zazen

@Breakingthewall Yeah its a dilemma. And both sides are too far gone into trauma and dis-trust to solve it themselves. That's why I think only outside forces can do something about it - but for that there has to be enough incentive pulling the players with enough leverage to cause a shift, away from the status quo. We are seeing signs of this, hopefully its not to late before the Ultra Zionists achieve their final solution. I get what your saying as its strong and emotion based. I think in most cases its top down strategic interests of the elites that drives foreign policy and alliances vs the bottom up cultural affinity and vibes of the people. Top down is like the skeleton and structure that builds alliances, the added cultural aspect gives soul to that alliance which helps maintain them for sure, a bit like glue. For example the US has or has had alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - they don't have cultural affinity to each other but serve interests. The US-Israel alliance is unique because it has a cultural overlap with elite interests - that softens and brings warmth to that relationship but I'm not sure it sustains it long term which is what geopolitical alliances are usually built on. It could be the exception though. Another point is that other Western democracies with supposedly similar values to Israel have heavily criticized Israel or taken steps against it. France, Ireland, Spain, Norway, and even Netherlands are taking bold stands. France is co-hosting a major UN conference on the two-state solution later this month and trying to lobby the UK and others towards a two state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. These are big moves we would have never imaged could happen - even just the way the media has turned. It's unbelievable to even see headlines like this in such a publication as the Financial times: These things take time to play out. But what it tells me is that there has been a clear re-alignment, the old game has been demoted for a newer profitable one. Like what was discussed on the previous page about the funding of radicals, the game used to be: underwrite (fund) radicals, to undermine (sabotage) realism and anti-imperialism. That served geo-strategic goals (resource access) as well as perpetuated a threat narrative to justify military spending and feed the military-industrial complex, which was the dominant industry of the US after WWII. Now the game is transitioning, with resistance and tension between factional elites into: underwrite (partner with) the realists (peacemakers), to undermine the radicals, who cause chaos and kill what could have been your future consumers ($$). Instability threatens capital flow, investor confidence, and long term access to emerging growth markets. The rise of the Finance-Tech-Consumer Complex has eclipsed the Military-Industrial Complex and is slowly re-calibrating US foreign policy against the wishes of the MIC neocons who have more institutional entrenchment. I think viewing the US as a sovereign state in the classical sense trips us up in understanding how it functions ie it's a strong ally that always has our back. It's not like a state pursuing unified, long-term strategic goals and sticking to them. It's more like a platform that different elite interests operate through, usually aligning, sometimes diverging, but more so diverging today. Israel and Palestine right now are locked in mutual trauma and maximalist positions due to that trauma. The ability to force a resolution now lies with bigger actors - not just the US but a mix of financial and diplomatic players (EU, GCC, BRICS) who can collectively bend the remaining elements in the US who get in the way of a resolution. The peace process is bigger than just Israel-Palestine because the stakes are too big now.

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival. Your saying who wins is right - as in might makes right..yet on another thread you argue against the US using might to achieve dominance - not survival. That's the key distinction, whether something is for survival or domination. Survival is a right, survival dressed up as domination and imperialism isn't. Just like US-UK maintaining their control over oil resources in a foreign land isn't survival but domination and imperialism. The survival term can get abused when used too loosely to justify anything. Like the recent shootout at the aid area in Gaza of which the details are still fuzzy. A IDF soldier can just say the kid lifted a baguette in joy and I thought it was a rocket launcher, so I shot for my survival.

Economic disenfranchisement is the gut punch, cultural fatigue and overreach is the slap in the face, and a political system not taking either of those seriously is a spit in the face. Ginger Hitler meets park ranger: Society sets different standards for private spaces (where adults are) vs public spaces (where everyone including children are) People feel those norms are being disrupted when drag is in the public square - when it’s historically been for theatrical adult entertainment. Lily Phillips above. Her mate Bonnie Blue below sleeping with a 1000 men in 12 hours: “FrEdOoM” and “LiBeRtY” These very rightful values have been hollowed out into their most juvenile form. Freedom is meant to mean something, to be substantial - but has turned into a performative spectacle. Something dignifying is turned into something degrading. The same people who speak out against capitalism are the ones capitalizing most aggressively on its most sacred illusions - freedom, identity, expression - commodifying those same values into stunts and self-parody. The wider world laughs. Even people these “movements” are supposed to represent laugh:

This is similar to how the US-UK funded radicals from the 50’s to destroy pan-Arabism and keep their assets (oil) from being nationalised by anti-imperialist leaders. A short from Chomsky Then came petro-Islam with Saudi and the creation of a mujahideeen factory against the soviets. The irony of the gulf and Saudi to now be coming out as forces against radicalism when it’s from their region and pockets full of oil money it was instrumentalized for geopolitical goals: Israel seems to have adopted and adapted the same tactic for their own geopolitical goal of domination. What peeves people the most is to have people underwrite radicalism, in order to undermine realistic pragmatism - then have those same people bitch about it when they fight what they helped create, and cause Islamophobia in the process tarnishing 2 billion.

True. I just saw this 6 month old video of various Palestinians being interviewed - basically majority want the maximalist demand of a one state solution. I don’t know if this is because of all the suffering and destruction post Oct 7th or if it was their position before.. But yeah, utterly self defeating and disappointing. The sense I get is that they think/feel that the longer they have suffered and been occupied (over 7 decades) the more they need to be compensated for it (all the land) otherwise what was all the suffering and struggle for - half of what was theirs? The issue is a national identity can’t just be undone once it’s crystallised. Beyond being unjust and promising eternal war - this just isn’t the early 20th century anymore where borders are malleable and colonial powers can redraw a map overnight. Another logistical hurdle IF a two state solution were even agreed upon is like you said - the vantage point from West Bank overlooking Tel Aviv and Israel. They would have to accept it to be de-militarized or national peacekeeping forces there rather than either Israeli or Palestinian security forces. Shit show of a situation - seems like a solution simply needs to be decided by more rational larger powers and imposed for a greater peace to prevail so that the region can move forward. I just look at my profile pic, nod, sigh, then zazen

Should we go back to discussing morality? The culture that actually used nukes, and from which another mouthpiece calls to nuke Gaza - thinks there’s something wrong with the culture in Gaza. Ironic.

Pretty nuts. Numbers not fully confirmed but apparently 40 Russian planes destroyed by Ukrainian drones deep inside Russian territory. At a cost of $2 billion and which are irreplaceable in the short term - destroyed by drones for under an $1k each. Asymmetric warfare at its best. Possibly a turning point in the war - and a huge escalation from Russia in the making - whilst Ukraine and the West celebrate in the interim.

@Breakingthewall You and Raze are debating every detail of who started each individual fight - but the wider issue is what conditions are causing the fight which is the initial taking of land and continued occupation till today. If there’s a cessation of violence for some time and things flare up again, that’s expected when the conditions for violence haven’t ceased. It’s like if you pin me down and I fight back but take a breather, then start fighting again and you say I”m a violent terrorist for breaking the ceasefire - even though you still have me pinned to the floor lol You’re saying what the Palestinians shouldn’t do or want - which is the maximalist position of wanting to exterminate the other side and the entirety of Israel. That’s definitely true and self-defeating - though I doubt that’s a majority belief among Palestinians. The ones purported to have that belief, Hamas - have even said they will not be in political power as long as Palestinians get a state. The question then is what should they do? Obviously not the minimalist position of just being apathetic and accepting their condition. How can they develop themselves economically etc like you mentioned when that is blocked via a blockade. Also why would they prioritise that when it goes against Maslow hierarchy of needs. No one’s prioritising reading Eckhart Tolle whilst being occupied and blockaded in a tiny enclave. The fact is that the world already has consensus on what should be done - it’s just not being allowed to happen by the very few. And the Palestinians are finger wagged and gaslit as backwards and uncivilised when the “civilized” world can’t even uphold an already agreed upon enshrined right.

The West won't decline, their dominance will. Western elite's can no longer dictate global outcomes unilaterally. Their zero-sum logic is being outmaneuvered by a rising multipolar order that’s not asking for permission but is building an alternative via BRICS+Gulf. These Western elites want in on that game which is more lucrative than the previous game they played. Instead of profiting off of destabilizing the region which served their Military industrial complex, they want to de-risk the region and open it up for business (living people are better consumers than dead people) in order to serve a much more powerful faction of their elite, the Fintech lords: a new class of power rooted in finance, technology, and consumer dominance. They profit from stability, integration, and scalable systems. This new elite which has eclipsed the old neo-con elite, need what the Global South has which are: young consumers, raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and growth markets to get returns as compared to stagnant markets in the West. That creates a fundamentally different power dynamic than when the MIC just needed managed chaos to profit off. The old imperial model was: "Give us your resources or we'll bomb you. Even without your resources, we'll make money while bombing you regardless.'' The new model is: "We need access to your markets, and you can set the terms because we need you more than you need us." That's why Palestinian statehood, climate commitments, technology transfer requirements, and other conditions that were previously dismissed are now being taken seriously. The money moved, so the politics followed. The MIC isn't obsolete - but it's been re-positioned as the enforcement arm for when economic integration fails - its not the main game, just a tool in it. This explains puzzling policy contradictions. Why does the US court Saudi investment while threatening military action elsewhere? Because the Gulf has successfully integrated into the new financial architecture, while other regions remain "resistant markets" requiring traditional coercion. This is the fight the Global South are up against. The empire evolved from conquest-based to subscription-based, but kept the old enforcement mechanisms for non-paying customers. MIC still lashes out by inertia, but it’s no longer in alignment with the new geopolitical reality - where BRICS, the Gulf, and much of the Global South are building a cooperative, investment-driven future. The old game hasn’t ended fully, but the new money is re-calibrating to the new reality.

That’s already included in the 3rd faction of the ideological religious complex brother. The two mythic frameworks are the secular (non-religious) kind: American exceptionalism, which is the civilizational mythos of liberalism. The other is the religous kind : Christian evangelical, which is a divine mythos with an end times prophecy. I should have clarified that better.

True - he’s there for the lights and money, but remains a vessel nonetheless. News from just few hours ago to show quite nicely the two factions at play here. Saudi representing the new vision for the region that Blackrock and “new money” are on board with (Financial elite) vs Israel representing the old neocon paradigm (Military industrial complex) getting in the way of it. This is the tug of war taking place. Many headlines will come out in the next weeks - keep in mind this frame work of players and interests. Angry muslims and liberals rage at the gulf saying they betrayed the Palestinians. Meanwhile: They can understand the Israeli occupation of Palestinians but can’t extend that concept further to see how the gulf nations are soft occupied by a security architecture the US dominates. They can’t understand the level of survivalist chess being played. All they can fathom is who shouts loudest at the karaoke as the one who will make things change. As Israel’s economy gets squeezed - the Gulf along side Kushners fund can step in to economically inject some life into the economy. This will be economic leverage over Israel for which concessions can be extracted. The longer time goes on the more distressed the assets become - ripe for negotiations. Systemic entrenchment = leverage = concessions = Palestinian self determination.

The situation is fluid and no outcome is guaranteed. I agree the soft power lever via public pressure isn't the strongest - that's a slow burn as I've already pointed out. But there seems to be a new game in town being pursued by a newer faction of elite, that are in a tug of war with the old faction being the necons. I'm not sure how else to make sense of the conflicting headlines and behaviors except that there is a negotiated collapse of the neocon paradigm (bibi) and the rise of a new elite consensus that prioritizes stability, normalization, and profit over endless conflict. The only way to make sense of it without falling into simplistic conspiracy theories is to understand that multiple elite factions with diverging interests are operating simultaneously. Elite factions that previously were aligned (military and finance) but of who the latter are now responding to shifting power dynamics, and new incentives - even whilst using the old tool of military threat to milk profits and extract concessions in negotiations. The remaining pieces* are the Palestine question and Iran. Unfortunately Palestinian lives are being used as a pawn in this - the threat of their extermination and now the threat by Bibi of targeting Iranian nuclear sites. How else do we explain a ex Al-Qaeda leader like Jolani in Syria being welcomed by establishment and sanctions lifted, Iran-Saudi normalization - two arch enemies, Trump going direct to Hamas and Iran to talk angering Israel? Whats the sentiment of Israeli's with his actions?

Israel definitely isn't a monolith and its good that there are sizable segments who are more balanced and question the status quo. Lets hope they make it to the state level to steer it in a better direction. Regarding morality: I don't think anyone is morally inferior or superior as a inherent quality, but people can still commit immoral acts and hold immoral beliefs which are context dependent. Israeli's are locked into a delusional feedback loop of (past) trauma and (present) domination. Israel is acting within a strategic context shaped by power and paranoia, with its moral compass hijacked by a permanent sense of threat that has been heightened beyond what it really is due to past trauma. And despite being materially developed, they are morally compromised by that delusion. Its not that they have a innate moral inferiority but that their morality is distorted by a specific context - the same goes for Hamas. - Power dynamics definitely dictates things more directly and concretely than public opinion. Public opinion works like a pressure cooker creating a climate that can indirectly and over time affect elite decisions. This is especially true today when there are factions of elites who's bottom line is affected by those decision - as I wrote about above in the previous comment regarding the Financial industrial complex vs the Military industrial complex. Financial elites are more visible (Blackrock) and exposed to consumers who buy into their products and brands - that brand equity can be damaged by bad optics. Global funds and businesses care about consumer trends because consumers can act on ''no justice, no profit'' ie the BDS movement that helped South Africa end apartheid. Consumer capital is a lever of soft power. People actually have a lot more power to moralize commerce, even if those at the top of the commercial food chain are a-moral about it. The MIC or military elite faction are largely semi-inuslated from that pressure point because they sell to governments not to every day people. This is why the financial elite can more easily be re-calibrated towards justice. - Responsibility scales with power and capacity. The more power you have, the more moral weight your decisions carry. The US and Israel bear more responsibility than Hamas or Palestine, not because Hamas is morally perfect, but because they aren’t the ones shaping the geopolitical environment. - Regarding Israel continuing doing what it wants to do with without the US or global support: the main lever on Israel is that it's structurally held up by the US. Israel may not be uniquely evil but it is uniquely protected by the US and supported by it. If the US wasn't in the picture that would entirely change the cost-benefit calculus among the Israeli elite - unless they’re suicidal, which I don't think they are. The less tethered Israel is to the US means it introduces a survivalist logic it hasn't had to visit in some time thanks to US protection - which is why they have acted with such impunity over the decades. It would most likely act more restrained simply for survival. Isolation is a spectrum - right now Israel are globally isolated but not isolated by the ones who matter - some very powerful elites who insulate it via vetoes and diplomatic cover.

Quite shocking. No wonder the recent polls show what they did.

When Leo says the left lacks reality it’s true, that doesn’t mean they lack morality. Power and incentives need to be understood just as much as having good hearted principles and ideals. The left put too much weight on ideals and not enough on incentives. They may be correct in principle, but the incentives of power get in the way every time - which is the default operating system of power. Power is a human animal game (natures default) - principle is a human BEing game (nurtured dignity). That’s why world opinion can be so overwhelmingly one sided on this - as we can see in the UN votes, but nothing happens. It’s a good idea when fighting / struggling for something, to know who we’re dealing with (players involved) and what game they play (power). Israel doesn’t survive because it has global support but because it has elite support. As I wrote to Nivsch above - that elite support is now fracturing as new incentives have arisen. Thank god the gulf got enough money to entrench themselves with Western financial elites - to the point they hold at least some leverage in this. This is another point idealists don’t get as to why the gulf “don’t do anything”. They have trillions invested in the West, if the gulf acts too unilaterally against Israel and the West - their assets can just get frozen as happened with Russia. Too exposed. They saw what happened when weak Middle Eastern nations defy the West - they had front row seats to that shit show around them. So another path must be taken. Insha’Allah that one will prevail.

To say Israel is an arm doesn’t mean it lacks agency - it means its power is structurally enabled, funded, and shielded by the US to serve shared strategic interests. Israel has its own will, agency, and objectives - but its ability to act on them with impunity is sustained by US capital, weapons, vetoes, and geopolitical legitimacy. Without the US Israels regional dominance and global standing would be constrained greatly. But yeah, he does overlook that besides just geostrategic or financial gain, there is ideological support especially by Christian Zionists / evangelicals. That is where the contradictions and complexity emerge. Because their are different factions of elites with different interests that are diverging today more than they are aligning. The Financial Industrial Complex (FIC) wants regional stability to attract capital and build markets. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) wants managed conflict to sustain defense spending. The Ideological-Religious Complex (IRC) wants prophecy - both secular (American exceptionalism) and religious (Evangelical end times). The first two factions want profit, the last wants prophecy - divine and civilizational. The military and ideaological faction usually overlap - why not have profits and prophecy? They are otherwise known as neocons. The financial elite faction are mostly indifferent to ideology as they chase profits. As Western returns shrink, they’re seeking higher returns and expansion into new markets ie the Global South which includes the Middle East. But to tap new markets, they need something the other factions often undermine which is stability. They have still profited off of instability, but perhaps peace may now promise more than chaos. Through that lens it makes sense as to what’s going on. Otherwise many Zionists are asking how could Trump betray them by talking with Iran? This is why the negotiations currently taking place between Iran-US-Israel-Saudi. Trump seems to be representing the financial elite faction - Bibi represents the neocon faction, It’s basically old money (Neocons) vs new money (Blackrock). That’s why: Larry Fink from Blackrock was alongside Trump in Saudi, Saudi and Blackrock have been working with each other for a while, the UAE and Kushners firm are aligned. When MBS of Saudi says Middle East will be the new Europe - those aren’t just baseless statements. It kind of all seems to make slightly more sense when seen from this lens, with all the players and incentives involved. Trump of course sides with the more powerful and highest bidder which is the financial elite who have eclipsed the military elite in power and leverage since some time now.

@Karmadhi I’ve seen leftists call for the end of Israel or that there should simply be a one state solution. Whilst their morally justified to be outraged, they lack how power and geopolitics works. I only jumped in on the moral discussion you guys were having as I find it engaging. But we shouldn’t be under any illusion that appeals to humanity are enough to move the needle. Even with the tweet I shared earlier from Evan - he uses some charged language like that “Israel isn’t a country but a colony” which derails readers from his broader thesis as people get hung up on whether it’s a colony or not, and who controls who. It isn’t a colony in the literal sense, though functions as one with some caveats. It’s more of a strategic client-state with settler-colonial roots, that functions in a semi-autonomous way. It does have its own internal ideaology and agency, but is ultimately held up by the US - almost like a franchise. Or its like a married power couple. No one debates who controls who except that they both instrumentalize each other for their own aims, that just so happen to converge more often than not. Sometimes the “weaker” partner calls the shots because they know how to pull the right strings.

Interesting tweet on the US-Israel relationship from EvanWritesOnX: https://x.com/evanwritesonx/status/1883736169156125111?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ One of the most common arguments I find myself having on here is the notion that America is controlled by Israel. That AIPAC, Zionist billionaires, Israeli lobbies control the US to function in the best interest of Israel at the expense of America. This is patently untrue. My argument is simple. You don’t need a formal conspiracy when interests converge. Joe Biden, decades ago, famously said, and I’m paraphrasing here, that “we would have to invent an Israel, to protect our interests in the region”. Israel is a colony. Not a country. This is obvious at minimal examination when you look at just how much funding the colony needs to sufficiently stand on its own legs. The whole purpose of a colony is to extract more wealth and generate more profit. This is not the case with Israel. Its defense is basically an offshoot of the American military. Its citizens receive free healthcare, free education and other social services at the expense of US Taxpayer citizens. This is not an indication that Israel controls the US. It’s literally how a colony operates. America has to do everything it can to ensure citizens continue to come and stay in Israel so it can successfully transition the colony into a legitimate nation that can become self-sufficient. Israel is failing to achieve this. This is also why Israel primarily targets buildings, women and children in Gaza. It has nothing to do with Hamas. The goal is to ethnically cleanse / totally displace Palestinians so Israel can successfully shake off the apartheid label and avoid Gaza being leveraged against Israel for a Palestinian statehood on the international stage. “If that’s true, why did Israel assassinate JFK?” When the US emerged as an uncontested nuclear superpower with unmatched military prowess 70 years ago, it made the categorical decision to conduct wars across the globe. ANY leader who felt compelled to move against the Neocons was on the chopping block to get assassinated. The military faction defined the American economy, and any politician who dared to speak out against it became a threat to the national interest of the US. Every assassination that took place, was a joint decision between Neocon military faction and the rest of the US power structure. Israel is just an extension of the Neocons military outpost in the middle east. "Yes, but America lost all the wars since WW2" This is false. America has NEVER lost a war. You need to redefine what "lost" means. The American Military have dual objectives during a campaign. 1. Short-term financial gains. 2. Long-term geopolitical strategies. The 1st benefits stakeholders invested in defense contracting. Irrespective of win or lose, it generates them substantial profits. The 2nd objective seeks to reshape regional dynamics in favor of the United States. The neocons driving these decisions, prioritize short-term financial benefits, to such extent, that achieving the secondary objective becomes irrelevant. This leaves the citizen (you), confused. Why continue new NATO operations when the US keeps losing these wars? It’s because they’re not losing. The outcome is simply insignificant compared to the profits. So insignificant in fact, that conflict perpetuation is preferred over outcome-orientated wars. "Yes, but American citizens never benefit from this" The American people are not part of the equation. America is not a democracy. It is an oligarchy. The Military factions serve the private sector. Not the public sector. The wealth generated from the wars remains at the top. "What about AIPAC then?" AIPAC is not registered as a foreign agent. That is because it is NOT a foreign agent. It does not receive money from the Israeli government. It receives money from private donors. Donors who are prominent stakeholders in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and other defense contracting companies. American Zionists Billionaires often fund politicians through AIPAC, who then spend the money to strengthen political/military support for Israel. These American Zionists are not ideological nor are they religious. They are rational economic actors. If they were ideological, you would see these billionaires continue to fund projects in Israel or for its diaspora that have little to no direct benefit to themselves, like ongoing investments in hospitality, technology, cultural preservation, education, humanitarian aid, purely based on the belief in the cause. Rather than just influencing policy at the top levels, ideological supporters would bankroll Israeli society despite being surrounded by wars. This is not what we are seeing. The Israeli economy has come to a grinding halt. Import/Exports have drastically reduced. FDI's have dried up. And while Gaza has become a subject to reconstruction, not a single state actor has discussed stimulating Israel's economy. Billionaires, like many business leaders, typically make decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis where the benefits must outweigh the costs. If the support for Israel becomes less beneficial or more costly (in terms of political capital, financial investment, or public relations), rational actors will reconsider their stance. AIPAC's true purpose is to obscure the origins of who truly funds these wars. It is designed for America to claim plausible deniability, that it had no direct involvement in the atrocities. For colony to succeed and transition into a legitimate state, it needs to conduct unpopular, morally reprehensible operations such as ethnic cleansing and genocide. The most pragmatic way for the US to conduct this operation is to ensure that it personally has no direct involvement. The best way to achieve this, is through the influence of another ethnic group. So when people like you start digging down the rabbit hole, all you see is Mossad assassinations, AIPAC, Jewish lobbying, Jewish blackmail, bribes and extortion. Then you take this knowledge and direct your hate towards your country for AIDING Israel, rather than condemning your own leaders for directly funding a genocide through colonization. Entities like AIPAC provide the perfect narrative for the US to brainwash people like you. The narrative of "We, the moral people, who uphold Western Values, did everything we could to support the historically prosecuted Jews, but all they did is backstab us with blackmail and corruption". Every time you research into America's unconditional support for Israel, you will encounter compelling but misguided evidence of Jewish control of the US. That's not by accident. That's by design. A design that only BENEFITS the US. Not Israel. Because when the time comes. When Israel is no longer profitable for the Military faction. America will clean out the "foreign corruption" and position themselves as moral heroes. Trump is already starting to do this. Pay attention.

Very cool ChatGPT breakdown you followed up with ! Like Leo had said - power is what affects things in geopolitics, more than morals. If the usual levers -morality, diplomacy, multilateral pressure - aren’t moving the dial, largely because the US acts as both shield and scaffold for Israel, structurally embedding impunity - then only power will. On that note, there may be some hope - because the centers of gravity linked to power are shifting East and South. And with that comes leverage to negotiate which is what is taking place now. That's how to make sense of the Bibi-Trump tensions, the sudden dialogue with Iran, Iran - Saudi who were old enemies but that are now in talks also, sanctions lifted off of Syria. The old game and cash cow was the Military industrial complex (MIC) - the neocon faction. After financialization the Financial industrial complex (Blackrock, Vanguard) eclipsed the MIC. The MIC profited off of chaos, the FIC can profit off of both, but now see's that more can be made from stability and peace in the region. This is why BlackRock and Saudi have been working together - and they are bringing this new vision into place. But the MIC is like an old dinosaur still existing off inertia and needing appeasement - it’s also a tool the FIC can use to extract concessions in these negotiations. This is all the amoral logic of cold capital. FIC leads with carrots: investment, development, trade access. But if blocked, MIC looms with sticks: coups, chaos, destabilization. The FIC is threatened by the emergence of parallel financial systems like BRICS+. The world is being re-shaped into a multipolar one and it is trying to establish its place in that, by force if necessary. If peace becomes more profitable than war, Israel’s impunity becomes a liability - not because of justice, but because it's bad for business. Selling that vision is probably the only hope left.

@Nivsch @hundreth The discussion Raze - Leo - Karmadhi were having was about the moral development of Israelis vs Palestinians / Hamas, which I jumped in on. That's the point of raising those polls - to indicate something about that development. Hundreth, you say ''majority doesn't mean you can do whatever you want'' but the fact is it is being done but just in a slower manner. Past Israeli PM's are now coming out (Olmert) saying that Israel is committing war crimes: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/27/former-israeli-pm-ehud-olmert-says-his-country-is-committing-war-crimes '“Recent operations in Gaza have nothing to do with legitimate war goals,” he wrote. “This is now a private political war. Its immediate result is the transformation of Gaza into a humanitarian disaster area.” Olmert said he had often asserted that Israel was not committing war crimes in Gaza and claimed with conviction that “in no case did a government official give orders to hit Gazan civilians indiscriminately”. However, in recent weeks, “I’ve been no longer able to do so,” he said. “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy – knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.” The polls - whether true or good enough to go by or not - show that it isn't just a issue that can be scapegoated to Bibi or the far right, as disturbing views are held widely. If Bibi is out of power, theres many that can take his place and continue on the same devastation. These polls were also not taken in the aftermath of October 7th when the population was full of rage, but many many months later when there should have been some what cooler heads.

Great powers don’t just react to what other nations choose - they react to what those choices imply. Saying NATO expansion isn’t a cause because it’s voluntary is like saying someone who steps into traffic can’t be hit - because they weren’t pushed. But its true that this can become a negative feedback loop. NATO grows because Russia is a threat = Russia sees NATO growth and feels more threatened = Russia responds militarily, which justifies further NATO growth. The Western narrative though only see it as the West reacting and Russia always aggressing. Its not like NATO is a kids club that is being joined, its a ''defensive'' pact that isn't always defensive, and who's main leader the US definitely doesn't only ever act in defense but acts to dominate. And this cute club wants to sit at your border - no sensible nation will allow that. NATO expanded eastward despite Russian protesting it since the 1990s. International law is an abstraction designed for peace, but national security is a reality shaped by fear. The problem is that Russia broke international law, yes - but in response to a provocation that international law refuses to recognize. And survival always overrides legality. I discussed this tension with Chat GPT and it came to conclude that international law needs to evolve to: - Include a doctrine of “preventive existential defense” with strict thresholds - Create mechanisms for international adjudication before escalation - Acknowledge that survival is not optional, and law that ignores this will always be broken A law that cannot incorporate survival will always be subordinate to it. If international law refuses to recognize existential threats as valid motives, it will remain moral in theory, but irrelevant in practice.'' I was confused myself about this because I argue that Israel is clearly against international law and that Palestinians have a right to self-determination - but then I understand Russia's point of view and action - though it goes against international law. So I was conflicted with that contradiction and that's how I gained some clarity on it. Interesting food for thought. Also just a side point about the fear and motivation of Russia wanting to expand and take Europe - its very rare for a empire or country to expand when it is demographically weak and in decline. Usually empires only do so when they have a large number of young men to do so with - so that fear is unfounded. And if Putin was planning to take all of Europe then he's a mad man lol

@Daniel Balan Yeah, its a tricky one as that process of being more liberal needs to come more organically from the ground up. Leo is spot on below where he speaks on what you fear - which is the rise of right wing facism/nationalism. I think there is one advantage Europe has though which is its silver lining - I'll comment below. If economic disenfranchisement is the dry timber for the fire of facism - then to keep facism at bay requires economic inclusion. The reason facism is rising in USA despite the USA leading in technology (and economically) is because the gains made by technology aren't re-distributed across the society but are instead accumulated at the top. Unlike the US where redistribution is viewed with suspicion and the state is expected to step back, Europe is much more culturally comfortable with the idea that the state has a moral role. If the EU can catch up in innovation while using its already existing mechanisms to equitably distribute the benefits, it would preserve and even enhance what it’s best known for which is a high quality of life. The US excels at creating wealth but fails at sharing it. The EU shares better but struggles to generate as much. China forces the balance through command and control - which is why they are going to win the future and why the US is panicking now.

Yeah that's a good balance. The thing is one policy may be good for one country while not so good for another as each country has different strengths and weaknesses. Germany who has a low unemployment rate vs Spain who has a very high one will naturally differ on what policies would suit them. Spain and Greece have higher youth unemployment than Mongolia and some African countries - they naturally would need a different approach and to use different tools but don't have the autonomy for it within the EU. That was the traditional tension in the EU - between Northern taxpayer countries vs Southern debtors countries - with blame games over who is lazy etc. But now there's also a tension between the East and West which is more political / cultural. rather than economic. The supranational entity (EU) wants to impose more liberal values on more conservative nations in the East. You ask if your relatives are being truthful about Germany's de-industrialization, you should google it and check the many articles tracking it. What made the EU work post WW2 was that it was a empire of access - to cheap energy from the East and to the largest consumer market in the West (US). It was the bridge, but that bride is crumbling from both ends. Russian energy is offline which drives energy costs up = less industry = less competitiveness. And the US is leaning into the tariff game making good less competitive to sell to the largest consumer market. That input - output equation has been disrupted. Which requires adaptability = which internal bureaucracy, fragmented political will, and overregulation get in the way of. Europe is anchored in its past, paralyzed in its present, and becoming irrelevant to the future - it needs to do something real quick. The EU's institutions are designed to prevent war and constrain power, not to project innovation or agility. It celebrates historical achievements and moral postures, but struggles to let go of outdated frameworks. Too much memory and inertia, not enough momentum and inovation. Future power and prosperity will be decided by technology - they need to double, triple, 10x down on it like yesterday. Only innovations can help plug the gaps it has.

You're calling for centrism, but not practicing it. Centrism is about seeing things from both sides, weighing trade offs, and acknowledging complexity - not emotionally dismissing one side because FUCK the right wingers lol Just because Leo has called out green ambitions being too utopian you have now come to your senses? Or what about what nerdspeak has said above which I commented similar to on the previous page ie that a stronger nations like Germany-France dominate the policies of the EU which may not be in the interest of other individual nations. You yourself are confused about whether EU policies are good or bad. The complexity is that there's a tension between national interest vs supranational interest. But you dismiss any kind of national interest as right wing nazism because your a emotional snowflake liberal.

@Leo Gura If someone pins you down and you try scratching their eyes out - are you morally inferior? Context matters. Desperate acts should be contextualized rather than pathologized as moral inferiority of a group. I would definetely say ISIS are morally inferior to Hamas because they have global aspirations of domination with ideological purity driving them - fanatically violent. Hamas meanwhile are in a localized geopolitical struggle with aspirations of liberation - contextually violent. What contextual excuse did the US have to nuke two civilian cities when it didn’t have to?