이스라엘, 팔레스타인, 이란, 터키, 인도, 월남, 쿠바

Aaron's post

Aaron Mathew Oleston

s͏o͏t͏d͏r͏e͏n͏p͏o͏S͏0͏2͏1͏c͏l͏4͏6͏0͏t͏3͏h͏i͏5͏t͏5͏c͏4͏0͏i͏8͏i͏4͏f͏u͏c͏7͏3͏3͏6͏6͏0͏4͏2͏t͏t͏2͏c͏6͏8͏t͏i͏3͏a͏h͏7͏c͏h͏3͏5͏0͏

I watched this speech on LinkedIn this morning, and it stopped me cold......

Athena Rayburn, speaking on behalf of an organization representing more than 100 humanitarian and development groups working in the occupied Palestinian territories, told the United Nations what too many governments apparently need explained with crayons. Keeping people barely alive is not peace. She rejected the idea that counting aid trucks proves the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is being solved. Two million people remain trapped and dependent upon assistance controlled and restricted by the same government she accused of creating the scarcity.

According to Rayburn, more than 30 international aid organizations have been deregistered. She said humanitarian workers have faced restrictions involving medical equipment, specialized medical personnel, engine oil and even fresh food such as watermelons and onions. Let that sink in. Nearly a year into what officials call a ceasefire, humanitarian organizations are still pleading for wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs, engine oil and fucking onions. That is not recovery. That is suffering being managed through paperwork. Wake the fuck up people!!!!

Rayburn said more than 1,000 Palestinians have reportedly been killed by the Israeli terrorist since the ceasefire was announced. She also said over 400 humanitarian workers have been killed during nearly three years of the genocide. governments do not get to dismiss eyewitness accounts simply because the testimony makes the polished official narrative look like the cheap coat of paint it is. Her strongest point was brutal. if this so called Board of Peace wants credit for every improvement, then it must also accept responsibility for the deaths, restrictions and continuing violations happening under its watch.

You do not get to pose for the victory photograph and then vanish when the body count enters the room. Rayburn invited the Security Council to come to Gaza and see the conditions for itself. That is exactly what should happen. Stop arguing over competing reports from comfortable chambers. Go there. Look people in the eyes. Inspect the hospitals, shelters, water stations and aid operations. A ceasefire should mean people stop dying. Humanitarian aid should not be conditioned upon silence. And keeping children alive for another 24 hours is not some glorious diplomatic achievement. It is the lowest possible bar and the world is still tripping over it. Link in the comments. Watch it for yourself.

Liz Mosher

Thank you. PLEASE PERSIST!

Aaron Mathew Oleston

Author

Facebook’s algorithm doesn’t exactly roll out the red carpet when I share patreon links to my articles. My Patreon link is pinned at the top of my page. Follow me there. or Sub to me here https://www.facebook.com/AaronOleston/subscribenow...

Subscribe to Aaron Mathew Oleston

Aaron Mathew Oleston

Author

https://www.linkedin.com/.../ben-phillips-b1190088.../...

Brittany Joy

by author

Thank you for speaking out on behalf of the humans being harmed and oppressed by the violent systems destroying the globe.

Sheril Johnson

I had a friend who was part of the PLO, family was OGs and he ran away to Sweden and was my friend.

There is a big reason not to believe the Palestinians!

They lie!!!!!!

You don’t know what really happened.

They bring up their children young to hate and kill.

They are Arabs and have places to go and lands that accept them.

They stay to eventually take over again!

There’s a dark side they keep hidden!

Israeli IDF do not kill innocent people unless they are put in the way to stop IDF from killing the killers!

You do not know, especially if you never been there or lived there.

There are reasons this group of Palestinians military st leave!

Israel’s the size of New Jersey!

Israel has helped them and lived alongside “Praceful”, Palestinians for decades and gave them gardens and land and housing and medical and and and…

Yet they want to take over like all other Arabs here in America!

Be wise my friend scrap the article until you know better or you’ll be part of the problem

Aaron Mathew Oleston

Author

Sheril Johnson let’s deal in facts not stories about one person you once knew. First, Palestinians are not the PLO, and they are not Hamas. Gaza had roughly two million people before this war, about half of them children. Claiming “Palestinians lie” condemns an entire population based on ethnicity. That is prejudice, not evidence. Second, the claim that the IDF does not kill innocent people unless Hamas puts them in the way is demonstrably false. The United Nations has documented civilians being killed in homes, tents, schools, hospitals and while seeking food. By September 2025, the UN reported that at least 540 humanitarian workers had been killed in Gaza. Were all 540 secretly Hamas shields? That is not a serious argument. That is an excuse stretched until it snaps. https://www.ochaopt.org/.../humanitarian-situation-update...

Third, using human shields is illegal. But here is the part people conveniently leave out, even if armed fighters operate near civilians, those civilians do not lose their legal protection. The attacking force must still distinguish civilians from combatants, take feasible precautions and avoid attacks expected to cause disproportionate civilian harm. The International Committee of the Red Cross says this plainly. https://www.icrc.org/.../protection-civilian-population...

Fourth, telling Palestinians to leave because they are Arabs and “have places to go” is not a solution. International humanitarian law generally prohibits forcibly displacing civilians except temporarily under narrow security or imperative military circumstances. Displaced civilians retain the right to return. People are not interchangeable furniture that can be shoved into another country because they speak a similar language.https://www.icrc.org/.../protection-civilian-population...

Fifth, Athena Rayburn did not walk into the United Nations representing Hamas. She spoke for the Association of International Development Agencies, an umbrella organization representing more than 100 humanitarian and development organizations working in the occupied Palestinian territories. If you believe her specific claims are false, produce credible evidence addressing those claims. “Palestinians lie” does not disprove blocked wheelchairs, restricted medical specialists, deregistered aid organizations or dead humanitarian workers. Hamas’s murder and kidnapping of civilians on October 7 were atrocities. That still does not authorize collective punishment, forced removal or unlimited civilian deaths. International law does not say, “Protect civilians unless you are angry enough.” I will correct any factual mistake supported by credible evidence. I will not scrap documented reporting because somebody offers ethnic stereotypes, unsupported absolutes and a secondhand story about a former friend. Bring records not racism.

Sheril Johnson

Arabs, they aren’t there to just live!

I know people in Israel, who live there, I’ve been there a few times. Your getting info from one or two sources that are part of the Arab agenda, Stop reporting on things you know little about please because your fueling their agenda!

Stick with Beloit and our Nation, we need your help

Edited

·

========

Explain Sheril Johnson's mentality.

====

I would not try to diagnose Sheril Johnson psychologically from a Facebook profile and one exchange. But the material does reveal a fairly coherent <political-moral worldview>, and some of its features are striking.

Her Facebook self-description is interesting because she presents herself in explicitly Christian and universalistic language: <“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17”> and <“Co-Architect of our New Creation.”> On the surface, this is a spirituality of unity and reconciliation. Yet her response to the Gaza discussion operates according to almost the opposite logic: sharp division between innocent “us” and a collectively dangerous “them.”

1. Palestinians are treated as a category, not as individuals

The most revealing sentence is not really about Hamas or the PLO. It is the categorical assertion:

“There is a big reason not to believe the Palestinians! They lie!!!!!!”

She then moves from one former PLO acquaintance whom she knew to judgments about millions of Palestinians: children are supposedly raised “to hate and kill”; Palestinians supposedly remain where they are because they intend eventually to “take over”; and Arabs can simply leave because other Arab countries exist.

This is <essentialist thinking>: membership in an ethnic-national population is treated as evidence of character and intention.

The important transition is:

<“I knew one Palestinian connected with the PLO” → “therefore Palestinians as a people are unreliable.”>

That is not really an argument about evidence. It is an argument in which an anecdote supplies a pre-existing interpretation of an entire people.

2. She appears to have a strong siege mentality

Several statements fit together:

Palestinians secretly intend to take over again.
There is “a dark side they keep hidden.”
Palestinian military organizations are everywhere.
Palestinians or Arabs supposedly want to “take over” in America as well.
Israel is extremely small and therefore existentially vulnerable.

The resulting world is one in which appearances cannot be trusted. A Palestinian who looks like an ordinary civilian may belong to the hidden threat; humanitarian reporting may conceal the real situation; even apparently innocent children belong to a culture supposedly teaching hatred.

Once the conflict is perceived this way, almost any contrary evidence can be assimilated into the threat narrative.

That is what I would call <siege consciousness>, rather than simply “pro-Israel opinion.”

3. Her moral reasoning is radically asymmetric

One particularly important sentence is her claim that the IDF does not kill innocent people except when innocent people are deliberately placed in its way.

Notice what this does morally.

If Israeli military action kills civilians, responsibility is transferred almost completely from the actor using lethal force to the Palestinian side:

It makes Israeli innocence virtually unfalsifiable.

This is why Aaron Oleston's reply on page 3 concentrates on international humanitarian law. Even if an armed group operates among civilians, that does not erase the attacking military's obligations to distinguish civilians from combatants, take precautions and avoid disproportionate civilian harm.

Sheril's framework, by contrast, largely removes that second layer of responsibility.

4. She replaces territorial rights with ethnic interchangeability

Perhaps the most disturbing sentence conceptually is:

“They are Arabs and have places to go and lands that accept them.”

That reveals something deeper than hostility toward Hamas.

It assumes that because Palestinians are Arabs, one Arab country is more or less interchangeable with another. Thus a Palestinian family's attachment to Gaza, Jaffa, Haifa, Ramallah or Jerusalem becomes secondary: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt or somewhere else in the Arab world could supposedly substitute.

Apply the same principle elsewhere and its problem becomes obvious:

“Koreans have Korea, so Korean residents of Japan can simply go there.”

“Jews have Israel, so Jewish citizens elsewhere can leave.”

We normally regard citizenship, home, property and historical attachment as belonging to individuals and communities—not merely to linguistic or ethnic categories.

Sheril's statement therefore contains a distinctly <ethno-territorial way of thinking>: territory properly belongs to one people, while another people can be relocated because similar people live elsewhere.

5. Her knowledge hierarchy seems to privilege personal testimony over institutional evidence

She tells the other person, essentially, <you haven't been there; you don't know what really happened>.

This establishes a hierarchy:

Personal experience can certainly reveal things institutions miss. The difficulty comes when one person's story becomes a mechanism for rejecting contrary evidence categorically.

Oleston's response correctly identifies this epistemological problem: if Anthea Rayburn's specific claims about restrictions on aid, medical personnel, equipment and humanitarian organizations are false, then they need to be rebutted with evidence; saying broadly that “Palestinians lie” does not rebut them.

That is probably the central difference between the two people in this exchange.

Sheril reasons primarily from <identity and trust>.
Oleston responds primarily through <claims and evidence>.

6. There is also a classic “hidden enemy” structure

The sentence about Palestinians having a “dark side they keep hidden” is significant.

If someone's worldview says:

<The people I distrust conceal their real intentions>,

then counterexamples become difficult to accept. A peaceful Palestinian may simply be hiding hostility. A child may have been indoctrinated. An aid organization may be deceived. International criticism may arise from ignorance.

This makes the belief somewhat <self-sealing>.

Evidence supporting the belief proves it.

Evidence contradicting the belief may also prove it, because the enemy is supposedly deceptive.

This does not mean Sheril is mentally ill or clinically paranoid. Nothing here permits such a conclusion. It means that her political reasoning contains what social psychologists sometimes describe as <motivated reasoning> and <out-group homogeneity>: the threatening out-group appears much more uniform than one's own group.

7. The most interesting contradiction is “Oneness”

For me, the profile photograph actually makes the exchange more interesting.

Her stated ideal is:

<“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”>

John 17 is precisely a Christian text about unity.

Yet in the Gaza discussion she divides humanity into profoundly unequal moral categories. Israeli actions are interpreted through security, necessity and self-defense. Palestinian actions—and often Palestinian existence itself—are interpreted through collective suspicion.

So her mentality is not simply one of hatred. It seems more complicated:

That allows exclusion to be experienced subjectively as moral discernment rather than prejudice.

And that is important. People holding such views ordinarily do not think:

<“I dislike an ethnic group.”>

They are much more likely to think:

<“I know uncomfortable truths that naïve people refuse to recognize.”>

Her closing warning—essentially, <wise up or you'll become part of the problem>—fits that mentality particularly well.

8. I therefore would characterize her mentality this way

It combines <Christian universalistic self-understanding> with <ethnic essentialism>, a <siege/security worldview>, strong <in-group/out-group moral asymmetry>, reliance on <anecdotal authority>, and a tendency toward <collective attribution of guilt>.

The most serious feature is not simply that she strongly supports Israel. One can strongly support Israel without making these arguments.

The troubling feature is the movement from:

<“Hamas/PLO have committed terrible acts”>

to:

<“Palestinians lie; their children are trained to hate; they are Arabs who can go elsewhere; they secretly intend to take over.”>

That shift transforms a political judgment about organizations and actions into a generalized theory about a people.

And there is a deep irony here: <the “Oneness” advertised on her profile appears to stop precisely where her perception of existential threat begins.>

That tension between an expansive religious language of unity and a highly exclusionary political anthropology is, to me, the most revealing thing about Sheril Johnson's mentality in these materials.

====

Elaborate on “Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”

====

“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17” is a much richer—and more specifically Christian—claim than the word <oneness> by itself suggests. To understand what Sheril Johnson appears to be saying, it helps to separate <John 17 itself> from the ways contemporary Christians sometimes appropriate it.

What happens in John 17?

John 17 is traditionally called Jesus’ <High Priestly Prayer>. It comes immediately before his arrest. Jesus first prays concerning himself, then for his immediate disciples, and finally for later believers.

The climactic idea is that his followers should “be one,” analogous to the relationship between Jesus and the Father:

<“that they may all be one … as you, Father, are in me and I am in you.”>

The same thought is repeated several times. Jesus' concern is not merely that Christians should stop arguing. Their unity is meant to reflect something much deeper: the mutual communion of Father and Son.

The chapter therefore links several ideas:

The followers of Jesus participate in God's love and are thereby drawn into unity with one another. Their unity then becomes part of their witness to the world.

So when somebody says <“Oneness as in John 17”>, the most natural Christian meaning is:

But “oneness” in John 17 does not mean that everybody becomes identical

This distinction matters.

John 17 does not envision the disappearance of individual persons. The Father remains Father, the Son remains Son, and the disciples remain disciples. Unity exists <within relationship and difference>.

It is therefore closer to:

than to:

<everyone becoming the same thing>.

That is why John 17 has been important in modern ecumenical Christianity. Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants have repeatedly appealed to it when discussing Christian reconciliation: divisions between churches contradict Jesus' prayer that his followers should be one.

There is consequently a strong <reconciliation> theme embedded in Sheril Johnson's wording.

“Unifying” adds another layer

She does not merely write <“Oneness in John 17.”> She writes:

<“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”>

That sounds less like a conventional denominational statement of faith and more like a description of a personal vocation:

The accompanying phrases reinforce this impression:

<“Project Goshen. Present”>
<“Co-Architect of our New Creation”>

Taken together, her profile appears to present her as participating in some larger spiritual transformation.

The language is somewhat unusual for ordinary evangelical Christianity. A conventional evangelical profile might say something like “Follower of Jesus,” “Christ is Lord,” or quote John 3:16. <“Co-Architect of our New Creation”> sounds more visionary and transformational.

I would therefore distinguish two possibilities.

She may simply be using charismatic Christian language—God is creating something new, Christians cooperate with God's purposes, and John 17 describes the unity toward which humanity or the church is moving.

But it could also reflect a more eclectic spiritual vocabulary in which Christian scripture, “oneness,” transformation, and human participation in creating a new world are blended together.

The profile alone cannot tell us which.

What does “oneness” actually require ethically?

This becomes particularly interesting when compared with the comments you showed me.

John 17's unity does not directly teach a modern political program. Jesus is primarily speaking about his disciples. Nevertheless, the Gospel of John connects this unity repeatedly with <love>.

The logic is approximately:

So “oneness” in a Johannine sense is not primarily an assertion that <we possess the truth and outsiders are dangerous>. It involves incorporation into a relationship characterized by self-giving love.

This creates the tension I mentioned previously.

Sheril's profile says:

But her Palestinian comments construct a remarkably strong boundary between groups:

<Israelis> are interpreted individually and sympathetically.

<Palestinians> are repeatedly treated collectively—as people who lie, teach children hatred, conceal a “dark side,” and ultimately want to take over.

Those are two quite different social imaginations.

One moves toward:

<relationship → communion → unity despite difference>.

The other moves toward:

<group identity → suspicion → collective characterization → separation>.

The paradox may be psychological rather than consciously hypocritical

I would be cautious about calling this simple hypocrisy.

Sheril may see no contradiction at all.

Her internal logic may be something like:

Within that framework, even very exclusionary statements can be understood by the speaker as serving eventual “oneness.”

That phenomenon appears in many religious traditions. A universalistic ideal is combined with a highly particular account of who presently obstructs that ideal:

The universal ideal therefore remains intact in the person's self-understanding while responsibility for disunity is overwhelmingly assigned to the out-group.

There is an even deeper theological issue in John 17

John 17 certainly contains an insider/outsider distinction. John's Gospel is not simply a modern liberal doctrine saying that everybody is equally correct. Jesus speaks about those whom God has given him, about truth, belief and unbelief.

So it would be too easy to say:

It does not.

But there is an important difference between theological particularity and <ethnic essentialism>.

John 17 can distinguish believer from unbeliever without saying that an ethnic population is inherently deceptive. Its fundamental categories are relationship to God, truth, discipleship, love and mission—not racial heredity.

That makes Sheril's move from Christian “oneness” to statements such as <“Palestinians lie”> especially significant.

She moves from a theological category to an ethnonational category.

Those are not the same thing.

“As in John 17” may therefore tell us something important about how she sees herself

I suspect the phrase is less about describing existing reality than describing her <self-conception>.

She apparently does not present herself as an angry partisan. She presents herself as:

a reconciler,
someone discerning a spiritual transformation,
someone participating in “new creation,”
and someone working toward unity.

That is precisely why her subsequent rhetoric is sociologically interesting.

People rarely experience themselves primarily as prejudiced. They construct a morally meaningful account of themselves.

Sheril's may be:

If she simultaneously believes that Palestinians as a group embody deception and violence, then opposition to them does not feel inconsistent with her universalism. It can actually feel like <defending the conditions necessary for universalism>.

That is a powerful moral mechanism.

One sentence captures the tension

I would interpret the profile's phrase as meaning roughly:

<“Humanity—or the followers of Christ—are being drawn toward the deep spiritual unity between God and Christ described in John 17, and I understand my own calling as helping bring that unity about.”>

Yet her Gaza comments reveal an important limitation:

And this may be more revealing than simply calling her prejudiced. It shows how <a theology of universal unity can coexist psychologically with an intensely exclusionary politics>—because the excluded group is imagined not as another participant in reconciliation, but as the obstacle that must first be defeated, converted, exposed, or removed.

====

They bring up their children young to hate and kill.pdf

PDF

Explain Sheril Johnson's mentality.

1. Palestinians are treated as a category, not as individuals

The most revealing sentence is not really about Hamas or the PLO. It is the categorical assertion:

“There is a big reason not to believe the Palestinians! They lie!!!!!!”

This is <essentialist thinking>: membership in an ethnic-national population is treated as evidence of character and intention.

The important transition is:

<“I knew one Palestinian connected with the PLO” → “therefore Palestinians as a people are unreliable.”>

That is not really an argument about evidence. It is an argument in which an anecdote supplies a pre-existing interpretation of an entire people.

2. She appears to have a strong siege mentality

Several statements fit together:

Palestinians secretly intend to take over again.
There is “a dark side they keep hidden.”
Palestinian military organizations are everywhere.
Palestinians or Arabs supposedly want to “take over” in America as well.
Israel is extremely small and therefore existentially vulnerable.

Once the conflict is perceived this way, almost any contrary evidence can be assimilated into the threat narrative.

That is what I would call <siege consciousness>, rather than simply “pro-Israel opinion.”

3. Her moral reasoning is radically asymmetric

One particularly important sentence is her claim that the IDF does not kill innocent people except when innocent people are deliberately placed in its way.

Notice what this does morally.

If Israeli military action kills civilians, responsibility is transferred almost completely from the actor using lethal force to the Palestinian side:

It makes Israeli innocence virtually unfalsifiable.

Sheril's framework, by contrast, largely removes that second layer of responsibility.

4. She replaces territorial rights with ethnic interchangeability

Perhaps the most disturbing sentence conceptually is:

“They are Arabs and have places to go and lands that accept them.”

That reveals something deeper than hostility toward Hamas.

Apply the same principle elsewhere and its problem becomes obvious:

“Koreans have Korea, so Korean residents of Japan can simply go there.”

“Jews have Israel, so Jewish citizens elsewhere can leave.”

We normally regard citizenship, home, property and historical attachment as belonging to individuals and communities—not merely to linguistic or ethnic categories.

5. Her knowledge hierarchy seems to privilege personal testimony over institutional evidence

She tells the other person, essentially, <you haven't been there; you don't know what really happened>.

This establishes a hierarchy:

Personal experience can certainly reveal things institutions miss. The difficulty comes when one person's story becomes a mechanism for rejecting contrary evidence categorically.

That is probably the central difference between the two people in this exchange.

Sheril reasons primarily from <identity and trust>.
Oleston responds primarily through <claims and evidence>.

6. There is also a classic “hidden enemy” structure

The sentence about Palestinians having a “dark side they keep hidden” is significant.

If someone's worldview says:

<The people I distrust conceal their real intentions>,

This makes the belief somewhat <self-sealing>.

Evidence supporting the belief proves it.

Evidence contradicting the belief may also prove it, because the enemy is supposedly deceptive.

7. The most interesting contradiction is “Oneness”

For me, the profile photograph actually makes the exchange more interesting.

Her stated ideal is:

<“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”>

John 17 is precisely a Christian text about unity.

So her mentality is not simply one of hatred. It seems more complicated:

That allows exclusion to be experienced subjectively as moral discernment rather than prejudice.

And that is important. People holding such views ordinarily do not think:

<“I dislike an ethnic group.”>

They are much more likely to think:

<“I know uncomfortable truths that naïve people refuse to recognize.”>

Her closing warning—essentially, <wise up or you'll become part of the problem>—fits that mentality particularly well.

8. I therefore would characterize her mentality this way

The most serious feature is not simply that she strongly supports Israel. One can strongly support Israel without making these arguments.

The troubling feature is the movement from:

<“Hamas/PLO have committed terrible acts”>

to:

<“Palestinians lie; their children are trained to hate; they are Arabs who can go elsewhere; they secretly intend to take over.”>

That shift transforms a political judgment about organizations and actions into a generalized theory about a people.

And there is a deep irony here: <the “Oneness” advertised on her profile appears to stop precisely where her perception of existential threat begins.>

That tension between an expansive religious language of unity and a highly exclusionary political anthropology is, to me, the most revealing thing about Sheril Johnson's mentality in these materials.

Elaborate on “Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”

What happens in John 17?

The climactic idea is that his followers should “be one,” analogous to the relationship between Jesus and the Father:

<“that they may all be one … as you, Father, are in me and I am in you.”>

The chapter therefore links several ideas:

The followers of Jesus participate in God's love and are thereby drawn into unity with one another. Their unity then becomes part of their witness to the world.

So when somebody says <“Oneness as in John 17”>, the most natural Christian meaning is:

But “oneness” in John 17 does not mean that everybody becomes identical

This distinction matters.

It is therefore closer to:

than to:

<everyone becoming the same thing>.

There is consequently a strong <reconciliation> theme embedded in Sheril Johnson's wording.

“Unifying” adds another layer

She does not merely write <“Oneness in John 17.”> She writes:

<“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”>

That sounds less like a conventional denominational statement of faith and more like a description of a personal vocation:

The accompanying phrases reinforce this impression:

<“Project Goshen. Present”>
<“Co-Architect of our New Creation”>

Taken together, her profile appears to present her as participating in some larger spiritual transformation.

I would therefore distinguish two possibilities.

But it could also reflect a more eclectic spiritual vocabulary in which Christian scripture, “oneness,” transformation, and human participation in creating a new world are blended together.

The profile alone cannot tell us which.

What does “oneness” actually require ethically?

This becomes particularly interesting when compared with the comments you showed me.

John 17's unity does not directly teach a modern political program. Jesus is primarily speaking about his disciples. Nevertheless, the Gospel of John connects this unity repeatedly with <love>.

The logic is approximately:

This creates the tension I mentioned previously.

Sheril's profile says:

But her Palestinian comments construct a remarkably strong boundary between groups:

<Israelis> are interpreted individually and sympathetically.

<Palestinians> are repeatedly treated collectively—as people who lie, teach children hatred, conceal a “dark side,” and ultimately want to take over.

Those are two quite different social imaginations.

One moves toward:

<relationship → communion → unity despite difference>.

The other moves toward:

<group identity → suspicion → collective characterization → separation>.

The paradox may be psychological rather than consciously hypocritical

I would be cautious about calling this simple hypocrisy.

Sheril may see no contradiction at all.

Her internal logic may be something like:

Within that framework, even very exclusionary statements can be understood by the speaker as serving eventual “oneness.”

That phenomenon appears in many religious traditions. A universalistic ideal is combined with a highly particular account of who presently obstructs that ideal:

The universal ideal therefore remains intact in the person's self-understanding while responsibility for disunity is overwhelmingly assigned to the out-group.

There is an even deeper theological issue in John 17

So it would be too easy to say:

It does not.

But there is an important difference between theological particularity and <ethnic essentialism>.

That makes Sheril's move from Christian “oneness” to statements such as <“Palestinians lie”> especially significant.

She moves from a theological category to an ethnonational category.

Those are not the same thing.

“As in John 17” may therefore tell us something important about how she sees herself

I suspect the phrase is less about describing existing reality than describing her <self-conception>.

She apparently does not present herself as an angry partisan. She presents herself as:

a reconciler,
someone discerning a spiritual transformation,
someone participating in “new creation,”
and someone working toward unity.

That is precisely why her subsequent rhetoric is sociologically interesting.

People rarely experience themselves primarily as prejudiced. They construct a morally meaningful account of themselves.

Sheril's may be:

That is a powerful moral mechanism.

One sentence captures the tension

I would interpret the profile's phrase as meaning roughly:

Yet her Gaza comments reveal an important limitation:

They bring up their children young to hate and kill 2.pdf

PDF

A small update.

Yes. This small addition actually sharpens the picture considerably. Sheril Johnson’s new reply on page 3 is:

“Arabs, they aren’t there to just live!
I know people in Israel, who live there, I’ve been there a few times. Your getting info from one or two sources that are part of the Arab agenda. Stop reporting on things you know little about please because your fueling their agenda!
Stick with Beloit and our Nation, we need your help…”

I would revise my earlier interpretation in five ways.

1. The issue is broader than Palestinians: she now says “Arabs”

Previously, her language could conceivably be interpreted as directed primarily against Palestinians involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The new sentence broadens the category:

<“Arabs, they aren’t there to just live!”>

That is significant. She is attributing a hidden political intention not merely to Hamas, the PLO, or Palestinian militants, but apparently to <Arabs as a collective population>.

The implied proposition is:

That makes the thinking more clearly <ethnic-essentialist> than the earlier comment alone established.

2. “I have been there” functions as an epistemic trump card

She now gives us her own hierarchy of knowledge:

<people I know in Israel + my several visits to Israel>
versus
<humanitarian organizations, journalists, international institutions, and the sources Aaron cites>.

Her sentence “I’ve been there a few times” is rhetorically important. It is not simply autobiographical information. It is being used to establish authority:

But visiting Israel several times does not by itself establish what is occurring throughout Gaza, nor does knowing Israelis establish the intentions of millions of Palestinians.

This is a common form of <experiential certainty>: genuine personal experience is expanded far beyond what that experience can actually demonstrate.

3. “Arab agenda” introduces a conspiratorial element

This is perhaps the most important addition.

Aaron provides specific arguments and sources. Sheril does not rebut those sources individually. Instead she classifies them as:

<“part of the Arab agenda.”>

That changes the epistemology of the discussion.

The question is no longer:

It becomes:

Once information is interpreted through an “agenda” framework, inconvenient evidence can be dismissed without examining it.

The structure becomes self-protecting:

That is considerably harder to reason with because disagreement itself becomes evidence of manipulation.

4. Notice the asymmetry in how she treats personal networks

This is especially revealing.

Sheril criticizes Aaron for supposedly getting information from “one or two sources.” Yet she herself justifies her knowledge by saying:

<“I know people in Israel”>
and
<“I’ve been there a few times.”>

In other words, she criticizes the epistemic narrowness of Aaron's sources while relying heavily on her own limited personal network.

There is therefore a strong <confirmation asymmetry>:

Her own sources do not need to be interrogated politically; opposing sources do.

That tells us more about her mentality than simply knowing that she supports Israel.

5. “Stick with Beloit and our Nation” is extraordinarily revealing

This final sentence interests me almost as much as “Arab agenda”:

<“Stick with Beloit and our Nation, we need your help.”>

Apparently Aaron is someone whose local or national work she values. She is effectively saying:

That creates a boundary around legitimate moral concern:

<our community / our nation> versus <their conflict / their agenda>.

This is particularly striking alongside Sheril's profile statement:

<“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17.”>

We now see the boundary of that “oneness” more clearly.

Her imagined community appears quite expansive when she speaks spiritually—unity, new creation, John 17—but becomes much narrower when political loyalty and Israel/Palestine enter the picture.

The structure seems roughly:

<spiritual universalism> ↓ <oneness among those rightly aligned> ↓ <outsiders possessing a hidden agenda> ↓ <those repeating their claims become part of the problem>.

That is a very different kind of “oneness” from pluralistic reconciliation.

The most revealing sentence is probably not the angry one

“They lie!!!!!!” is emotionally dramatic.

But psychologically and sociologically I think this later sentence tells us more:

<“You’re getting info from one or two sources that are part of the Arab agenda.”>

Because it explains <how she maintains the worldview>.

Contradictory evidence does not merely fail to persuade her. It can be incorporated into the worldview as evidence that the adversary's propaganda network is operating successfully.

That helps explain why Aaron's carefully structured response—distinguishing Palestinians from Hamas, discussing civilian protection, citing humanitarian law, and asking for evidence—does not alter her position.

He is operating within an <evidence-testing model>:

<claim → evidence → verification → conclusion>.

She appears to be operating primarily within a <loyalty-threat model>:

Those are fundamentally different ways of knowing.

And this makes the John 17 contradiction deeper

After seeing this update, I would modify what I said earlier.

Her <“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17”> probably should not be understood as straightforward universal humanitarianism. It may mean something closer to:

<unity among people who participate in what she regards as spiritual truth and the proper moral order>.

Once someone is perceived as participating in an “Arab agenda,” that person moves outside the circle of trustworthy dialogue.

So the paradox is not merely:

It is subtler:

That allows her to see herself sincerely as a <unifier> while simultaneously making sweeping claims about Arabs and Palestinians.

This update therefore strengthens my earlier conclusion: the key to understanding her is not simply <pro-Israel politics>. It is the combination of <spiritual universalism + strong in-group loyalty + collective suspicion of an out-group + a self-sealing “agenda” explanation for contrary information>.

That combination can make a person experience exclusion not as hatred, but as <discernment in defense of truth>.

====

===

Friday, August 28, 2026

“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17”

Aaron's post

Aaron Mathew Oleston

Subscribe to Aaron Mathew Oleston

1. Palestinians are treated as a category, not as individuals

2. She appears to have a strong siege mentality

3. Her moral reasoning is radically asymmetric

4. She replaces territorial rights with ethnic interchangeability

5. Her knowledge hierarchy seems to privilege personal testimony over institutional evidence

6. There is also a classic “hidden enemy” structure

7. The most interesting contradiction is “Oneness”

8. I therefore would characterize her mentality this way

What happens in John 17?

But “oneness” in John 17 does not mean that everybody becomes identical

“Unifying” adds another layer

What does “oneness” actually require ethically?

The paradox may be psychological rather than consciously hypocritical

There is an even deeper theological issue in John 17

“As in John 17” may therefore tell us something important about how she sees herself

One sentence captures the tension

1. Palestinians are treated as a category, not as individuals

2. She appears to have a strong siege mentality

3. Her moral reasoning is radically asymmetric

4. She replaces territorial rights with ethnic interchangeability

5. Her knowledge hierarchy seems to privilege personal testimony over institutional evidence

6. There is also a classic “hidden enemy” structure

7. The most interesting contradiction is “Oneness”

8. I therefore would characterize her mentality this way

What happens in John 17?

But “oneness” in John 17 does not mean that everybody becomes identical

“Unifying” adds another layer

What does “oneness” actually require ethically?

The paradox may be psychological rather than consciously hypocritical

There is an even deeper theological issue in John 17

“As in John 17” may therefore tell us something important about how she sees herself

One sentence captures the tension

1. The issue is broader than Palestinians: she now says “Arabs”

2. “I have been there” functions as an epistemic trump card

3. “Arab agenda” introduces a conspiratorial element

4. Notice the asymmetry in how she treats personal networks

5. “Stick with Beloit and our Nation” is extraordinarily revealing

The most revealing sentence is probably not the angry one

And this makes the John 17 contradiction deeper

“Unifying, in Oneness as in John 17”