This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
It was the first of at least four strikes involving multiple munitions on different sections of the sprawling complex between 1 a.m. and 10 a.m. Friday morning. Al-Shifa’s director, Dr. Mohammed Abu Salmiya, said in a phone interview that seven people had been killed and several others had been wounded.
Hours after the final blast, the Israeli military blamed unspecified Palestinian militants, saying a “misfired projectile” aimed at Israel Defense Forces troops deployed nearby had instead hit the hospital.
But at least three of the projectiles that struck it appear to have been Israeli munitions, according to pictures of weapons fragments collected and verified by The New York Times and analyzed by experts...
Israel’s assertion that Al-Shifa was actually hit by a Palestinian projectile echoed similar — and unresolved — claims and counterclaims following munitions that hit the courtyard of another Gaza hospital, Al-Ahli, nearly a month ago...
In addition to the weapons remnants, an analysis of video footage shows that three of the projectiles were fired into the hospital from the north and south, contrary to the western trajectory indicated on a map released by the I.D.F., which it said was based on radar detections. A review of satellite images showed there were I.D.F. positions north and south of the hospital early Friday.
The strikes analyzed by The Times did not appear to be targeting underground infrastructure. Two of the most severe strikes hit upper floors of the maternity ward.
It's honestly kind of depressing how much information, proof, etc Israel/IDF provides, and still cannot win trust. Of course it doesn't help when random mid-level Israeli bureaucrats tweet random posts of unverified bs that then gets debonnnked.
Like the Shifa Hospital situation the last few days. Images and videos of IDF bringing in supplies etc for patients in the hospital: "lies, they didn't actually do this!" "just for the video/photo-op!" etc. Of course, they ARE purposeful photo-ops that are trying to counter the anti-Israeli perspective.
And then anti-Israel people will post some link PROVING that Israel "lied" in the past, but then you read the link and it is IDF claiming responsibility for some error. "This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
It's the same as how US public comms is treated. Oh US DoD denies the casualty numbers claimed by a militia that just attacked a US base? "Lies!" "This means the casualty numbers are true!" When US DoD says, in the same manner, in the same channels, that they did something that can be seen as detrimental, like say they suffered some injuries, like US base got attacked - then what US is saying is of course true.
Everyone here probably knows this and has seen it play out. I'm just a little, idk, depressed and ranty about this.
(and I'm not ruling out that Israel does / can/ has lied about military actions, and god knows IDF has done their share of morally bad things in the past. But there just seems to be nothing israel can do to win over trust. But such is the tiktok PR battle we find ourselves in today.)
((IMO: US, Israel, and any faction that finds itself in a conflict and viewed as the more powerful "oppressor", should just keep silent and never say anything. Did Saudi announce things when fighting Houthis in Yemen? Or Assad when killing hundreds of thousands of people? I am no)
When confronted with clear evidence that Israel lied about something, your response is that it’s depressing that people still distrust Israel. What kind of rhetorical strategy is that?
This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
As the resident Al-Ahli Speculation Enjoyer this is funny to me, as I was warned by the mods about “single issue posting” when I provided two updates on the topic. The last major update was similar to the article above: the NYTimes and LeMonde came out with their conclusion that a major piece of evidence used by Israel was false, that the rocket came from a different direction than where Israel alleges. And that’s been the last major update because of a lack of evidence to discuss. Which is why Al-Shifa is important: if Israel is lying and is also proven culpable, then IMO it’s likely this is the case also for Al-Ahli. Maybe that is exactly why there are reporters on the grounds now at Al-Shifa.
It was the president of Israel who said they weren’t striking Al-Shifa, by the way. Not a “random mid-level bureaucrat”.
[On a side note, one of the camera video recordings obtained by the Times came from Saleh al-Jafarawi, who is a kind of Palestinian Sam Hyde. Maybe this is grounds for some people to doubt the findings.]
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
I see such things as a result of motivated reasoning coupled with the impossibility of knowing where everything you have is. No military on this planet can know with 100% certainty where every missile being shot is aimed and know where all your enemies weapons and units are. Thus when making statements, the temptation will be to assume the best of your own and the worst of your enemies, and thus it would be to choose the one where they look good.
If there were at least four explosions and three of them were Israeli, it means that one or more could be from Hamas. Everyone could be telling part of the truth here.
Let’s start with the easy legal difference- the Saudi state, and indeed the whole country, is the personal property of the house of Saud, and they deserve to have it as their property because of their family history of guarding the ‘correct’ type of Islam. In a fascist state, the country is personified by the state which answers to no one and it is the state’s power which justifies this personification.
The Saudi model in western societies is similar to the Ancien Regime, Hapsburg empire, old Spain, etc. fascism in western societies is, well, Hitler and Mussolini. Interestingly, there are examples of Arab fascism- Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al Assad. You’ll notice that, while perhaps the level of oppression was similar between Iraq and Saudi Arabia in, say, 2000, the direction and amount were very different, with Saudi oppression aimed at religious conformity and Iraqi oppression aimed at ethnic distinctions which could provide a conflicting loyalty to the state.
Fascism (like communism) was a movement primarily in response to the dissolution of states where power lay in the hands of a hereditary elite, who would maintain that power by doing things for the commoners that they thought the commoners needed, while extracting wealth and making the commoners do things for them. Downtown Abbey is a good example of a show that celebrates the old world order, with the hereditary rich living in mansions and being served on; taking their cut from the farmers, while justifying their position by arguing that they create jobs, help those in need and organize feasts (where they themselves expect to get applauded by the commoners). Saudi Arabia is pretty much like this, with their system of patronage depending on clan relationships.
The actual cause for the social changes that led to the rise of communism and fascism was the Second Agricultural Revolution, which pushed very many people out of the farming life, which in turn enabled the Industrial Revolution. These technical revolutions led to urbanization and capitalism, both of which were much more brutal than today, causing much unhappiness and therefor revolutionary spirit. The elites that ran these countries were seen as doing such a bad job that very many people wanted something different.
Communism in theory sought to abolish the elites, instead of replacing them, by means of radical democracy & shared property. Although in practice this could not work for various reasons and so communist regimes inevitably just descended into authoritarianism, based on power games rather than hereditary power. In that sense, the statement that 'true communism has never been tried' is true, although true communism can't actually be tried and inevitably seems to devolve into what it was intended to fight against.
Fascism sought to replace the hereditary elite with a technocratic elite that would seek to improve society by aligning people towards a societal improvement, rather than their selfish desires. Hence the bundle of sticks, the fasces. All people in the nation united for a common purpose. Unlike communism, it rejects the idea of radical equality, so it accepts wealth differences and differences in hierarchy, but only in so far as to help achieve the common goal. The fascist capital owner may own a big factory, but is not supposed to hoard wealth, have an excessive lifestyle or take advantage of others. Fascism rejects democracy, as it considers the common man to be stupid. It doesn't really answer the question of how the right goal and right leadership is selected. In practice, the autocratic nature of the leadership and lack of goals within the ideology itself, tends to lead to fascism being easily combined with other extremist ideologies, like Hitler's racial beliefs.
This lack of inherent goals within the fascist model tends to lead to a lot of confusion about what fascism actually is, which why it is so easy to claim that something is fascist, as there is no pure fascism. It's always fascism plus some other ideology or some other goal, that is not inherent to fascism itself.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
HalloweenSnarry 5mo ago
"If you don't know the difference between fascism and theocratic absolute monarchy you have nothing worthwhile to contribute on the topic and should just be ignored" is the correct reply.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
sun_the_second 5mo ago
Fascism and Absolute totalitarian monarchies have their means and ends flipped, fascism is an extreme form of nationalism and uses authoritarianism to inculcate nationalism amongst its subjects; absolute totalitarian monarchies aim to preserve rule by fiat of the king/emperor and use nationalism to achieve their authoriarianism.
Confusing the two with each other is like believing wet streets cause rain, and someone who thinks that way is not to be trusted on much other stuff either.
What is the practical purpose of distinguishing between "inflicting nationalism to inflict authoritarianism" and "inflicting authoritarianism to inflict nationalism" for the purposes of living there? Either way, the inhabitants get both.
BurdensomeCount
Singapore is the only country that learned the correct lessons from the British Empire.
sun_the_second 5mo ago·Edited 5mo ago
Words have meanings, and the way fascism was being used here was in a negative perjorative sense, that doesn't apply to "absolute totalitarian monarchism" if only because that's too big of a mouthful for the average man and is also too much of a fargroup for westerners in a way that "fascism" is not. Using words incorrectly is a slur treadmill and a bad thing, and deserves to be called out and ridiculed.
But if you ask about the difference for someone living there:
Fascism is a one party society, Monarchism is a zero party society. This obviously influences how much personal political power you can get if you start out with none but are determined to make something of yourself.
In fascism your loyalty is to the country, in monarchy your loyalty is to the royal family. The "country" needs not even be a well defined thing beyond a necessary legal fiction for the modern world, indeed "Saudi Arabia" is named after the House of Saud, the family which rules it.
Fascism glorifies its state and ruler as being better than others, there is no such thing in monarchy: you are a subject of your monarch, therefore you must serve him, even though other monarchs may well be better.
In fascism, power comes through seizing it (or rising up the ranks of the party), in monarchism power (generally) comes through being born into it.
Monarchy tends to be more internally stable (as long as the ruling king does his duty and properly nominates and grooms a heir before he dies), because there are fewer people who can legitimately claim power and thus cause internal strife, fascism is vulnerable to coups in the leadership by any strong enough random who thinks he can serve the country better than the current leader, this leads to civil strife and suffering for the whole population.
Fascism is very atheistic as it raises the state above everything, a totalitarian theocratic monarchy is obviously very religious (it's literally in the name). But still Fascism is probably fine with your religion as long as you don't make it interfere with state business, totalitarian theocratic monarchies would not be happy with you being a member of the wrong religion.
Fascism is more egalitarian on a personal level than absolute monarchy, as long as you glorify the state and are a citizen everything is well and good, in monarchy there are more divisions with some people being elevated higher than others (titles of nobility).
Fascism is generally like a planned economy, it's corporatism done on a state level (the state run like e.g. Apple), Monarchy doesn't have much to say about how the economy is best run.
etc. etc.
These are massive differences between fascism and totalitarian state monarchy, even the last one on its own is a huge difference to the life of the average person (akin to the difference between a capitalistic/communist society). The inhabitants do get both nationalism and authoritarianism and a bunch of other similar things, but their lives under the two systems are very different on a day to day basis.
And if you're going to use this to say that fascism sounds better than totalitarian theocratic monarchy for an average citizen then fine, you can make that argument but that still doesn't make it OK to say totalitarian theocratic monarchies are "fascism", no different to how getting punched in the face is better than getting your leg cut off, but saying someone got punched in the face when they got their leg cut off is comepletely wrong, and using it as hyperbole (bacause society has memetic antibodies against punching in the face but not legs getting cut off) is straight up wrong and deserves to be called out, mocked and ridiculed for being next level stupid.
Btw, Saudi Arabia is actually a pretty nice place to live these days if you are in any ways economically productive, I have cousins (including female ones) who went to live there for ~8 years or so, made a lot of money due to low tax while having a nice comfortable life due to modern day amenities that would be much more expensive to replicate in the west, then came back and used the saved money to straight up buy a house.
Because a bunch of European countries blame themselves when Muslims don't like them or don't integrate or kills hundreds of their fellow citizens in terrorist attacks.
Those European countries don’t have an army to fight or territory to conquer. The one time there really was a state that openly aligned itself with Islamist terrorism in the West a multinational coalition of Western powers invaded and occupied it for 20 years.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Israel struck the Al-Shifa hospital and then lied about the source being misfired Palestinian munitions. The IDF even provided a trajectory map of the projectiles which they claimed to be based on radar detections:
It's honestly kind of depressing how much information, proof, etc Israel/IDF provides, and still cannot win trust. Of course it doesn't help when random mid-level Israeli bureaucrats tweet random posts of unverified bs that then gets debonnnked.
Like the Shifa Hospital situation the last few days. Images and videos of IDF bringing in supplies etc for patients in the hospital: "lies, they didn't actually do this!" "just for the video/photo-op!" etc. Of course, they ARE purposeful photo-ops that are trying to counter the anti-Israeli perspective.
And then anti-Israel people will post some link PROVING that Israel "lied" in the past, but then you read the link and it is IDF claiming responsibility for some error. "This is why IDF definitely did fire rockets at the Al-Ahli Baptist Hospital in Gaza" etc etc. And of course then pictures come out and ... onto the next story!
It's the same as how US public comms is treated. Oh US DoD denies the casualty numbers claimed by a militia that just attacked a US base? "Lies!" "This means the casualty numbers are true!" When US DoD says, in the same manner, in the same channels, that they did something that can be seen as detrimental, like say they suffered some injuries, like US base got attacked - then what US is saying is of course true.
Everyone here probably knows this and has seen it play out. I'm just a little, idk, depressed and ranty about this.
(and I'm not ruling out that Israel does / can/ has lied about military actions, and god knows IDF has done their share of morally bad things in the past. But there just seems to be nothing israel can do to win over trust. But such is the tiktok PR battle we find ourselves in today.)
((IMO: US, Israel, and any faction that finds itself in a conflict and viewed as the more powerful "oppressor", should just keep silent and never say anything. Did Saudi announce things when fighting Houthis in Yemen? Or Assad when killing hundreds of thousands of people? I am no)
When confronted with clear evidence that Israel lied about something, your response is that it’s depressing that people still distrust Israel. What kind of rhetorical strategy is that?
As the resident Al-Ahli Speculation Enjoyer this is funny to me, as I was warned by the mods about “single issue posting” when I provided two updates on the topic. The last major update was similar to the article above: the NYTimes and LeMonde came out with their conclusion that a major piece of evidence used by Israel was false, that the rocket came from a different direction than where Israel alleges. And that’s been the last major update because of a lack of evidence to discuss. Which is why Al-Shifa is important: if Israel is lying and is also proven culpable, then IMO it’s likely this is the case also for Al-Ahli. Maybe that is exactly why there are reporters on the grounds now at Al-Shifa.
It was the president of Israel who said they weren’t striking Al-Shifa, by the way. Not a “random mid-level bureaucrat”.
[On a side note, one of the camera video recordings obtained by the Times came from Saleh al-Jafarawi, who is a kind of Palestinian Sam Hyde. Maybe this is grounds for some people to doubt the findings.]
More options
Context Copy link
Entities that lie to build support for waging war lose trust and don't get the default assumption of honesty. Remember the US and Israeli governments and their diehards pushing claims that Saddam was feeding people into wood chippers, had WMDs and was trying to make nukes, the guy who claimed to be his bomb maker before congress, and the earlier nonsense from Desert Storm about pulling babies out of incubators? If you questioned any of this at the time, you were a terrorist sympathizer, America hater, Al-Qaeda lover, etc. Cue hundreds of thousands dead until years later people acknowledge these as lies.
Do you think people posting "Lies" are saying that because they remember, or even know, about these things you listed?
Not to say US / Israel / any other military are without blame for the lack of trust. I agree, US military has lied in the past, and the press/government/etc lied with it (possibly in other orders, like papers lied first, apparently, for the Spanish-American war). Not saying they are without sin.
But it does feel to me that the winningest move here is to not play at all (not fight). Failing that, don't say anything while playing and hopefully you win.
Yes. When a person or group proves that they will say anything to manipulate you into doing what they want, the correct move is to always start from the assumption that they're lying.
More options
Context Copy link
It was only twenty years ago. Plenty of people in the Pentagon, Israeli and US intelligence, etc who were involved in creating and spreading war propaganda lies in the 2000s would still be active members of those institutions and remember what was done then, and newer members would doubtless be taught about the Iraq War and the like as case studies to inform future propaganda efforts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is fine, as long as it's consistently applied, which hasn't always been seen in this conflict despite plentiful examples on both sides and virtually all media.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I see such things as a result of motivated reasoning coupled with the impossibility of knowing where everything you have is. No military on this planet can know with 100% certainty where every missile being shot is aimed and know where all your enemies weapons and units are. Thus when making statements, the temptation will be to assume the best of your own and the worst of your enemies, and thus it would be to choose the one where they look good.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If there were at least four explosions and three of them were Israeli, it means that one or more could be from Hamas. Everyone could be telling part of the truth here.
More options
Context Copy link
Saudi Arabia is not fascist, it’s a theocratic absolute monarchy.
For some, the easy retort here is "what's the difference?"
Let’s start with the easy legal difference- the Saudi state, and indeed the whole country, is the personal property of the house of Saud, and they deserve to have it as their property because of their family history of guarding the ‘correct’ type of Islam. In a fascist state, the country is personified by the state which answers to no one and it is the state’s power which justifies this personification.
The Saudi model in western societies is similar to the Ancien Regime, Hapsburg empire, old Spain, etc. fascism in western societies is, well, Hitler and Mussolini. Interestingly, there are examples of Arab fascism- Saddam Hussein and Bashar Al Assad. You’ll notice that, while perhaps the level of oppression was similar between Iraq and Saudi Arabia in, say, 2000, the direction and amount were very different, with Saudi oppression aimed at religious conformity and Iraqi oppression aimed at ethnic distinctions which could provide a conflicting loyalty to the state.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, ignorance makes for easy retorts.
Fascism (like communism) was a movement primarily in response to the dissolution of states where power lay in the hands of a hereditary elite, who would maintain that power by doing things for the commoners that they thought the commoners needed, while extracting wealth and making the commoners do things for them. Downtown Abbey is a good example of a show that celebrates the old world order, with the hereditary rich living in mansions and being served on; taking their cut from the farmers, while justifying their position by arguing that they create jobs, help those in need and organize feasts (where they themselves expect to get applauded by the commoners). Saudi Arabia is pretty much like this, with their system of patronage depending on clan relationships.
The actual cause for the social changes that led to the rise of communism and fascism was the Second Agricultural Revolution, which pushed very many people out of the farming life, which in turn enabled the Industrial Revolution. These technical revolutions led to urbanization and capitalism, both of which were much more brutal than today, causing much unhappiness and therefor revolutionary spirit. The elites that ran these countries were seen as doing such a bad job that very many people wanted something different.
Communism in theory sought to abolish the elites, instead of replacing them, by means of radical democracy & shared property. Although in practice this could not work for various reasons and so communist regimes inevitably just descended into authoritarianism, based on power games rather than hereditary power. In that sense, the statement that 'true communism has never been tried' is true, although true communism can't actually be tried and inevitably seems to devolve into what it was intended to fight against.
Fascism sought to replace the hereditary elite with a technocratic elite that would seek to improve society by aligning people towards a societal improvement, rather than their selfish desires. Hence the bundle of sticks, the fasces. All people in the nation united for a common purpose. Unlike communism, it rejects the idea of radical equality, so it accepts wealth differences and differences in hierarchy, but only in so far as to help achieve the common goal. The fascist capital owner may own a big factory, but is not supposed to hoard wealth, have an excessive lifestyle or take advantage of others. Fascism rejects democracy, as it considers the common man to be stupid. It doesn't really answer the question of how the right goal and right leadership is selected. In practice, the autocratic nature of the leadership and lack of goals within the ideology itself, tends to lead to fascism being easily combined with other extremist ideologies, like Hitler's racial beliefs.
This lack of inherent goals within the fascist model tends to lead to a lot of confusion about what fascism actually is, which why it is so easy to claim that something is fascist, as there is no pure fascism. It's always fascism plus some other ideology or some other goal, that is not inherent to fascism itself.
More options
Context Copy link
"If you don't know the difference between fascism and theocratic absolute monarchy you have nothing worthwhile to contribute on the topic and should just be ignored" is the correct reply.
What is the difference that's meaningful to the poster who conflates them?
Don’t waste your time defending the idiotic utterances of this troll. He is not on your side.
Which one?
"jewdefender"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fascism and Absolute totalitarian monarchies have their means and ends flipped, fascism is an extreme form of nationalism and uses authoritarianism to inculcate nationalism amongst its subjects; absolute totalitarian monarchies aim to preserve rule by fiat of the king/emperor and use nationalism to achieve their authoriarianism.
Confusing the two with each other is like believing wet streets cause rain, and someone who thinks that way is not to be trusted on much other stuff either.
What is the practical purpose of distinguishing between "inflicting nationalism to inflict authoritarianism" and "inflicting authoritarianism to inflict nationalism" for the purposes of living there? Either way, the inhabitants get both.
Words have meanings, and the way fascism was being used here was in a negative perjorative sense, that doesn't apply to "absolute totalitarian monarchism" if only because that's too big of a mouthful for the average man and is also too much of a fargroup for westerners in a way that "fascism" is not. Using words incorrectly is a slur treadmill and a bad thing, and deserves to be called out and ridiculed.
But if you ask about the difference for someone living there:
Fascism is a one party society, Monarchism is a zero party society. This obviously influences how much personal political power you can get if you start out with none but are determined to make something of yourself.
In fascism your loyalty is to the country, in monarchy your loyalty is to the royal family. The "country" needs not even be a well defined thing beyond a necessary legal fiction for the modern world, indeed "Saudi Arabia" is named after the House of Saud, the family which rules it.
Fascism glorifies its state and ruler as being better than others, there is no such thing in monarchy: you are a subject of your monarch, therefore you must serve him, even though other monarchs may well be better.
In fascism, power comes through seizing it (or rising up the ranks of the party), in monarchism power (generally) comes through being born into it.
Monarchy tends to be more internally stable (as long as the ruling king does his duty and properly nominates and grooms a heir before he dies), because there are fewer people who can legitimately claim power and thus cause internal strife, fascism is vulnerable to coups in the leadership by any strong enough random who thinks he can serve the country better than the current leader, this leads to civil strife and suffering for the whole population.
Fascism is very atheistic as it raises the state above everything, a totalitarian theocratic monarchy is obviously very religious (it's literally in the name). But still Fascism is probably fine with your religion as long as you don't make it interfere with state business, totalitarian theocratic monarchies would not be happy with you being a member of the wrong religion.
Fascism is more egalitarian on a personal level than absolute monarchy, as long as you glorify the state and are a citizen everything is well and good, in monarchy there are more divisions with some people being elevated higher than others (titles of nobility).
Fascism is generally like a planned economy, it's corporatism done on a state level (the state run like e.g. Apple), Monarchy doesn't have much to say about how the economy is best run.
etc. etc.
These are massive differences between fascism and totalitarian state monarchy, even the last one on its own is a huge difference to the life of the average person (akin to the difference between a capitalistic/communist society). The inhabitants do get both nationalism and authoritarianism and a bunch of other similar things, but their lives under the two systems are very different on a day to day basis.
And if you're going to use this to say that fascism sounds better than totalitarian theocratic monarchy for an average citizen then fine, you can make that argument but that still doesn't make it OK to say totalitarian theocratic monarchies are "fascism", no different to how getting punched in the face is better than getting your leg cut off, but saying someone got punched in the face when they got their leg cut off is comepletely wrong, and using it as hyperbole (bacause society has memetic antibodies against punching in the face but not legs getting cut off) is straight up wrong and deserves to be called out, mocked and ridiculed for being next level stupid.
Btw, Saudi Arabia is actually a pretty nice place to live these days if you are in any ways economically productive, I have cousins (including female ones) who went to live there for ~8 years or so, made a lot of money due to low tax while having a nice comfortable life due to modern day amenities that would be much more expensive to replicate in the west, then came back and used the saved money to straight up buy a house.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think this is true - many European countries would simply not retaliate at all if left to their own devices.
The last time they retaliated we got two world wars.
More options
Context Copy link
Notably, Hamas wasn’t leaving Israel to its own devices, and nobody had any reasonable expectation that they would.
More options
Context Copy link
Because a bunch of European countries blame themselves when Muslims don't like them or don't integrate or kills hundreds of their fellow citizens in terrorist attacks.
Those European countries don’t have an army to fight or territory to conquer. The one time there really was a state that openly aligned itself with Islamist terrorism in the West a multinational coalition of Western powers invaded and occupied it for 20 years.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree. Getting invaded and genocided has a way of focusing the mind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link