens, and respecting its history and culture. But this support should not be confused with approving the destruction of Gaza or the suffering of ordinary Palestinians.

The truth is, two things can be right at the same time. Israel does face real security threats, and no country can ignore rocket fire or terrorism against its people. At the same time, Gaza is home to millions of civilians, many of whom are children, and their safety matters too. Flattening neighborhoods and causing large-scale displacement or casualties does not bring peace it only deepens the cycle of anger and violence.

Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself should also mean calling for responsibility and restraint. International law makes it clear that civilians must be protected during conflicts. Acknowledging the fear and pain experienced by Israeli families should not mean turning away from the suffering of Palestinian families.

Real support for Israel, in fact, could mean encouraging policies that aim for long-term peace instead of short-term retaliation. Standing against terrorism and violence is consistent with rejecting collective punishment. If the goal is lasting security, then justice and dignity for both sides have to be part of the equation.

In other words, supporting Israel does not have to mean supporting the flattening of Gaza. True solidarity is about promoting a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live safely and peacefully side by side.

My friends..

When we hear about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, people often think you must choose one side only. Either you are “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine.” But in reality, things are not that black and white. You can support Israel’s right to exist and defend itself without agreeing with the destruction happening in Gaza.

This is not a contradiction. It’s simply saying: every country has the right to protect its people, but no country has the right to harm innocent civilians on a massive scale.

Banner of Supporting Peace in Gaza



Two Different Things
Supporting Israel usually means saying: First,Israel has the right to exist as a country. Second, Israel has the right to protect its people from attacks.

But here’s the key: supporting those rights does not mean agreeing with every military action the government takes. Flattening whole neighborhoods in Gaza, destroying hospitals and schools, and pushing people out of their homes is not the same as “defense.” It goes much further than that.

You can love a country or stand with its people, but still criticize its leaders. Think of it this way: many Americans love their country but openly criticize their government when it does something wrong. The same logic applies here.

You may read - Why the World Seems Powerless to Stop Israel’s Genocide in Gaza"

The Rules of War
Even in war, there are rules. International law also called the “laws of war” is designed to protect civilians. Two big rules are: First,Distinction: Soldiers must always separate fighters from civilians. You can’t treat everyone as a target. Second; Proportionality: If an attack is going to harm civilians, the harm must not be excessive compared to the military goal.

When bombs fall on crowded areas, or when electricity, food, and water are cut off for millions of people, it’s not just about security anymore. It becomes a humanitarian disaster. These rules exist because, without them, war becomes unlimited destruction.

What Human Rights Groups Say
Many international organizations have raised concerns about Gaza. Reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations describe things like:

• Families forced to leave their homes with nowhere safe to go.

 

• Hospitals and schools damaged or destroyed.

 

• Lack of clean water, food, and medical supplies for ordinary people.

These reports don’t deny Israel’s right to defend itself. Instead, they say: the way Israel is using force is causing massive civilian suffering, and that’s not acceptable.

Even some Israeli citizens and Jewish groups worldwide have voiced similar concerns. They say, “We support Israel, but we cannot support destroying Gaza like this.”

Why This Matters
There are three main reasons why separating support for Israel from support for flattening Gaza is important:

1. Humanitarian reasons: War should never mean endless suffering for innocent families. Children, women, and ordinary people who have nothing to do with the fighting should not carry the heaviest burden.

 

2. Security reasons: Destroying Gaza might give short-term control, but in the long run, it fuels anger and radicalization. Instead of peace, it creates more enemies and more violence in the future.

 

3. Moral and legal reasons: Supporting a nation does not mean turning a blind eye to actions that break international law or cross moral lines. True friends also speak up when something is wrong.

 


A Balanced Way to Say It
If you want to explain this balanced position, here are some simple and casual ways to put it:

• “I support Israel’s right to defend itself, but I don’t support bombing civilians.” • “I believe in Israel’s security and also in Palestinian safety.” • “Yes to Israel’s existence, no to flattening Gaza.”

These statements are short, clear, and avoid making you sound extreme. They show you are not against Israel as a country, but you are also not okay with harming innocent people.


What Support Could Look Like
Supporting Israel in a constructive way doesn’t mean cheering every military move. It can mean:

• Calling for humanitarian aid: food, medicine, and clean water should reach civilians in Gaza.

 

• Asking for investigations when international rules are broken.

 

• Backing peace talks instead of destruction.

 

• Supporting civil society groups both Israeli and Palestinian who are working for peace, justice, and coexistence.

This way, your support is real but also responsible.


A Small Q&A

Q: If I criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza, does it mean I’m anti-Israel? No. Criticizing government policies is not the same as rejecting a country’s right to exist. Many Israelis themselves criticize their own leaders.

Q: Does supporting Israel mean ignoring Palestinian suffering? It shouldn’t. Supporting one side’s security does not mean you must accept the other side’s suffering. Both peoples deserve dignity and safety.

Q: Isn’t war always ugly? Why expect rules? War is ugly, yes. But that’s exactly why rules exist. They don’t stop all harm, but they prevent total chaos and give civilians some protection

Read also - "Why Don't American Leaders See the Horrible Things That Settlers and the IDF Do?"


A Lesson Beyond Gaza
This idea is not only about Israel and Gaza. It applies to many other conflicts around the world. Supporting a country doesn’t mean you must agree with everything its leaders or army do.

For example, people can support Ukraine’s right to defend itself but still criticize certain tactics used during the war. People can love their own nation but oppose when their government goes too far.

This principle is evergreen because wars and conflicts will always raise this same question: how do we support a nation without excusing unnecessary harm?


Summary
It is possible to support Israel and care about Palestinians at the same time. You can believe in Israel’s security and still say the flattening of Gaza is wrong.

In fact, this balanced view is the only way to move toward real peace. Supporting Israel doesn’t mean supporting destruction. It means wanting a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live in dignity, security, and hope.

What do you think? Can we support Israel’s security while still standing up for Palestinian civilians? Share your thoughts in the comments.
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

On January 7, 2015, the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was brutally attacked by two hooded gunmen who stormed its office in Paris. The attackers, shouting “We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad,” opened fire during the magazine’s editorial meeting, killing 12 people including prominent cartoonists, staff members, and two police officers.

The magazine had repeatedly published caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims considered deeply offensive. These publications had drawn threats in the past.

Freedom of speech is vital in any democracy, but it comes with responsibility. Western media often defends publishing Prophet Muhammad cartoons as “free speech,” yet for many Muslims, this feels like mockery of their sacred beliefs. While nothing can justify the horrific violence of the Charlie Hebdo attack, it’s also true that speech should not be used carelessly to insult faiths. Free expression and respect must go hand in hand otherwise, dialogue turns into division.ABC. The attack was widely condemned as a terrorist act and became a major flashpoint in debates over free speech, religion, and the limits of satire.

Another killing happened again.

Charlie Kirk was killed (fatally shot) on September 10, 2025 at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah, during a Turning Point USA event.

The shocking assassination of Charlie Kirk has left the political world shaken and sparked a heated debate about free speech, hate speech, and the growing dangers of polarization in America. Kirk, who co-founded Turning Point USA at just 18 years old, was only 31 when he was shot and killed during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University in Utah. Known for his strong ties to former President Donald Trump and his influential role in mobilizing young conservatives, Kirk was a figure who drew both passionate support and fierce criticism.

In the aftermath of his death, Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie star and former California governor, made a statement that struck a chord. Speaking to journalists, he said he could not understand why someone would kill another person simply because their opinions were different. His words highlight a painful truth: violence should never be the answer to disagreement. But his comment also pushes us to think more deeply about what counts as an “opinion” and whether hate speech should ever be framed that way.

A banner of Free Speech



Violence Is Never Justified
One point must be clear: violence is never the solution to words. When someone is murdered for what they believe or say, democracy itself is undermined. Debate and disagreement are natural in a free society, but silencing people with bullets destroys the very principles of open dialogue and freedom of expression. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is not just a personal tragedy for his family and supporters it is also a warning sign about the growing dangers of political extremism and intolerance

Read also - Why Is There Islamophobia in Western Culture?

Political violence of this kind makes everyone less safe. It pushes people further into their ideological corners and fuels mistrust. If society begins to accept violence as a way to deal with speech, then no one regardless of their politics will be safe.

The Difference Between Opinion and Hate Speech
While we should never condone violence, we also have to be honest about what kind of speech Charlie Kirk often engaged in. There is an important difference between opinion and hate speech.

An opinion is a belief or perspective, even if it’s controversial or unpopular. Opinions can be debated, challenged, or disproven. They leave space for dialogue.

Hate speech is something else entirely. It targets groups of people based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, or identity. It dehumanizes individuals, spreads fear, and deepens division. Hate speech is not just another point of view it can actively endanger lives by fueling hostility and creating an atmosphere where violence feels justified to some.

Many critics of Kirk argued that he used his platform to promote ideas that marginalized minority groups or portrayed them negatively. Whether one agreed with him or not, it is important not to blur the line between holding a political opinion and spreading prejudice.

The Role of Polarization
America is living through one of its most polarized periods in history. People are increasingly divided along political, cultural, and social lines. Too often, political opponents are no longer seen as fellow citizens with different beliefs but as enemies. This mindset creates a dangerous environment where violence can erupt.

The killing of Charlie Kirk must be seen within this context. It is not only the act of one individual but also a reflection of a toxic climate in which hostility and hatred thrive. When society loses the ability to argue without dehumanizing the other side, tragedies like this become more likely.

The lesson here is urgent: polarization doesn’t just harm political debate; it can lead directly to violence. If citizens, leaders, and communities don’t find ways to rebuild trust and empathy across divides, the cycle will only continue.

The Responsibility of Public Figures and Media
Public figures and media outlets carry enormous responsibility. Their words shape public opinion and can either calm tensions or fan the flames of division. When leaders consistently demonize their opponents, portray them as dangerous or evil, and strip them of humanity, it lowers the threshold for violence. This doesn’t mean that public figures should never criticize or challenge their rivals, but the tone and framing matter

. At the same time, it’s equally dangerous to excuse hate speech as “just an opinion.” Doing so minimizes the harm it causes and allows it to spread unchecked. Responsible media coverage should hold individuals accountable without resorting to sensationalism that further divides communities.

Free Speech With Boundaries
Balancing free speech and the need to prevent hate speech is one of the hardest challenges in any democracy. On one hand, protecting freedom of expression is essential; silencing people for their views erodes democratic values. On the other hand, societies cannot ignore the damage caused when speech crosses into hatred and incitement.

The solution is not easy, but it involves education, strong community dialogue, and laws that draw a clear line between free opinion and dangerous speech that incites violence. The answer to hate speech should be stronger counter-speech, campaigns of empathy, and inclusive narratives not violence.

Conclusion
Charlie Kirk’s assassination is a tragedy that should never have happened. Violence is unacceptable, no matter how offensive someone’s words might be. But we also need to be honest: spreading hate is not the same as expressing a simple opinion. It is harmful, divisive, and, in some cases, dangerous.

The challenge ahead for America and for societies everywhere is to defend free speech while also refusing to normalize hate. If we fail to make that distinction, polarization and violence will only grow.

In the end, the lesson is clear: nobody should be killed for what they say, but we must also stop pretending that hate speech is just another perspective. To keep democracy alive, we must defend both freedom and responsibility.

What do you think? Should hate speech be treated the same way as free opinion, or do we need clearer boundaries? Share your thoughts in the comments and join the conversation on how societies can protect both freedom and respect.
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

Last update : September 6th,2025 : 13.32 PM

For centuries, society has wrestled with one question: are women really weaker than men? From old proverbs to cultural traditions, the idea of “female weakness” has been repeated so often that it feels like common sense. But is it actually true, or just a leftover belief from another era? Let’s take a deeper look, beyond muscles and stereotypes, into what “strength” really means in today’s world.



An illustration of Are Women Truly Weaker Than Men
An illustration of Are Women Truly Weaker Than Men


The Biological Angle (But Not the Whole Story)
It’s true that, on average, men have greater muscle mass and higher levels of testosterone, which often translates to physical strength. That’s biology, plain and simple. Historically, this gave men an advantage in manual labor, warfare, or other physically demanding roles.

But here’s the catch: biology explains part of the story, not the whole narrative. Strength is not only about how much weight someone can lift. Mental strength, emotional resilience, and adaptability are just as important sometimes even more.

Think of childbirth, for example. Women endure physical pain and emotional challenges that most men will never experience firsthand. Does that sound like “weakness”?

Interestingly, studies have shown that women may excel in endurance-based activities. For example, ultramarathon races often see women competing at nearly the same level or even surpassing men because women’s bodies can metabolize fat more efficiently for long-term energy. That means in ultra-distance events, women sometimes hold an edge.

So if we only focus on brute force, men tend to dominate. But if we broaden our definition of strength, the picture looks very different.

You may read - Do you believe GOD made woman weaker than man?

The Weight of Social Conditioning
Much of the so-called weakness attributed to women is actually a result of social conditioning. For centuries, women were discouraged from education, leadership, or even sports. If you tell half the population, generation after generation, that they’re “not supposed” to do something, of course the outcome looks skewed.

The good news? We’ve seen what happens when women are given opportunities. From female CEOs and scientists to world-class athletes, it’s clear that when barriers are removed, women rise to the occasion.

History is full of examples. Marie Curie became the first woman to win a Nobel Prize and remains the only person to win in two different sciences. In sports, Serena Williams dominated tennis for decades, proving physical excellence isn’t confined to one gender. And in politics, leaders like Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand showed remarkable crisis management during times of national hardship.

So maybe it’s not about weakness, but about restrictions.

Redefining Strength in Modern Life
Let’s be real modern life rarely demands the kind of brute physical power it once did. Today’s challenges are about creativity, problem-solving, emotional intelligence, and collaboration.

• Who handles crisis at home with calm and patience?

 

• Who manages the emotional labor of relationships?

 

• Who juggles careers, family, and personal growth while navigating a world full of expectations?

In many of these areas, women often shine. That doesn’t make men weak, either it just proves that strength has many faces.

Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Research found that countries led by women often responded more effectively, with quicker lockdowns and lower death rates. Leadership in such times isn’t about physical power it’s about decision-making, empathy, and communication.

This shows us that strength today is less about muscles and more about the qualities that help us adapt, survive, and thrive


The Myth Hurts Everyone
Labeling women as “weaker” doesn’t just limit women it hurts men, too. If society tells men they must always be strong, they’re discouraged from showing vulnerability or asking for help. This pressure contributes to stress, burnout, and even higher suicide rates among men.

Toxic masculinity the idea that men must be tough at all costs stems from the same outdated thinking that labels women as fragile. In reality, both men and women benefit when we allow multiple forms of strength to exist.

By holding onto outdated ideas of strength, both genders lose. A Modern Perspective: Complement, Not Compete

Rather than asking who is stronger, maybe the better question is: how do men and women complement each other? Physical differences exist, sure, but they don’t determine value or potential. Emotional balance, shared responsibilities, and mutual respect matter far more in the world we live in today.

A modern perspective sees strength not as a competition between genders, but as a partnership where men and women bring unique strengths to the table and support each other.

For instance, research in workplace teams shows that gender-diverse groups often outperform single-gender groups in problem-solving and innovation. That’s because different perspectives fuel creativity and resilience.

So instead of arguing about who is stronger, perhaps it’s wiser to focus on how both can thrive together.

Expanding the Definition of Strength
When we think of strength, we often picture someone lifting heavy weights at the gym. But strength can also be:

• The mental endurance of a woman studying late at night while raising children.

 

• The emotional resilience of men who open up about their struggles and fight against stereotypes.

 

• The spiritual strength of communities led by women in activism and humanitarian work.


 True strength shows up in everyday life, in ways that muscle alone cannot measure.

Even in physical terms, women demonstrate types of strength that men don’t experience. Pain tolerance during childbirth, recovery after surgery, and even long-term immunity responses differ between the sexes, often favoring women. That’s not weakness it’s power in another form.

So, Are Women Truly Weaker Than Men?
Honestly, the idea that women are “weaker” than men has been around forever, but it’s not really that simple. If we’re talking purely about physical strength, then yes on average, men tend to have more muscle mass and higher levels of testosterone, which can give them an edge in things like upper body strength and speed. That’s just biology. But “weaker” is a tricky word, because strength isn’t only about muscles.

Women often outperform men in areas like endurance, flexibility, and pain tolerance. For example, studies show that women can sometimes handle long-term physical stress better than men, and many women have incredible stamina. Think about childbirth that alone proves a level of strength that men will never fully understand!

And then there’s mental and emotional strength. Women throughout history have shown incredible resilience, balancing careers, families, social expectations, and challenges like discrimination or inequality. Strength here isn’t about how much you can lift at the gym, but how you handle life’s pressures. By that measure, women are definitely not weaker they just express strength in different ways.

So, in a friendly nutshell: men and women are built differently, but that doesn’t mean one is “weaker” than the other. Men might win in raw physical power, but women bring their own unique forms of strength that are just as important, if not more, in some situations. It’s really about balance and complementing each other, rather than ranking one as stronger or weaker.

Summary

At the end of the day, true strength is not about gender. It’s about character, courage, and the ability to face life’s challenges with determination. And that thankfully is something both men and women can share equally.

So what do you think should “strength” only be defined by muscle, or does it go beyond biology? Share your thoughts in the comments, and don’t forget to subscribe for more fresh perspectives every week.

A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

If a country runs a national lottery, do you think the revenue from it can be considered a form of tax and used to support national development of the country themselves?

The idea of treating national lottery revenue as a form of tax is interesting, but it’s not quite the same as traditional taxation. Taxes are mandatory payments imposed by the government, while lottery participation is voluntary you choose whether to buy a ticket or not.

That said, in practice, lottery revenue often acts like a “voluntary tax,” especially because many participants may not realize how much they contribute over time.Many governments channel lottery proceeds into public projects, such as education, sports programs, cultural initiatives, or infrastructure development.

Stack of Money of Indonesia
Stack of Money of Indonesia


This can help supplement national budgets without directly raising taxes. However, the fairness of this approach is sometimes debated. Critics argue that lotteries can disproportionately affect lower-income individuals, who may spend a larger share of their income on tickets, effectively creating a regressive funding source.

If managed transparently and responsibly, lottery funds can indeed support national development building schools, funding healthcare, or improving public services. The key is accountability: ensuring that the money is used for clear, beneficial purposes and not lost to inefficiency or corruption. So, while it’s not technically a tax, it can function similarly in raising government funds for the country’s growth


"There are over 100 countries globally possibly between 100 and 180 that conduct national (state-run or state-sanctioned) lotteries used as a source of revenue by governments to support national development, public services, or charitable causes.

In the 1980s, PORKAS and SDSB were both National lottery programs conducted by The Republic of Indonesia that became quite famous (and controversial). Sumbangan Dana Sosial Berhadiah (Social Contribution with Prizes) and Kupon Porkas Sepakbola (Porkas Football Coupon). PORKAS was Criticized by religious groups and anti-gambling advocates, leading to its closure in 1987. SDSB Officially banned in 1993 by President Suharto"


You may read - Indonesia's Lottery Of The Past.


The morality aspect of a national lottery
This is where things get more complicated . For many religions, including Islam and some branches of Christianity, gambling is considered morally wrong because it’s seen as earning money from chance rather than productive work. In Islam, for example, maysir (gambling) is explicitly prohibited, and lotteries fall into that category. For believers, buying a lottery ticket could be viewed as violating religious principles, no matter how the revenue is used.

From a moral standpoint, even in secular societies, critics argue that state-run lotteries can exploit human vulnerability. They often market the dream of instant wealth, which can be particularly tempting for those struggling financially sometimes leading to addiction or poor financial decisions. This raises the question: is it ethical for a government to profit from its citizens’ hopes and risks, even if the money funds public projects?

On the other hand, supporters claim that since participation is voluntary, it respects personal choice. They argue that as long as the lottery is regulated, transparent, and its revenue is used for the public good, it can be morally defensible in a pluralistic society. Ultimately, morality here depends on one’s worldview religious, cultural, and personal beliefs heavily shape whether lotteries are seen as acceptable or not.
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

Apakah Yahudi dan Zionisme Itu Sama? Banyak orang sering menyamakan Yahudi dengan Zionisme, apalagi saat membahas konflik Israel dan Palestina. Tapi sebenarnya, keduanya sangat berbeda. Memahami perbedaan ini penting banget agar kita nggak salah kaprah.

Bendera Israel dan Amerika berdampingan


Yahudi adalah agama. Sudah ada sejak ribuan tahun lalu, penuh dengan nilai-nilai spiritual dan budaya. Umat Yahudi tinggal di berbagai penjuru dunia, bukan cuma di Israel. Mereka menjalankan ibadahnya, merayakan tradisinya, dan berasal dari latar belakang yang sangat beragam. Kamu bisa saja Yahudi dan tinggal di Amerika, Prancis, bahkan Indonesia. Sama seperti agama lain.

Zionisme adalah gerakan politik. Dimulai akhir abad ke-19, tujuannya untuk membentuk negara bagi orang Yahudi. Setelah Perang Dunia II, tujuan itu tercapai dengan berdirinya negara Israel tahun 1948. Banyak orang Yahudi mendukung Zionisme, tapi banyak juga yang tidak. Bahkan, ada orang non-Yahudi yang mendukung Zionisme karena alasan politik atau agama.

Nah, yang sering jadi masalah adalah saat pemerintah Israel melakukan tindakan-tindakan keras terhadap Palestina seperti perluasan pemukiman, pendudukan wilayah, atau serangan militer orang jadi menyalahkan semua orang Yahudi. Padahal, itu salah besar.

Mengkritik pemerintah bukan berarti membenci agama atau etnis tertentu.
Banyak orang Yahudi di seluruh dunia yang juga menentang kebijakan Israel, bahkan sangat vokal menyuarakannya. Beberapa kelompok Yahudi yang anti-Zionisme antara lain:

• Jewish Voice for Peace

• Neturei Karta (komunitas Yahudi Ortodoks yang menolak negara Israel)

• Breaking the Silence (mantan tentara Israel yang bicara soal kekerasan yang mereka saksikan)

Jadi, yuk kita luruskan: jadi orang Yahudi tidak berarti otomatis mendukung Zionisme. Dan menolak Zionisme bukan berarti antisemit. Ini dua hal yang berbeda. Kita harus bisa membahas ini dengan hati-hati dan penuh empati karena ini menyangkut nyawa dan keadilan.

Kesimpulannya
Jangan menilai seluruh agama hanya karena tindakan pemerintah. Mari kita jadi masyarakat yang cerdas dan berhati lembut. Kalau kita mau perdamaian, kita harus mau saling memahami, bukan saling menyudutkan.
Audio Message

 

Related Pots

Have you ever found yourself watching the news or scrolling through social media and asking, “Why don’t American leaders say something about what’s happening in Palestine?” Honestly, you're not alone.

Many of us around the world are wondering the same thing especially when we see videos of settlers attacking families, homes being bulldozed,f or children being detained by the Israeli military (IDF). The sfilence from powerful voices, especially from American politicians, can be both confusing and frustrating.

So what’s really going on here?

Why the silence?

Let’s start with something simple: they do see it. It’s not like they don’t know. U.S. officials have access to intelligence reports, international news, and diplomatic briefings. The problem is not ignorance, it’s politics.

You may also read - Why the World Seems Powerless to Stop Israel’s Genocide in Gaza

America and Israel have been strong allies for decades. The U.S. provides around $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel every year, making it one of the largest recipients of American foreign assistance. To many leaders in Washington, this relationship is seen as "strategic." They see Israel as their key partner in the Middle East, a region that’s full of instability and tension.

The flag of the US and Israel stand side by side
The flag of the US and Israel stand side by side

But here's the catch: if a U.S. politician dares to criticize Israel too strongly, even when it’s about serious human rights abuses, they risk being labeled as “anti-Semitic” or “anti-Israel”, even when the criticism is aimed at government policies, not Jewish people. This creates a chilling effect. Most mainstream politicians, especially the older generation, choose to stay quiet rather than stir up controversy.

"Another big factor is lobbying. Groups like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) spend millions every year influencing U.S. politicians.

They have a lot of power in Washington. If a candidate speaks out against Israel’s actions, they might lose campaign funding or face attacks during elections. Some politicians just don’t want to deal with that drama ".


And then there’s the media. A lot of major U.S. news outlets often frame the story from a pro-Israel angle. They’ll highlight rockets fired into Israel, but they won’t show much about how Palestinian families live under military occupation, how settlers take over land, or how the IDF responds to protests. This skewed coverage makes it easier for politicians to avoid the topic altogether.

You may read - Antisemitism

To be fair, some brave leaders are speaking up. Politicians like Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Cori Bush, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have called out the injustices. But every time they do, they face a huge backlash not just politically, but personally too.


You may read -"Why Don't American Leaders See the Horrible Things That Settlers and the IDF Do?"


In the end, it's not that they don’t see. It’s that many choose not to act. Whether it’s fear of losing votes, campaign money, or political power, their silence comes at a very high cost for the people livifng under occupation. So what can we do? Keep asking questions. Keep sharing the truth. Because the more people know, the harder it is to ignore. Trust me
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

I recently received a few notifications containing responses to my article published on the online media platform titled “Why Is There Islamophobia in Western Culture?” which I posted a week ago. One of the comments came from a female writer who goes by the name “jasminsbreakfast.”

She shared her thoughts in the comment section under the article. I’ve copied and pasted her response below for your reference. Please note that the following article was written entirely by her, and we should, of course, show her the respect she deserves.
Why Is There Islamophobia in Western Culture
By Jasminsbreakfast


It is actually based on direct interactions with muslims and immigrant communities. Especially women have very negative experiences, sexual harrassement, belittlement, even group violence and rapes. Look at what happened in Sweden and Germany, since the gigantic influx from males from mostly muslim countries. Obviously, Islam itself does not teach cruelty and hate.

And yet, many of these super arrogent toxic men keep stating that they are superior beings and women must obey them like slave. They are the ones who keep saying that this is Islam. Germany and Europe in general also has a huge migrant community from other parts of the world - South America, Asia, but they do not have the reputation of extreme violence, especially against women.

I have many friends who tried to help migrants in the crisis of 2015. In fact over 20% of the German population was practically involved as unpaid volunteers at a time after Angela Merkel called on the population to help. They donated clothes, opened their homes to house migrants, offered them jobs in their businesses. But everyone I know and especially the women where horrified the way they were treated.


The men always tried to grope or touch them without consent, kept telling them that "everyone" knew that German women were sluts and would have sex with anyone. And if they refused sex with strangers, the men would be insulted and become violent.

Apparently having lots of sex with German women was something the traffickers promised them. Germany has a huge several million strong muslim Turkish community. But we have never ever experienced this kind of harrassement ever before. Group rapes, even rapes in swimming pools of children were basically non existent.

Now German pools need security and many pools have been changed into private clubs, so families can feel safe again. The only people responsible for the reputation of a community, is the community itself.

Do you ever hear people being scared of Canadians? Or people from the Phillipines? Koreans? We live in an instant connection community and if Muslims want a better reputation they have to be very, very honest and deal with the issues in their communities, especially the lowly treatment of women.

A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots


Updated : 28 Agustus 2025 : 07.33

Have you been following the news lately? Things are heating up between Cambodia and Thailand, and not in a good way. These two countries, both members of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), are now facing a serious armed conflict that’s raising alarms across Southeast Asia. So what’s going on? And why does it matter to the rest of us in the region?

As a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, my country is a member of the South East Asian Countries, is so sad to see and watch our neighbor countries at war.

I want to speak up

The fighting started around disputed border areas, especially near old temple sites like Preah Vihear and Ta Muen Thom. But this isn’t just about ancient stones and mapsthere are deep political tensions, national pride, and military buildups involved. Now that both sides are using weapons like artillery and even fighter jets, it’s no longer just a border skirmish.

It's spreading beyond Cambodia and Thailand.

First, ASEAN’s Unity Is at Risk ASEAN has always promoted peace, non-interference, and friendly cooperation. Now, with two of its members at war, that peaceful image is starting to crack. People are asking: If ASEAN can’t stop this conflict, can it really keep the region stable?

You may also read - I Was Targeted by a PayPal Scam on X . Here's What Happened and What You Should Know

Second , Trade and Tourism Are Suffering The Cambodia and Thailand border is a busy place for trade, small businesses, and tourism. With the conflict, many of those routes are now closed or unsafe. Truck drivers, market sellers, and hotel owners are feeling the hit. Tourists are canceling plans. Investment is slowing down. In short, the economy on both sides and even in nearby countries is being affected.

Third, Refugee Crisis at the Border. Over 160,000 people have already fled their homes. Many are seeking safety in nearby towns, shelters, or across the border. It’s a growing humanitarian crisis, and countries like Vietnam and Laos are worried about how it might spill over into their territories too.

Fourth. Global Powers Are Watching Here's where it gets tricky. If Thailand leans toward the West (like the U.S.), and Cambodia relies more on China’s support, it could drag in bigger international powers. That would turn a local fight into something more dangerous possibly a proxy conflict right in the heart of Southeast Asia.

Fifth. ASEAN’s Reputation Is on the Line This war is testing ASEAN like never before. Can the organization act quickly enough to mediate peace? Or will this be another case where words are plenty but actions are weak? Right now, ASEAN leaders are scrambling to hold emergency talks. Fingers crossed that something positive comes from that soon

South East Asian Counttries
Image from Freepix
.

Malaysia Steps In: A Voice of Peace
As the biggest country in ASEAN, Malaysia is known for its role as a peacemaker in the region. I am pleased that The Malaysia government has already offered to act as a mediator between Cambodia and Thailand, urging both sides to calm down and sit at the table. Malaysia has called for a ceasefire and opened the door for ASEAN-led dialogue. They’ve also been working with humanitarian groups to provide refugee support and food aid to those affected.

You may also read - A Telegram Encounter a Lesson to me About Online Safety

And it’s not just about helping others Malaysia knows that if this conflict spreads, it could affect regional trade, tourism, and security, including Malaysia itself. So, stepping in as a peace broker is not only the right thing to do it’s also a smart move for everyone.

Please stop the war

I often think of Southeast Asia as a peaceful region with friendly neighbors and lots of delicious food. But what’s happening between Cambodia and Thailand is a wake up call. It’s a reminder that peace needs effort, dialogue, and real leadership. Thankfully, countries like my country , Indonesia, are stepping up to help calm things down before it gets worse. Let’s hope the fighting stops soon for the sake of both countries, and for the entire region of the South East Asian

We have already witnessed the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and the brutal battle between Palestine and Israel. So please, let’s not drag the peaceful South Asian countries into a high-tension situation that could escalate into a regional confrontation potentially even leading to World War III.
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

Last Update : August 30th,2025 : 21.23 PM


This is one of those timeless questions people often ask: “Did God make women weaker than men?” It’s a topic that goes beyond science and religion, touching culture, history, and everyday life. The short answer is no, women are not weaker, just different Biology: Strength Isn’t One-Dimensional

From a biological perspective, yes, men usually have more muscle mass and physical strength because of hormones like testosterone. That’s why many competitive sports separate men and women, it’s about fairness, not superiority.

But strength isn’t just about muscles. Think about childbirth, for example. The resilience, endurance, and pain tolerance required is something men cannot experience. Women’s bodies are designed for this incredible task, which proves strength comes in different forms. So, while men may lift heavier weights, women often show a deeper kind of strength that’s just as vital.

An illustration of man and woman



Spiritual Equality
When it comes to faith, most religions affirm that men and women are equal in value. In Christianity, both were created in God’s image. In Islam, both men and women are equally accountable for their actions and equally rewarded for their faith.

The idea that women are “less” doesn’t come from God it usually comes from cultural traditions over time. At the spiritual level, men and women are created to complement, not to dominate one another.

Different Strengths, Same Value
Men and women bring unique strengths to the table. Men may show more physical power, while women often excel in emotional intelligence, resilience, and multitasking.

Look at family life: mothers are often the ones who hold everything together during tough times. That’s not weaknessthat’s a different kind of strength that’s equally important for survival and growth.

You may read - Who Is Karen ?

Culture vs. Reality
Cultural stereotypes have historically limited women’s roles. For centuries, women were told to stay silent, serve men, and avoid leadership. But when women finally got the chance to lead in politics, science, business, and sports they proved they are just as capable as men.

From leaders like Angela Merkel to scientists like Marie Curie, history shows women’s strength shines in many forms beyond physical power.

Emotional and Mental Strength
Another overlooked side of strength is emotional and mental resilience. Women are often better at handling long-term stress, navigating complex emotions, and providing comfort in times of crisis.

And honestly, it sometimes takes far more strength to forgive, nurture, and persevere than to simply rely on physical muscle.

So, Did God Make Women Weaker?
The answer is no. God didn’t make women weaker—He made men and women different. Both genders are equal in dignity, even if their strengths manifest differently.

Instead of comparing who is stronger or weaker, we should focus on how these differences complement one another. Together, men and women bring balance, stability, and growth to society.


Let’s not forget: women carry life, give birth, raise families, and bounce back from pain in ways that many men couldn’t imagine. That takes a kind of strength that isn’t about muscles or lifting weights it's about endurance, emotion, and mental resilience.

In many religious teachings, like Islam and Christianity, God didn’t create women to be less important or weaker. Instead, men and women are seen as different but equal in value. Each was given strengths that serve different purposes. For example, some believe men were designed to be protectors, and women as nurturers. But these roles are not strict or limiting they complement each other.

Here’s the thing: strength comes in many forms. Women have led countries, survived wars, raised children alone, and spoken truth to power. If that’s not strength, then I don’t know what is.

Conclusion

So, to answer the question No, I don’t believe God made women weaker than men. I believe God made us different for a reason, and both genders have strengths that the other may not have. That’s the beauty of balance.

What matters more than “who’s stronger” is how we treat each other. Do we respect women for who they are, or do we just compare them to men using unfair standards?Y

You may read - Do you trust a lof of pople?

It’s time we appreciate strength in all its forms even the quiet, emotional, or spiritual kind.The belief that women are inherently “weaker” is a cultural stereotype, not a divine truth. True strength comes in many forms: physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual. Women have proven time and time again that they are every bit as strong as men just in different ways.

What You Can DO
What do you think about the idea of “strength” between men and women? Do you see it more as a difference rather than inequality? Share your thoughts in the comments belowI’d love to hear from people around the world.

If you found this article insightful, don’t forget to share it with your friends or on social media. Let’s spread the message that equality isn’t about who’s stronger, but about respecting each other’s unique strengths..
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

Last update  October 1st, 2025: 09.39AM


Hello my friend.
How’s it going? How is your Sunday treating you?

“Do you trust a lot of people?” It sounds like such a simple question, but when you stop and think about it, the answer can reveal a lot about who we are, what we’ve been through, and how we see the world.

Illustration only

Some People Trust Easily
There are people who walk through life with open hearts. They trust almost everyone they meet, give the benefit of the doubt, and believe most people are good at their core. That kind of openness is beautiful it keeps life light, warm, and full of possibility. But of course, it doesn’t always end well. Trusting too freely sometimes leaves scars

Read also - Why People Hard To Get A Soulmate ?.

Others Learn to Guard Their Hearts
Then, there are people on the opposite side. Maybe they’ve been betrayed, lied to, or taken advantage of. They carry those wounds and as a result, trust doesn’t come easy. Instead of opening the door wide, they keep it locked and only let a few chosen ones in. It’s not that they don’t want to connect they’ve just learned to be careful.

Finding the Middle Ground
For me, I think I fall somewhere in the middle. I’ve met people who have proved to be trustworthy the kind of friends you can call at 2 a.m. when life is too heavy, the ones who sit with you in silence and still make you feel safe. Those people are priceless.

But I’ve also met others who smiled at me in public and gossiped about me behind my back, who were there during the fun times but disappeared when life got tough. Over time, I realized that trust is not something you give away freely it’s something that has to be built, brick by brick.

Everyday Trust We Often Forget
The truth is, trust is everywhere in our lives, even in small things we don’t notice:

• We trust the driver in the next lane not to crash into us. • We trust the barista to make our coffee without slipping something strange into it (ha!). • We trust coworkers to do their part of a project. • We trust friends to keep our secrets, and partners to keep their promises.

Life simply wouldn’t work without some level of trust.

Kind vs. Gullible
Here’s the lesson I’ve learned: there’s a big difference between being kind and being gullible. Kindness is strength it allows you to give, help, and connect. Gullibility, on the other hand, can leave you hurt, used, or manipulated. So yes, always be kind. But also protect your peace and your energy.


Don’t rush. Pay more attention to people’s actions than their words. Words are easy anyone can say the right thing. Actions, over time, reveal the truth.


Quality Over Quantity
I’ve come to understand this: it’s not about how many people you trust, it’s about who you trust. You don’t need a hundred friends. You just need a handful of genuine ones people who are loyal, consistent, and who show up when it really matters.

Those are the people worth trusting.

My Answer

So, do I trust a lot of people? No, not really.

But the ones I do trust I trust them deeply. And honestly, that feels enough. I’d rather have a few strong roots than a wide field of shallow ones. What about you? Would you trust many people if you could start over, or do you prefer keeping your circle small and safe?

Let me know your thoughts in the comments. I’d really love to hear from you.

So, how about you? Do you trust many people, or just a few? Share your thoughts in the comments I’d love to hear your story.” 
A Message From Asep Haryono

 

"Thank you so much for your time here. I really appreciate your precious moment here as well.  Please leave any comment down below.  Let me hear from you.  Greetings from Indonesia"

Related Pots

HomeOpinion
Bandara Supadio Pontianak From Bali With Love Selfie Dengan Selebritis
| Copyright © 2013 Asep Haryono Personal Blog From Indonesia