Here is the second part: another point is the indefatigable alliance. In reality, this argument, which is often cited, is nothing more than a euphemism, meaning a word that hides a cruder concept, because it is, in itself, the very definition of tribalism. To my knowledge, these axes are almost never mentioned this way. Another argument would be that he didn't really mean his phrase—fair enough, once again—but then why would states have applied it literally? This, once more, only shifts the question. Now that we have analyzed this, it is clear that the same conclusion applies to America First in the same context, where justice is put on the back burner; I will leave this question to the experts on the US dossier to clarify it. And another point that emerges is that the facts show a perfect rhetorical symmetry. Let us take the example of the double standard, which looks more and more like whataboutism in the global debate, where major powers accuse each other of the same thing. Let us take as an example the fact that it is impossible to determine which power uses terrorism to justify its policy, while reproaching the other for doing the exact same thing as soon as they criticize them. Then let us analyze the question of India, which is unfortunately not a non-aligned country, but rather aligned with both camps at the same time, which is not quite the same thing, let us admit it, and that is where my point on economy and Jahiliyyah comes in. Finally, let us also notice that the rational school, which defends justice as the only compass, seems to ignore that the institutional school uses a very widespread sophism, unconsciously in my opinion—I grant them the benefit of the doubt. The realist school often reproaches it for being naive or idealistic regarding the question of the UN and institutions, and the institutional school often responds with its desire not to legitimize the law of the jungle. Yet, the realist school hasn't seemed to notice that this argument looks like a slippery slope sophism, consisting in refusing to take an action by considering a series of unproven implications. Yet, the realist school defends that it wants to bring back justice. We are going to show in this point that these implications do not exist, because the goal of denouncing this is precisely to try to make the world return to the pursuit of justice, and sayion that someone is dead will not kill him, i think that we agree on that, Finally, I wish to specify that the purpose of these posts was not to attack Palestine or the USA, but simply to demand universal justice.