zazen

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.''

The UN resolution in 1947 was imposed by a colonial era UN, not proposed by a more balanced UN in 1967 which had a Arab bloc representing the Palestinian cause - thus giving it more global legitimacy which is why it formed the basis for all future peace talks and solutions. Also - the population was 33% Jewish and 10% of land was legally owned through preceeding Zionist land purchases : how does that line up with 55% being proportionate based on population or even land ownership? This is why it feels like day light robbery made legal through colonial power. Obviously violence isn’t good or condoned - but this understands where their coming from. Person A deciding how much of person Bs house person C can have. Person B gonna be pissed. I wrote in the other thread: The reason it was seen as unjust (partition) was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence. Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given 55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports. Also the issue remains not just of how much but what kind of land. From AI: The Arab state had no secure or direct links between its three regions. Its sections were separated by Jewish-controlled corridors, meaning movement between them required crossing another sovereign state. It had no central port and limited arable land. So while both maps looked patchy on paper, the difference is that Israel’s map was designed to work, while the Arab one wasn’t. Israel’s side was given: The fertile coast, Ports and infrastructure, Defensible borders, And connected internal routes. The Arab side was given: Fragmented enclaves, Sparse infrastructure, Economic dependency, And disconnected borders. In essence, both were divided — but only one was viable as a state.

Agreed. Thing is it’s usually the one with the power who has the ability to make change - yet they aren’t incentivised to change the status quo because it serves them. Past occupations ended when the cost became too high to maintain. That cost has been absorbed and insulated due to the global hegemon the US shielding and supporting Israel. But now global opinion has shifted hard and the diplomatic, economic and human cost seems to be a burden that’s mounting. Israel obviously has the added complexity of needing to share a small piece of land together (one state) or bordering eachother (two state) - with the same people they have a great deal of animosity between. The trust aspect is going to need to be compensated for by third parties, peacekeeping efforts, a mutual security architecture, integrating Palestine into the regional economy so they have something to lose etc. It has to be done in phases and also exclude Hamas from governance - which I remember they said they’d be willing to step down if it was for a Palestinian state. The fault part is only relevant in the context of recognising who has the power to change the situation but isn’t. Israel can end the occupation, Palestinians can’t end their own occupation - as that’s what being occupied means. They can only try make the occupation costly (uprisings, violence) but that becomes suicidal due the asymmetry in power that will be visited upon them as we have just witnessed. Hope for the best - I think this current deal may actually get an exchange of hostages and a break in fighting but implementation of next steps will stall for various logistical issues and fighting may continue. Hamas for example won’t dis-arm without promises of a Palestinian state - but that hasn’t been explicitly laid out in this proposal as far as I know.

But the Zionist project didn’t want to include them within their “colony” to enjoy that development and wealth. It was to have a majority Jewish state which is why they needed to drive out as many Arabs as possible to make it viable. It wasn’t only about geography but demography. Are you starting to see the situation differently now with all the context? Raze has provided plenty of it as well. I see you keep going further back in history now till 1920. I’d suggest to continue to before Zionism and ask AI about how Muslims / Jews lived in the region. Could scramble your view of the “evil Muslim”.

If someone comes to burgle my house multiple times, and each time I attack them - did I always start the violence? Yeah. But of course I did because I’m the one who somethings being taken from. Showing up with the stated aim of creating a Jewish majority state in a place where 94% of the population is Arab is…kinda provocative no? Such a thing would have violence as a reaction baked into it. The Arabs may always attacked first but the conflict started with the introduction of the Zionist project with its stated aims fully facilitated by a colonial power. There’s a difference between a organic amount of immigration where those coming are settling in along side you vs in-organic mass migration with those coming in along with a colonial power with the aim of displacing you to create their own state ie settler colonialism. “The Arabs always started the violence.” Sure - just like Native Americans “started the violence” by resisting their own genocide. Just like Algerians “started the violence” against the French who only wanted to peacefully colonize them for 130 years. Just like the slaves “started the violence” by running away from plantations. AI 1. The first outbreaks (1919–1921) After World War I, Britain took control of Palestine under the Mandate system. The Balfour Declaration (1917) had promised a “national home for the Jewish people,” while also promising not to harm the rights of the existing inhabitants — but it never defined what that meant in practice. Between 1919–1921, Jewish immigration rose sharply, financed and organized by Zionist agencies. Land purchases followed, and some Arab tenant farmers were evicted when estates changed hands. The local Arab population saw an obvious pattern: a European colonial power was backing a settler movement that spoke openly of creating a separate national homeland on their soil. The first major riots came in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921) — both sparked by rumors that new Jewish arrivals and Zionist parades signaled an imminent takeover. Several dozen people were killed on each side. 2. Why this was political, not religious Before this period, relations between Jews and Muslims in the region were generally stable and often friendly. Long-settled Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed lived under Ottoman rule without systemic persecution. The hostility that emerged after 1917 wasn’t religious in origin — it was about colonialism, sovereignty, and demography: The new immigrants were mostly European and came with political aims (a national revival) rather than simply economic migration. They were protected by the British army and administration. They established separate institutions, farms, and labor unions that excluded Arabs. So the Arab population didn’t suddenly “hate Jews”; they opposed a colonial project that threatened to displace them. 3. The parallel you drew to right-wing populism in Europe is insightful Yes — in both cases, it’s about the perception of rapid, externally driven demographic change and the fear of losing cultural and economic control. But there’s an important difference: In Europe today, immigration happens within a sovereign political system. In Palestine after 1917, the local majority had no sovereignty at all — decisions about their land and population were made by an imperial power that explicitly favored another group. So their backlash wasn’t just “populism” — it was anti-colonial resistance. 4. In short The early Arab violence of 1920–21 wasn’t born from ancient antisemitism. It was born from a modern sense of betrayal — that their homeland was being re-engineered by outsiders, under the banner of another people’s national project. They saw Zionism not as “Jewishness” but as European colonial expansion in a local disguise.

That's the hardest thing to pin down. We've had many high level officials speak in ways that show intent to destroy, punish or settle Gaza haven't we? Or are we supposed to say they aren't in the army so it doesn't matter what their intent is..but then we can't pin down what IDF soldiers intent is either, though some of it has come clear in their videos mocking the destruction and death they cause. Also, policy gets transmitted from the leadership of which we have clearly seen not the best of intent shown. Regardless of intent - I can say my intent is to kill the spider in my room - but I don't burn the whole house down. I can have the intent to blow out a candle and ''only target'' it but then come in with a tornado to do so blowing the entire house down - or even better I use a flamethrower which only keeps the candle flame (which poetically represents Hamas / resistance) alive. It's not enough if your intent is to narrowly target Hamas if you also don't have the intent to avoid harming innocent civilians you collectively punish. The whole place is ruined dude. Firstly, I'm well aware of the history. Secondly, I'm gonna be that guy and say I have family and friends in Israel so may not more than most about the situation. I hate the way in which Israel exists (as an occupying force) and also what its done. But you'll be surprised to know I simultaneously actually feel sorry for the bind the Jewish people find themselves in. They've been persecuted for centuries mainly by and in the West, culminating in the worst of crimes against humanity (Holocaust) which distorted their moral compass to such a extent as to lead them to do what they needed to do, due to survival pressures - to settle a homeland against the very people they historically lived in relative peace with and sought refuge in from persecutions in Europe. Those Palestinians suffered for the crimes of the West. And in order to maintain the state of Israel of as it is requires ongoing violence - which puts Israel in a bind which is that how do you free people who harbor that much anger for what you did to them - if you obviously aren't going anywhere and need to be in close proximity to those same people? It's a fucked up situation and Israel is in a bind of sorts due to the structural logistics of living among or next to the people they have committed those crimes too, unlike other occupiers who could retreat to a safe distance (Britain leaving Kenya or French leaving Algeria for example). The longer this goes on only compounds the issue. And then, US and Western support which Israel relies on a having is being questioned all together as public opinion among citizens in its allied nations plummet. People are suspicious more than ever of any dual loyalty and support for Israel - support Israel very much needs. They are questioning the outsized influence Israel has on their political apparatus. Jews around the world receive increasing discrimination due to be associated with Israels actions - because Israel does what it does and exists how it exists in the name of the Jewish people. I said that this is a political problem that doesn't have a military solution - but you double down on that and default to ''war is war'' essentially might is right. Jews of the past who were persecuted sure wouldn't want to hear that would they. Even if war is the path you want to take - that only works if that war is total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing - which the worlds norms has shifted far from. If you think Israel existing with that stain is good for it then be my guest. But the current situation of occupation is unsustainable, your solution of all out war is inhumane and will not bode well for Israel long term - and the only solution left which is a political one will require a leap of faith and trust in the process. A trust in that providing Palestinian the dignity of statehood and rights would tame their pain and any intent on revenge. That having a state introduces incentives that tame those instincts due to having something to lose which is the very state they struggled for - including their own legitimacy as a new found state in the world community. I wrote about why Jews have unfairly been hated down the centuries here:

UN Definition “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 1. Killing members of the group; 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.“ The definition of looking unlivable. Zios will say they hit Hamas though.

As it says in the beginning of your paragraph - the violence mainly broke out after the UN vote. No one obviously condones all the violence that follows - but the question has to be asked why? And then another question is why is one UN vote acknowledged as unjust while another isn't? For example - those for the Palestinian cause and most of the world have consensus around the 1967 UN resolution rather than the 1947 one 20 years earlier, but why? The reason is that the 1947 resolution partitioned Palestine without the consent of its inhabitants. Arabs and Palestinians rejected it outright as a foreign imposed plan that violated self-determination. It was passed by a colonial era UN where most of the Global South had no vote. It created Israel through external legitimacy, not negotiated legitimacy and it basically carried a stain of a colonial imposition. The reason it was seen as unjust was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence. Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given 55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports. The 1967 resolution on the other hand is accepted as the basis for peace by consensus. Because 20 years later the UN also changed to reflect more of the world after decolonization and new members getting absorbed into it. 1947 UN was a institute that belonged to the age of empire, 1967 UN was more balanced and reflective for a new age of diplomacy. But even then and still till today - it is structurally biased and is trying to be reformed. ''The UN Security Council is built on the power structure of 1945, not the reality of the 21st century. It enshrines who won World War II, not who represents humanity today.'' For example - the the 5 permanent members are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. They can veto decisions made by all the rest. No representation of the Global South or even the Middle East or Muslim world which makes up a quarter of the population. The rotating 10 seats of the non-permanent members is just a charade if their votes can be vetoed by the permanent 5 anyway. But even among that 10 there's no dedicated category for the Middle East: Chat GPT ''Non-Permanent Members (10 seats, elected for 2-year terms): They rotate among regional blocs: 3 for Africa 2 for Asia-Pacific 2 for Latin America & the Caribbean 2 for Western Europe & Others 1 for Eastern Europe'' @BlueOak This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists. Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD, UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns. I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc. Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ). And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

@Nivsch Of course they'd rather live there than anywhere else - that's their home. Beside that, the quality of life is much better than other countries in the Middle East which have been destabilized and war torn. That doesn't mean there isn't discrimination within Israel or that Israel isn't committing crimes against Palestinian elsewhere such as in the West Bank or Gaza. The logic of colonial powers used to be “Look how well the natives live under us compared to their neighbors.” Using Arab citizens as a moral shield is a common Zionist talking point. But coexistence in one sector doesn’t erase systemic domination in another, or the discrimination faced by those coexisting. I have family (in-laws) in Israel, mainly Nazareth which was shown at the start of OP's video - they are living well but obviously not perfectly. They wouldn't live anywhere else because that's their home. But they are also angry about the injustices taking place in West Bank and Gaza - they rarely talk about it out of fear of being picked up via surveillance or questioned. Most Palestinians are just getting by and keep quiet because they don't want to ruffle any feathers and get into trouble. They know of whats going on but avoid talking or sharing too much via social media, whatsapp etc in case their stopped, interrogated etc. Again - in the interviews you won't always get entirely honest answers when their face is on camera due to this same reasoning. Beside the West Bank and Gaza, the two most blatant examples in how Palestinians are treated unequally are the land/zoning laws and the 2018 Nation-State Law. From AI: ''1. Land and housing laws Around 93% of Israel’s land is owned or administered by the state or the Jewish National Fund (JNF). The JNF’s charter specifies that this land is to be used “for the benefit of the Jewish people.” As a result, Arab towns rarely receive permits to expand, even though their populations have grown dramatically. Entire Arab villages (especially in the Negev) are “unrecognized” — meaning no water, electricity, or schools, and frequent demolitions. ➡️ Example: Al-Araqib, a Bedouin village in the Negev, has been demolished over 200 times since 2010. 2. The 2018 Nation-State Law This Basic Law officially defines Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” It states that only Jews have the right to national self-determination, downgrades Arabic from an official language, and promotes Jewish settlement as a national value. In practice, it constitutionally cements second-class status for 20% of citizens who are Arab.'' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law

@Breakingthewall @Raze Adding to your conversation from AI (battle of the AI’s lol) 1. Colonialism evolved beyond the outdated 19th-century definition Classical colonialism (Britain–India, France–Algeria) involved imperial control from a metropolis. But by the 20th century, scholars recognized a distinct form: settler colonialism, where the settlers themselves are the colonizing force, often backed by imperial sponsorship rather than direct rule. Key examples: United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa. None of these were “metropolis-based” empires by the end — they were settler projects that displaced indigenous populations to build new sovereign homelands. Israel’s case parallels those, not the British Raj. 2. Zionism had imperial sponsorship — the “no metropolis” claim is false While Zionists weren’t acting “for” an empire, their success was enabled by one: The British Empire’s Balfour Declaration (1917) explicitly endorsed “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Britain administered Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which institutionalized Zionist immigration and land acquisition while restricting Arab political autonomy. That is a colonial relationship: a foreign empire facilitating settlement by a non-indigenous group against the will of the local population. 3. “They legally purchased land” — factually partial Yes, some land was purchased, but most of it was: Bought from absentee Ottoman landlords, not from the peasants living on it. Later acquired through force after 1948, when 700,000+ Palestinians were expelled or fled (Nakba). By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest. 4. The indigenous presence argument Continuous Jewish presence in small numbers does not make 20th-century European migration a “return” in the political sense. Using ancient ancestry as justification for modern displacement is like: Italians claiming Tunisia because Rome once ruled it, or Hindus claiming Afghanistan because of ancient Gandhara. Historical connection ≠ political entitlement. 5. The correct academic classification Modern historians and political theorists (Patrick Wolfe, Lorenzo Veracini, Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, among others) classify Zionism as settler colonialism because it meets the structural criteria: - External migration backed by imperial power. - Establishment of exclusive sovereignty. - Displacement and replacement of the native population. - Creation of separate legal and political systems privileging settlers. Whether motivated by religion, nationalism, or survival doesn’t change the structure. _____

AI: ''In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993). Since then, the Palestinian Authority has officially recognized Israel and sought a two-state solution. Hamas, yes, originally rejected Israel’s legitimacy—but even Hamas has, in later statements, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as a “long-term truce,” implicitly recognizing Israel’s existence within those limits.'' All members of the Arab League and later the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which includes 57 Muslim majority countries have adopted the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which includes recognition of Israel in exchange for Palestine statehood just as the Indonesian president says in his speech. They've maintained this position till today. No one at a serious level is calling for the disappearance of Israel or that it doesn't have the right to exist. But I get what you mean in terms of there being a lot of hate and rage against Israel among every day people - this is true. And now this rage isn't only in the Middle East or among Muslims but now in much of the world. The difference is that states behave differently to people - so the rhetoric we hear on the streets shouldn't be extrapolated out to the level of the state. I actually wrote about this before here:

@Breakingthewall Under Israel’s Law of Return (1950), any Jew - including converts - has the automatic right to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. That includes you in Spain papi - even with no ethnic or genealogical connection to the region. Meanwhile a Palestinian whose family can trace continuous residence in Jerusalem, Jaffa, or Haifa for hundreds of years has no such right to return if they were expelled or fled in 1948. That’s why many scholars and critics describe the system as ethnoreligious privilege built into a settler-national framework. That’s how we get Jacob from Brooklyn settling his ass all the way in the Middle East:

Settler colonialism isn't merely interested in the resources of new lands, but also in the land itself in which to carve out a new homeland. The obvious issue is that if people already inhabit the land you must create a justification for displacing them from it. The common ''a land without a people for a people without a land“ slogan. Settler colonialism is when: people from elsewhere arrive to permanently settle, they aim to replace or subordinate the existing population, they establish political dominance, they're backed by imperial/colonial power (Britain). That's exactly what Zionism was: European and other Jews immigrating, explicitly aiming to create a Jewish-majority state (requiring demographic replacement), backed by British colonial power (Balfour Declaration, British Mandate), establishing political structures (Yishuv institutions) to govern independently of existing population Herzl who is one of the founders of political Zionism wrote to Cecil Rhodes in 1902 (a notorious colonizer) framing the issue as a colonial project that Britain should get behind: “You are being invited to help make history,” he wrote, “It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor ; not Englishmen, but Jews . How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.” Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that: “A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.” Zionism as a ambition for a homeland is noble, but the logistical reality of the land in which they want to make home already being inhabitated requires viewing Palestinians as obstacles to be removed, subordinated, or in your own words treated as "mentally retarded" people who need violence to understand that they aren't truly being oppressed like slaves. Every piece of land on Earth has been inhabited by different groups over millennia. A connection from 2,000 years ago doesn't override the rights of people currently living there. The Jewish immigrants coming in the 1900s-1940s were Europeans (Ashkenazi), Middle Eastern (Mizrahi), and others who had lived elsewhere for generations. They weren't "returning home" in any meaningful sense - their great great great grandparents many many many generations back may have lived there, but they didn't. From AI ''If Native Americans were persecuted, fled, and returned 1,000 years later, would that be colonialism? It depends on how they return. Scenario A (not colonialism): Native Americans return Integrate into existing American society Seek minority rights, cultural recognition, maybe some land back through negotiation Live alongside current inhabitants Scenario B (colonialism): Native Americans return with European backing Declare they're creating a "Native American state" Start immigrating en masse to achieve demographic majority Establish separate institutions Use force to expel or subordinate current inhabitants Create a state where only Native Americans have full rights or are the majority where they can politically dominate Scenario B is colonialism, even if they're "indigenous." Because what matters isn't where your ancestors lived 1,000 years ago - it's what you're doing now to people currently living there. And Zionism was Scenario B. Strip away the narrative and look at material reality: - People (many from Europe) arrived - To a place where other people lived - With explicit goal of creating a state where they'd be majority - Backed by colonial power (Britain) - Displaced existing population to achieve demographic dominance - Used force to maintain it That's colonialism, regardless of ancient ancestry claims.'' Ancient claims don’t override the rights of current inhabitants - otherwise every border on Earth becomes contestable. Religious affiliation isn’t a land title either. Judaism spread as a religion, not a single ethnic line, so the idea of a universal '‘Jewish return'’ often means people whose ancestors converted to Judaism claiming territory on religious grounds. That’s like saying two billion Muslims have a right to ‘'return'’ to the holy land of Saudi Arabia for some of that oil wealth - clearly absurd. Jews from Poland, Russia, or Ethiopia claiming automatic right of return to Palestine on religious grounds raises the same issue. Most early Zionist settlers were Ashkenazi Jews who’d lived in Europe for over a thousand years - yet ancestry alone can’t justify displacing others. Building states based on genetic ancestry leads to ethnonationalism and exclusion of others based on genetics such as Hitlers Germany. Note how all those incidents occurred after the introduction of a particular idea (Zionism) backed by a colonial power. From AI ''There were political and religious elements. But why were those effective in mobilizing people? Because there was a real, material threat to address. You can't incite a population to violence against a threat that doesn't exist. Arab leaders pointed to Jewish immigration and said "they're coming to take the land and create a state" - and they were right. That wasn't paranoid incitement - that was accurate description of the Zionist project's explicit goals. From the First Zionist Congress (1897), the stated aim was creating a Jewish homeland/state in Palestine. By the 1920s, this wasn't hidden - it was public Zionist policy. So when Arab leaders said "they want to seize the land," that wasn't a lie or distortion. It was literally true. Religious framing (threats to holy sites, etc.) was the mobilization tool, but the underlying cause was the political reality of settler colonialism.''

AI failed me. That sucks and no one can condone it - but it is understandable in the larger context which is that Israel withdrew from Gaza but didn't withdraw their control over Gaza. The withdrawal was seen as a reconfiguration of occupation by simply moving the troops to the periphery. If I'm in a toilet that's occupied you don't need to be sitting on my lap to occupy and exert control over me - you standing outside the cubicle not letting me out also counts as exerting occupational control over me. This is why things need to be part of a peace process that has a political horizon resolving the root issue. Israel withdrawing unilaterally which isn't in the context or framework of them doing so as part of a phased peace plan with a political path to Palestinian statehood (whether its one state with equal rights or two separate ones) isn't ending the conditions that perpetuate Hamas to want to continue firing rockets. The logic of "we can't give them freedom because they're violent" just creates a circular trap where the conditions that generate desperation and violence are maintained, then the violence is cited as proof those conditions must continue. This is flipping cause and effect. It says Palestinians are denied freedom because they’re violent - when in reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom. If the argument is that Hamas can’t be trusted because of its violent past, history itself refutes that logic. Movements engaged in armed struggle often transition into political actors once their grievances are acknowledged and negotiations become genuine. Terrorism didn’t disqualify the Zionist or Irish independence movements - Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel and became Prime Minister of Israel. So did Yitzhak Shamir who was part of Stern gang and who ''the British arrested twice for his militant activities.''. The IRA bombed London and got the Good Friday Agreement. The ANC used violence and got South Africa. You don't de-radicalize people by keeping them in radicalizing conditions. Piers Morgan always used to say he's in a moral quagmire with this situation - I don't think its much of a moral quagmire as much as it is a logistical one. Theirs pretty much global consensus and moral clarity on what the problem and solution is which is to end occupation and establish a path to Palestinian rights / statehood rather than them being indefinitely left in a limbo of statelessness. It's about how to get there in a low-trust environment which is why third parties need to be involved. The problem is that the worlds unipolar hegemon has no pressure or incentive to change the status quo but instead underwrites the entire situation - maybe that's slowly changing now. In past liberation struggles there were costs inflicted on the occupier that made them end their occupation. This is why much discourse and anger is targeted towards the US - rightly so. It comes down to a few key points 1. A political problem can't be resolved with a military solution. The military solution only works if its total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing. Fortunately or unfortunately for some this isn't possible today as it was in the past (Australia or USA being settled) because the norms have changed. 2. You can't de-radicalize people by keeping them in the same conditions that caused them to become radical - siege, humiliation, and statelessness. 3. The argument of Palestinians being denied freedom because they’re violent flips cause and affect. In reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom. 4. Every liberation movement had radicals and fighters once branded as terrorists, yet they all transitioned into legitimate governance once a political path opened. Statehood incentives behaviour in such a way that being stateless doesn't - because in the former you have stake in something you can lose, in the latter you have nothing to lose. 5. Palestinian rights and statehood isn't in question - that has been settled by global consensus. It's the implementation of it in a low trust environment which requires third party mediation but that is blocked by the current uni-polar hegemon who claims to be the mediator. The US is a key variable in perpetuating the injustice of this status quo.

@Breakingthewall According to your worldview people should be grateful to have a more developed people govern them - colonialism is legitimate to you so it’s all okay. You should make colonialism a fashionable again - make Spain great again hombre. Go re conquer South America maybe? Trumps already making a start with Venezuela with the largest oil reserves so you could tag along. I want to see you on a superyatch in Ibiza or Marbella next year with your new colonial riches.

- Complicity in a plausible genocide that should have been prevented from actualising into a full on genocide “ ICJ declared Israel guilty of genocide — that determination could take years — but it did mean the Court found the claim “plausible enough” to warrant urgent restraint. Under international law, that ruling was a binding warning: states party to the Genocide Convention (which includes most of the world) are obligated to prevent genocide once there’s a plausible risk. Despite that, no major power acted — the U.S. continued arming Israel, Europe largely stood by, and international institutions were effectively ignored. So, yes: historians will likely look back on that as one of the clearest moments when the world had both legal and moral clarity, and still did nothing.“ - Also AI fakes of people distorting our reality, short form content scrolling that rewires and brain rots us. Oh and Onlyfans.

AI: “Zionism as a political movement started in the 1890s: • First Zionist Congress: 1897 (Basel, Switzerland) • Theodor Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State): 1896 • Zionist settlement in Palestine (the Yishuv) began ramping up in the early 1900s By the 1920s, the Zionist project was well underway: • The Balfour Declaration: 1917 (Britain promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine) • Jewish immigration was increasing significantly • Land purchases were displacing Palestinian farmers • The explicit goal of creating a Jewish state was public and active So the 1920s violence happened AFTER Zionist settlement had begun, not before. The 1929 Hebron massacre, for example - horrific violence against Jewish civilians - happened in a context where: • Zionist immigration had been increasing for decades • Palestinian Arabs were seeing demographic change and land loss • The British Mandate was actively facilitating Jewish settlement • Palestinians correctly perceived this as a colonial project that would dispossess them This doesn’t justify killing civilians - ever. But it means the violence wasn’t emerging from “ancient hatred” or religious antagonism during centuries of coexistence. It was a response to an active settler-colonial project that was already displacing people. Compare the timeline: • Pre-1890s: Centuries of relative coexistence (not perfect, but no systematic violence comparable to what came later) • 1890s-1920s: Zionist settlement begins and accelerates • 1920s-1940s: Violence increases as Palestinians realize they’re being dispossessed • 1948: Nakba - 750,000 Palestinians expelled, Israel created • 1948-present: Ongoing conflict The violence tracks with the Zionist project, not with Jewish presence in the region. Jews lived in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen for centuries without provoking mass violence. What changed wasn’t “Jews living there” - it was “a European colonial movement arriving to create an ethnostate on land where people already lived.” So when people cite 1920s violence as proof of ancient hatred: They’re either ignorant of the timeline (Zionism was already active) or deliberately obscuring cause and effect. By the 1920s, Palestinians were already being displaced. The violence was a response to colonization, not unprovoked religious hatred. Does this justify attacking Jewish civilians? Absolutely not. But it explains the cause - and the cause wasn’t “Muslims hate Jews inherently.” It was “people resist being colonized.” The same way Algerians violently resisted French colonization, Indians resisted British colonization, Vietnamese resisted French and American intervention. That doesn’t mean the violence against civilians was justified - but it means the cause was political displacement, not inherent ethnic or religious hatred. So no - 1920s violence doesn’t undermine the coexistence argument. It actually proves it. For centuries, coexistence was possible. Violence erupted when a settler-colonial project began actively dispossessing one population to make room for another. That’s not “ancient hatred” - that’s predictable resistance to colonization. And frankly, if Zionism had never happened, there’s no reason to think Jewish communities in the Middle East couldn’t have continued existing as they had for centuries - as minorities within Muslim-majority societies, sometimes marginalized, sometimes thriving, but not facing systematic expulsion or extermination. The catastrophic violence came with the colonial project, not before it.“ But wasn’t this all done legally through land purchases? After 1917, the British Mandate actively facilitated Zionist settlement through: • The Balfour Declaration promising a Jewish homeland (without consulting Palestinians) • Immigration policies favoring Jewish settlers • Legal frameworks that made it easier for Zionist organizations to purchase land • Military protection for Jewish settlements So “legal” meant “legal under a colonial administration that Palestinians never consented to and that was explicitly working against their interests.” If someone colonizes your country, sets up a legal system, and then uses that system to dispossess you - is that legitimate? It’s “legal” within that imposed framework, but the framework itself was illegitimate. The demographic reality By 1947: • Jewish population had grown from ~6% (1918) to ~33% through immigration • Palestinians went from ~94% to ~67% • This wasn’t natural demographic change - it was planned settlement Palestinians saw this happening and correctly understood: “This project aims to make us a minority in our own land, then create a state we’ll have no say in.” That’s not paranoia - that was the explicit Zionist goal. Create facts on the ground through immigration and land purchase until a Jewish state becomes viable. So when violence erupted in the 1920s-1940s, it wasn’t because of “illegal” squatting necessarily - it was because Palestinians recognized the political project behind the “legal” purchases: • You’re not just buying some land • You’re systematically changing the demographics • You’re building the foundation for a state that will dispossess us • And you’re doing it with British colonial backing Compare to other colonial contexts: European settlers in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa also often made “legal” land purchases or received “legal” grants from colonial authorities. Does that make French Algeria, British Kenya, or Apartheid South Africa legitimate? The law itself was imposed by colonial power. Following that law doesn’t make the underlying project just.”

What do you think they should do? How should they start the path of coexistence and how does coexistence look to you - a one state solution with equal rights, a two state solution or an apartheid state? You said on the other thread that you think imperial Japan should have been nuked 3 times - so I’m curious to know your opinion? The international community has told the Palestinians they have a right to a state. That right is blocked. They fight those who block it. If you win the lottery to a million dollars it is your legitimate right to have that million dollars - you are entitled to it. If it is withheld from you and you start pursuing a legal fight for it - will people call you mad for doing so? And the Palestinian case is something far more serious. Winning a million dollars and being denied it is a financial theft. Being promised a homeland and being denied it is an existential theft of dignity, freedom, and nationhood. You may say they need to prove they’re worthy of that right but that’s not how inalienable rights work. Perhaps you should prove yourself sane enough to vote in democracy with some of the views you have.

Damn my grammar sucks there. I corrected it '' Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in.'' Your not understanding the root cause of the issue. People don't just get a fetish for matrydom from no where and become that radical - which I agree is an issue - we just disagree how it needs to be tackled. If Palestinians ever reach a statehood that would bring them dignity, security, economic prosperity and rights - their logic to go to war would drop faster than a old mans balls. Statehood creates stakeholderhip because they now have something to lose in a war of annihilation - which is a independent state they've struggled for decades for. Right now they have nothing to lose. Radical conditions radicalizes them - so reduce the radical conditions to de-radicalise them. Extremism thrives in humiliation, hopelessness, and blockade. Its not because of China and Russia though. It's because of structural changes of the world order and the Wests position in it + our own system's internal contradictions reaching crisis point. Its a response to a changing order from a uni-polar one where the West reigns supreme to a multi-polar one they no longer do. Those internal contradictions coming to a head are: decades of neoliberalism hollowing out the middle class, financialization concentrating wealth upward, de-industrialization destroying the working class, surveillance capitalism eroding privacy, corporate capture of democratic institutions, rising inequality, immigration and cultural change + economic anxiety = reactionary politics. China, Russia or Iran didn't do any of that to us - our own elites and special interest class did - who sold their actions as being for the national interest when it was anything but. China and Russia opportunistically exploit those vulnerabilities but didn't create them. Multi-polarity isn't emerging because the West chose it but because they couldn't prevent it. So the order is changing and the Wests privileged position in it is ending - the economic pie is shrinking including our ability to capture new pies being grown elsewhere (China+developing world). Western societies are responding in various ways to compensate for that loss - right wing nationalism and authoritarian leaning is one of them. Whats BRICS are doing is reshuffling their positions in that order by challenging it or building alternatives as a hedge to gain leverage. Just see how they talk defiantly at the UN compared to 20 years ago. They reveal that Western primacy isn't natural or inevitable but that it was structural and temporary. Because you like to think Europe as a innocent bystander in this system rather than a preferential partner that disproportionately benefits from it - I'll bring up a clear example to the contrary using Chat GPT: ''France has maintained a direct neocolonial system in Francophone Africa for decades through: The CFA Franc system: -14 African countries forced to deposit 50% (formerly 65%) of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury -France controls their monetary policy -France profits from interest on those reserves -African countries need French approval to access their own money above certain thresholds This system extracts wealth from some of the poorest countries on Earth directly into French coffers.This isn't ancient history. This is current European imperial extraction. And now? These countries are kicking France out: Mali expelled French forces (2022) Burkina Faso expelled French forces (2023) Niger expelled French forces (2023). Multiple countries demanding a end to CFA Franc.'' You don't need to be the main boss (US) in the system, you can be on the inside circle that benefits from it more than others within that same system who get exploited. This status quo was simply assumed to exist indefinitely - until now. France maintained its own mini-empire within that broader Western built order. Britain did the same through Commonwealth structures. Westerners have enjoyed privilege within the structure, that privilege is now being challenged. And that's called a threat to survival when its a threat to dominance. These survival pressures which aren't existential but are pressures against an assumed dominance which the loss of is now distorting our politics. I'd say the best way to be left alone is leave others alone - but the hard truths is it that Europe can't afford to isolate itself due to the lack of resources on its own continent. It actually needs to interact with other but on a more equitable basis. This is a large reason for it needing to colonially expand in the past into regions which actually had resources it could bolster its empire from. China is also vulnerable in the same way but even worse - not only does it lack cheap energy but food security - but they plugged those vulnerabilities by building win-win partnerships and trade with countries to supply what it needed. You have called that imperialism in the past. Palestinians weren't there either - they were instead born into stateless occupation. Neither current Israelis or Palestinians chose their birth conditions. But Israelis have state power and agency to change the situation that Palestinians don't. That asymmetry means the responsibility for breaking the cycle falls more heavily on those with power. The "threats" Israel faces are largely produced by the ongoing occupation. Ending occupation would do more for Israeli security than any military operation - but that would require giving up territorial control and settlement expansion. Palestinians face actual erasure as a people in their homeland - through gradual displacement, settlement expansion, denial of statehood, no path to sovereignty. If we're talking about "survival" - Palestinian national survival is far more threatened than Israeli state survival. Russia was never truly brought in as a friend - only a tolerated supplier. So Russia hasn't really created any new enemies, only revealed those who always viewed it as a civilizational ''other'' to be contained despite benefiting from its resources. Most of the world is still trading with Russia and not toeing the line of isolating them. Israel however has created new enemies. Not among the states that neighbor it, but in global consensus and sentiment - including the shift in opinion of citizens in its very own allied nations. Despite Israels behaviour - state level threats are gone and still haven't emerged from its ''hostile neighbourhood''. This proves my point that they don't have a state level threat that is existential. It's Middle Eastern neighbors worked hard at diplomacy and de-escalation instead of waging war on Israel for its crimes. Israels continued actions only radicalized non-state actors who don't have the means to inflict existential level threats to it's existence. As far as Iran is concerned the Ayatollah here clarifies their rhetoric. It's not about random hatred towards Westerners per se but their governments foreign policy and actions. This clip is 6 years old yet how relevant when he says not to trust the West in negotiation - remember when just this year in negotiation with the US/Israel they got attacked. https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-an-israeli-american-deception-campaign-lulled-iran-into-a-false-sense-of-security/ ''Israel clearly hoped the Iranians would believe there was no way it would attack before the Sunday talks. On all fronts, Israel sought to put forth an air of business as usual. Trump contributed to the effort. “He played the game together with Israel,” said the Israeli official. “It was a whole coordination.” And again with ''negotiation'' talks in Qatar where the negotiators got struck. How can you negotiate a peace if you kill the negotiators?

Your links not false but also not relevant to what I said - I said Muslims and Jews have lived quite peacefully (relatively) for centuries and that Hamas is a blip and aberration in that relationship - not that Israel is a blip. Who knows - perhaps Jews wouldn't even be in Jerusalem today had Saladin not recaptured it from the Crusaders who barred Jews from there. Saladin invited Jewish families from across the region to settle there again. Identity based hostility and violence to the degree we're seeing today can be traced mainly to Zionism in modern history. He forbade looting and revenge against Christians when they retook the holy land - ransomed rather than slaughtered captives, personally paid for the freedom of the poor and protected Christian holy sites unlike the adversary. Richard the Lionheart admired him to the extent they exchanged gifts and Richard even sent his physician to treat him when he fell ill. Just goes to show that though there are cycles and principles of power that are timeless - not all power is exercised the same way. Ignore the 9/11 conspiratorial take in the following: EUROPE Doesn't suit your framing, does it? That's why you always dismiss it or say oh its not important but at the same time we'll villify the people there. Like Israel. They are not the good guys to you. Your side. Apparently, because we don't have a military and are not shooting at everyone to you Zazen we don't count. You argue against your own points. So we get a military, we start throwing our weight around, do we get to be left alone then? No, we'll be the bad guys again, not on your side Zazen. Because, unless you are allied with BRICS or just taking whatever is being thrown at us, we're the bad guy. Israel fights back, and what it does it get, vilified as being the bad guys. Utterly gaslit from start to finish by both of you and half the people here. I make an obvious post designed to get twenty-four into: You can see this in the US but not in Russia, Iran, China and BRICS, and you walk hook line and sinker into it. This boggled my mind with the number of debates we've had about America being as bad as everyone else. Self reflect that America is not infact Europe, for just a few minutes. Then the rest of it. You just like to couch it in some fight for liberation. I swear I might as well be listening to an American 30 years ago. That's why I said America AND the Western led order. They are distinct from the US which is the clear unipolar hegemon but they exist as preferential partners and allies within that order - that are also taken advantage of when it suits the hegemon, as we are seeing today. If they truly want to be left out of great power competition then they need to build their own defense capabilities to gain strategic autonomy and sovereignty - and act accordingly. Wanting to be left alone also requires actually leaving others alone. Israel uses the US to dominate the region through. Europe outsourced its security to the US who does more of the dirty work of upholding the current order they benefit from. You can't be part of an expansionist military alliance, participate in its structure and antics (NATO-Libya, Afghanistan Yugoslavia and other covert ops), benefit from it's global dominance and financial supremacy through dollar liquidity, swap lines and tagging along in sanction programmes to naughty countries - then claim victim hood when targets of that system resist that very order containing it - a order in which you are a junior partner to the final boss (US) in that system. The security, prosperity (social welfare) and diplomatic power both Europe and Israel have enjoyed have heavily depended on being central players in that order. Also - they very much do everything they can to not have daddy US leave them - que the picture of them sitting around Trump like school kids not wanting to be left alone. They begrudgingly want the superpower capabilities of the US on their side to continue to benefit from that arrangement even if it cuts into their sovereignty some what. It’s like living in the empires mansion that imperialism built but distancing yourself as a morally clean bystander because you don’t hold the whip. That’s why the order is referred to as Western despite being US led - because it is and it’s institutions were built by the West post WW2. That order is now breaking down, along with Euro leaders breaking down in tears for losing their benefits and place in it. They got comfortable and indulged progressive fantasies of green energy and mass migration assimilation because someone else lifted the hard weight of survival. Europe’s moralism is a luxury afforded by American militarism. Their only soft and grandstand about their “values”because they outsourced the need to be hard and survive just like anyone else. If you acknowledge that order - then it logically follows that the actors we are talking about are acting within that current order - and where they are within that order and how they are treated within that order (contained vs pampered) will determine how they act or react. I did also say that states can act independent of that order and not everything can be blamed on it. Not every protest is going to be a regime change operation despite the clear track record and evidence of the US perfecting that art (US-UK couping Iran in 1953 for example). Or maybe because we are being bombed and European or Israeli civilians deliberately targeted while you whitewash over it all on your own moral highground, and the authoritarian powers just remove countries and cultures they don't like, all in the name of liberation, I did say Western violence gets framed as policy, everyone else's as pathology - acknowledging that others can be or are violent. I'm not denying others aggression or threats of it - I'm saying there's asymmetry in how that aggression is talked about or understood based on who does it and why. And the causal chain gets erased to frame the latest act of aggression as if it comes out of a vacuum - that the one doing it is simply aggressive by nature, culture, psychology - to the point of not wanting to live on the same planet as them lol. Speaking of that causal chain - that is where things get messy because as we said - you can frame something differently depending on where you decide the starting point is. That's probably the most important point which I'll cover below along with the other parts that are related ie historic rhetoric, proper survival assessment, systemic analysis vs psychoanalysis. Because it suits your framing the best. Despite the fact China keeps quoting things from thousands of years ago, and Russia from the previous millennium. And this particular war does exactly the same. People just pick a point in time and say ah.... we'll go with that. You are again arguing against your own chain points. Get out of linear thinking for a heartbeat and move into a global recognised consciousness that this is human behavior, and until you can universally and without bias can see that everyone is engaging in it, because they are the world, then you'll always be cherry-picking which parts you like or dislike through a narrow lens. FINALLY. YES. Why did I moralise. Look at the original post I responded to. It was a morality argument. I can go up spiral dynamics, down or stay with morality. Survival is as base at it comes (which wasn't morality by the way, that is the point) Most of your post is moralizing if you hadn't realised on the re-read. With a few linear systemic points made. Yes western society is at stake. Its shifting authoritarian due to Chinese and Russian meddling. Which will cause nationalism and further war. Moreover Russia is threatening to kill us all and waging wars of terror. But again the whole point of this was Europe and Israel. Sadly you are unable to assign the agency necessary to discuss the countries in question, or in this case an entire continent. Which again boggles my mind but hey ho, we are where we are Ancient claims and assessing threats Israel also makes ancient claims. States invoke older history for legitimacy - it's not about whether ancient claims are allowed rhetorically but about whether they justify current actions. Israel makes ancient claims within and protected by Western hegemony to dispossess people right now. That's materially different from China or Russia invoking history while challenging that same hegemony and responding defensively to threats from that hegemon. Russia also uses historical claims (Ukraine isn't real, historical Russian lands) to justify what is also a response to strategic encirclement. The historical rhetoric obscures the defensive logic, but the defensive logic still exists within which to understand its actions. If we strip away Putin's speeches about Ukrainian history and look at the strategic picture - Russia is reacting to an alliance expanding toward its borders to a country that is being used as a launchpad through which to weaken it on its flank. This has been laid out in think tank papers only a arrogant hegemon would have the audacity to make public. Russia's defensiveness is real due to a accurate assessment of the threat - even if their response and rhetoric are wrong to the point they blur the lines of their defensive logic and make us question their motives (imperial vs defensive). Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in. Israel claims existential threat - but from who? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalized. Syria is destroyed. Iran is far away and only retaliated after Israel directly struck it. Their threat is exhaustion from proxies (that Iran backs yes) and non-state actors who emerge because of the unresolved Palestinian issue. That's not an existential threat to the state - that's blowback from perpetual occupation which is the root cause of the issue. The "sea of hatred" narrative is increasingly detached from a actual state level threat. On time frame and systemic analysis I said everyone's actions have deeper roots to the point we get into the chicken or the egg argument - ultimately blaming God who started it all. So then what time do we pick to analyse events? if we go too far back it becomes too detached from the current reality to be pragmatic in understanding and resolving it, if we just go with the latest actions our analysis is surface level and symptoms based rather than root based. That's why we look at things systemically - and therefore look at the current system within which events take place. Every major actor is responding to the rules, pressures, and limitations within that system and order. The structure of that system defines where actors sit in the hierarchy of that ''rules based order'' and that positioning shapes their psychology, strategy and actions. A country not deemed a threat or that is allied with the hegemon in that system will behave and be responded to differently to a country deemed as a threat and challenge. This doesn't erase agency of countries but it explains how their agency is being exercised. I'm not denying the psychology, human nature or agency of those actors but grounding it in a structure they exist in and respond to. You say everyone engages in human behaviour, implying that humans behave as they always do ''because they are the world''. Your correct in that there are constants of human nature, and observable patterns and cycles of power - we're in one right now (thucydides trap). You’re describing continuity of nature and instinct but there is also a evolution of context within which that nature exists and manifests - in this case the system in which that nature exists. Human nature existing in the world of digital and junk food abundance we have today will manifest differently to cave man times of scarcity. A lion in a savannah acts differently than one in a cage. Same animal, different environment - and the behavior we observe is shaped just as much by the cage, not just the claws. The rules of power in the 1800s when Russia fought for land and resources aren't the same as in the 21st century where we have nuclear deterrence, economic interdependence, and a digital globalised world world with technology. That’s why 1945 and 1991 are the practical cutoff points - not to cherry pick, but because those were the moments when the entire global structure was redefined to create the current order - from which we can make sense of geopolitics today. Structures change, and when they do - the logic of behavior changes with them. We’re now witnessing the breakdown of the unipolar order that’s defined global behavior since 1991, and the emergence of a multipolar one - if we survive the transition. Once that shift completes, a new set of rules, norms, and incentives will shape how nations act - and any future analysts will have to take into account that new order in which to make sense of the geopolitics of that time. The Thucydides trap exists because we’re still stuck between these two orders that are now in a tug of war. On moralizing My critique can be moral but not moralistic - I said in my full comment that ''Israeli's aren't the problem, the way they are acting upon their survival is''. I don't view them as inherently less than or as a caricature of evil - I can understand yet not condone the actions they felt they needed to take due to survival pressures after the Holocaust. But seeing their actions against Hamas isn't defense and I do morally stand against that. No one says they don't have a right to self defense, its that they can't use that as a excuse to dominate and collectively punish Palestinians at large. If you get robbed or beat up at home or place of work - defense means securing your home or place of work with security, cameras, and some muscle and skill to handle any future nonsense coming to your door again. Sure, it's just to also pursue those criminals out in town. But you don't burn or demolish the town in the process. Israel has periodically or totally cut food, aid, water and electricity before. They've destroyed something like 70% of the buildings and displaced 90% of the people which have no where left to go and winter fast approaching. They even block any aid coming from sea via flotillas. This is not defense and has little to no defensive logic to it. My analysis is mostly structural and systemic. That structure isn't neutral. Some actors built it, maintain it, and benefit from it more than others. Actors are reacting to survival pressures they have within that structure - that you acknowledge come primarily before morality. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy within that structure by the ones who lead it claiming their own survival needs are primary whilst others are secondary or non-existent. Security architectures are supposed to address multiple actors survival needs, but non-Western aligned nations survival needs take a back seat in the current system. As just one example - India scolded to stop buying cheap Russian oil that is helping 100s of millions claw their way out from poverty that is no easy task.

The election wasn’t accepted - neither was the acknowledgment of 1967 borders which is and has been the baseline for any credible peace plan. That’s simply the bare minimum that the international community has consensus on. So start from that basis and hammer in all the finer details after that. One of those detail is that the West Bank is a tricky concern for Israeli security because of its vantage point over looking Tel Aviv - so some arrangement probably would have to be made for it. No side wants the other to be militarized there - so probably some sort of third party peace keeping forces to maintain the peace.

Brother, I prompted Chat GPT to give me the objective sequence of events causing the first rocket to be launched and why: - 2005 – Israel’s “Disengagement” Israel withdraws settlers and troops from Gaza unilaterally (not as part of any peace process). It keeps full control of Gaza’s borders, coastline, and airspace — meaning it can decide what and who goes in or out. Gaza’s airport remains closed; its economy, already weak, becomes almost entirely dependent on Israeli crossings. - January 2006 – Hamas Wins Democratic Elections The elections were monitored by international observers and deemed free and fair. Hamas wins a majority in the Palestinian Legislative Council, defeating Fatah — largely due to Fatah’s corruption and the public’s frustration with the failed Oslo process. - February–March 2006 – International Boycott The U.S., EU, and Israel refuse to recognize the new Hamas-led government unless it renounces violence, recognizes Israel, and accepts previous peace accords. When Hamas doesn’t comply (arguing that recognition must be mutual and tied to 1967 borders), Israel and the West cut off all aid and withhold tax revenues owed to the Palestinian Authority. This plunges Gaza and the West Bank into financial crisis. - Spring–Summer 2006 – Escalation and Blockade Israel begins targeted assassinations of Hamas officials and conducts military incursions into Gaza. On June 9, 2006, Israeli shelling kills an entire Palestinian family (the Ghalia family) on a Gaza beach — a turning point that enrages Palestinians. On June 25, 2006, Hamas militants capture Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in response to ongoing Israeli raids. Israel responds with “Operation Summer Rains,” invading Gaza, bombing power plants, bridges, and civilian infrastructure. The blockade formally begins — crossings closed, movement frozen, goods restricted. Late 2006 – Early 2007 – The First Major Rocket Waves After months of siege and airstrikes, Hamas and other factions begin launching Qassam rockets into southern Israel. These were primitive, largely symbolic weapons — militarily ineffective but politically expressive: “You can bomb us from the air, but we’re not entirely powerless.” - 2007 – U.S.-Backed Coup Attempt and Hamas Takeover The U.S. (via the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority) attempts to oust Hamas with arms and funding. Fighting breaks out between Hamas and Fatah; Hamas defeats Fatah in Gaza. Israel and Egypt then impose a total blockade of Gaza, sealing it off entirely — and that’s when the current era of isolation begins. Summary Hamas did not start firing rockets the moment it came to power. First came the boycott and sanctions. Then Israeli incursions and assassinations. Then the Ghalia beach massacre and Operation Summer Rains. Then came the first sustained rocket response. So the sequence wasn’t “Hamas elected → Hamas attacks → Israel blockades.” It was: Hamas elected → Israel blockades → Israel attacks → Hamas retaliates. End Quote ——- Not sure how accurate that is but open more info.

@Inliytened1 Did you love it when Hamas played the survival game? Or did you hate it…it’s just a game no? Israel withdrew from Gaza but didn’t withdraw control over Gaza. I take your house, leave it “withdraw” - then lock up the doors, block the chimney, control your wifi and water - of course your gonna try slingshot me from the window and shout for help. I’m supposed to be surprised why? If I’m Muslim but not native to Saudi Arabia do I get to claim it as my home due to religious affiliation? I would like some of that Oil Sheikh money so I can retire haha. That’s what a New Yorker Jew from Brooklyn looks like when he comes to “settle”. @Lyubov 💯spit your shit bro. You giving me this guys energy - I feel the energy coming through yo chakras

Zionists philosophy at the time of the founding of their nation wasn’t coexistence but instead resulted in the nakba - are you saying they should have been locked up then? Absolute power corrupts absolutely, but absolute powerlessness does the same. Their philosophy and worldview distorts to such extremes because of dispossession and being locked up - you got the cause and affect ass backwards. Perhaps you didn’t have a good siesta today because your still thick as a taco.