Absurd Claims of Dog Rape and Genocide. I see a correlation between those who believe absurd claims like dogs were trained to rape Palestinians and those who believe and insist Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Both claims collapse under scrutiny and mountains of contrary evidence. One ignores basic physiology and science, including the reality that dogs cannot rape humans in the way being alleged. The other disregards the legal definition of genocide, which requires intent to destroy a people, alongside repeated public statements by Israeli political and military leaders after October 7 that the war was against Hamas, not the people of Gaza. It also requires evidence of actions taken to fulfill that intent, yet accusers dismiss Israel’s documented actions to mitigate civilian harm, facilitate aid, move civilians from combat zones, and even vaccinate Gaza’s population during active war under conditions no military has ever faced. It further ignores that even critics of Israel’s campaign have acknowledged civilian-to-combatant casualty ratios that are historically low for dense urban warfare against an entrenched enemy purposely embedded among civilians. What connects these beliefs is not evidence, but a double standard in how definitions, laws, reason, science, and even common sense are applied. Facts that would invalidate the accusation are dismissed because the conclusion comes first: Israelis are uniquely evil. And that demonization rarely stops with Israelis alone. It often extends to Jews broadly, regardless of any personal connection to the conflict. I see this less as a dispute over evidence and more as an effort to delegitimize Israel’s existence through accusations that do not withstand logical, factual, or legal scrutiny.

The goal of the negotiation in Iran should not be an end to fighting for its own sake. It should be a better peace. History shows that wars that end without resolving the underlying drivers do not really end. They just produce the conditions for the next round of fighting. A better peace here is not hard to define. It means an Islamic Regime in Iran that is not on the threshold of a nuclear weapon. It means a regime that cannot use control of international waterways as a tool of coercion. It means a regime that is not building missiles capable of reaching Europe or the United States, missiles to attack its neighbors or to shield its nuclear weapons pursuit. And it means a regime that is no longer funding, building, and sustaining proxy terror armies in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and Iraq. If those conditions are not met, then whatever agreement comes out of negotiations is temporary. Many people only focus on stopping the fighting. That is not the same as achieving the purpose of the war. The real measure is whether Iran’s behavior changes when the war is over. If the capabilities remain, the intent will follow. And if both remain, the conflict will start again later. Ending the war is not the objective. Ending it on terms that will hold is.