Non sequiturs circumvent logic, evidence, and cause-and-effect reasoning to promote a conclusion that does not follow logically from the previous statement. An example is the conclusion that “Mary should run for mayor because she bakes the best cakes in town.” No, it’s not logical that Mary’s skill with cakes is cause-and -effect evidence that she has the skills to be the mayor.

The following are fifteen non sequiturs to help you decide if your opinions and the opinions of others follow the logic of reason and cause-and-effect evidence. Keep in mind that your right to express your opinion obligates the other person to listen, and you have the right to refute their opinion if they cannot justify it with evidence that coincides with reality, logic and reasoning.

The world is rife with news, blogs, speeches, laws, policies, information, conversations, and debates that are biased in political, religious, social, economic, and stereotypical ways. And beware of arguments for doing something because you want to do it without calling attention to the cause-and-effect consequences. People want to kiss because they enjoy it. Kissing can deepen a relationship (strong argument for), but kissing can also spread germs (strong argument against).

One ➨ Appeal to Authority… a claim that something is true because experts say it is. “I found three blogs on the Internet that said coffee is dangerous.” Your father tells you to clean your room. You ask why. He says, “Because I told you to clean your room.”

Two ➨ Appeal to Hypocrisy… avoiding the issue by reacting with criticism rather than with a reasoned response. “You lack the experience to be a leader” and “Neither do you!”

Three ➨ Bandwagon & Polls… an attempt to validate an opinion based on its popularity. Statistics are weapons of persuasion to imply you can’t argue with numbers. But those who participate in surveys seldom represent the wider population because they’re more passionate than most about a topic. What is true for them might not be true for the majority. “Seventy-five percent of the people do it, so it must be valid.”

Four ➨ Burden of Proof… a claim that something is true because it hasn’t been proven false, or false because it hasn’t been proven true. “There’s no proof this place is not haunted.”

Five ➨ Circular… an argument that uses the same statement as both the premise and the conclusion. No new information or justification is introduced. “Peppers are the easiest vegetable to grow because I think peppers are the easiest to grow.”

Six➨ Causal Fallacies… events that happen coincidentally or in sequence without having a cause-and-effect relationship. “Buying ice cream increases your risk of being bitten by a shark because shark attacks are more frequent when ice cream sales are up.” Arguments about guns are a causal fallacy. “Your claim that guns kill people is like me saying this pencil caused me to fail the exam.”

Seven ➨ Deductive Assumption… a conclusion based on the truth of a premise. “All men are stubborn. You’re a man, so you are stubborn.” The premise is false, so the conclusion is false. Politicians take their ideology for granted, and priests take their theology for granted. They are saying, “It goes without saying.” But they do say it and assume it’s the only valid position. What they don’t realize is that there are opposing opinions. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” assumes you are or have been a wife-beater.

Eight ➨ Either/Or Dichotomy… a claim that there are only two mutually exclusive options. This black-or-white argument fails to acknowledge that other more reasonable options exist. “You hate baseball because you won’t go to the game with me.”

Nine ➨ Equivocation… using a word that has two different meanings in two different parts of your argument. “Philosophy helps you argue better, but there’s enough hostility in this world already, so why do we need to learn how to argue?”

Ten ➨ Euphemisms… your janitor won’t do a better job cleaning your school if you call him a sanitation engineer. Your typist won’t type faster or make fewer mistakes by calling him or her a data entry specialist. Your spouse won’t be any slimmer if you say s/he is pleasantly plump. Your sex won’t be any better if you say you slept with him or her. You can’t change a relationship by playing to feelings rather than to facts if that’s what is necessary to correct a misunderstanding, to avoid abuse, or to terminate that relationship.

And you can’t change stereotypes with words that appeal to political correctness rather than to functional correctness. Be careful, of course, to avoid euphemisms that might offend people according to gender, race, political, or religious stereotypes. Or to imply that someone is naive, stupid, or uninformed by burying him or her with snow jobs, psycho babble, or technical gobbledygook.

Eleven ➨ Hasty Generalization… a claim based on a few examples rather than extensive research. “I got sick when I ate pizza from that place so I must be allergic to pizza.”

Twelve ➨ Motives (Ad Hominem)… an attempt to invalidate an opponent’s position based on a personal trait, an opponent's motives, or a fact about the opponent. Motives frequently play a role in politics. The announcement of a new policy, for example, is typically greeted with questions about the politician’s motives rather than with a discussion of the policy’s alleged merits. Motive ends the debate by changing the subject.

“Mary shouldn’t be mayor because her education policy is just an attempt to win the student vote.”

Thirteen ➨ Red Herring… shifting focus from the debate by introducing an irrelevant point. “Losing a tooth can be scary, but have you heard about the Tooth Fairy?”

Fourteen ➨ Straw Man… a false version of a person’s position rather than their actual argument. “Jack says we should ban plastics to save the planet from climate change.”

Fifteen ➨Weaseling… using phrases like “It could be…” and “Chances are good that…” to make opinions conditionally possible and therefore immune from error.

Beware of Non Sequiturs! was originally published in Politi-Kaka on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Free Tip

The good advice Julio always got when working on something new, big or risky was to always calculate the cost of doing Nothing. The accountants said, “You have to compare the costs of doing something against the cost of Doing Nothing. Doing Nothing usually costs more. Besides costing more, ‘Doing’ Nothing, as you already know, has lousy Optics. The cost of doing Nothing is always higher than the cost of doing almost anything else.”

Speak Their Lingo

Julio adds, “That always kept the Bean Counters happy, who generally don’t like Nothing. Oh, yeah, I almost forgot, they also said to speak their language, too! That has Nothing to do with Spanish or English, mostly dollars, assets, profits and words like that”.

High Cost

“The BC’s also said there always was a higher labor and benefit cost involved with Doing Nothing. That’s why the cost of Nothing is always higher than almost anything else. Why the hell do we allow Nothing to waste our valuable time?”

Strive for Excellence

Making Nothing better seems like a big opportunity and most business tycoons and politicians are always making Nothing better than it is or can ever be. This is especially true if Nothing seems to be getting worse with each passing year. This brings up the topic of Nothing Inflation.

Nothing Inflation

His assistant Chico, had a puzzled look on his face when he heard those two words.

Julio noticed the look, and turned directly at Chico and said, “Try thinking of Nothing”.

The Metaphor

“It helps when you use a metaphor, Chico. Inner Tubes, for example. They used to be essential before there were tubeless tires. Today, inner tubes are almost Nothing or at least are as close to being Nothing as you can get. You might as well consider them Nothing itself. In the case of inner tubes, you already know they can be inflated. The same is true for fiat currency, of course. The difference is that the tubes expand with inflation while the currency tears apart.”

“Me entiendes, Chico? Does this help?”

Chico smiles as he says, “Si, mi amigo!”

Inner Tubes, Value, Nothing

Julio, read somewhere that Inflation is going to be higher than the Federal Reserve Bank wanted. Julio also ran an inner tube business and did not like the name ‘Inner Tubes’. He said that you might just as well call them ‘Nothing’ and it would be a better name. Like money, they’re not worth much today. Julio registered the name a few years ago and then marketed the inner tubes as Nothing. Julio was proud to own the rights to Nothing. It may not be much, he thought, but Nothing belonged to him. The existential question to Julio was, “Can Nothing Grow Revenue at 30% per year?”

More or Less

All this talk of High Inflation meant that he will be able to do less with Nothing next year. Julio had lain awake for several nights thinking about being able to do less with Nothing. If you have nothing and it is less productive to do anything with it this year, doesn’t that mean you will have more of it next year? “The growth of Nothing will be affected”, he concluded.

“Now, that’s Something!”, thought Julio. We’ve got to do Something with Nothing or at least Something Else with it to get through the next year. This is especially true if we own Nothing and it is Inflated”. Damn Fed!

Something Else from Nothing

Most of his friends think Julio is on to something about Nothing and dollars being inflated. His friends were more worried about dollars having less value than they were about Nothing. If Nothing is worth less next year and he makes Something out of it, Something should be worth less too. Some of Julio’s friends think he needs to make Something Else out of it, maybe Anything Else. It’s the damn war!

Doing Something

Julio got some helium tanks, filled Nothing up with gas and found that the combination made good, affordable, flying drones and floating rafts.

Everyone heard Julio when he yelled, “Voila! Another idea to make Nothing profitable!”

Dollars, Value and Nothing

So Julio figured out that Nothing had the same value it had before dollars were inflated by the Fed. Excitedly, Julio said to himself, “Nothing is the same, so something happened to the damn dollar. The Dollar isn’t my problem, Man. Nothing is my problem and I fixed it. It’s the Economy, Stupid!”

“So, what did you do?”, asked Chico, as his eyes glazed over once again.

“I just raised the price of Nothing that was Inflated and added a service charge to Nothing that wasn’t.”

Using Nothing

His customers used Nothing that was inflated to fly and float down the river and keep the local dogs alert and exercised. Everyone, especially the local dogs were happy with Nothing supplied by Julio.

Competitive Edge

Unlike his competitors, Julio was not comfortable Doing Nothing. If he ever did Nothing, he would be known as Doing Nothing for Nothing. That’s why he chose to do Something for Nothing when he could have done Nothing at All. He had one advantage that his competitors did not have. He owned the rights to Nothing and they could do Nothing about it.

In his own gentle way, Julio was Good for Nothing.

Notes:

This story is original and is not sourced from any AI engine. I have been experimenting with the graphics used in the story. The Inner Tube Graphic was sourced from Google Gemini Nano Banana 2, on June 16, 2026. The prompt used for the picture is:

“Draw a picture of what this scene looks like. There are old inner tubes that are labeled, “Nothing”. There is a yard full of them. There is a mechanical pump that inflates the tires with Helium, which makes them float in the air. There are ten or so labeled tires floating in the air, but many more are either deflated totally or inflated properly, but do not float. This is taking place near a river in Stillwater, MN. There is a large banner that proclaims, “Nothing That is Imported is Subject to Tariffs”. There is another banner near the helium pump that says, “Nothing is Worth Less Because of Inflation”.”

Other signs, people and dogs were added to the above prompt.

The reason for this is because I have no talent as a graphic artist. I am providing attribution for the source according to their instructions. The attribution is a fair way (my opinion) to provide credit to those who have done all the graphic work at the source. I am trying to keep my Integrity, Honesty and Nothing transparent to readers, editors and others who in general, find Nothing fascinating. Your opinion on this same issue is important to the writing community. Please share Nothing with them.

Is Nothing Subject to Inflation? was originally published in Politi-Kaka on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

A comprehensive analysis of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s four-decade rule over Iran, exploring his consolidation of power in 1989, his defiant “Axis of Resistance” strategy, the iron-fisted suppression of domestic dissent, and the seismic geopolitical shift following his death in a joint US-Israeli operation.

Khamenei: From Power to Collapse

The death of Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei marks a seismic development that has plunged Iran and the wider Middle East into uncharted territory. For nearly four decades, Khamenei ruled with an iron fist, serving as the ultimate political and religious authority of the Islamic Republic. His reign was defined by a steadfast resistance to Western and Israeli pressure, the cultivation of a regional proxy network, and a controversial nuclear program that became a primary source of global tension. His sudden departure, following a targeted joint military operation by the United States and Israel, ends the longest-serving leadership in the regime’s history and leaves a profound void in the nation’s psyche.

The Ascent: From the Shadows of War to Supreme Authority

Ali Khamenei’s rise to the pinnacle of Iranian power began in 1989, following the death of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Emerging from the collective trauma of the Iran-Iraq War, Khamenei took the helm of a nation that was seeking to redefine its place in a hostile world. He was only the second individual to hold the title of Supreme Leader, and he quickly moved to solidify his standing.

In the years following his appointment, Khamenei gradually and meticulously consolidated his authority across Iran’s most vital pillars: the political, military, and religious institutions.

Under his guidance, the Islamic Republic recalibrated its strategic outlook, opting to avoid direct, large-scale military confrontations with superior powers while simultaneously expanding its influence through indirect means. This era of consolidation allowed him to maintain an iron grip on a nation of 90 million people, heirs to a 2,500-year-old civilization, even as regional and global adversaries surrounded him.

The Architecture of Defiance: The “Axis of Resistance”

The defining feature of Khamenei’s foreign policy was his rigid stance against the United States, the West, and Israel. To project power and create a buffer against his enemies, he oversaw the formation of the “Axis of Resistance." This was a sophisticated, loose network of allied, non-state actors and proxy forces spread throughout the Middle East.

By supporting groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza and maintaining a deep involvement in Syria, Khamenei extended Iran’s strategic depth directly to Israel’s borders. This network served as a formidable deterrent, allowing Tehran to project power at its enemies’ doorsteps while ensuring that Iran itself avoided major direct attacks for more than three decades. To his supporters, this made him a steadfast, fearless leader who transcended mere politics; to his critics, he was a tyrant intent on keeping his country isolated from the global order.

Central to this strategy of defiance was Iran’s nuclear program. Khamenei wielded the program as a powerful geopolitical bargaining chip, strategically using it to extract leverage from adversaries while projecting a message of sovereign rights and revolutionary resilience.

An Iron Fist at Home: Crushing Dissent

While Khamenei projected strength abroad, his rule at home was characterized by the systematic suppression of opposition. He carefully cultivated an aura of fear and intimidation to maintain control. This iron-fisted approach was most visible during periods of internal unrest.

In the final years of his rule, anti-government protests initially sparked by economic grievances quickly turned political and spread across all 31 provinces of Iran. The regime’s response was brutal. Under Khamenei’s authority, a crackdown was initiated that resulted in the deaths of thousands of protesters, drawing global condemnation. Critics viewed him as an authoritarian who would stop at nothing to crush those opposed to his vision, even as the country became increasingly plagued by corruption and economic turmoil. For the swelling youth population and the shrinking middle class, his stubborn rule offered dwindling prospects for a better future.

(2) Home / X

The Unravelling: October 7 and the Path to Downfall

The carefully constructed image of Iran as an impenetrable regional power began to shatter following the events of October 7, 2023. The subsequent conflict saw Israel launch a devastating war on Hamas and then turn its military focus toward Hezbollah, one of Iran’s most prized proxies. The fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad further weakened the architecture of the “Axis of Resistance."

By June 2025, the regional balance of power had shifted dramatically. Israel launched unprecedented strikes on Iranian soil, targeting nuclear facilities and air defense systems. This 12-day war eventually drew in the United States, with President Donald Trump declaring that key Iranian nuclear facilities had been "obliterated." In the aftermath, Iran found itself at its weakest point since Khamenei took power in 1989, having lost most of its bargaining chips and regional leverage.

Despite this, the regime remained defiant in negotiations, refusing to budge on its demand to continue uranium enrichment. Even as mediators suggested a deal was within reach, the underlying mistrust remained.

The Final Strike and the Death of a Leader

The end of Khamenei’s reign came abruptly on a Saturday morning. Targeted US and Israeli strikes devastated his residence and offices in Tehran. Multiple state media outlets, including the Fars News Agency, confirmed that the Supreme Leader was killed “in his office in the household of the leader” while “carrying out his duties."

Satellite imagery confirmed the severity of the attack, showing black smoke rising from the leader’s compound and several buildings destroyed. US President Donald Trump described this joint operation as a “massive and ongoing operation” intended to prevent a “wicked, radical dictatorship” from threatening American interests.

The Great Unknown: What Happens Next?

The death of Ali Khamenei marks not just the end of a leader but the end of an era for the Islamic Republic. The nation now faces a period of profound transformation and uncertainty.

A Speculative Outlook: While the sources do not name a successor, the vacuum left by Khamenei’s nearly forty-year rule is immense. There are two primary paths Iran may now take. The first is a period of intense internal struggle among the hardline clerical and military elite to find a successor who can maintain the “Axis of Resistance” despite its recent crumbling. However, without Khamenei’s unique ability to consolidate authority across all sectors, this could lead to fracturing within the regime.

Alternatively, the “speculative idea” presented by current events suggests a potential for domestic uprising. President Trump has already called on the Iranian people to “take over your government,” suggesting they now have a president who supports their desires. Given the “crushing” of recent protests and the depth of economic despair, the removal of the figurehead of the “iron fist” might embolden the population to seek a fundamental shift in the country’s polity. Whether the regime can transition to a new leader or if the “uncharted territory” leads to a complete systemic collapse remains the most critical question for the region’s future.

Khamenei: From Ascent to Aftermath was originally published in Politi-Kaka on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

“The art of politics is to search for problems. Offer solutions which cannot work. Use other people’s money to fix the problems. Then blame the opposition when the solutions cause more problems that cannot be fixed.” ~ Ernest Benn

All the material and immaterial things that matter, art and science, family and friendships, medicine and manufacturing, can be swept away or rendered impossible to pursue if we get our politics wrong.

History is replete with lessons on just how wrong politics can get if we allow power to become concentrated in the few rather than distributed among the many.

Apocalyptic movies and novels foreshadow the worst ways in which we can get our politics wrong. Some of those ways are man-made and some natural. In apocalyptic fiction, when the disaster is man-made, the world comes to a bad end because a terrorist or a dictator has a mindset rooted in bad politics.

It’s not much different in the real world. When people are ruled by prejudice and force, the result is chaos and instability and the loss of liberty and human rights. When government is established with principles and choice, the result is order, stability and individual liberty.

The government of the United States of America is the world’s best example of politics based on principles instead of prejudices, people instead of politicians. Democracy is the most efficient, effective way to improve the human condition. It makes every facet of human progress possible because it eliminates the stumbling blocks to freedom.

People in a democratic society can pursue life, liberty and happiness in safety, without the violence of anarchy or the chaos of tyranny. Our founding fathers were not saints but they were great statesmen who deserve the respect and gratitude of every American for creating a government that can balance too little authority (anarchy) with too much authority (tyranny).

Democracy requires a free press, the rule of law, a constitution that ensures the peaceful transfer of power and informed citizens — people who have studied history and the lessons it teaches about how to avoid “bad” politics and ensure “good” politics. People who can evaluate local and current issues in terms of global and timeless issues. People able to avoid the “tribal” animosity that polarizes liberals and conservatives into legislative grid lock. People who know the difference between commentators who voice opinions and correspondents who report the facts. The press is not free of fake news if it doesn’t maintain neutrality in news coverage.

The goal of socialism is to eliminate competition and economic inequality so nobody is poor, rich or in between. The government will provide for your every need from cradle to grave… and it’s all free!

The method of socialism is to manage all means of production and distribution of goods and services through price and wage controls. The government owns everything to give it control of everything. In a socialistic society, there is no such thing as private property. The government owns your home, your business, your car, your income, your health care… everything!

The results are slow economic growth, little or no entrepreneurial opportunities, and little or no motivation for you to improve your economic well-being. If the State owns everything, you don’t own the fruits of your own labor. So the quality and quantity of the things you produce is poor.

Socialism is based on the fallacious idea that wealth is finite so it must be distributed in a zero sum way. If wealth were a pumpkin pie, for example, giving more of the pie to some people would necessarily mean giving less to the others. So, the government controls the economy so everyone gets the same-sized slice of pie.

Hit the brakes, hold your horses and stop the train! Wealth is not a pumpkin pie! Everyone can earn as much money as they want if they are able to take advantages of opportunities to do so. Those opportunities do not exist in a socialistic society. Wage and price controls upset the balance of supply and demand. The result is a shortage of products and services whether the government sets the price above or below what it would be in a competitive market.

As things go from bad to worse, people suffer and die. The rebellion leads to a black market for essential things like milk, bread, and toilet paper. The rebellion worsens as the government tries to shut down the black market, control riots and stop crime. Like all authoritarian governments, it brooks no disagreement. So, it seizes control of the press, stifles free speech, and arrests dissidents.

History reveals a tragic irony. Every time socialists overthrow an authoritarian government, they establish an authoritarian regime of their own. Socialists preach a gospel of financial envy because they are ignorant of the simple fact that income equality has nothing to do with well-being.

Socialism promises prosperity, equality, and security but delivers poverty, misery, and tyranny. It makes everyone equal, whether they like it or not. In a socialistic country, everyone is equally miserable. It’s a kind of pyramid scheme that looks good in the beginning, then collapses because it gives the government totalitarian power to control prices, property and taxes.

Socialism distributes wealth according to need rather than ability, and that stifles incentives. Socialists say, “Give up some of your freedom and we’ll give you more security.” If you buy that pitch, you’ll lose your freedom and your security.

Capitalism nourishes freedom, innovation and security by inspiring and rewarding creativity, thrift, hard work, and efficiency. Socialism looks good to people who are lazy, incompetent and unwilling to work, then looks bad when they run out of other people’s money! Stop buying candy, beer and junk food with your food stamps!

If you’re on Social Security, you’ve probably heard the argument that you’re a socialist because you’re on the public dole. Ditto for Medicare. The argument, however, is a non sequitur because your Social Security check is the return on the money you gave the government to invest responsibly. They didn’t, of course, but it’s still your money, not Uncle Sam’s money.

Our democratic way of life is guarded by dozens of checks and balances. Some of them are not, however, subject to the direct control of the people. One of those is the Electoral College. When I first heard about the Electoral College, I asked a friend, “Where is that?” She said, “It isn’t a place. It’s a process we use to elect our presidents. We don’t vote for the candidate of our choice. Yes, we place a mark on our ballet next to the candidate we want to be elected. What we’re really doing, however, is choosing an Elector to vote for us.”

Our founding fathers established the Electoral College to prevent, or at least minimize, a tyranny of the majority. They worried that people who did not own property (the majority were not landowners in colonial times) could vote in ways that would not benefit people who did own property (a minority in the early days of our nation). They also wanted to prevent the tyranny of big states over small states, so they established the Senate to give all states, large and small, equal representation.

Things no longer work quite like the Founding Fathers intended. Today, it ensures that presidential candidates draw votes from every part of the country by giving as much voting power to areas of sparse population as areas of dense population. But it makes it possible for the candidate who wins the popular vote to lose the election. So most presidential candidates don’t campaign to win the popular vote nation wide. Instead, they develop campaign strategies to win the popular vote in enough states to acquire the vote of a majority of the electors nation wide. Here’s how that works.

The number of electors for a state is equal to the total number of its senators and representatives in Congress. Since every state has two senators in the Senate and at least one representative in the House, every state gets at least three electors. Densely populated states have more than three electors. California, for example, has 55 electors. There are currently 435 representatives and 100 senators, plus three electors for the District of Columbia. That’s a total of 538 electors. If a candidate wins the popular vote in a state, the candidate has won all the electors for that state. It currently takes 270 electoral votes to win the electoral vote nation wide.

Another aspect of the Electoral College is that candidates spend less time campaigning in states that are likely to vote for or against them. The other side of that coin is that candidates spend more time campaigning in swing states where the percentage of Republican and Democratic voters is nearly the same. Why? Because that gives them a better chance of swinging the vote their way.

Vote!

So, the next time you go to the polls, resist the temptation to vote for a famous, charismatic candidate who lacks the skills, wisdom and experience to be the president. Ask yourself…

> In whose interests will the candidate use his or her power?
> Will the candidate be accountable to people or party?
> How easy will it be to impeach the candidate?
> Who is backing the candidate’s campaign?

And before you cast your vote, do your very best to be an informed voter. Read some or all of the books below as a resource for helping you decide what kind of authority you want your government and its representatives to have over your life.

> The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson
> The Federalist Papers — Essay 10 by James Madison
> The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant
> Things that Matter by Charles Krauthammer
> Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond
> The Outline of History by H. G. Wells
> Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> Positive Populism by Steve Hilton
> The Bill of Rights — James Mason
> Rights of Man — Thomas Paine
> 1984 by George Orwell

Politics… Problems, Power and People was originally published in Politi-Kaka on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

In a landmark UNGA address, Indonesia’s President called for balanced justice in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mutual security for all, and a return to moral leadership rooted in unity and peace.

The recent address by the President of Indonesia, Prao Wosu Anu, at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has emerged as a landmark moment in global diplomacy, setting a profound example of leadership rooted in holistic peace and mutual respect. As the leader of the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, the President’s message was a significant departure from typical unilateral condemnations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Instead, he championed a balanced approach that firmly supports Palestinian rights while simultaneously demanding guarantees for Israeli security. This comprehensive vision of global solidarity mirrors the ancient Indian ethos of Vasudeva Kutumbaka — the recognition that the entire world is one family.

Indonesia’s unique cultural fabric, often noted for its liberal outlook and scientific progress, forms the backdrop for this historic address. The nation’s deep connection to India, marked by cultural influences — reminiscent in places like Bali and reflected in historical artifacts and practices — was personally acknowledged by the President himself in a previous gathering. He had shared that a genetic sequencing test revealed he possesses “Indian DNA,” a heritage he expressed great pride in, humorously adding that he starts dancing whenever he hears Indian music.

This shared cultural affinity translated directly into his address at the UN, a forum often characterized by geopolitical tension. The Indonesian President greeted the assembly by using Sanskrit, folding his hands, and concluding his address with the solemn mantra, “Om shanti shanti santiomaya”. He also intentionally used both the traditional Islamic farewell (“Assalamu Alaikum rahmatullah wa barakatuhu”) and the Jewish greeting, “Shalom,” emphasizing that today, amidst rising tensions, showing respect for the religious practices and beliefs of others is paramount to achieving religious unity. He proclaimed that all people, regardless of background — Arabs, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists — must strive to live together as one human family.

The Imperative of Balanced Justice

The core power of the Indonesian President’s speech lay in its refusal to adopt the prevailing doctrine that “the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must,” a principle the UN was created to reject. The address brilliantly navigated the twin demands of the conflict: recognizing the historical suffering of all involved while insisting on a future founded on security for both peoples.

The tragedy of the Jewish people, who have endured centuries of persecution — most infamously during the Holocaust under Hitler — must be an undeniable consideration in any peace framework. The very existence of the State of Israel is intrinsically linked to the global failure to protect the Jewish population from such historical atrocities. In this context, the President’s words provide a crucial acknowledgment, insisting that genuine and lasting resolution requires securing the future of the Israeli people.

At the same time, the speech served as an emotional and urgent plea for the vulnerable in Palestine. Drawing on Indonesia’s own history of living under colonial domination, oppression, and slavery, where Indonesians were treated “less than dogs in our own homeland” and denied justice and equality, the President highlighted a fierce empathy for the current suffering in Gaza. He described the “catastrophic situation” unfolding before the world’s eyes, detailing how the innocent are crying for help, facing “genocide,” “blatant disregard for international law,” and dying of starvation and trauma. He forcefully asserted that the world must not be silent while Palestinians are denied the same justice and legitimacy that the UN previously helped secure for Indonesia.

Rejecting Extremism for Real Peace

Crucially, the Indonesian President recognized that peace cannot be achieved by supporting one side while ignoring the legitimate security needs of the other. The speech implicitly but strongly rejects the path of terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups often supported by external powers like Iran, whose fundamental purpose is the annihilation of Israel.

The President’s message transcended this polarized zero-sum dynamic by demanding accountability for all parties. He clearly stated that while pursuing an independent Palestine, the international community must also recognize, respect, and “guarantee the safety and security of Israel”. He went on to assert that only through this mutual guarantee can the region achieve “real peace”.

To demonstrate Indonesia’s commitment to enforced peace, he announced the nation’s readiness to contribute substantially to stabilizing the region. Indonesia, he stated, is prepared to deploy 20,000 or even more of its personnel — its “sons and daughters” — to secure peace in Gaza or elsewhere, signaling a willingness to take on the burden of peacekeeping “not with just words but with boots on the ground”. This significant offer of boots on the ground, coupled with the explicit demand for Israeli security, fundamentally undermines the position of terrorist organizations that thrive on perpetual conflict and the rejection of Israel’s right to exist.

The Vision of the Two-State Solution

The path toward genuine resolution, as advocated by the Indonesian President, rests entirely upon the two-state solution. This position recalls the initial efforts by the UN, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which arose from the ashes of World War II and codified the idea that all men are created equal. Historical opportunities for peace, such as the initial UN proposals, were tragically lost due to a cycle of conflicts. Furthermore, more recent diplomatic efforts, such as the Abraham Accords, while successful in normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states, have not yet reached their fullest potential in addressing the core Palestinian question.

The President offered a path forward that mandates global leadership to correct these historical failures. He urged world leaders to rise to their role demanded by history, showing “great statesmanship, great wisdom, restraint, [and] humility”. He called for them to overcome suspicion and hatred.

He concluded by stressing the importance of reconciliation between the “two descendants of Abraham” — Arabs and Jews — who must live in peace and harmony. This vision is a “beautiful dream,” he admitted, but it is one that the entire human family must work toward together. The speech stands as a moral beacon, showing that even in times when violence and hatred seem to be the loudest voices, the world must strive for a multilateral order where peace and progress are the rights of all, not just the privilege of a few. Indonesia is committed to being part of making this two-state vision a reality.

In summation, by fusing cultural signals of unity with firm geopolitical demands for mutual security, the Indonesian President’s address served as a profound testament to the values of the UN and the spirit of Vasudeva Kutumbakam. It was a call to shun hatred and overcome injustice, ensuring that the path chosen is the “path of the moral high ground, the path of rectitude, the path of justice, the path of humanity”.

A Beacon of Hope from the Archipelago: Indonesia’s Call for Holistic Peace at the UNGA was originally published in Politi-Kaka on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.