DawnC

Frankly, I don't perceive much depth in their perspective. Simply put, it appears that the research question they addressed was 'Why does the US have a special relationship and support for Israel?' and the answer they presented was 'because of Israel-favored lobbies.' Their answer and analysis seem a bit shallow. Those lobbies may exert influence on policy, but the support for Israel involves intricate and multifaceted interests of the US that cannot be dismissed with a mere wave of the hand. The manner in which they approach the question lacks depth and seriousness. I don't think they see the full picture here. Some follow-up questions I think it's important to ask: - How and when did the Israel-U.S. special relationship form? What historical events or circumstances contributed to the establishment of this alliance? - In what ways did they specifically address the strategic aspect of the U.S.-Israel relationship? Did their analysis recognize the alignment of strategic interests, or was the focus primarily on areas of divergence? - How did they evaluate the significance of Israel as an ally for the U.S.? Did they seriously ask - what particular aspects make Israel special in the eyes of the U.S. regarding strategic interest? - Did the analysis delve into the key players in global affairs, especially in the Middle East, and explore the role of Israel in this complex landscape? How did they characterize Israel's role in dealing with regional dynamics and adversaries? What are the regional alternatives in safeguarding US interest? - How did they portray the role of the U.S. in global affairs? Did they discuss the specific part that Israel plays in this broader U.S. role? How does Israel contribute to or influence the larger framework of U.S. global engagement?

Try reading 'The True Believer' by Eric Hoffer. It may be a bit challenging, but it's an excellent exploration of mass movements, particularly those that lead to extremism and fanaticism.

Of course, it is more mature and conscientious to be aware of Israel's biases and deceptions. This provides a much clearer understanding of what is happening, both regarding the war and the overall situation. Adopting a 'Go Israel' attitude with zero regard for its actions is childish. In general, it is far better to understand the complexities of the situation rather than engaging in childish or obvious side-picking. Nevertheless, I believe you may benefit from asking yourself: are there times when the focus should not be on complexities but rather on choosing sides? It may be helpful to consider that some may criticize your 'I'll explain the more complicated matter' approach from a perspective that does not dismiss the complexity but rather understands it, yet consciously chooses to ascend beyond it when it comes to action and policy suggestions. The most obvious example, of course, would be Nazi Germany. Was it more critical to analyze and explain not-so-obvious American biases and deceptions, or were intelligence and spiritual resources more importantly directed towards clearly stating - this evil has no place in humanity? Be careful not to demonize bias so harshly - it is bias that keeps (some of) us preferring peace and happiness rather than war and suffering. It is bias that makes some of us despise genocide and other forms of utter evil. Don't stray too far from this world. spirituality and the investigation of biases should not be an excuse to sit on the fence. Contemplate - why was Biden's first speech so pro-Israeli? Does he not understand the biases of Israel? Does he not have a difficult time and relation with Netanyahu and the Israeli government? I believe his speech reflected a deep historical consciousness and awareness, and the profound understanding that as humans who share somewhat similar value systems, there are times when complexity and subtleties are not the important elements in our statements and actions. The crucial thing is a clear and unwavering approach against evil. This is true for conscious leadership - and even more so for spiritual ones. Another, simpler point, that I'm not entirely certain you grasp: What do you believe upholds the world order? What role does the US play in maintaining that order? What alternatives exist? If you fully comprehend these alternatives, you might be satisfied with the use of your tax dollars. Israel stands out as one of the few dependable allies of the US and one of the only ones that doesn't require US troops to engage in direct combat for them - and can actually provide for US global interests. Dismissing this as merely the influence of Israel-favored lobbies overlooks a crucial and genuine global interest, and a US national one.

You are right in the sense that this analogy overlooks the routes of the conflict and the original valid claim of Palestinians. I find it somewhat childish and inaccurate to blame the Jews for going to Israel and view it as an act of stealing and I'm not convinced about your implied argument regarding repetitiveness. But even if we won't agree on that, you have to agree that they can't stop stealing eggs they have already eaten . I believe that what has happened in the 100 years since this conflict started tells us more about it than its origins. And regarding Pickachu - personally I don't find it surprising at all. If you understand the initial situation of this conflict and you understand the pattern of the Palestinians irresponsibility, the violence is not surprising. This is in sense what I was trying to say. When someone is fixates on getting eaten eggs, particularly if they are the weaker party and insist on holding a gun, war and suffering are inevitable. I simply don't harbor false beliefs in the power of Israelis where I don't think they have the ability to change things.

Well, I think that's the fundamental flaw in your perspective. Your approach is overly fixated on achieving peace, which is deeply rooted in attempting to 'solve' the issue. Sometimes achieving peace is simply not a reasonable possibility in any realistic assessment of the foreseeable future. It seems that You assume that actions stem purely from conditions and I think this assumption is also flawed. I find that perspective somewhat naive. In fact, regarding the Palestinians it's quite the opposite. Every time there's an improvement in the Palestinians' condition, there's a violent setback. The notion that people act the way the Palestinian do solely due to conditions is untrue. Sometimes toxic ideologies persist even when conditions improve. The suggestion involving money won't suffice. Just consider how much Israel has paid over the years to the Palestinian Authority and Gaza, and how much Europe, the US, and other Arab countries have spent on them. These are enormous amounts of money. Money won't get to the root of the issue. The core problem lies in education and the values of the society. Their society is fixated on an unachievable concept of justice and twisted honor values that make it impossible for them to accept any compromise. No indication suggests that those have slightly changed in any way over the past 100 years and I don't think that any amount of money can achieve that. I believe the mindset you are suggesting Israel adopt is the same mindset that led to a 7/10 situation. Essentially, you propose that if the Palestinians had better conditions, they would not seek war. In a sense, this was Israel's strategy toward Gaza in the past 3 years — allowing more money in, enabling more Palestinians from Gaza to work in Israel, providing medical treatment in Israeli hospitals, etc. Before 7/10, Israelis genuinely thought they could make Hamas more moderate through these measures and prevent war. This approach failed miserably. It represents a significant misunderstanding of different mentalities. Essentially, it is rooted in the belief that everyone is the same in the sense that they want what you want, because we are all human. Yes, we are. So was Hitler. But you couldn't make the situation with Hitler better by improving Germany conditions. On a broader scale, it appears that you believe that if Israelis were to do 'the right' thing, they have the power to develop the Palestinians to a level where they will not desire war. I don't think you are right here. Some changes cannot come from the outside. The Palestinians first need to desire change. This is not a simple condition. Sometimes, it is when conditions become worse that this desire becomes real. And just to remind us - we are discussing an ongoing war. And when a man is coming to you with a gun, aiming at you, shouting he is going to kill you - you first kill him. Then you can examine to see if he had a difficult childhood. Your suggestions are essentially irrelevant to the reality of war. You also don't address the regional situation and address Israel's approach solely considering the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

In the better case. In the worst case, it is deliberately lying and deceiving.

Yet another example of the bias of Al Jazeera. Their narrative here is just not grounded in the reality of what is going on. Study the Al-Aqsa situation better, you will be surprised.

Courage, bravery, and fearlessness. Rebelliousness, pushing boundaries, and challenging old traditions. Drive for achievement and influence, ambitiousness. Decisiveness, willingness to take action, risk-taking. (Some) Leadership traits.

Al Jazeera is not a reliable news source if you seek a comprehensive and genuine understanding of any topic. It's biased not only in the way they cover stories and the narrative they adopt homogeneously, but also in what they choose to cover. They have a very low standard regarding fake news and reports. I watch it sometimes if I want to see their narrative on a matter, but I would never recommend it as a reliable high quality source. @Archie I think there is no single news source that is sufficient. And It depends on your reason for watching the news. I am also interested in the sentiment of the whole spectrum of society regarding an issue. For that, I watch the entire spectrum, including sources I consider as less reliable. If it's for a casual catch-up on immediate news, you can use Google News. I suggest not attempting to find just one source even if you consider it as high quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTZ0PiTnq2E&t=2240s I think that's a mature, grounded perspective on the whole apartheid notion. He starts discussing this at 23:25.

That's a good one .

I didn't mean to imply that those extremists settlers shouldn't be addressed or it's an unreasonable consideration or it's not a problem. I expressed my suggested ways to deal with them politely, but I hope it was clear that I don't believe they deserve better treatment than any other terrorists. Of course they are a problem. I meant this in the sense of comparing the situation to Gaza as a whole and the way that Israel should deal with that. It's just not the same situation. I don't think it's as common as you suggest, and I don't think it's institutionalized either. This is a very extreme minority that is not supported even by most settlers. There is actually a significant department in the Israeli Shin Bet specifically for that. It is very widely criticized and discussed in Israel. Anyway, I do think they should do more, and I believe that the far-right parties, especially Ben Gvir, are very problematic in that regard. But I'm focused on our disagreements.

I don't believe that's a serious argument. Firstly, there is a difference in the way countries handle domestic and external affairs, it's not reasonable to expect them to be the same. More importantly, there is a substantial distinction between an extreme minority contained within a healthy democratic society and a society ruled by extremism. It's not that every Gazan is an extremist (though I believe there are more than you may think), but it's the extremists who set the tone. Political matters shouldn't be approached merely from an individual perspective, you have to consider the collective and leadership. Nevertheless, the answer to your question is actually yes, in a sense. I think a very very firm stance should be taken against them. They should be brought down with force. Actually, the reason the situation doesn't deteriorate into something like in Gaza is because Israel is putting significant effort into dealing with that problem. Should they do more? Should they take more forceful measures? I believe so. But they are doing relatively well. Can you name any Western country without some barbaric extremist minority? The difference is that, unlike Gaza, in Israel, such barbaric extremism is not taught in schools, not considered heroic, and not celebrated. The majority of Israeli society doesn't reward extremists like Palestinian society does. Many of them are in jail. It's what sets the tone that matters, not the margins.

There are terrorist there. But note that there are almost half a million you can categorize as settlers in the West Bank. Most of them are peaceful and are not like that at all. I think even suggesting that 5% of the settlers are like that would be an exaggeration.

Ask yourself: What question is this person allegedly trying to answer in that video? It seems that the question is, 'Why do non-Jews support Zionism?' and his response is 'antisemitism.' But is he truly addressing this question seriously? The fact that he exclusively focuses on attributing it to antisemitism suggests a lack of sincere interest in exploring the issue. He is just crafting an answer that aligns with his existing worldview. Actually, He is not even interested in the question. In this specific context, people support and supported Zionism for various reasons, including religious beliefs, compassion for Jews and humanitarian concerns (especially after WW2), cultural similarities, as well as geopolitical, economic, and technological considerations, rather than it being rooted in antisemitism. His argument that the support of Zionism is rooted in antisemitism and his examples are more fantasy than reality.