zazen

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?

Aren’t they the only country to not only use nukes once but twice - when they didn’t even have to and definetely weren’t backed into any corner? All the way in Japan who was by many accounts already on the brink of surrender - and on the civilian filled cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If moral development is defined by restraint of power then they have failed. Pakistan have nukes and are almost similar to Palestinians in terms of sharing the same Sunni Islam belief system, dealing with internal fanaticism, and being in a tense neighbourhood (India-Pakistan). Pakistan is also very low on material development and hasn’t yet used its nukes despite being gaslit as a terrorist state post 9/11. Like you said - desperate people do desperate things. But you’re conflating desperation with depravity. And conflating suicidality with morality - without looking at the structural causes. Suicide bombings are obviously horrific but are acts of desperation in asymmetric warfare - typically by stateless, oppressed populations who lack conventional means. Resistance from the oppressed (even when ugly) isn’t equivalent to domination from the powerful. Suicidal acts are a reflection of hopelessness, not moral inferiority. Japan and South Korea are rich nations with high suicide rates - a signal of hopelessness at a societal level, not moral inferiority.

To avoid diluting the thread or getting lengthy I'll stick to the main point. Yes, Israel must be held accountable. But how? And who is an obstruction to that accountability? Israel doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its impunity is structurally enabled - militarily, diplomatically, economically - by the US. That’s why international mechanisms like the UN can’t enforce accountability: because the US vetoes it. Even the ICJ was threatened by the US. So when you rightfully call for holding the main actors accountable, there is a nation above all that gets in the way of the mechanisms that are supposed to do so. Other nations are too afraid to act not just due to geopolitical calculations, but because the US has weaponized global systems (SWIFT, sanctions, NATO pressure, military bases, IMF leverage). That fear is not theoretical, but deeply embedded in the system. The US is functionally a main party involved in this, they aren't peripheral. Holding Israel accountable means holding the system that enables them accountable - and that system is upheld by the US.

@Raze @Twentyfirst Leo says the issue requires extreme nuance- yet denies this nuance to the Palestinians, or in applying it to development and civilization. According to Leo there is a form of civilized evil. By that logic there is a civilized way of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide. I wrote two pages back that there's a difference between horizontal (material) and vertical (moral) development - a distinction which is important here. It's possible that you can have skyscrapers yet be spiritually bankrupt. Just like the Nazi's who were one of the most literate, industrialized societies - yet immoral. Of course anyone would rather live in Israel over Gaza - that doesn't prove that such a place is more moral, only that it is more powerful. The horizontal plane of development and civilization involves - material, nature, power. The vertical plane of development and civilization involves - morals, nurture, principles. To be truly civilized isn't just to be developed horizontally, materially - to amass power, and default to our animal nature where might makes right. It's also to be developed vertically, morally - to nurture our nature, to buffer power with principles. The crux of civilization is to buffer power with principle, to nurture nature, to bring the vertical depth of morality to the horizontal surface of the material. We are not just a human animal but have a humanity in us. Perhaps this distinction and nuance isn't afforded because it challenges spiral dynamics orthodoxy that the West are ahead in the development game - that it is solely defined by and lead by them. Westerners want to keep that mythos intact by avoiding the complexity of reality - but will gladly bring that complexity to obfuscate and explain away their own actions. Old but gold:

The thing is most countries don't differ on ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide - being morally wrong. There is no moral ambiguity to this situation which is why so much of the world has a stance on it - and so many feel confident enough to debate this with ardent Zionists despite not knowing every single detail. This is reflected in countless UN resolutions where US-Israel and a handful of micro-states stand as pariah states against the world community. There are also countries who obviously abstain to avoid any consequence - but majority of the world has a consensus on this that's not in favor of Israel. https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/ Thanks for the compliment man. I'd like to think I do enough critical thinking before commenting - I also don't identify with any country, ideology, political party or religion. The point of critical thinking is to reach a conclusion after examining all variables, actors, and power structures - and I have reached that conclusion. The weight of evidence, history, and global influence clearly points to the West’s central role in many crises. Once you've critically assessed the global system and identified the most consistent enabler of violence, destabilization, and injustice - in this case, the US - it’s not bias to focus on it. It’s efficiency and prioritization. The fact that other countries can't take tangible steps despite taking symbolic ones to stop Israel - shows that US is effectively and structurally dominant. They are the central node in the international system - with their power eroding but not yet eclipsed. This is where I have applied systemic thinking to come to my conclusion - rather than remaining eternally analytical spinning my wheels - we have to follow the structure of a problem to its root. The US is regionally strong by land ( Europe, Middle East, East Asia ) with bases, alliances and security dependencies, globally strong by sea effectively acting as the worlds maritime police, and structurally strong through economic and political institutions. They police the world in this manner - diplomatically, politically and economically - instead of just with blatant boots on the ground. Anyone who opposes this order invites a lot of disproportionate retaliation that won't be in their favor. That's changing as you've mentioned, but it's structural strength is still systematically embedded even though parallel structures are being built (BRICS+) and expedited by the US's very own actions at clinging to its primacy. The US still controls global financial infrastructure (SWIFT etc) and has 700 bases. It vetoes UN resolutions that would otherwise restrain Israel or hold it accountable. They aren't simply a vendor supplying arms to Israel but support Israel in every domain possible. As I've mentioned above, the US isn't simply a vendor to Israel. Their the geopolitical scaffold that holds Israel up - a structural support system that allows Israel to lay its bricks however it chooses, which is to pave over Palestinian land and settle it. The US sits at nearly every level of that pyramid and causal chain you outlined. The US's own actions in the Middle East prompt a level of hatred towards the West and by extension Israel - that constantly make it feel fearful. Israel is too far gone into historical trauma, paranoia, and a worldview where dominance equals security. So we appeal to the actor that enables and empowers that madness, because it may still have the capacity for restraint. If you want to get to the root of the hostilities its this: Zionism in its current form demands total dominance to feel safe, but total dominance ensures they never will feel safe as it’s at the expense of others. Zionists can’t seek safety of one people (themselves) by displacing another (Palestinians) in the most violent manner. I agree everyone should work on themselves internally - but Palestinians are not in the position to "self-actualize" when they’re denied basic rights, including the right to self determination that the world and international law tells them is theirs. Also, Palestinians don't need moral perfection before they can get political liberation. When the diplomatic avenue to their right is denied (ie US veto) and they take a undiplomatic violent one instead - their gaslit as backwards regressive terrorists. When the West or Israel acts bad its framed as a ''reaction'' to trauma, when non-Westerners act bad its regressive and pathologized as inherent. This is how the Western narrative maintains its image - nuance and context is afforded to themselves and their allies but not to others. There are hard limits to agency and accountability - there are things not in your power, but that are imposed by powers bigger than you. Telling a stateless, besieged population to “take accountability” while absolving the empire that funds, arms, and protects their oppressor is like telling someone pinned under rubble that they should’ve chosen a better place to stand. This isn't me failing to apply systems thinking. It's me following the system all the way to its source of leverage - which in the case of Israel-Palestine, is the US. If Israel is unreachable and unreasonable due to trauma, paranoia, and impunity - then only the US can pull the brake.

Not all peels are Western but a lot are imported by the CIA (regime change / coups), subsidized by the IMF (austerity / privatisation) and guarded by NATO (enforcement of a favourable “rules” based order). The West can’t be blamed for everything but it sure has intervened in pretty much everything. It can’t insist on being the worlds police and bank, then be surprised when people look to why there’s chaos and debt. Back to Israel’s moral development. Another day another atrocity: Haunting. Humanity has failed. More broadly the humanity at the level of the US state. While Spain halting arms exports to Israel and hosting a gathering are symbolic - they won’t have the practical effect of stopping Israel’s onslaught when majority of their arms comes from the US (65%) and Germany (30%). Almost the only way to stop Israel committing atrocities like above is to stop the arms used for them. Diplomatic pressure has no effect as they embrace the identity of being the victim even further as the world “gangs” up on them, furthering their resolve and reinforcing their paranoid aloneness in a “anti-Semitic” world. Germany wouldn’t halt their large share of arms due to Holocaust guilt. So it falls squarely on the US - which is why they are synonymously hated by so many. Muslim nations are either too weak or are dependent client states in practice - as their security is guaranteed by the US (Gulf, Egypt, Jordan). China prefers stability over confrontation. Europe has Holocaust guilt, is geopolitically timid and under the armpit of the US security umbrella. Turkey is a NATO member. Only the US has the leverage to stop Israel in any material way, but chooses not to. What’s that about moral development?

@PurpleTree @Twentyfirst The gulf sending money is them buying the assurance of security. Its not so much to gain something as it is to maintain something: national security. They lack muscle but have money, whilst Pakistan and Iran for example lack money but have at least a decent amount of muscle: enough to be a deterrent . This is why Syria was taken under the umbrella of the regional players - with Turkish muscle and Gulf money. This is also how the gulf exerts influence over Israel via current negotiations for normalisation in exchange for a Palestinian state. And have sold this plan to a global elite capital class who only care for the next best returns on capital in the coming decades of low growth in the West. The gulf have no stick (muscle) to hit with but have the carrot (money) to dangle to achieve the vision they want for the region: a peaceful stable economic hub reviving the old Silk Road to become Europe 2.0, with their younger demographics read: consumer market, vast resources, deep culture and history, and enviable geostrategic location on the worlds largest landmass connecting the East and West. Many Muslims are angry for the Muslim world (mainly the gulf with all their money) not doing anything - but they lack the sophistication to see the game of diplomacy being played. If the gulf tried something ballsy they know they’d end up like Iraq. And the other Muslim countries with reasonable muscle (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt) have too many millions of their own people they need to worry about feeding and developing before they would sacrifice themselves.

@Raze And that cost can only be imposed by those holding up Israel’s security architecture - mainly the US. There’s much anger in the Muslim world for gulf nations not doing enough to counter Israel - but these gulf nations security depends on the US also so they are playing a tricky game. @Apparition of Jack To bring your conclusion full circle perhaps we defeat anti-semitism by seizing actions that stoke it - mainly the distorted implementation of Zionism. Trauma doesn’t morally license oppression of others. Conflating what the state of Israel does with anti-semitism is a categorical error Zionists use to obfuscate their actions. Zionists can’t seek safety of one people (themselves) by displacing another (Palestinians) in the most violent manner. Zionism in its current form demands total dominance to feel safe, but total dominance ensures they never will feel safe as it’s at the expense of others. Israel already has one of the most powerful armies in the region, with nuclear arsenal and the backing of not only the West but the worlds superpower the US, with unconditional yearly aid . If it still feels unsafe, then nothing will ever make it feel safe. If Israel truly wanted a security guarantee it could join NATO to come under its article 5 umbrella, but it wouldn’t do that because that means it would lose some autonomy and be held more accountable which goes against its interests of settling the land of Zion.

I should change my username to comrade Zazen lol I kid @Daniel Balan Don't let bipartisan politics (something with a hint of right wing = automatically bad) get in the way of analysis and understanding how capital flows, which is largely a-political. If we stop getting triggered for a second about the details and some of the guys conclusions (of which I disagree with some also) - the wider point remains in understanding elite behavior - and Leo gets to the essence of it with the fact that they serve their own class. What I think has shifted and to which that guy points to is that the elite class is no longer nationally rooted - so their class interest isn't as aligned with the national interest as it once was more closely. In the past national capitalists depended on national strength/development: a strong domestic economy, educated labor force, domestic consumption, military protection. Elites were usually publicly linked to national myths like nobility, founding fathers, industrial pioneers. Think Rockerfeller, Carnegie etc. But now they are post-national because in a globalized world their wealth, operations, and identities are embedded in a global system of capital. Today's elite have have transcended the nation-state as capital is mobile across jurisdictions where they can benefit from and arbitrage currencies, labor costs, tax jurisdictions, consumers markets that aren't just domestic etc. That means the elite class is no longer bound by the health of the nation they originate from. Their fortunes can rise while the nation declines - which wasn’t quite possible before. Their reputation is more global as their companies answer more to shareholders than citizens. This is why we hear both the left and right critique corporatocracy - but in different ways. There's quite obviously a issue afoot but the solutions being offered are debated. Both sides are somewhat unknowingly pointing to the same meta-crisis which is: a post-national elite class with no accountability to people or place. They're shouting past each other because they come at the issue from different places and with different solutions. A note on the EU in particular: The global eite have built global regulatory frameworks (WTO, WEF, ESG standards) that supersede national sovereignty - in the same way that the EU supersedes the nations within it. This is the problem some EU nations find - they have policies they need to follow which may favor one nation over another - ie they are superseded to the point national interest isn't always taken into account or is subordinate to supranational governance. The Eurozone monetary structure for example favors export driven Germany, but hurts debtor nations needing flexibility such as Greece, Italy, Spain. They could de-value their currencies to become more competitive but can't as they if they don't have monetary sovereignty. France is heavily subsidised for its agriculture while Romania for example isn't to the same extent - this undercuts local production making Romanian agriculture less competitive. Nations are expected to take in refugees as part of a burden sharing scheme - but perhaps one nation doesn't have the capacity to take in or assimilate a certain quota of refugees the same way another richer nation could. On going green: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria aren't as rich as Germany, France or Netherlands who can afford the subsidize the green transition more easily. Some states have to shut down coal plants without viable alternatives meanwhile France shapes the rules to fit its existing strengths by pushing the EU to classify nuclear as "green", that helps them secure subsidies and financing. Because France gets a lot of its energy from nuclear, it meets the emission target more easily. The same emission reduction target requires vastly different levels of sacrifice. Just like the transnational elite, the EU technocracy can act above nations, for a supposedly “higher order” good - but at the cost of national agency and interest. It's like a centipede where each nation is a leg with the EU being the body - but each leg moving in its own direction towards what is in its best interest - but the body of the EU forces it in a certain direction causing friction, gridlock and what is known as bureaucracy or a lack of dynamism where the wrong things happen, the right things aren't allowed to happen, or the they take too long to happen.

I agree that they have lower development as a whole. Which is why I think distinctions are required between moral and material development - the horizontal and the vertical. But whats being posited here is that they have low moral development in particular - Raze put it very well that being materially deprived doesn't necessarily mean having less moral capacity. Like you said on the previous page - terrorism is their only option. Why? Because they're left little to no option - but you conflate this to mean they must have low moral development. The point is - Israel is granted the privilege of being violent while still “morally developed” but that nuance is denied to the Palestinians. Even though its the Palestinians who are in a much more dire material situation where their morality is severely tested. Most materially and morally developed people who are then materially oppressed and suppressed, would be pushed to act immorally out of desperation. Which is why I also made the point about the Nazi's being materially developed yet acting morally abhorrent. The point being? Of course they do - it’s their cynically deceptive use of delusion to justify their domination. In reality the other side is objectively weaker which isn’t even debatable: Also, states are held to certain standards that non-state actors or an entirely stateless people aren't. Them acting restrained isn't a direct indication of their moral development - as their systemically embedded to an international frame work as a nation state. They need to at least perform restraint or the appearance of it ie ''warnings sent before we bomb your home, which your a refugee in because we drove you out some decades ago and plan on doing so again''. That's what their doing now. Scooting them over to Rafah which was a previous safe zone but now an area of rubble, so their at the edge of the Sinai desert. This is no sign of moral development just because its done in a way that skirts under the radar of international law or scrutiny - though the world is hip to that game now. Never mind the recent polls by Hareetz showing the moral development at a societal level: ''An overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews support the transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, according to a poll by Pennsylvania State University. The survey, conducted in March and published by Haaretz newspaper on Thursday, found that 82 percent of Israeli Jews support the forced expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, 47 percent of Israeli Jews answered yes to the question: "Do you support the claim that the [Israeli army] in conquering an enemy city, should act in a manner similar to the way the Israelites did when they conquered Jericho under the leadership of Joshua, ie to kill all its inhabitants?" The reference is to the biblical account of the conquest of Jericho.''

@Twentyfirst @Leo Gura Many Red piller based bros agree with this sentiment. Should we now generalize to call Westerners low on development or are red pillers just another toxic off shoot of Western civilization? Like I said above - When Westerners do or think bad it’s excepionalised to be the exception, when non-Westerners do or think bad it’s generalized as the society being low on moral development.

And terrorists from the Middle East aren’t noisy outliers? Jihadists aren’t outliers out of 2 billion Muslims? When Westerners do bad it’s excepionalised to be the exception, when non-Westerners do bad it’s generalized as the society being low on moral development. If Germany can produce Nazism out of privilege and still be called “developed,” how do we justify calling an oppressed population “morally underdeveloped” when their worst elements arise out of desperation, not dominance? Nazis had less excuses as they weren’t stateless or colonized, and had national sovereignty. They were one of the most industrialized, literate, ethnically unified nation states ie “developed” on the horizontal plane, yet committed the worst of the worst on the vertical plane of moral development. I think generalizing development by conflating the two is the issue. ISIS and al-Qaeda came from desperate conditions of despair and humiliation rooted in foreign occupation, colonization, and the collapse of Muslim sovereignty - which Bin Laden gave voice to. It was a legitimate contextual grievance that mutated into fanatic extremism and was dealt with in illegitimate ways - terrorism. Are we to assume the moral position towards colonization is to sit down and do nothing..which isn’t moral development but moral pacification - a colonisers wet dream of course. Islam in particular isn’t a pacifist oriented religion - it doesn’t have the ethos of turn the other cheek and spread the ass cheeks vibe. Or meditate in a cave like Bhudda whilst the village down the mountain burns because realities non-dual lol Generalizing again with word Palestinians rather than attributing terrorist acts to the particular off shoot group - Hamas. Also, when there’s a massive power asymmetry, the weaker side doesn’t get to choose “moral” or “clean” tactics - they’re left with desperate, asymmetric ones. Imagine having no intelligence to pin point and target the state level perpetrators who have caged you in like fish and shoot you in the bowl from time to time, let alone the means (army, navy, airforce) to even go after them. The heck they supposed to do? And the world’s superpower determines if they have a life of dignity or not by vetoing their right to self determination. The world tells these people via internationally enshrined law that THEY are the ones who have the right to self determination in this situation - but when they resist those in the way of denying them that right, by asymmetric and desperate measures, their told their less morally developed. Maybe I should occupy your house so I can observe your moral development. Speaking of homes - I have been taken in like literal family by Middle Easterners to an extent I’ve never experienced in the West. Some of the most loving warm people on the planet.