DawnC

I'm not sure that's right. I think there is a significant moderate faction in Iran's society, and even under their barbaric regime, the society is pluralistic and open to some extent. It is not a western society but I believe the situation is more hopeful for the Iranian people than in Arab societies.

Then let me rephrase that: The thing is, you are so caught up with your concept of historical justice that this makes your whole perspective of the current situation and historical events biased. The kind of peace you are talking about requires a lot of things. For example, mutual understanding and respect. You are struggling with viewing the other side's perspective, let alone the Palestinians. The Palestinians are also caught up with their concept of historical justice. The Israelis were ready long ago. The type of peace you are talking about is not a realistic possibility for the Palestinians because their mindset and culture lack other necessary elements, such as political stability, education, awareness, and essentially any appreciation for peace. Palestinian society does not value peace. That's just the way it is, no matter what you believe is just.

Not at all. The Iranian society, for example, is quite developed, and the Iranians are an impressive people. If there comes a time where they can overthrow their barbaric regime, there is a substantial possibility for a moderate and stable alternative to take hold. Maybe, but the most realistic assumption is that there are regions that may deteriorate into chaos and brutality. Responsibility in the political sense requires recognizing your capabilities and limitations and acting accordingly. And it also requires acknowledging the consequences of your behavior. This was hardly ever a thing in Palestinian leadership. If you disagree with this, you might have a gap in your historical knowledge of the actual facts of the events before and after the establishment of Israel. (Israel btw has shown a desire to establish peace with Palestinians numerous times). Your viewpoint is firmly rooted in the belief that Israel's mere existence is immoral because you see them as thieves who stole the land from the Palestinians. I don't share the same view, although I can understand it. The thing is, you are so caught up with your concept of historical justice that this makes your whole perspective of the current situation and historical events biased.

Because it is aimed at Iran, not Syria, and Syria is deeply stuck in the mess of its civil war. Iran is trying to replicate a similar situation in Syria as it has in Lebanon with Hezbollah.

The idea wasn't to leave Gaza alone and cut it off from the outside world (by the way, when Israel left Gaza, it also left parts of the West Bank as well). The idea was to minimize friction with Palestinian society as much as possible. This came about after Israelis were disappointed by the failure of the Oslo Accords. Basically, Israeli society thought that if they couldn't negotiate an agreement to create two separate states because the Palestinian leadership refused to compromise, they would 'force' a separation on the ground without the other side. This way, soldiers wouldn't have to deal with civilians on a day-to-day basis, and the friction would be reduced. And Israel's public wouldn't feel as responsible for the Palestinians. The plan was to implement a similar approach in the West Bank. The thing is, almost immediately after Israel left Gaza, there was a civil war in the Gaza Strip between Hamas and the PLO. Hamas won (the war was brutal), and they had wide support in the Gaza Strip. Israel chose not to become directly involved in this conflict. It seems that Israelis believed that supporting the PLO could be seen as illegitimate by the Palestinians. They also thought it might be easier to deal with the Palestinians if they had divided leadership. After Hamas took power, Israel implemented strict restrictions on the Hamas regime, particularly regarding military supplies entering Gaza. This might give the impression of a prison-like environment imposed by Israel and Egypt But I think that Israelis and Egyptians have allowed almost everything to enter, and they have taken steps since then to try and aid Gaza's development (they've allowed people from Gaza to enter Israel for work). Maybe more could have been done, but it's doubtful that it would significantly impact Hamas's regime. I don't know if that policy turned out to be smart or not, but I think it was a valid course of action to achieve the Israeli strategic goal of separation between the Palestinian society and the Israeli society to two different states (which is a valid goal). Many Israelis supported this until 7/10, but the Hamas attack changed a lot, and I think the situation is too chaotic to make a valid prediction about this. I think that a better strategy, instead of leaving Gaza completely, would be to allow the Israeli army to access the area, with some sort of autonomy for the Palestinians similar to the arrangement in the A zone. I believe this would result in a much safer situation with minimum friction. Some Israelis believe that the settlements that disrupt the continuity of the Palestinian population (not all settlements do that) are responsible for the improved situation, as where there are settlements, there must be an army to protect them. This is a valid point, but I think the friction it adds to the conflict is significant.

And my point isn't about placing blame. It's not about changing the situation either. It's about presenting things as they are. Please try to understand that I'm not in the business of badmouthing the Arab world or the Palestinians, I have a deep compassion for their suffering (my grandparents are from Iraq btw). I'm simply describing reality as I understand it. My claim is that if you think that the problem of the Palestinians is Hamas's regime or the control of the West Bank by Israel, you misunderstand a fundamental issue. The Palestinian society (as a collective), at this moment, is incapable of having a stable, sovereign governing entity that is responsible and relatively moderate. This issue cannot simply be labeled with an oppressor-oppressed framework. This is not a problem unique to Palestinians. The majority of the Arab world has completely failed to deal with the challenges of the modern era and still struggles with it. Many countries are still struggling to establish a stable regime to this day. And this traces back much before Israel was established. The Palestinian leadership behaved irresponsibly, with a hostile intolerant and barbaric approach before 1948. Israel has definitely made mistakes in the past 75 years since it was established. But on a broader scale, both Israel's leadership and society have behaved relatively responsibly and have been in the business of compromise. This is the fundamental difference between the societies that I believe you fail to see. As far as the solution you propose, holding Israel accountable for its mistakes is fine. But I don't believe they have the ability to change the fundamental mindset of the Palestinians, even by withdrawing from all territory. A realistic assessment of what would happen if they were to leave suggests that the most likely scenario is of an ISIS-type regime emerging on their borders. Would you be willing to take that risk? That is an irresponsible and foolish decision from an Israeli perspective, and I think that viewpoint is justifiable. Thus it isn't much of a possible way for a solution... You also fail to realize that Israel's society is an open democratic society and they hold themself accountable for their mistakes without you. On the other hand, there isn't much accountability on the other side. That is a fundamental element in the problem within Palestinian society that I discussed, touching the core issue. Who holds the Palestinian leadership accountable for their consistently reckless and irresponsible decisions, aggressive and barbaric attitude, and unwillingness to compromise? Who holds the Palestinian people accountable for supporting their leadership for decades? In a way, one can argue that holding them accountable and putting pressure on them might help foster a sense of responsibility and willingness to compromise from within Palestinian society and that can lead to a solution. But I don't really believe this can result in anything. Sadly, I don't foresee a solution in the foreseeable future.

Now you have shifted focus towards the solution. I believe it is crucial to first acknowledge the deep and fundamental nature of the problem. I would approach the solution with greater humility. If it were that straightforward, someone would have already addressed it. This is a profound issue with no easy fix or simplistic, naive solution. Don't reduce the complexity of life to a bumper sticker slogan

@zazen To some extent, yes. There wasn't actually a Palestinian regime when Israel was established, and even for a long period afterwards. The Palestinian national movement arose in reaction to Zionism, and they had somewhat of a central leadership (not in the same way it exists in the Western world) not long before the 1948 war. The Palestinian leadership was engaged in violence against the Zionist settlements before there were states (under the British Mandate), and their leadership was irresponsible and rejected any sort of compromise. Not only that, they deliberately started a war. This war wasn't Palestine versus Israel as there were not exactly states. This was more of a civil war inside the territory of today's Israel, West Bank, and Gaza, with large support from surrounding Arab countries to the Palestinians led by Egypt. Yes, in that war, tragedies like the one you mentioned happened, but when you examine the actions of the Israelis compared to different conflicts from around that time (1948), they were relatively moral. The reason for the war was the inability of the Palestinian leadership to compromise and their belief that they could eliminate the Jewish settlements all around the territory. By the way, I'm not speaking from a judgmental point of view. They actually believed that they could remove the Zionists and didn't want to share the land. War, in that case, is a relevant strategic option. The thing is, they lost. And when you start a war in order to eliminate your opponent and reject any peace and compromise proposal, the tragedies war bears are on you. Is that the same as the Nazis? I don't think so. Is it barbaric, untrustworthy, and suggesting they hold little value for peace? Yes. Not only that, but in the period from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinians were not actually occupied by Israel. They were occupied by Jordan and Egypt, and the Palestinians that remained in Israel received civil rights (though clearly Israel could have done much more to help its Arab citizens, and is doing much more today). The Six Day War was initiated by Israel after the Arab world, led by Gamal Abdel Nasser, posed a serious threat to Israel's existence (he was able to unite the Arab world in the efforts of conquering Israel). That's where the Occupation as we know it started. Is it morally wrong to occupy land from Jordan and Egypt in a defensive war? I don't believe so. The agreements Israel had with Egypt and Jordan make the question of territory quite irrelevant. Are the Palestinians to blame for the Arab world's aggression? In part, yes. They supported that policy and engaged in it. The Palestine Liberation Army (subject to the PLO) took part in these aggressions as its goal was not to free the West Bank and Gaza but to conquer Israel entirely. Here we have the most controversial part. Israel couldn't afford giving citizenship to the entire Palestinian population in the West Bank (because it would literally mean the destruction of Israel), and Jordan did not want it (the same way Egypt didn't want the Gaza strip when Israel returned Sinai to Egypt). Here, I do think that Israel made two major mistakes that make it partly responsible. The first was the Military Governorate that resulted in contact between civilians and soldiers (here I'm talking about the way it was arranged and not the seizing of the territory itself), and the second was settling in the middle of the West Bank, especially the settlements that disrupt the continuity of the territory heavily populated by Palestinians. Israel's policy was not very strategically smart, but from a broader moral perspective, the difference between the societies reveals itself again as the Military Governorate was ended because of major intrinsic pressure from the Israeli society and the Israeli leadership was engaged in attempts for peace and compromise, suggesting even almost full return of the West Bank and Gaza. All compromise proposals were rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Almost every move Israel made to give the Palestinians more freedom and control resulted in further radicalization. Yes, when you lose a war for which you are responsible, you have to show signs and seeds of wanting to end the war to regain your territory and freedom as a society. The Palestinians failed at this consistently. These are valid questions. I don't think that Israel's policy around Gaza and the West Bank is meant to prevent development but to ensure they do not organize militarily. If the Palestinians in Gaza were focused on development after Israel left the territory in 2005, Gaza would have looked totally different. Their failure and hostile and barbaric approach is mostly self-induced. The first point is true. I think that the Israeli and US leadership takes this into consideration. You think in terms of "what is the solution to this situation?", but the reality is that some problems are such that certain situations do not have a solution in the sense that you can do something and the problem would disappear. There is no definitive solution to poverty. There is no definitive solution to criminal activity. Can they be reduced to a level that can be tolerated? Probably yes. If you believe that a peaceful resolution is possible with an organization like Hamas, you may misunderstand the fundamentals of their mindset. Some people are utterly barbaric. When someone comes to rape, seeking a peaceful resolution may not be the most practical option, because the threat is inherently barbaric. In some cases, yes. In others, no. It depends on the issue. Sometimes completely separating society from the government is not very smart. Before the 'Arab Spring,' it was thought that the problem lay with the regimes, and if you would just let the people choose, Arab countries would flourish. This was a common misconception that stems from the same mindset you are holding now. In most cases, what came after the rulers were overthrown was worse because the root of the problem was the society.

You are addressing the cause, but I am more concerned with reality. If you eliminate all the moderates, the society left behind becomes extreme, unstable, and barbaric, at least on a collective level. But even if he had not taken the actions he did, the moderate movements in Egypt were weak and lacked significant support among the population, making their election unrealistic. The actual moderates were impressive individuals by the way, but sadly their influence on Egyptian society was negligible. I disagree with your viewpoint on the Muslim Brotherhood. I believe it is quite the opposite. They know how to present themselves as somewhat moderate, but their ideology is fundamentally extreme and a significant portion of Egyptians either fail to see this or want it.

This is the exact perception I tried to appose. You think that saying occupation immediately leads to a clear moral stance because of a bias towards sympathizing with the weak. This is an oversimplification and a simplistic approach to complex conflicts and politics. When the US occupied Japan and Germany, was it an occupation? Yes. Were they automatically the oppressors and villains? No. The Us occupied them because the regimes were barbaric. The reason Japanese and German societies were able to recover from their occupation and the crises of WW2 was because they focused on rebuilding their own societies and set aside hostile, aggressive and barbaric agendas. This is not the case with Palestinian society. Their leadership consistently avoids taking responsibility, and the society repeatedly chooses irresponsible leaders. You mention European countries but this conception fails to understand the state of the Palestinian society. The reality is that if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, it could face an ISIS type organization at it's border. This is not an unrealistic fear, but the most reasonable possibility. You genuinely believe that the rout of the conflict an injustice done to the Palestinians and if they were just treated differently they would act differently. And you genuinely believe that the Palestinian society is fundamentally different from Hamas. These are misconceptions. Yes, Hamas's armed forces are not synonymous with the entire population, but their significant support among the people is not a trivial matter. Some regimes are utterly barbaric and some society are incapable of supporting and having a stable non barbaric regimes. Any life loving country would not allow such regime to establish at it's borders. Could Israel be nicer to Palestinians? Yes. Could Israel have a smarter policy? Certainly. Does that automatically assign blame to Israel as the malevolent occupier and hold them responsible for the failure of Palestinian society? No. Regarding the final part of your statement, it seems you're offering military advice without a comprehensive understanding of warfare, particularly in situations involving organizations like Hamas, which strategically operate from hospitals, mosques, and densely populated areas. Your perception of warfare is unrealistic. Hamas has a huge hold over Gaza and cannot be easily neutralized through specialized marine operations alone. And Yes, when a governing body initiates an idiotic and barbaric attack as Hamas did, the people suffers. You expect Israel to be clean and flawless, but this is an unrealistic expectation that has never been met in the history of warfare. In relative terms, Israel's moral compass in targeting civilians holds up under examination, even though witnessing the actual images of collateral damage can be deeply distressing. Is there a potential that the response will get out of hand? yes. But as for this moment I don't think it's likely.

I agree. I wonder if that pro Western leadership will be the PLO. They're already struggling to maintain their regime in the West Bank, and are considered collaborators by many Palestinians (and they already lost their hold in Gaza to Hamas in the past). They are different from Hamas but I am not sure to what extent (after what we saw with Hamas I really don't know). Essentially, I think you are correct, but the situation may be a bit different. There could be a way to avoid many checkpoints, and it is certainly preferable to avoid settlements in the middle of Gaza. I believe that, apart from the far-right faction, most Israelis do not want to settle in Gaza. This is especially true for Netanyahu, his Minister of Defense Galant, and Netanyahu's opposition, who joined his government during the war period. The way I see it, they are aiming for something in the direction of an 'A zone,' where the IDF can freely enter and exit, but the civilian population will not have close day-to-day contact with soldiers. I couldn't think of a better alternative... There were programs aimed at economic assistance, and there is support for essential utilities (not sure if the mindset that drove this was to help the Palestinian society develop). In terms of education, there were numerous civic initiatives, but as far as i am aware of there wasn't a structured, systemic program implemented by the Israeli government.

Being the stronger side doesn't automatically make you the aggressor. If you believe that if Israel were to withdraw from the West Bank, Palestinians would adopt a 'live and let live' mindset like yours, you are living in a dream world. Israel's continued control is primarily fueled by its citizens' fear of a recurrence of what happened in Gaza (rather than being driven by a religious fanatic approach like major part of the Palestinian society). This perspective overlooks the societal structures, levels of development, and values held by both Israelis and Palestinians, as it's emotionally easier to sympathize with the weaker side. edit: His suggested solution is ridiculous. It is a 'La La Land' approach that will never work. Israel is not without fault, but his accusations are exaggerated, and he appears to lack an understanding of the realities of war.

If anyone here genuinely believes that Israel is committing genocide, it's important to examine your biases. Israel is not without flaws, but it is certainly not engaged in genocide. This notion is too absurd to even consider debating. Check your resources. Learn to assess the quality of the information and news you consume. Study the cultures and political systems of the parties involved. Delve into history. Reflect. Think.

I dont have a well formed argument about the isue, and I understad what you guys are saying about money and value. I aslo get the point of wanting people to "take it seriously". But I think its bigger than that. maybe Im wrong. But as an ex-cult memmer here is hoe I see it: this is exacly how cults start. Good intentions, rigid spirtual ideas and especially a belief that almost no one else can understand you. Be carefull Leo. Being aware of the dangers does not make you immune to them. Im watching your videos for more than 6 years now. I respect and appreciate you and your work a lot. lately, you seemed to me more and more isolated, judgmental and honestly - like a broken record. I see the new course as a part of that change. Even in your "how to get laid" videos (by the way, I think they were a good refresher - *especially for you*!). Your anxiety and fears were much more present in my eyes. It seems, that in your point of view, every thing has to be an all-in project, and, at least in my experience and my point of view, that is not a healthy way of living and it causes you a lot of stress, isolation and frustration. My advise is to be more ordinary. Not boutique. And again, maybe Im wrong

hey shir, few things that came to my mind i hope you'll find helpful: 1. realize you do have hope and motivation to some degree: otherwise you wouldn't have written this. and that is a good think. try to find what are you hoping for by writing this (your dream outcome of this post) and realize you have a desire for that thing. that is a powerful notion, and it gives you motivation and something to work with. 2. you are not the first one to experience this: do not overlook this statement! people have gone trough this. lots of people! and many made it through and leave a happy life. realizing this can make experiencing it much easier and create hope by it self. but besides that, it also has some practical value. if people solved it - it is solvable. seek their solution.. few technical suggestions that helped me- -try to find some thing you do want to do and have passion for - even if it is a new diet change, a thing you find interesting in history, quit smoking or even something you think is stupid. make it a daily habit and even start the day with it. -try basic and simple (!!) mindfulness meditation every day even for 5-10 minutes. alone or even there are some guided ones -try to start doing some physical exercise - even 10 minutes walk. that actually really helps -try to find a mindfulness based cognitive therapy protocol read and try to act on it. or find a therapist that will stick to these procedure. i found it helpful. -redecorate your apartment, light up some candles around the place -shower a lot (sounds funny but helps energetically) -go to nature a lot (as much as you can actually.. places with water are the best - lakes, rivers, the beach etc) 3. start slowly and create successes: don't come up with some fantasy all solving solution. or fantasies about exercising 2 hours a day and meditating 4. start slowly, with action comes motivation. also apply this when you have some thing you have no motivation for - like going out with friends. don't think about the hole process and evening . separate it into a smaller parts: take a sower - dress - drive to the restaurant - eat - go to a bar (it will be good not to stay in one place for a long time) - you got it... when it is small it is easier to act on 4. stop trying to find the root cause of your problem: start thinking about your Depression in a different way. don't think about some great root cause that you can find and fix and that everything is gonna change immediately. try think about your depression as a set of symptoms - with no cause! as if the combination of symptoms, the connections between them and the symptoms themselves are the root cause of symptoms. i suggest drawing a graph of cycles and lines. each dot represents a symptom. for instance: sleeping problems - not leaving the house - anhedonia - social isolation and think how are they all connected and help each other, for example - if i'm tired because i have a sleeping issues, i won't get out of the house because i'll be tired, witch we'll make me more isolated and to feel worse and my sleeping problems will get worse. draw it, make the connections, and find where you can break it. (i'll point out that that is a helpful practical perspective to get yourself out of the depression. after that you might wanna deal with some huge emotional or other problems you have that can actually be a "root cause" and put you at risk of falling again, but it will be much easier to work on it while you are feeling better) 5. believe it or not from some perspectives that's a good thing to experience: when i had my first depression and anxiety, i had some thoughts that gave the experience meaning. i knew i was gonna work with people, and that my experience at that moment was important for my understanding and ability to help others. seek you meaning. besides that - you can look at it from this perspective - the root cause of your problem is that you don't see any difference in your feelings of fulfillment and happiness in life in the outcome of anything you can do on the outside world (like getting married and have a dream job) compare to the levels of fulfillment and happiness you feel right now. and that is actually a good thing. why? because it is true. nothing you do on the outside world can make a real difference. and to some degree, realizing it is a progress. what is missing is that a change can be made on how you feel, not trough something outside but trough a change in you respective. and that is where you should aim for... that is where you motivation should come from. 6. don't give up: not in the way you think. well, also that i' talking about small everyday things. like washing the plate right after you eat. or taking a shower when you get home instead of going to bed and skipping it. small stuff. believe it or not that's helpful. it is much easier to make those decision than to decide to go out with friends when you are totally empty of desire. and it creates momentum. 7. there are tons of different therapy possibilities and tons of therapists: even if he did his best, your therapist may not be the one for you. it can be your personalty match, it can be his therapy method that doesn't fit you or your condition or something else. but don't give up therapy. it can help if you find the right one. sick help - don't be shy or arrogant. try to locate people that have experienced you condition and worked with a therapist that actually help them or try to find a therapist that is a specializes in cases like your. don't skip any kind of therapy people recommend (even if it sounds weird) - keep an open mind and try! (unless you see it is no match - you know best). 8. get rid of shame and guilt: another impotent notion - it is ok to feel what you feel! write it down: it is ok to feel everything i feel. poot it on your desk and near your bed. it won't solve the problem, but maybe it will make the way to the solution easier. let yourself feel that experience. let go of guilt and shame. what do you have to blame your self for or feel guilty about? list it. for each reason ask your self if it is really the truth (Byron Katy stile). i also recommend Leo's video on responsibility vs blame (or something like that) watch it and try to apply. 9. tell people about it: when you do meet friends and family - open your heart and tell them about how you fill. when you keep it to yourself it makes you feel more isolated which makes you feel worse. 10. re-frame and upgrade your career and purpose: how is this experience can change you purpose in this life? how can this experience make you better in serving this world? why did the the world needs you to go through this? what are you (or your soul) trying to tell your self with it? how is this experience connected to the rest of my life? how does this experience make my life story hole? 11. keep going. -<3-