zazen

@BlueOak Too many comments that our discussion just gets lost. I'm acknowledging nature exists, but adding in that context shapes how that nature / power manifests itself. For example as you've said - smaller powers don't war as much when larger powers keep them in check - that's acknowledgment that the context / structure they exist within is affecting how they behave, how their nature is being expressed. Nature is the base or starting point, not the end point which is shaped by the context. Power imbalances affect behavior - but why do some power imbalances produce stability (US-Canada, EU internally) while others produce war (NATO-Russia, Israel-Palestine)? The answer isn't simply because humans are humans or nature is nature (all the same). It's because of how power is structured and whether security concerns are addressed. We nurture nature towards better ends to live in a civil-ised world. NATO members don't war with each other despite massive militaries because they're inside a cooperative security framework. NATO vs Russia wars because there's NO framework that addresses Russian security concerns. Russia / Putin called for that after the fall of the USSR but it wasn't taken seriously despite Western analysts themselves blaring about the consequences of crossing red lines and provocation. Rejecting Putin's calls and warnings was due to the arrogance of being atop of the current world order which gives no incentive of considering others in. Your Cold War point shows how structure shaped outcomes. Mutually assured destruction, arms control treaties, hotlines / back channels, institutional frameworks - made war irrational despite massive militarization and ideological hatred. The system channeled behavior toward managed competition instead of annihilation. Militarism without sound security architecture creates issues. It's not inevitable that having or increasing military leads to war. China has one of the largest and hasn't yet used it to the degree the US has. If militarism lead to war then we'd see war all over the world as every country has a military. By that logic London should break away from other areas of England because it has a disproportionate economic and political power compared to the rest. This naturally occures in countries because capital cities concentrate power and money. Looks like UK will breakup (with Scotland) before Russia: https://youtu.be/0u9owvUbY_Y?si=-mewvHBAoloLkrbf&t=2 Israel got its hostages in the past via negotiations with Hamas. Hamas also came to the current negotiated peace deal with Trump and co. Peace is possible if we don't view nature or the psychology of actors as inevitable. It's fine to have stage green values and think about the planet, but it needs to be prioritized correctly. Security and geopolitics needs to be accounted for before those - because without security their won't be future generations to begin with, or they will be left in a economically weaker position due to less competitiveness against Chinese industry who places sovereignty and power at the forefront whilst simultaneously aiming towards sustainability in the long run. We can't complain about others (BRICS) rising and outcompeting the West otherwise. A quote from a youtube analyst regarding the recent rare earth situation: ''This is how we find ourselves in the predicament that we have created. It's easy to blame the Chinese. But our own system chased profit margins. It then supports profit margins and celebrates profit margins and that you'll only ever get it if you can deliver the cheapest product. While enforcing emission standards and reductions that are optical only because the emissions haven't reduced. It's just getting made elsewhere instead of right here. So we can bang on a drum and wear a bloody hippie outfit. But the excessive red tape has meant that these businesses can't do anything in a lot of these states.'' I didn't mean dismantling influence, but increasing it via a equitable approach that beats what Russia/China have to offer. The spectrum is influence, intervention then imperialism. The current relationship between the West and ''the rest'' is tilted towards intervention/imperial (especially the CFA Franc system).

Looks like Boris Johnson pocketed some cash for the Ukraine war to keep going: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/10/the-1m-man-why-did-boris-johnson-take-his-donor-to-ukraine Quite a bit of Western taxpayer money is going to private hands instead of to the war: https://unn.ua/en/news/woman-tried-to-smuggle-almost-a-million-dollars-in-cash-out-of-ukraine-under-the-hood-of-a-car Massive increase in the amount of Ukrainian plated luxury cars and Yatchs on the Mediterranean. My friend who's based in South of France has also noted the influx of Ukrainians flashing cash in places like Monaco etc. Not only is Europe paying for a pathetic war (that could have been avoided or settled through negotiations) killing 100's of thousands but is simultaneously being siphoned lol. Europe suffers greatly - higher energy costs, de-industrialization or non-competitive industry on the global market, and extra burden of cost burdening a already struggling social welfare system with warfare spending the US has forced the EU to spend on.

His The Prophet is also in English and is amazing - https://www.kahlilgibran.com/images/The Prophet Ebook by Kahlil Gibran.pdf ''You shall not fold your wings that you may pass through doors, nor bend your heads that they strike not against a ceiling, nor fear to breathe lest walls should crack and fall down. You shall not dwell in tombs made by the dead for the living. And though of magnificence and splendour, your house shall not hold your secret nor shelter your longing. For that which is boundless in you abides in the mansion of the sky, whose door is the morning mist, and whose windows are the songs and the silences of night.''

Vibe killer no lol A welcome end to the killing but not sure if latter phases will be implemented or things will fall through - many logistical issues which can easily be used as a excuse to continue operations ie Hamas not yet fully dis-armed. Just takes one spoiler of a rocket or shot fired / false flagged to kick things off. Also - nothing fixed at the root cause ie occupation / Palestinian statehood. Even if they acknowledge this path as leading to Palestinian statehood - I don’t see one being established in West Bank due to settlers who are armed and hard line + the security risk a “armed” Palestinian state poses from that vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv. Would they even agree to a disarmed state? If so, how is it even implemented? Third party peace keepers. But settlers are still there requiring IDF protection ie de facto occupation. So we’re simply left with Gaza to be a state if it ever comes to it. Also - Defense Minister Israel Katz tweeted: https://x.com/israel_katz/status/1977253298580160601?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ “Israel’s great challenge after the phase of returning the hostages will be the destruction of all of Hamas’s terror tunnels in Gaza, directly by the IDF and through the international mechanism to be established under the leadership and supervision of the United States. This is the primary significance of implementing the agreed-upon principle of demilitarizing Gaza and neutralizing Hamas of its weapons. I have instructed the IDF to prepare for carrying out the mission.” Ie back to business after hostages retrieved and a temporary break to ease global pressure / anger.

But you didn’t answer why, what’s the common denominator in the places you mentioned? We went over the conditions that gave rise to radical Islam in Nigeria in the form of Boko Haram, who originate from the less developed North of Nigeria. Why do some Muslims get extreme and others don’t? Because of their environmental conditions making them distort the religion in such a way for their own social, political or ideological ends. Poverty, grievances, lack of education or hope, foreign interventions, occupation in Palestines case etc. You can take the most lovey dovey sounding book by some hippie guru and twist it to extremist ends if the correct environmental conditions are in place. You could have stage green eco terrorists burning down capitalist cities to save Gaia and bring a stage green revolution. The point is to fight extremism and terrorism you have to tackle it at the level of environmental conditions - conditions like occupying a people and keeping them starless. Bombing campaigns don’t and haven’t worked as seen from the “war on terror”.

It all kicked off from this earlier in the week: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/eleven-pakistan-paramilitary-troops-killed-ambush-by-islamist-militants-sources-2025-10-08/ At the same time Afghanistans Taliban visited India to bolster ties which isn’t the best of optics: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8exzzz5dp5o.amp That’s not to say there’s coordination - just that India’s hostility towards Pakistan may sway Taliban to act differently, sandwiching Pakistan from the other end by getting involved in covert ops. India army chief was just sabre rattling last week against Pakistan questioning its existence on the map : https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/will-erase-from-map-wont-exercise-restraint-army-chief-warns-pakistan-9389206/amp/1 The group who did the initial attack are distinct form Taliban but are a Pakistani that are offshoot ideaologically similar called TTP (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan). They operate cross border between Afg-Pk which is porous and go into hiding on the other side when the military clamps down to find them in hideouts etc. Not easy to handle as this becomes guerrilla territory. There’s more fighting tonight across the border line but hard to tell who’s involved as the Taliban Gov are now responding to Pakistans strikes within their territory, which was supposedly aimed at TTP leaders/members in theirs. What a mess.

@Breakingthewall Don't forget to answer the question. Maybe you've been busy enjoying the nude beaches of Spain thanking god for not living under Hamas Islamists who'd never allow it on the beaches of Gaza - where Israeli bombs shred kids instead. Or maybe you can't admit your positions are incoherent lol

Technically correct as it hasn't been designated as genocide as yet - only a plausible one. But according to the ICJ's rulings all countries are obligated to put a end to and not be complicit in any way as to turn what is a plausible genocide into a actual one..when its too late. https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-18/debates/C5900243-EC83-4C59-BABA-F3EDEE9D8E60/MilitaryCo-OperationWithIsrael ''Our military co-operation extends beyond arms sales; it is operational, especially when it comes to using our airbase in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In one year alone, from December 2023 to November 2024, the UK conducted 645 surveillance and recon missions, which amounts to almost two flights a day. Interestingly, during the same period, the US moved heavy transport aircraft carrying military equipment to Akrotiri, and the RAF subsequently conducted daily cargo flights from Akrotiri to Tel Aviv. We have been told that those flights were for surveillance and hostage rescue, but if that is the case, we must ask why we used RAF Atlas C1 aircraft, which are large enough to transport military vehicles and helicopters.'' https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/aug/07/uks-surveillance-flights-over-gaza-raise-questions-on-help-for-israeli-military

@Karmadhi We all know the double standard is downstream from power. Question becomes how to manage power. Laws mean nothing if they can’t be enforced. Power, or the perception and threat of it is the ultimate back stop. The abstractness of laws and principles need the realness of power and the material world to be enforced. If the force of larger nations stops smaller nations from constantly fighting, the issue is then how to stop those larger nations themselves fighting each other? Only diplomacy and proper security architecture. We must nurture (govern, manage) nature (survival pressures, power dynamics) towards better ends : “civil-isation”. Ukraine and Israel are the macro and micro example of a security dilemma playing out horribly wrong due to a mismanagement of power dynamics (Ukraine) or abuse of power itself (Israel). Ukraine is a proxy between larger nations (macro) - Russia and the Western bloc, particularly the US, Trojan horsing itself through NATO. Israel is a smaller nation (micro) fighting not even a nation but a people (natives) who are denied one. In both cases - we haven’t nurtured conditions for nature to exist peacefully - within a security architecture. In Israels case, we haven’t even got to the stage of having another state to negotiate a security architecture with. And in both cases - the underlying issue is Western arrogance getting in the way of diplomacy. Because exceptionalism and arrogance don’t recognise the others concerns as legitimate, or even their existence in the case of Palestine. The wider structural reason for this arrogance is due to the current ''rules-based order'' and their dominant place in it - which bakes in arrogance and impunity as a byproduct of that position. Can ants ever keep an elephant in check? The problem with a single hegemon is it can abuse its power without consequence. With two elephants at least they can keep the other in check from crushing the ants - unless their diplomacy breaks down and the ants get crushed amidst their fighting anyway. This is the current systemic and structural problem we have. The lone and all mighty elephant (US) became arrogant and abused its power (giving impunity to Israel - one example among many) and didn’t take any other elephants security concerns seriously (Russia). Now they’re fighting crushing the ants (Ukraine). You can’t and will never erase power dynamics or survival pressures - only manage them. That requires humility and not arrogance - which unfortunately being a unipolar hegemon provides plenty of by sitting atop the system. *** As for setting dangerous precendents which both Russia and the US have done, I asked AI about it: Russia’s precedent: Localized and acute. One regional power invading a neighbor over security concerns with civilizational-nationalist rhetoric. Dangerous for that region. Sets a precedent others might follow. U.S. precedent: Global and chronic. The hegemon operating with total impunity, dismissing everyone’s security concerns, proving international law means nothing. Dangerous for the entire system. Makes all future conflicts more likely. Russia broke a specific rule (don’t invade and annex neighbors) in a specific place. The U.S. broke the meta-rule (that powerful states should be constrained by law) everywhere and at all times. One threatens Ukraine, Georgia, maybe Moldova. The other threatens the entire framework that’s supposed to prevent great power conflict. It’s one thing to set a dangerous precedent that’s localised and acute (Russia invading its proximate neighbour Ukraine). It’s another to hold no others red lines or security concerns as legitimate at a global level - which is global and chaotic (US hegemony).

Even so, why did they rebel, what were they rebelling against - colonialism correct? Are they stupid for rebelling against colonialism, according to your own logic? You don't seem to understand that no one willingly wants to be colonized, but when they are and become extreme in their ways - you then gaslight and use that as a excuse to keep colonizing them. I pin you down to the floor, you scratch my eye, I point at your aggression as evidence for why I must continue to pin you down. That’s the circular logic your using, rather than the logic of perhaps I shouldn’t pin you down in the first place. Why don't other Muslims elsewhere teach their kids those extremist views? You shared a video praising the Indonesian president for his moderate stance - and they take Islam very very seriously over there. Even more than some other Muslim countries which are much more liberal like Turkey or Lebanon. So why are they moderate compared to Hamas - why is it that Hamas are extreme? It must be because of the environmental conditions they are in that started due to settler colonialism and persist till today as occupation. Duhhhhhhh. Oh look, another Muslim country's ex-prime minister speaking on peace and not being a extremist Muslims - again, I wonder why? What causes some Muslims to become extreme Islamists and not others - perhaps because of conditions they are placed in by larger powers more powerful than them which impose such conditions. Conditions that you keep trying to justify rather than facing your wrong about - you still haven't eaten your humble pie.

Most people aren't justifying extremism or terrorism - their understanding the root cause and conditions that give rise to it to prevent it in the first place. That root cause is something you overlook or justify yourself as ''benevolent colonialism''. You keep moving the goalposts after your arguments get shutdown. - First it was that Muslims are stupid and violent in general. We de-bunked that by bringing you information of past relations in the region which have largely been peaceful and that got ruptured with the introduction of Zionism to the region. - Then, you said Muslim countries should be open to recognizing Israel like the Indonesian president said in the video you shared - which was conditional on Palestinian recognition and statehood. Information was provided to you that the ''OIC, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - a intergovernmental organization of 57 member states that serves as the collective voice of the Muslim world'' hold this exact view. - You've now moved the goalpost to Palestinians in particular (rather than Muslims in general) who have built their identity solely around hatred and exist for it. That's like saying the Jews built their entire identity around hatred for their persecution - but that's not their entire identity. If your environmental conditions oppress you are you supposed to simply not react to that? I could say the entire South American continent built their identity on hatred when they wanted to de-colonize from Spanish and Portuguese colonization. They don't exist to hate, they hate the conditions their in and the ones who place them in those conditions. Your trying to essentialize their identity as being one of hate which is just bigoted and disregarding of their conditions which you are doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify. - You then got presented information from prominent Zionists themselves who have pointed to them colonizing the Palestinians and that any people (civilized or not, developed or not) would resists this. This isn't indicative of some internal defect of those people (Palestinians) which is your bigoted worldview. - I've used Spain as a parallel analogy so that you may empathize or at lease understand the Palestinian situation as a Spaniard yourself - but you just deflect, evade, justify the injustice, or miss the forest for the tree's entirely. You can't teach arrogance - what you need is a humble pie to admit your framing of the situation and your worldview about Muslims isn't true. Extremism and Islamists do exist - but you conflate and universalize that then base your analysis on it. Their are make shift schools teaching kids extreme views in Gaza - but you exaggerate that to say the entirety of Gaza is like that - then use that to justify Israel's actions.

China has ended the uni-polar world order of Pax-Americana. As I said - the US don't hold the cards.

Out of all the people in the world she got it lol. A country the US wants to regime change and is flirting with invading off the pretext of “don’t take drugs kids”. Yup, lines up perfectly.

@Breakingthewall In the very words of a prominent Zionist, who understands something so basic that you don’t - which is that any native people resist colonisation instead of bending the knees, or in your case getting on your knees lool I boldened the end bit: “Rebalancing the country demographically, strategically and economically is the highest and most central aim today.'' Meaning - they are not neutral about the demographics of Arabs existing within their Jewish state but wish to re-balance and socially engineer the state to be majority Jewish and economically and strategically ruled in favour of them. And you say Zionism has been the best thing to happen to the Middle East. Wisen up your bigoted self for your own sake. @Twentyfirst He seems to be advocating for colonialism with liberal-progressive characteristics. Quite profound and paradigm shifting. He’s a progressive colonialist.

Looks innocent on the surface but can have major implications “A Tomahawk missile is dual-use capable — meaning that while the U.S. versions being sent are conventionally armed, Russia can’t easily tell that from radar alone. From their perspective, when a Tomahawk is inbound, they have no way to distinguish whether it carries a nuclear or conventional warhead. That uncertainty matters because: Flight profiles look similar. Tomahawks fly low, slow, and stealthy, and can approach targets from unpredictable directions — the same as a nuclear-armed variant. Radar warning times are minimal. By the time Russian systems detect a launch, there may be only minutes to decide if it’s a nuclear strike. That compresses decision time and increases the risk of miscalculation or panic escalation. Command nerves. Russia’s nuclear doctrine allows nuclear use if it perceives a “decapitating” attack on leadership or command-and-control infrastructure. A deep-strike cruise missile attack could easily look like that. Historical precedent. This mirrors Cold War fears during the Pershing II deployments in the 1980s — short warning times + nuclear ambiguity nearly triggered preemptive doctrines. So yes — even a single conventional Tomahawk fired into Russian territory could trigger worst-case assumptions inside Moscow. That’s why many strategists call this a “stability-destroying” weapon in this theater: not because of its power per se, but because of the ambiguity it creates. In essence, the danger isn’t the weapon itself — it’s how it’s perceived under pressure.“

Their was actually a defensive logic to it which makes it totally understandable. This is where a proper threat assessment has to be made. Usually the threat is entirely exaggerated (Iraqs case was fabricated) which is where the devilry comes. Nothing is as black and white or absolute. The abstractness of ''laws'' will never negate the reality of survival - that will be acted upon regardless of those laws making those actions ''illegal''.

Because the US is the global hegemon and holds a dominant position in the current system. Digging a little deeper: both invasions are bad, but one is based on fabricated lies of a threat (Iraq), the other is based on at least some level of perceived threat (Ukraine) - the severity of which is obviously debated. One is lies to justify imperial domination for gain, the other actually has some tangible facts on the ground indicating a threat - allowing us to understand the act was preemptively done for preservation (national security) rather than purely for gain. One has a empire logic to it, the other has as least some survival logic to it. The argument of whether Ukraine is a threat or not is debated, but no serious person can say no threat at all existed. When we say Urkaine we don't mean Ukraine itself but a global superpower trojan horsing its aims through Ukraine. This is a country that neighbors you, that is used by a rival power bloc (US-West) you have had a historic Cold war with, who have think tank pieces talking of containing and overextending you, that have a track record of naughty behaviour their entire existence, that's ignored your red lines and security concerns or calls for a security architecture to be established post soviet era, that's increasing its military interoperability in a region that has been a historic invasion corridor, that Western strategists themselves have warned against - all this is apparently no threat at all. This threat was explicitly talked about, warned about, and eventually responded to in the final straw that broke the camel's back. The non-Western world didn’t endorse Russia’s invasion, but it understood it - because it followed a logic familiar to any nation that’s ever had to navigate security, encirclement, or survival. By contrast, the US invasion of Iraq was built on outright fabrication and had no logical foundation to understand it. Both were condemned and escalatory - but only one could at least be understood on some basis of security. Iraq poses no security threat to a superpower entire oceans away on a different continent - compared to Russia's proximate threat on its border, however illegal, brutal and morally wrong it was for them to invade. Russia annexing land is secondary and incidental to their primary aim of neutralizing the threat. US obviously can't annex land it doesn't border - that doesn't mean it can't annex its resources and plunder it imperially. The key word here is lies - and an actual threat assessment being made rather than fabricated upon those lies. It's just as bad as Israel exaggerating its threat assessment of Hamas posing a existential threat to them - when they simply put their guard down, or as some have speculated stood down to allow the attack to continue and use it for their ethnic cleansing aims. The most militarized and surveilled place on earth (Gaza), by a regional power backed by a global superpower - against a non-military stateless group of people besieged - is somehow a ''existential'' threat. Get the fuck out lol

@Breakingthewall But then how do you explain the entire anti-colonial struggle? Were they stupid to do that? Your basically a imperial boot licker and pro-colonialism. Let's say people don't care for sovereignty and would trade some for development and glory - ok fine. But if I accept that false premise - what development were the Jews bringing at THAT time? It's not like it was the British Empire saying we're going to build a state so you can enjoy our glory - it was a persecuted, powerless and stateless people. The only lesson Western Europeans taught in fact was that these same people were trouble makers which is the reason for their persecution. It's like me saying your stupid for not investing in Bitcoin in its early days. Your hindsight logic to justify something unjust falls flat on its face. According to you - Palestinians should have accepted partition because of development that didn't exist yet, based on evidence they didn't have, from refugees of a people Europe had just tried to exterminate for causing trouble in their own lands (anti-Semitic nonsense) but that they somehow wouldn't in Palestinians? You need a siesta to gain some clarity and think through your arguments - maybe this afternoon. Thick taco you are lol I still love you though.

@Breakingthewall So people are mentally ill and retarded for resisting displacement or loss of control? You’re using wordplay to deflect from the main issue - by saying they’d still be on the land even if it’s just within a Jewish state. Well, any remaining Ukrainians will still be in the Donbass after Russia has annexed it from Ukraine - so it’s cool? It’s like me saying you no longer own your house and are now a tenant who rents it - but technically your still in the house so its fine? Note - you’re IN the house, it’s not YOUR house anymore. But don’t worry - I’m a great landlord and won’t hike your rent too much papi. You said you’d blow a superior people to benefit from their development. Would you whore yourself out to be under Alien rule with their superior development? Humans have a soul and certain dignity to themselves not tied simply to the material world. Majority of humans have fought for self-determination regardless of the “other” who may determine the outcome of their lives better - hence the entire anti-colonial struggle. Your framework just sells your soul to the highest bidder. When the Chinese are ahead of the West in the next decades invite them to rule you and suck them off too as you’ve said you’ll do.

And your telling me not to humiliate myself? Haha.

@Breakingthewall So you would voluntarily let yourself become a minority in your own land? If you lived in Barcelona as a Spaniard, and it became a majority Catalonian ethno state - it’s okay because technically your still physically there and not expelled, your just sharing the land? You’ll say but we all have equal rights. But being a minority with “equal rights” means you have rights until the majority decides you don’t. A state governed by Catalonians for Catalonians is fundamentally different from a state governed by Spaniards for Spaniards. The world was de-colonising at the time. The principle was “you were colonized before, so now you get full self-determination”. Not “you were colonized before, so you should be grateful for partial self-determination while recent immigrants get the majority of your homeland.” You’ve said before that Palestinians would be better off under Jews and that they’ve always lived under someone else’s rule so are used to it. By your own stupid logic - the Jews haven’t had a state so should be used to living stateless and shouldn’t attempt creating one of their own. Spaniards never governed themselves in modern history as they’ve been conquered by Romans, Visigoth’s and Moors - so when the Moors leave, Spaniards should be grateful to get 45% of Spain while recent Catalonian immigrants get 55% including beautiful Barcelona. You got some crazy bigoted views on Muslims. And lack the nuance to even understand what’s being discussed.

In hindsight they would have kept way more of their land if they accepted partition - compared to any of the later proposals. After 1967 they've had to concede to only having 22% of their original homeland compared to 45% in the original partition. Even on that 22% settlements keep on increasing and yet - Palestinians are told their the ones who are being to greedy with what they want, such gaslighting. But what needs to be understood is that at the time of partition it was essentially legalized theft and viewed as such - they were bound to resist and reject the imposed deal as mostly anyone would have. If someone had something precious to them stolen from them decades ago and they fought the thief - I can't really say ''you should have just given it away as maybe you would have had both eyes today instead of losing one in a fight''. As your from Spain - just imagine the scenario like this: Imagine Catalonians fled Catalonia 1000 years ago and were spread throughout Europe - only 10% of the population of Spain were Catalonian throughout the ages. They were then persecuted over the centuries in Europe and the superpower of the day (the US) decided enough is enough - lets facilitate Catalonians going back to Catalonia to establish a homeland for their security. Within 20-30 years a influx of Catalonians migrate to Spain increasing the percentage of the population from 10% to 30% and buying up land which amounted to owning 10% of the land of Spain in the end. Then, the USA tells Spain that their going to have to divide up Spain to make a state for the Catalonians. The partition plan would be imposed on Spain (not proposed or even consulted on) . It would give away 55% of Spain to the Catalonians, including some of the most fertile and industrialised land, the biggest ports and one of the nicest cities (Barcelona). You have no say in this and it is decided by daddy USA. What are you and your hombres doing about it? Another scenario - image you have two houses and live next door to your parents. A far distant uncle gets into bad business with the wrong guys and loses everything. A mutual family member tells you you must move out of your house and back into your parents and give up your house to this uncle you and your parents have barely any connection to except this mutual family friend - will you happily give it up to help out? Why not - he's your family after all? My point is - no one just willingly gives up their home. It wouldn't matter whether this distant uncle is a different religion to you or a liberal or conservative etc your the same blood yet you'd naturally feel hesitant for being forced to give up your house. I used the actual Israel / Palestine numbers for the Catalan example but to be accurate - today Catalonians are 16% of the Spanish population and owns only 6% of the land. They've been flirting with secession also. If the US or EU just forced Spain to give up 50% of Spain to this 16% Catalonian population who only own 6% of Spanish land legally - do you think the Spanish would just sit there and accept it? Speaking of US imposing certain situations on Spain: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-floats-dropping-spain-nato-alliance-2025-10-09/ Trump thinks Spain should be thrown out of NATO because their not keeping up with spending commitments. Imagine US just unilaterally does that. What you gonna do about that papi?

Brilliant analysis!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqx7ygq41o - ''Notably, no details surround the disarmament of Hamas - a key point in Trump's plan. Hamas has previously refused to lay down its weapons, saying it would only do so when a Palestinian state had been established.'' Only phase 1 in a multi-phase process that could be de-railed or difficult to implement in later stages - it's still early but a welcome end to the killing. Historically every peace attempt between Israel and the Palestinians has been vulnerable to sabotage - all it took was a extremist spoiler on either side and a single attack would erase years of diplomacy as each side would then use that as a excuse to upend the entire process. But the past also isn't bound to repeat because context changes - the actors involved, the power dynamics between them and the leverage each has over the other. Past deals collapsed and couldn't be pushed through because they depended on fragile trust between enemies. Today's deals might endure because they depend on shared profit among elites - their are larger stakeholders involved who have skin in the game and incentive to push till the end - perhaps even despite hiccups and roadblocks. The actors today include include Gulf wealth, global finance, and transnational capital - not just politicians or ideologues. Those actors have leverage and long term interest in regional stability they can profit from - they can underwrite and enforce deals through investment rather than just promises. There's a reason Jared Kushner is at the fore front of all of this - he's deeply tied with Saudi capital which has leverage to shape outcomes. This is all part of a bigger picture of the world order shifting and new centers of power emerging that can challenge, hedge against, and co-opt the old uni-polar order in which the West reigned supreme in and could uni-laterally call the shots in. No longer - insha'Allah. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/witkoff-and-kushner-wont-leave-egypt-without-a-deal-us-official-vows/ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-witkoff-kushner-israel-hamas-talks.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/10/07/the-double-life-of-jared-kushner-mixing-business-with-politics-as-emissary-for-his-father-in-law-donald-trump_6746194_19.html

That's true - I'm not disputing that. The Arabs in the Israeli state would enjoy in the development (even if unequal) in fact my father in-law himself has and done very well with Jewish business partners so I have first hand proof of this. But the point being missed is that majority of the Palestinians on the land wouldn't be in that Israeli state to enjoy that development because the whole point was to have a Jewish majority state. Even if Palestinians had capitulated completely and said “rule us, just let us live with you so we can benefit from your development” the Zionist movement wouldn't accept it without undermining its core principle of maintaining Jewish majority and control. If Israel settled the entirety of the land the population breakdown would be almost at parity 50/50 Jewish/Palestinian - which under a single state with equal rights defeats the point of a Jewish majority state. Eventually that population of Palestinians would have a tug of war for political and economic power if there was major inequalities. In 2018 Israel passed a law where ''Legislation stipulates only Jews have right of self-determination in the country'' '“We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides. An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come..” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law Also - a demographic majority isn’t the only way to maintain dominance - it can also be done through structural, economic, and institutional mechanisms regardless of there being equal rights. One example is land ownership and zoning. ''Over 90% of land in Israel is owned or controlled by the state or quasi-state Zionist institutions (like the Jewish National Fund and Israel Land Authority). By law or policy, much of this land is leased to Jews only. Even if Palestinians had full citizenship, that control structure could keep most land effectively inaccessible to them.''