zazen

If someone wanted sum up the situation of Israel / Palestine in one word it would be: occupation. That’s a word a lot of Israelis deny to describe the situation with or rationalise the existence of. Logically to follow up we should ask: does occupying a group of people make another group of people (the occupiers) more or less safe? Whenever occupation is acknowledged by Zionists it’s rationalised and re-defined as being a needed “security measure” in response to being attacked - but they are being “attacked” due to occupation. Those attacks are what Palestinians deem resistance and what international laws tell them is their right. How can the West create an international system of law that tells a group of people they are occupied and have the right to resist that occupation, and then support a country that is executing that very occupation. When people are denied a state their denied a certain type of more 'civilised' and accepted means of protection - when they don't have a military, navy, air force, intelligence agencies or the backing of a global superpower they need to resort to guerrilla warfare and other unsavoury uncivilised tactics like suicide or terrorist attacks - which they are then gaslighted as savages for. It is savage - but it doesn't detract from the cause being a just one of equal human rights, self determination and dignity even though they go about it in undignified unjust ways of which they have been left with little choice.

Stage blue thinks their God conscious but are only conscious of the humanised commandments they projected and imposed upon a Godly reality infused with God. They rightly have an intuition of God consciousness but are incapable of going the full way in articulating or encapsulating the truth of God consciousness without creating half truths laced with falsity. The question of the future isn’t whether one believes in God or not but how they believe in God. As a being imposed upon reality with commandments projected by the King archetype from the human subconscious - where God is claimed to not be human but is humanised nevertheless to cope with the immensity and complexity of reality. Or God as a being infused within reality, an essence permeating all and externalising itself in all forms but that is not external to any form big or small. Where God is witnessed as an inherent quality of the universe rather than an external entity imposing himself on the universe from afar. In stage green we return to the soul by valuing empathy and interconnectedness. The shadow of green is when it becomes utopian by ignoring the reality of form - that inherent differences exist with inherent inequalities we’d like to equalise but that we go about equalising in a tyrannical or dysfunctional way. Stage green stifles innovation like blue - but in a different way. Blue isn’t open to change, green wants change but wants to change reality to what it can’t be or won’t accommodate.

@Danioover9000 Yeah, while the extreme end of stage orange wrecks the world with capitalist greed, it at least creates a world in the process, driven by autonomy and innovation, even as it’s on a path to ruin. Stage blue doesn’t destroy the world, but it doesn’t create it either. Stage blue doesn’t sell its soul for the material, but isn’t connected to the material world the soul came to experience either. Stage blue ethnocentric fundamentalists think they’re creating a better world, when they’re really building one on exclusion—anyone who doesn’t fit their rigid mold of caste, color, or creed is left out. They think they’re superior to orange because they orient around something “transcendental” rather than the trivial material world. But they haven’t moved past the surface of their tribe’s skin color or been able to capture the essence of their scripture. They believe they can change the world in God’s image, but they’re not even part of the world they want to change. They stay isolated in their anti-materialist communities and rural homesteads and think they’re building culture or gaining power and leverage when power and leverage isn’t built in isolation from the world but when engaged in it. Reminds me of Tradcon preppers who think they’re immune from state overreach or internet culture on their farms. Stage blue stifles the soul, while stage orange disconnects you from it as you chase the material. But at least in moving, you might eventually find your way back to the soul through and out of the material onto the other side to stage green.

Interesting points - I've wondered if the worst shadow manifestation of a stage orange person (greedy Darwinian hyper materialist) is still better than the worst shadow manifestation of a stage blue person (ethnocentric religious fundamentalist) because its the worst of a higher stage vs lower stage. Any stage can form a shadow of itself, the question is what values that shadow forms or orients itself around.

Bumping this well written comment. We forget what has occurred when countless atrocities blur together, this post acts like a reminder. How many ‘incidents’ have happened to which the perpetrator (Israel) say they will investigate it only to be forgotten about and on to the next atrocity we go. Regarding the debate on whether this is genocide or not:

Every step forward in combat technology creates a wider chasm between the killer and the killing field, making it easier to execute mass slaughter while keeping one's sanity somewhat intact. The closer you are, the more soul-scarring the experience: a knife cuts deeper into the psyche than a gun; a gun less so than a warplane, a warplane less than a missile fired from a sterile, cold screen. The end effect on the ground is equally brutal for the victims. Anyone unleashing bombs on densely populated areas knows exactly the kind of havoc they're wreaking. It’s not some accidental 'oops we got a few civilians but at least we eliminated a Hamas fighter.' They know the blood price of their action because it’s been live streamed the past few months.

I can but think that framing them as equally responsible overlooks the power asymmetry between a technologically advanced occupying force, backed by a global superpower with vast diplomatic, financial, and military support, and a besieged population lacking all the above. For 50% of the responsibility one side seems to be causing at least 80% of the suffering if not more.

This hits the nail on the head. It isn’t just the death but the displacement, dispossession and destruction of the little these people had. To add insult to injury they are then starved and attacked in places they sought refuge. And this isn’t done to 100 people or a 1000 but up to 2 million. It also says nothing of what they have suffered the past decades and what the young who haven’t lived for barely 2 have been born into.

@Karmadhi The way you laid out those numbers shows a stark difference not only in scale, but in the time scale these deaths have occurred within. Killing 1% of a population over 20 years paints a different picture to doing the same within 6 months. The speed and scale of the brutality is matched only by the swiftness and scale of the condemnation of Israel's actions.

What’s replaced broken bodies buried under rubble are burning bodies in flammable tents - tents that should be offering refuge to people who fled concrete chaos. When discussing whether a situation constitutes the worst or best case of a ‘negative’ definition, it should still be remembered that the situation still falls within a negative definition. While Palestinians haven’t been culled en masse which is the extreme end of the definition of genocide (mass scale death with intent behind it) - they have been on the receiving end of mass scale dispossession and destruction making their land un-livable. To be annoyingly particular and go by the definition of genocide it states destruction and not just death within its definition - destroying hospitals, fertile land with crops, denying and restricting aid seem to fit close enough to that. Regardless of death, destruction and dispossession - even if we were to say no intent was involved in any of this: Moral outrage can still be expected - not from the intent for mass death and destruction, but the lack of intent to minimize mass scale death and destruction in pursuit of the “enemy”. The neglect of the many in harms way when going after the few who hurt you. While genocide meh be debated due to lack of scale / intent what can’t be is the disproportionate response for which we need a new word : neglecticide - when the pursuit of a few enemies steamrolls over countless civilians causing mass scale collateral destruction and dispossession, a neglect for human life on steroids.

@Merkabah Star There’s a video of a man holding up a headless body. Another of a burnt charred corpse being dragged - won’t share it here to respect guidelines and users. Not sure what else needs to happen for something to happen. Where does the line get drawn to whether something is now a genocide or not - regardless of the definition of genocide being met or not it’s clear that massacring should stop. It can seem as if desensitisation and low morale has set in but the world still goes through the motions of protest as we witness new atrocities weekly. When there’s so many incidents and stories people think why bother debating the obvious - if not about what needs to happen, at least on what needs to not happen - innocent death. Shocking how some Zionists will justify this as collateral damage for the goal of “survival” as if they couldn’t just focus on securing their border. Since when did defence become offense anyway.

@lina Only two days after the ICJ rules Israel to stop the Rafah offensive. Horrific defiance of this sort only comes from a deeply unhealthy and traumatised society. Pinning the blame on Bibi and his party is just an easy out from having to look in the mirror. There are IDF soldiers mocking death and destruction, IDF standing by whilst settlers sabotage aid delivery and trash it. Israelis and the Western backers of Israel can’t just scapegoat Bibi and throw him under the bus now that world opinion has shifted heavily and they don’t want the heat. Even Cartoon Network (CNN) is critiquing Israel. The Zionists narrative is melting faster than sugar in tea, and so is the Western moral high ground they like to make official through fancy words and documents yet do so little to act on.

@Nivsch Apparently Hamas just took in IDF soldiers as hostages which means these protests are going to increase. The survivalist politics of the current government is chaos for Israel and the West by extension as its backers. Gaza is the thread that unravels the fabric of Western institutions to show their corruption and hypocrisy. Looks like Israelis have been heavily propagandised into redefining defence as attack and the cost of conflict as justified collateral - but that seems to be changing now as months have gone by without meeting two of the main goals (get hostages back and defeat Hamas) Survival is like a false flag and smoke screen used as a pretext for a darker agenda.

Hypnotic, mystical, otherworldly aesthetic, ancient yet somehow modern.

Speaking of news: Analysis by Alon Mirzahi: This has been the most hectic, bizarre and borderline psychedelic week. Get that: Sunday: a helicopter carrying Iran's PM goes missing Monday: Raisi is officially confirmed dead. Karim Khan announces he's seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Galant at the ICC for war crimes. Tuesday: Ireland announces it recognizes Palestine. Norway and Spain make similar announcements the next couple of day. Friday: the ICJ rules that the situation in Rafah is disastrous and that Israel did not do what was required of it to safeguard Gazan citizens. The court orders Israel to stop its military operation in Rafah, and insists that the ruling is binding under current international law. - The international journey for justice in Palestine went, in days, from lazy empty gestures to warpspeed enforceable, sanctionable, concrete actions, and binding declarations. This is the week Israel's action started to really catch up with it. - Why this is especially meaningful? First of all, there is a cumulative cultural effect: when Israel is denounced by formal institutions again and again, the narrative changes. Now, if you protest against Israel, you are on the side if international law (and, conversely, the police and your politicians are on the side of international crime). There is very little any political structure can do against such huge normative shifts. But there is also a very concrete and tangible aspect to this. From this week onward, any institution, organization or company that want to divest from Israel will have more and more stable and reliable legal basis to do so, and so pressures on the economic and cultural fronts are going to mount significantly, especially as it is clear that Israel is not going to comply. In this regard I would bet it will escalate very soon, as is its old habit when faced with harsh criticism. Finally, although the ICC and ICJ are two separate institutions, both live and operate in the same political time and space. Israel's refusal to comply with the ICJ's ruling, therefore, makes the probability of arrest warrants against Netanyahu higher (and once those are given, Israel's position at the ICJ will be even more deplorable, etc.).

Gallant also said no Palestinian state will exist and US won’t do anything about it. The only 3 options out of the situation seems to be to give Palestinians a state, have a permanent militarily occupation with continuous death and conflict or ethnically cleanse Palestinians. The world obviously is opting for option 1 against Israel’s wishes as the others are clearly worse. US just talks of a Palestinian state but never acts upon recognising one.

@Danioover9000 I get you. It depends on forum users definition of art not falling completely into the human domain. Within the purely human domain art can be de-linked from beauty. Human art is more about expression and imagination which take a subject to create - and that art doesn’t necessarily have to be beautiful but can be social commentary or a form of protest. In Oshos book Creativity he says even a smile to a stranger passing by or sweeping the streets clean can both be seen as creative acts in the wider sense of the word - both create a better world. Similarly nature is and can be art even if it lacks intent, in the sense that it provides the aesthetic value of beauty. Human made art evokes an emotional response as does nature evoke an emotional response of some intrinsic beauty that exists. Beauty can be expressed through natural instinct or nurtured through human intention.

Regarding animals making art isn’t the key factor the existence of intent or the lack of it. Animals create beautiful things like nests but it’s from instinct - not intentionally done by a conscious agent. Animals are beautiful and seem it to us because they just are instinctually through evolutionary adaption whilst humans create beauty through intentional expression, they do beauty through art whilst animals just exist as it. Animals can mimic art by being trained in pattern recognition , but humans create art through pattern innovation.

Shame that natural life choices have become identity politics - someone not having kids becomes or is assumed to be 'anti-natalist' and someone with kids is assumed or feels the need to become 'pro-natalist'. Both try to ideologically rationalise their life choices that have been influenced by a more natural outcome of industrialisation and urbanisation. If we contemplate why so many people are opting out of having kids these days, we can boil it down to the four C's: Cost, Choice, Culture, and Courts. 1. Cost: The cost of raising a child has skyrocketed, putting it out of reach for many unless they want to live a life of constant stress trying to scrape together enough resources. Add to that the opportunity cost, where endless activities and adventures are available, often at lower costs, making the prospect of parenting even less appealing. 2. Choice: Thanks to contraception, sex is no longer inevitably tied to childbirth. Innovations like the laundry machine, industrial machines, and the internet have transformed the economy from brawn to brain-based, liberating women and multiplying the choices available. Plus, there's an overwhelming array of activities for personal enjoyment. 3. Culture: Many feel today's culture is not conducive to raising kids, seeing it as a hostile environment for nurturing new life. 4. Courts: Divorce courts are a major deterrent for men considering marriage, a traditional precursor to having children. While many couples avoid marriage, women often still see it as a priority, hoping their relationships will eventually lead to it, creating additional pressure. In essence, these factors collectively contribute to the decision to remain child-free in a world offering many alternatives. A interesting paragraph on whether to kid or not to kid : 'Is extinction something we should necessarily avoid? Yes, otherwise there's no point to anything, ever. This is supreme nihilism. By this logic there's also no value to maintaining the existence of any other species or race or state of anything in nature or anything manmade. If it is not a fundamental moral mandate that we not only exist but aught to exist then there is no mandate to do anything to preserve anything or anyone else. Furthermore, to make this choice is to invalidate the choice of everyone that's come before and force the same onto everyone that comes after. Put it this way, if you chose extinction then the people that come after you will be locked into that choice with no way to turn back, regardless of the suffering that inflicts on them. You can't unmake that choice. Being can be reversed, unbeing cannot. At the end of the day, we want to keep being and we aught to want to keep being. The fundamental crux of all life is the preservation of being.'

Good points above. In regards to US self interest this clip is enlightening: Alon Mizrahi: "Let us not forget what this day means for Israel and Israelis, because today has cataclysmic legal, political, financial, and normative implications: What this day means is that a number of important countries (with many more forecast to join them) see Israel and Israelis, soldiers and civilians alike, as illegal invaders in the sovereign state of Palestine when they are in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. This is what this really means, and this is a huge, tectonic departure from the previously acceptable diplomatic approach to the issue of Palestine. This recognition needs to be understood as a formal expression of complete and final distrust in Israel in everything relating to Palestine and Palestinians. Ireland, Norway, and Spain tell the world: Israel must no longer be treated as a party to solving or addressing Palestinian matters. This is also saying to the US: you and your approach have become not only irrelevant, but obstructive to justice. The era of playing softball with Israel, at the expense of Palestinian lives, dignity, and property, is reaching its much-delayed end. Zionist politicians can clamor and stomp their feet all they want and all day long: Israel's legitimacy and standing are being severely degraded, and there's no coming back from this. Israel will not know how to treat this, as it didn't know what to do before or after October 7. Excessive American support has made it delusional in assessing its actual powers. So I expect this process of delegitimization to intensify in years to come.'

Music is objectively subjective and subjectively objective. Music and art blend science and soul. The objective part is the science, the subjective part is the soul - both interplay. @Danioover9000 Maybe the middle way that synthesises animals and art is that nature and animals are art, but humans do art or are capable of artistry because their is conscious agency behind it. We humans observe the laws of nature and animals and see the artistry in them that consciousness has manifested, that those animals didn't manifest themselves except in minimal degree. Whereas humans co-create art with consciousness.

I get where your coming from. Padel for example supplies a lot more fun if we look at it per square inch. But golf isn't just for pure fun, it has a massive learning arc to it which takes skill and which people take joy in mastering. Golf can also provide multifaceted value as they usually are conserved green spaces that become like the lungs of a urban city. We can say that these are exclusive to the few who can afford it but golf courses can also and are also used to host events and provide walking paths for the public. Economically they bring a certain level of prestige to area which can help bolster the economy which feeds into the local economy and tax base that can then be used to fix the housing issue for example. Housing can probably be better addressed with zoning laws, urban planning, underdeveloped vacant urban sites etc.

Yeah, who started the ignition of this decade long conflict can be debated but for sure who is driving it into worse off humanitarian conditions can be seen - nothing confirms this more than the ICC even applying for arrest warrants. Its unheard of for a key ally (some would say they started as one but have ended up as a liability) of the US to be hit with arrest warrants for war crimes - let alone during the process of committing those war crimes as it usually happens much after the fact. That the chief prosecutor was interviewed at length and able to say the things he did is even more startling and a sign of the tide shifting. Unlikely any arrests will occur, but what it says symbolically is something. Great interview shared on the previous page: At 17:10min Amanpour reading out the US letter threatening the ICC like some mafia..on CNN..someone pinch me.

Like others have said on this forum, I don't believe most Israeli's are intent on killing civilians, but theres enough in positions of power and the IDF who do which gets a spotlight lit on it - including the videos of them bragging and mocking Palestinian death. There may be no intent to harm civilians, but there isn't enough intent to avoid harming them in pursuit of combatants/terrorists. A few bad apples view Gaza as a place with no 'uninvolved civilians' or 'innocents' as has been stated before. Unfortunately these 'few bad apple' are important enough to hold positions of power which are then acted upon in policy and state action. Blockading Gaza, destroying fertile land, hospitals etc and invoking Amalek which obviously trickles down to the countries and IDF's mental framework gearing them up to do the unjustifiable and be okay with it. The only reason Israel hasn't gone further is because of International condemnation, but they've gone far enough to have ICC charges against them - which considering the US threatened the ICC for is surprising. But it goes to show the level of evidence they have, and the obligation to justice they feel that is enough for them to brush off any threats. Even putting morality and civilians death aside, just looking at it strategically - what has Israel achieved the past months in terms of hostages, defeating Hamas etc?

No one has to victimise Palestinians when they can clearly see with their own eyes what is the case. Every society is capable of terrorism, its not some unique characteristic of Arabs except by the circumstances and conditions that foster it more and more and yes to a extent even religion is used for these. But to act as if they live to be terrorists and they have no actual grievances which are capitalised on (occupation, no right of return etc) is denying the cause of a lot of problems still existing today.