wrong

As an aspiring young quarterback at Muleshoe High in the early 2000s, Lincoln Riley attended a football camp at Texas Christian University, run by a coach known even then as a mastermind of defense, a man whose ideas and 4-2-5 scheme would one day be disseminated across college football.

Gary Patterson had just been elevated from defensive coordinator to head coach at TCU, a job he would occupy for the next two decades. Around the same time, his staff saw something in Riley. They talked briefly about giving him a shot at safety on Patterson’s vaunted TCU defense.

“Needless to say,” Riley told The Oklahoman in 2018, “it didn’t turn out.”

But a quarter-century after first crossing paths at that camp, it’s now the young quarterback giving the old ball coach a chance to prove himself.

When USC announced it was hiring Patterson as Riley’s defensive coordinator in January, ears perked up across college football. On one hand, Patterson, 66, is a freshly minted College Football Hall of Famer and one of the great defensive minds of the modern era. On the other hand, he hasn’t led a college football team since 2021, when he was forced out at TCU, and a lot has changed in the sport since. Not to mention it’s been more than 25 years since Patterson last served as a coordinator.

Those were fair concerns, considering all that’s riding on Riley getting it right with Patterson, his third defensive coordinator in five seasons. But after seven months with him on the job, you won’t find anyone at USC — players, coaches or administrators alike — with an ounce of distress over Patterson’s stamina.

“I think I would have had more reservations had I not known him,” Riley said. “But that fire still burns very, very hot.”

That much was obvious in the spring when Patterson jumped into the middle of a tackling circuit to teach proper technique, and ended up running through the whole drill. He even delivered a blow at the end.

“He knocked the guy back,” said safeties coach Paul Gonzales, who coached with Patterson for a decade at TCU. “For a 60-year old guy, he still got some pop.”

USC defensive coordinator Gary Patterson watches practice in March.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Riley is betting big on that translating to the Trojans’ defense this fall. Over his four seasons as USC’s coach, there’s no mistaking what’s held Riley back from reaching the same heights at USC as he had at Oklahoma. The Trojans finished 124th, 104th, 87th and 65th in yards allowed per play during those years.

At TCU, Patterson’s defenses finished No. 1 in yards allowed five times during a 10-year stretch. Yet in the second half of his tenure at TCU, there was a noticeable decline, as his defenses finished in the top 25 of that same category just twice.

It was during that time that Riley’s offense went toe-to-toe with Patterson’s defense on numerous occasions. Riley, who was in his first head coaching job at Oklahoma, got the better of Patterson in each of their four meetings, piling up at least 498 total yards each time out.

“There was never anyone who was more of a pain to gameplan for or try to move the ball against than this guy,” Riley said.

During his five years away from coaching, Patterson said he actually spent more time studying the game than he had at TCU, where he was often consumed with other responsibilities. After consulting briefly at Texas and Baylor, Patterson took a job with an Amazon college football show, he says, primarily for the subscription service that came with it. Every Sunday morning, he’d watch whatever college game he wanted, just to stay fresh.

When he did return to coaching, Patterson didn’t just want to install the same scheme he used at TCU. So he closely studied Ohio State and Indiana’s defenses, which gave up a combined 32 touchdowns last season — seven fewer than USC’s defense (39). He took cues on how both clamped down better than anyone else in the red zone, where they each allowed opponents to convert touchdowns just 37% of the time.

“All I did was do football,” Patterson said. “I mean, it’s like getting married. I mean, it’s like I got nothing else. I wasn’t doing anything else.”

Those habits haven’t changed at USC. When other assistants took time for vacation this summer, Patterson stayed in the facility. He wanted to hone in on how to install his defense for a second time this fall. So he came in every day before 7 a.m., in a mostly empty office — just to beat the traffic.

“You want to change things, it’s a full-time job,” Patterson said. “It’s not one of those things that you do 70 or 80% of your time.”

It also gave him time to get to know his new players, each of whom have been summarily stunned by their veteran coach’s vitality.

“I don’t know how old he is, but he‘s out there like he’s 30,” linebacker Desman Stephens said. “He‘s still being active with us. He’s showing us drills. Like, if he want it done right, he gonna show you the exact way how to do it.”

So far, at USC, Patterson has had his hands on just about every detail of the defense. Which is precisely what Riley envisioned after watching him coach at TCU — and why he wasn’t worried about the game passing Patterson by.

“He was such a hands-on head coach,” Riley said. “He wasn’t a head coach just kind of doing a practice schedule, doing the speech, getting out early. He didn’t just straight CEO this thing, right? He was still calling defense, still game planning. He was very involved in every aspect of that program through all those years.”

USC defensive coordinator Gary Patterson fist bumps linebacker Desman Stephens during practice on Aug. 5.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

He won’t have to do that at USC. And Patterson seems perfectly fine with that.

But while others still wonder if he can make a successful return to college football, with a scheme that hasn’t been tested since 2021, Patterson is pretty confident his decades of experience count for something, too.

“It’s an advantage for me compared to somebody that’s 30 years old and doesn’t have kids, never been married, doesn’t know what it’s like to grow somebody up and raise a family and do things,” Patterson said.

“This is, I think, my 45th season. … “There’s not a lot of guys in this profession of the age where you can go back to all the things that I’ve learned through all the years.”

After devouring 13 series and over a decade of Love Island, one glaring problem has become clear: Each series there is a female villain, pitted against the others… but who is really to blame?

Love Island is almost over and with that, the 2026 summer of love (or influencers building their brand in a Spanish villa) has come to an end. Every time it happens, I am left devastated by the loss of the ITV2 show, despite complaining to anyone who would listen about how angry that year’s season made me.

My love for the show and the bereavement I feel when its gone has not only had me going back and watching the seasons I was too young to watch the first time, but had me watching them again and again. One thing has become clear – our female villains are often born when men misstep and aren’t allowed to bounce back in the same way.

We keep entering an era where our bad girls are pitted against each other until they are relegated to the depths of obscurity after the show ends and not even allowed to be iconic anymore.

Yes, these woman’s actions are often undeniably bad. But compared to those of the men around them, who get redemption arcs, huge social media followings and get to continue working within the Love Island world, the women’s punishments rise to the top of villain lists seem unbefitting of their crimes. To illustrate my point, here is a timeline of the seasons and who their biggest villains are…

Series 1 – Naomi Ball

Bombshell Naomi is largely considered the biggest villain from the first series that aired when Love Island was rebooted. She was sharp-tongued and her confrontations with Jess Hayes were one of the reasons the latter girl won the series with Max Morley.

Her intense rivalry with Jess was was fuelled by a love triangle between the two and Josh Ritchie, especially when Josh dumped Naomi for not being willing to sleep with him.

He then brazenly asked: “Do I now carry on with Jess, get my end away, have a good three-weeks sh*gging, or do I start something with Naomi, where something can be long term and something maybe outside of the villa but not have sex, not have as much of a laugh? It’s a genuine penis/head dilemma.”

With a love interest like that, who needs enemies? Though Naomi still consistently crops up as the Villain of Series One, Josh has gone on to redeem himself on All Stars.

Series 2 – Olivia Buckland

Thankfully, Olivia is now mostly beloved, but for years after her series was released, she was painted by fans as manipulative and mean. She was blamed for Javi Shephard and Dan Lukakis fighting over her, even though that’s the nature of the game. She was blamed for hurting Dan when Terry Walsh came along, even though they’d only known each other three days by that point.

Worst of all, she was blamed for sleeping with Rykard Jenkins when he was getting close to Rachel Fenton, when it was Rykard who was pursuing a relationship, not Olivia. Olivia was not only free from any romantic attachments, she was in a couple with Rykard.

Olivia was able to regroup and rebuild after Love Island, especially since she and now husband Alex Bowen stayed together. The same cannot be said for all the women on this list.

Series 3 – Jonny Mitchell

Series three is the first where our main villain is a man. Jonny arrived on day four and was in a couple with Camilla Thurlow for most of his time on the show. Whilst in a couple, he clashed with Camilla, telling her that he thought feminists “believe in inequality” and would feel emasculated if a woman tried to pay on a date.

Jonny then went on to make Camilla cry by dumping her for Tyla Carr – and he wasn’t even going to be honest about it. Very manly, macho Jonny was too chicken to be upfront and instead decided to try and do a gradual fade out instead, until he was forced to fess up by Dom Lever. And yet, while Naomi never got her redemption and Olivia had to wait until after the show, Jonny ended his run on the series on good terms with everyone.

Series 4 – Adam Collard and Megan Barton-Hanson

Love Island has never known a villain like Adam Collard. He moved from girl to girl to girl and blamed some of them for “pushing him away” and into the arms of another. When he accused Rosie Williams of being jealous of his connection with Zara McDermott, he smirked as she cried in front of him and Women’s Aid came out with a statement against him.

Despite Adam sparking a huge national conversation about gaslighting, he was brought back for series eight, in which he was given the opportunity to prove himself a good guy after all.

Meanwhile, Megan, who also moved from guy to guy but without gaslighting them, was also labelled a villain and constantly shamed by the public for her career as a stripper.

Series 5 – Michael Griffiths

Michael is another instant where the villain ultimately crowned the winner. Prior to coming back from Casa Amor with another girl, his partner Amber Gill wasn’t viewed favourably by the public. But when he not only played away at Casa but then started calling her “childish” for being upset, Michael became the bad guy and Amber became a champion.

Since the show ended, Michael has gone down in history as one of the most iconic islanders. He spawned the ‘Destiny’s Childish’ memes, in which people who seem like players on the show are all put in a group with Michael. It’s helped him get roles on Celebrity Ex on the Beach, Eating with my Ex and MTV’s Living the Dream. He has been rewarded for his actions, in a way the women on this list rarely are.

Series 6 – Connor Durman and Rebecca Gormley

Connor had everyone talking during the first winter Love Island with his rather questionable behaviour. To the shock of his partner Sophie Piper, he bragged about having a threesome with a girl and her housemate after a first date in a game of Truth or Lie. When Sophie made a joke about it, Connor then folded his arms and backed away, telling a confused-looking Sophie “You hate me tonight. You’re hating me.”

And when she tried to keep things light, he angrily insisted, “You’re digging me out already, you are,” leaving fans begging her to head for the hills. Despite this, its Rebecca that fans remember as a villain. She a rivalry with Siannise Fudge over her interest in Luke Trotman, a storyline that is not uncommon on this show and yet was enough to make Rebecca a villain.

Series 7 – Faye Winter

Faye has received the most Love Island complaints in the show’s history after yelling at Teddy Soares. The argument followed the first ever Movie Night, in which Teddy was seen having a flirty exchange during Casa Amor.

The public knew the clips were taken out of context and that Teddy had been faithful to Faye. 25,000 complaints were made to Ofcom and Faye’s family had to release a statement, reminding the public that the show was edited for entertainment.

Faye received online abuse and death threats after the incident. What makes it so infuriating is that much of the public were angry with Faye for reacting to Teddy’s actions as they knew the clip was taken out of context and fumed that she should have known he was a good guy. To summarise: Fans who knew what Faye had seen wasn’t the whole truth were angry with her for reacting to it rather than those who took the clips out of context.

Series 8 – Tasha Ghouri

Tasha’s series was largely defined by both Islanders and the public deciding she was stringing her partner Andrew Le Page along. She was subjected to constant online vitriol about how she was just waiting around for someone else to sweep her off her feet, and using Andrew to stay safe.

Yet when it came to Casa, it was Andrew who played away. “I licked her t*t, or whatever,” he told Tasha after being forced to come clean about his bedroom antics with Coco Lodge. Notably, Andrew wasn’t as hated for actually doing something as Tasha was for what people thought she wanted to.

Series 9 – Olivia Hawkins

Olivia was branded as a villain after clashing with several islanders, particularly those she had coupled up with before like Kai Fagan and Tom Clare. She was branded as messy and a hypocrite for being upset with Kai for recoupling in Casa, even though she’d done the same.

By the time she joined series two of All Stars, Olivia was so known as a villain that she had to hit back at the title, telling the Mirror that she thought it was “tiring”. She was called a bad guy again when she clashed with Grace Jackson, catching heat despite no longer being on the show anymore. She has since seemed to prefer sticking to a quiet life away from reality TV and I’m not sure anyone can blame her.

Series 10 – Molly Marsh

Molly was villainised after being honest with partner Mitch Taylor. Her crime was telling him that she wanted to talk to other people just days into knowing each other. From then, both Mitch and Jess Harding accused her of using him and being two-faced… despite the fact that she’d been upfront about her feelings.

This was the start of the Love Island “divides”. In series since, we’ve seen time and time again how there is a divide among the girls as they are pitted against each other by the men and form two camps. This time it was Molly vs Jess, a battle that Jess ultimately won, as she won the whole series.

The hate Molly received has since been viewed as unwarranted, and Molly has faded into the background of many Love Island conversations, while Mitch, whose behaviour towards Molly was very possessive, has become one of the show’s icons.

Series 11 – Harriett Blackmore

Harriett Blackmore, much like Olivia Hawkins, was labelled a villain and a drama queen when she clashed with Ciaran Davies. But why did they clash? Well, just before, Harriett had told Ciaran, whom she had been coupled up with since the start, that he was her top boy.

After that, he took Nicole Samuel to the Hideaway, leaving Harriett in tears. Was Ciaran a bad guy for this? Of course not! Our sweet Welshman made it to the final of the show.

Series 12 – Meg Moore and Helena Ford

This was a season filled with villains. Meg Moore and Helena Ford were two of the biggest, with fans slamming Meg for her rude and aggressive attitude towards girls her partner Dejon Noel-Williams was talking to and Helena for constantly going after boys Shakira Kahn and Toni Laites were talking to.

Though neither behaved well, Meg’s behaviour often came amid Dejon telling her that the girls were obsessed with him and that he wasn’t open to getting to know them, even though he was. Similarly, Helena’s came as Harry Cooksley and Harrison Solomon both told her that she was their number one.

The behaviour of all three men caught the attention of the public, who slammed them as toxic. Dejon undeniably came off the worst and seems to have shrunk back from the limelight, but despite this, the season became about the divide between the girls. It was defined by Shakira and Toni’s camp vs Meg and Helena’s.

Helena did appear on All Stars, hoping for a redemption. So did Harrison, even though Women’s Aid had put out a statement about his behaviour. Since both shows, Helena and Meg have faded away, while Harrison and Harry have both gained a huge social media following for their Love Island commentary.

Series 13 – Every woman on the show

Then we have series 13. In this series, pretty much every woman has been villainised at some point, often when a man was also involved and received much less hate.

Priya Jaswal was demonised for saying Samraj Toor’s behaviour was “pathetic”, even though he was also attacking her and never apologised. Jasmine Muller was hated on for her interactions with Kavan Murphy, when his brother Aidan kept stirring the pot and again when it was Kavan who brought someone else back from Casa Amor.

Lola Deal and Julia Majchrzak have both received hate amid their feud, which was all started by Sean Fitzgerald’s conversations with people in Casa Amor. Elicia Chadwick has also been on the public’s bad side for her reaction to Aidan picking Priya, despite him having kissed his way up her body while on their date.

Even former Islanders turned debriefers Shakira, Toni and Yasmin Pettet have received more hate this season than the men on the show. And if this doesn’t summarise the modern divide between men and women, I don’t know what does. Men think they can get away with anything, while women have to micromanage every emotion so as not to come off wrong.

No wonder, when men’s bad behaviour is caught on camera and still excused, while the slightest comment or odd look from a woman is enough to make her the nation’s most hated.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Henry Ensher, a former US ambassador, says the US–Iran agreement is not a final settlement but only the start of a process, with many ways it could still go wrong.

A woman was left fuming after a fellow passenger encroached on her seat space for more than half of a three-hour flight, sparking a heated debate about airplane etiquette

A woman has sparked a debate after calling out a passenger for ‘manspreading’ during a three-hour flight while he was asleep. Branding his behaviour as ‘inconsiderate’, she revealed how she found herself crammed into a middle seat with barely any legroom, as he repeatedly encroached on her space.

However, a number of Reddit users feel she’s being ‘too harsh’ on the man, arguing he may be completely unaware of his manspreading given that he was asleep. In her post, she wrote: “My mother was a legitimate pre-boarder on a recent flight. I accompanied her to help manage baggage and get her settled. We sat in the bulkhead so she could have more space for her braced knee.

“I sat in the middle seat to provide a buffer and keep her knee protected. The gentleman to my left took up a third of my space for more than half of a three-hour flight.

“He was asleep with headphones and didn’t respond when I tried to wake him up and ask him to move.”

In a pointed message directed at men, she called for greater self-awareness and urged them to “check their ego”, where she stated: “Women go out of their way to make others around them more comfortable and not take up literal and metaphorical space. You absolutely do not need the extra space.”

Responding to her post, one user remarked: “I’ve seen plenty of men and women take more than their fair share of space on a plane. Everyone is capable of being inconsiderate. You are not the main character.”

Another added: “You have the armrest up, lay in your bed.” Another commenter wrote: “Fair to be annoyed by this. Fair to ask, expect him to comply, and feel you shouldn’t have to ask. I’d probably wake him up. But how’s he being egotistical while asleep?”

Elsewhere, a fellow user said: “Girl, if you don’t repeatedly and passive-aggressively start stepping and kicking his foot away.”

WASHINGTON — Bold conservative thinkers with clear public records need not apply.

An increasing number of conservative activists fear that is the message President Bush is sending with his two choices for the Supreme Court.

This week’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, following Bush’s earlier selection of John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, means that the president has chosen two Supreme Court nominees with limited — or virtually no — public records on the key constitutional controversies dividing the parties. In the process, he’s bypassed a long list of judges with consistent conservative records on state and federal courts.

“I don’t know that there is a deliberate message — I think he is just trying to avoid trouble — but the message comes through: Do not be controversial, do not express strong opinions that arouse opposition,” said Robert H. Bork, the conservative legal scholar and former federal judge. Bork’s extensive writings keyed an explosive confirmation battle that culminated in his rejection by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987.

During almost five years of bruising partisan warfare on issues from taxes to Iraq, few people have ever accused Bush of dodging a fight. But that’s exactly the charge he is now facing from disgruntled conservatives.

They contend that Bush has chosen Miers, and even Roberts, largely because he fears Democratic resistance to conservatives with more concrete public records, such as appellate court Judges J. Michael Luttig and Edith H. Jones.

“Is the president sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the high court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans?” a Wall Street Journal editorial asked Tuesday.

White House officials and some Bush allies on the right deny the charge that he is gun-shy about promoting nominees with extensive public records. They note that the president has consistently appointed known conservatives, such as Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla R. Owen, to the powerful federal appellate courts — even renominating them after they were initially blocked by Democratic filibusters.

“In the president’s mind, it is not disqualifying if you have a public track record of conservatism, and he has proved that through his appellate court appointees,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett.

Bush, at a Tuesday news conference, sought to assure his supporters that Miers shared his conservative views and would remain steadfast to them.

“I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today,” he said.

But Bush’s critics on the right maintain that his reluctance to nominate a known conservative for the Supreme Court sends a strong signal encouraging caution and consensus among conservative legal thinkers and judges.

“I suppose a lot of people are not going to want to join the Federalist Society,” said Bork, in a reference to a conservative legal group.

Both sides agree that the 1987 defeat of Bork marked a turning point in Supreme Court nominations. Since then, both parties have generally favored nominees without the detailed and controversial record he carried to the witness table.

“It’s almost become a qualification,” said Bork, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

But Bush’s conservative critics say he has carried this tendency to a new height through his selection of Roberts, who had served just over two years as a federal judge, and Miers, who has never served on the bench or written publicly on major legal questions.

In contrast, both of President Clinton’s Supreme Court appointees — Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — had served for more than a decade on federal appellate courts. And Ginsburg had written widely as a law professor and general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bush’s conservative critics acknowledge that Roberts’ limited public record made it more difficult for Democrats to organize against him, an advantage that Miers may also benefit from.

But the president’s critics maintain that Bush is underestimating his ability to win confirmation for a more clearly defined candidate while Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; only twice since 1930 has a president’s Supreme Court nomination been rejected while his party controlled a Senate majority.

“If Bush feels he could have put a Mike Luttig on there without a fight, he would have done it,” said Mark Levin, president of the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation and a former chief of staff to Edwin Meese III, who was attorney general under Reagan. “It’s a political calculation that he’s got enough on his table right now, and why instigate a fight?”

Luttig, of Virginia, is a favorite of conservative activists.

The critics on the right see two principal risks in choosing justices without a long pedigree. One is that without a firm anchor in conservative legal views, they will trend leftward on the court — the way almost all conservatives believe David H. Souter, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, has done. This fear is greater about Miers because Roberts’ advocacy for conservative positions in previous GOP administrations has left the right considerably more, though not completely, confident about him.

The other fear is that the nomination of candidates without lengthy public records will discourage conservatives from advancing controversial positions that challenge legal conventional wisdom — either in their writings or on the courts. The Wall Street Journal said that by appointing Miers, the president “missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying.”

Bush advisors and allies say such conclusions misread his logic for the Miers appointment. They say his long personal relationship with Miers gives him more confidence about her judicial philosophy than he could obtain from reading a judge’s opinions or from a short interview.

“Harriet Miers reflects less a reticence to appoint someone with a record and more a commitment to appoint someone he knows shares his judicial philosophy,” said Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society now working with groups supporting the president’s court nominees.

Still, the uneasiness on the right about Bush’s decision-making has reached the point that two prominent legal conservatives this week joked that the best thing that ever happened to Roberts was the refusal by the Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, to confirm him after President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992.

If Roberts had been confirmed then, his lengthy legal record might have dissuaded the current President Bush from nominating him to the Supreme Court this summer, said one of the conservatives, who asked not to be identified.

When European Jewish settlers embarked on brutal ethnic cleansing to establish Israel in 1948, they thought the Palestinian population would be the least of their problems. In fact, Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion believed that “the refugee problem would resolve itself”.

There was deep-seated conviction among Zionists that the Palestinians lacked an identity, and they would just flee to neighbouring Arab countries and assimilate. They would not come back to claim their stolen land.

But what happened was the exact opposite.

Decade after decade, the Palestinian national cause grew stronger. Today, few survivors of the Nakba of 1948 remain, but the national commitment to Palestinian rights and historical justice is as strong as ever. That is because the older generations did not teach the younger ones to forget the trauma and move on; they taught them to remember and to keep the keys to their ancestral homes in their minds.

The “refugee problem” did not “resolve itself” not just because of Palestinian determination and resilience, but also because the Israeli policies of violence and dispossession backfired.

Israel’s theft of land and resources and violent displacement of Palestinians was the starting point for every Palestinian generation to reject and resist occupation.

As Israel succeeded in usurping more and more Palestinian land, it failed miserably in controlling the Palestinian consciousness.

Despite continuous Israeli efforts to turn refugee camps into isolated enclaves, recruit agents and collaborators to undermine unity, and introduce international bodies to redefine the refugee issue as a purely humanitarian one, it failed to dismantle the Palestinian national cause.

Those who were dispossessed and violated – the Palestinian refugees – became the most ardent carriers of the idea of resistance. Refugee camps became the centres of peaceful and armed struggle. These camps gave birth to prominent Palestinian thinkers, doctors, educators and leaders, who spread one message: the rejection of the Israeli occupation and the insistence on Palestinian rights.

Palestinian refugees were the drivers of the first Intifada of 1987 and the second Intifada of 2000. They were at the centre of any subsequent mobilisation to resist the Israeli occupation.

The colonial project saw no option but to ratchet up its brutality. Repeated massacres, mass imprisonment and relentless efforts to uproot communities did not achieve subjugation. This approach failed and the Gaza Strip – where 80 percent of the population are refugees – stands as the clearest evidence of that failure.

After the launch of its genocidal assault on Gaza in October 2023, the Israeli government repeatedly described the war as “existential”. If Israel itself acknowledges today that the fourth generation of Palestinians, the descendants of the survivors of the Nakba, represent a threat to its existence, then this is in itself an admission of the collapse of Ben-Gurion’s prediction and the strategic failure of the Israeli project to eliminate the Palestinian people.

But Israel has not just failed, it has also become trapped. It is stuck in the paradox of the futility of its own brutal power. The more violence, mass killings and displacement it carries out and the more it reproduces the Nakba, the more determined the Palestinian people become to resist. Repression is not uprooting Palestine, it is helping it take deeper root.

The Gaza genocide is perhaps the best illustration of this deadly paradox. More than 72,000 Palestinians have been massacred, more than 170,000 injured, and 1.9 million displaced. Most homes have been damaged or destroyed.

What is the result of all this? When a Palestinian child is born today in a tent and grows up without most of his family, without a school, a playground, proper healthcare, or a home, he or she won’t need a complex historical narrative to understand who is responsible for this and what needs to be done to achieve justice.

But the self-defeating impact of Israeli brutality is not limited to Palestine alone. Israel’s genocide has backfired on a global scale. It has allowed the Palestinian cause to grow beyond the confines of a marginal, left-wing issue into one that increasingly attracts attention across the political spectrum in the West but also elsewhere in the world.

Activists and ordinary citizens of different political convictions now stand in solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Many do so, despite facing retribution, arrest and prosecution for their support of Palestinian rights.

The Palestinian cause has also become an influential factor in local elections in many countries, including the United States and United Kingdom, where support for the Israeli occupation and genocide can cost candidates an electoral win.

As a result, the Palestinian issue has grown beyond a regional struggle to become a defining moral question for people across the world.

This has left the occupation locked in a permanent confrontation with what cannot be defeated: memory. The more it tries to erase the Palestinian cause, the more it is etched in the Palestinian and global consciousness.

If he had been alive today, Ben-Gurion would have been dismayed to learn that Zionism secured its own defeat the moment it embarked on the Nakba.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.