zazen

I agree both sides need to change no doubt. But putting them in certain conditions will change them for the worse rather than the better. During this whole time ‘waiting’ for them to change and build themselves under certain conditions they’re seeing what could be their future state being eaten away at rapid pace. And this isn’t just centrist liberal minded settlers but far right orthodox ones who are now armed and will be impossible to re-settle. This segment of the Israeli population will also make up a third of the population (due to higher birth rate) only shifting Israel more right in the years to come whilst the US population (youth) are shifting their support away from Israel at the same time - the two are diverging in opposite direction. Are we expecting them to develop to stage green or something before giving them a state - by then it would be full of settlers nullifying the whole thing. It’s more on the abuser to win the trust of the one he’s abusing - can we expect the person being abused to not resist and ‘develop’ to a point to stop being abused or is it the inalienable right of the abused to stop the abuse first? The same logic that says ‘when we are attacked (October 7th) we retaliate in self defense and don’t look to assess the morality or the casualties of it’ can be applied to the Palestinians. October 7th will be etched in the mind of Israelis as a terrifying day, but 7 terrifying and dehumanising decades are etched in the mind of Palestinians - not just a day but the date x decades. And sure, for Jews they have been unjustly prosecuted in the worst of ways for hundreds of years and deserve a safe place and state of their own - just not at the expense of others, especially not the ones who didn’t inflict that suffering on them. Palestinians shouldn’t be paying the blood price for the sins of others who persecuted the Jews. Israel has adopted a strategy of defense which commits atrocities to those that offered to protect them from atrocities. They mine their past traumatic history and in doing so and living amongst that dark past through victimhood re-traumatise others in the present day. Israel is obsessed with its right to self defence but doesn’t give those same rights of self defence to the very people they occupy and oppress. You may not frame the situation as Israel being the abuser but all relevant bodies and states of the world refer to it as such - human rights groups and even states that are allies with Israel acknowledge occupation and apartheid - abuses to the spirit and dignity of man.

Sure it may be. So if one culture is less developed that means another more developed culture has the right to displace, mistreat and govern them? That kind of logic justifies colonialism, apartheid and occupation. The problem with being in a echo chamber of Zionist ideology that dehumanizes Palestinians and normalizes oppression is that Zionist supporters can easily say things that make Israel look bad on the world stage, because it becomes the norm to look at things that way. This also goes for fundamental Islam or any ideology for that matter. October 7 was just a echo of the violence Israel has been doing to Palestinians for decades - and it's foolish to get angry at a echo for talking back. Israel needs to look at how it talks, walks and breathes - how it exists in its current form that puts it in a tricky situation and condemned globally.

The thinking seems to be that Palestinians, in particular Gazans can only be offered a state once they show they are 'developed' enough or 'behave' good enough like Pavlovs dog to be given one. So what did the Palestinians in the West Bank who 'behaved' better and 'developed' relatively more than their Gazan counterparts get? Were they rewarded even the most fundamental rights or the beginnings of any sovereignty for their good behaviour? Israel had its chance to show them they mean peace and good faith - but they failed. Instead they got settlement expansion and settler violence increasing to such degrees that any sovereignty becomes almost impossible. So why would Gazan's think they would get something by behaving and developing if on the contrary when they look over to the West Bank they see a clear indication that 'behaving and developing' leads to nothing except the opposite. In fact, Bibi's view was that the existence of Hamas works in their favour by creating a divide among Palestinians and de-legitimising the Palestinian cause by them being more extreme - and that's exactly how its been used. The conditions Palestinians are put under is extreme which causes them to radicalise, then when they radicalise the excuse is used that they are too radical to be given a state.

The majority of people who hear about the 'countless offers' have no clue what the parameters of the offer are. All they hear is that the Palestinians have rejected yet another “peace” initiative by Israel which gets spun as them being unpeaceful greedy savages. This is why the discourse always focuses on the number of offers - because it distracts from their content and unviability/unfairness. Lets look at why they refused the proposals by looking at the most commonly claimed 'generous offer' in 2000 being the Camp David one from Ehud Barack. 1. Barak offered the Palestinians 96% of Israel’s definition of the West Bank, meaning they did not include any of the areas already under Israeli control, such as settlements, the Dead Sea, and large parts of the Jordan Valley. This meant that Barak effectively annexed 10% of the West Bank to Israel, with an additional 8-12% remaining under “temporary” Israeli control for a period of time. In return for this annexation, Palestinians would be offered 1% of desert land near the Gaza Strip. Thus, Palestinians would need to give up 10% of the most fertile land in the West Bank, in exchange for 1% of desert land. Not to mention that if the past record is any indicator, the additional 8-12% under “temporary” Israeli control would remain so forever. 2. Israel demanded permanent control of Palestinian airspace, three permanent military installations manned by Israeli troops in the West Bank, Israeli presence at Palestinian border crossings, and special “security arrangements” along the borders with Jordan which effectively annexed additional land. 3. Israel would be allowed to invade at any point in cases of “emergency”. As you can imagine, what constituted an emergency was left incredibly vague and up to interpretation. The Palestinian state would be demilitarized, and the Palestinian government would not be able to enter into alliances without Israeli permission. 4. Regarding Jerusalem, Israel refused any form of Palestinian sovereignty over the majority of the city, including many Palestinian neighbourhoods. 5. Regarding right of return, it offered a very limited return for a very limited number of refugees over a very long period of time. This “generous offer” amounted to turning the West Bank into non-unified districts, crisscrossed by a network of settlements, roads and Israeli areas. Even the supposed “capital” of the Palestinian state would mostly be under Israeli control, with stipulations and conditions that stripped any real sovereignty from any area of the supposed Palestinian “state”. Not even the sky above Palestinian heads would be under their control, nor the water under their feet, as Israel still demanded access to water resources under the West Bank. Palestinian aspirations cannot be allowed to exceed the ceiling of Israel's entitlements. Israel is not really conceding anything through these offers; ending its occupation and stopping its settlement activities is merely following international law. It is not a sacrifice - it should be the default position. @lina @Nabd Good way of putting it.

At what point do the extreme edge cases become the normalised viewpoint reflecting the politics and society of a country? From John Mearsheimers latest substack article: ''Israeli leaders talk about Palestinians and what they would like to do in Gaza in shocking terms, especially when you consider that some of these leaders also talk incessantly about the horrors of the Holocaust. Indeed, their rhetoric has led Omar Bartov, a prominent Israeli-born scholar of the Holocaust, to conclude that Israel has “genocidal intent.” Other scholars in Holocaust and genocide studies have offered a similar warning. To be more specific, it is commonplace for Israeli leaders to refer to Palestinians as “human animals, ”human beasts,” and “horrible inhuman animals.” And as Israeli President Isaac Herzog makes clear, those leaders are referring to all Palestinians, not just Hamas: In his words, “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible.” Unsurprisingly, as the New York Times reports, it is part of normal Israeli discourse to call for Gaza to be “flattened,” “erased,” or “destroyed.” One retired IDF general, who proclaimed that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist,” also makes the case that “severe epidemics in the south of the Gaza Strip will bring victory closer.” Going even further, a minister in the Israeli government suggested dropping a nuclear weapon on Gaza. These statements are not being made by isolated extremists, but by senior members of Israel’s government. Of course, there is also much talk of ethnically cleansing Gaza (and the West Bank), in effect, producing another Nakba. To quote Israel’s Agriculture Minister, “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba.” Perhaps the most shocking evidence of the depths to which Israeli society has sunk is a video of very young children singing a blood-curdling song celebrating Israel’s destruction of Gaza: “Within a year we will annihilate everyone, and then we will return to plow our fields.”

Unreasonable

Mexicans aren't trying to displace Americans and establish their own state with biased laws. That's stretching the definition of the word. Here’s a linked index of discriminatory laws from the democracy known as Israel - https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index Partial truths are a dangerous thing. Sure, not all the Palestinians in the Nakba (a term legislatively banned in Israel) were massacred or directly terrorised by the Haganah (main paramilitary organization which became the core of the IDF) but a great enough proportion were that rumours spread and Palestinians warned their communities leading them to leave - it was the catalyst. Why else would people who had been there generations get up and leave - you think they voluntarily just left and had a change of heart deciding their more beach people preferring Gaza rather than mountainous people in land. Forcibly removed doesn't mean gunpoint evacuation it can be coerced by atrocities and terrorising. The Jewish population in Mandatory Palestine was less than a third of which most arrived between 1924-1939 - meaning that majority of those advocating for partition had been living there for at most 20 years. Yet, the UN partition plan allocated approximately 56% of the land of Mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state. Why were Palestinians expected to agree to cede the majority of their land to a minority of recently arrived settlers? The rejection of such an unfair proposal is often portrayed as irrational or hateful, but why should it be seen as such? Israel thinks it holds all the blood stained cards, but the world has voted and sided with the truth except a few. What were once deemed terrorists such as Mat Turner of the slave revolt or Mandela of South Africa are now lauded as heroes of emancipation. Resistance movements are built on the blood of martyrs which Israel ensures a continual supply of. Their called grassroots movements for a reason - you can't get rid of them unless you poison the soil ie genocide, expulsion or brutal subjugation. Resistance will never stop unless the soil is destroyed because its the soil (people) that keeps the grass (resistance) growing. If Israel or any countries safety requires the occupation, imprisonment and oppression of a people, you don't have safety and never will. Everything Israel obtains through oppression is inherently violent and must be upheld through violence - that violence will be justified through ideas of superiority and the idea that those you oppress must be more violent and oppressive than you.

Who’s batting first captain? Might have to sit this one out Zazen style

What's astounding is the level of arrogance and entitlement of Zionists. What gives them the right to afford Palestinians sovereignty and rights? Is it because their Gods chosen people? Imagine someone came into your house, kicked you down to your basement and didn't let you leave or come up to the kitchen for food or to the garden for a change of scenery and some sun - they then claim to you in your own house ''Show us you can behave well like a Pavlovian dog and develop yourself to the point we think you can have some of your house back'' And they invert and sophistically claim to be the victims and not the aggressors of the predicament they find themselves in. Zionists frame it as Palestinians not being developed enough or behaving well enough to have rights granted to them when really its that they are impeded from developing and are preoccupied with first securing their fundamental rights. It's the dignity in them that resists that is then gaslighted as them not behaving well. I expect nothing less than for people to resist despite what spiral stage we colour code and paintball them with. This isn't a stage red or green thing but a human thing. If even a ant or animals resist to survive unwanted death then what of humans who have the conscience to be aware of their undignified treatment, oppression, being taken advantage of through unviable peace proposals and impending conditions of death imposed on them? There's nothing confusing about resistance, in fact it would be confusing for anyone not to. It would be a case study for such a alien reaction or lack of if no resistance occurred. The whole framing of the situation is such that Zionists will deny and obfuscate the reality as complicated when it is anything but. Terms like settler colonialism, occupation or apartheid incite a allergic reaction to the ideologically captured zionist ego because they know that in a post-colonial, post-apartheid world any moral or legal ground is lost for their cause and any subsequent reasoning from accepting the reality of those terms is de-legitimised. I can agree that what is complicated is how to get out of this situation with entrenched interests on both sides benefiting from it, but it's definitely not complicated who is the more aggrieved party that is wronged. I won't resign my moral conscience to a detached enlightenment and moral relativity from some lofty place in the clouds. As Ram Dass said, part of the spiritual journey is honouring the form we are in, being human and getting into the humaness of experience. Understanding all sides is different from standing with all of them - plurality doesn't mean neutrality and in this case, it is clear who stands as the wronged side. Israel had its chance to show them they mean peace and good faith - but they failed. Because of their pride and righteousness what did they do with the Palestinians in the West Bank who 'behaved' better and 'developed' relatively more than their Gazan counterparts? Were they rewarded like Pavlovian dogs even the most fundamental rights or the beginnings of any sovereignty for their good behaviour? Sure, maybe some scraps off the table such as work permits - doubtedly coming from any place of benevolence but more so only to benefit Israel's own economy to access some needed labor and keep the world off their back by being seen as 'doing something' to help. Instead they got settlement expansion and settler violence increasing to such degrees that any sovereignty becomes almost impossible. So why would Gazan's think they would get something by behaving and developing if on the contrary when they look over to the West Bank they see a clear indication that 'behaving and developing' leads to nothing except the opposite.

@Nivsch Yes possibly. That's a good initiative for the seaport - again its from a guy who wishes to head the Likud party and become prime minister so it could be empty words in order just to win popularity. Whether they do that is another story and if they did would it be under Israeli control, with what stipulations etc. Regardless - even if you throw money at Gaza (which can gets into corrupt hands) the core issue is sovereignty and rights. They will use whatever they get to mobilise resistance for their sovereignty and rights. What good would it be to create a nice place to live if one can't leave it. Even if no one wants to travel or have a holiday because they enjoy where they live - that is a basic right. Its demeaning to say they should take more responsibility and 'cry less' and the presumption that they should have to 'earn' or 'prove' themselves to their occupiers why they should have basic human rights and sovereignty - until that is given they will use what they have to resist rather than to create a paradise they can't leave or have limited control over.

There's currently only one country called Israel as they deny the other side one. Apartheid simply means a two tiered legal system which is discriminatory. Israel has a military court for Palestinians in the West Bank that operate under military law rather than civilian law and have jurisdiction over them. Which country do you know that doesn't have its own courts, military/police, capital or control over its borders, air and seas? Palestinians in West Bank don't have their own legal system but an Israeli one administering it. Its not rocket science. Even the smallest countries - Vatican, Monaco and a random island called Nauru have their own legal system, police and control / sovereignty of their borders, land, air and seas. Vatican - a land area of 121 acres can be afforded those rights but Gaza alone which is 11'000 acres or 100x more than Vatican can't. Nuance is important and should be used to apply the definition of words and not deny their realities for example of words like occupation, apartheid or ethnic cleansing. I think what's breaking down communication is people focusing too much on the exact meanings of words and playing semantics. If you take words too literally, they don't express what's intended and if you stretch their meanings too much to fit anything you want making them metaphorical it's absurd also. For example, if I say I feel "imprisoned" by Hollywood's culture because I live in LA, am I actually in prison? No, it's a metaphor to show how much it affects me as I'm surrounded by it. If I say I feel "imprisoned" by LA's laws, that's closer to reality because not following them can lead to actual prison. Occupation for example doesn't mean the most literal definition of the word like when you go to the toilet and it says occupied by someone sitting on it - Israeli's don't have to be sitting on Palestinians laps in Gaza eating Baklava to claim occupation or defecating on their land - they can be occupied externally by controls of their border, sea and airspace depriving, dehumanising and un-dignifying them. Instead of Israel occupying Palestinians in a way that deprives them of their sovereignty and dignity they should try empathetically occupying their point of view and their hearts to de-radicalise and de-traumatise them of trauma they caused them. Not mine and dig within their own traumatic history to justify the trauma and death they are causing - death the stench of which it will take all the perfumes of Arabia to dispel.

''The so-called security barrier that Israel has been building on the West Bank since 2002 further encroaches on Palestinian land. Land-grabbing and peace-making do not go together: it is one or the other. Oslo is essentially a land-for-peace deal. By expanding settlements all Israeli governments, Labour as well as Likud, contributed massively to its breakdown. The rate of settlement growth in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem is staggering. At the end of 1993 there were 115,700 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories. Today there are over 500'000.'' Apparently, land grabbing is considered more important than peace and keeping the possibility of a two state solution open. No doubt Hamas leaders are corrupt and take a portion of the money for themselves. Building a desalination plant is a complex process that requires multidisciplinary expertise, multiple components parts and materials needed that could be restricted by the blockade due to their possible dual-use nature, and requires a stable and sufficient energy supply which Gaza lacks. I hope they have access to the gas off their coastal strip or is that Israels? I hope West Bank have access to their water or is that Israels? ''In November 1967 the Israeli authorities issued Military Order 158, which stated that Palestinians could not construct any new water installation without first obtaining a permit from the Israeli army which are near impossible to obtain. Palestinians living under Israel’s military occupation continue to suffer the devastating consequences of this order until today. They are unable to drill new water wells, install pumps or deepen existing wells, in addition to being denied access to the Jordan River and fresh water springs. Israel even controls the collection of rain water throughout most of the West Bank, and rainwater harvesting cisterns owned by Palestinian communities are often destroyed by the Israeli army.'' - Amnesty International

Could it be said that the capitalists and right leaning pin the problem of low fertility on anti-natalists and gaia worshipers (partially true) but their own system of growth and business orientation fosters the very urbanisation, atomisation, technological innovation and economic inequality that leads to low fertility. Does early stage capitalism grow the economic pie that then births early stage socialism that attempts to divide the pie equally that then later stage capitalism and communism both crumble.

Overall correct. It just doesn't justify the disproportionate response or treatment of another people. Indians are disproportionately in positions of power in Tech companies in US and also add to the quality of communities but that doesn't allow their ethnicity back home to then be disproportionate and discriminatory in their treatment of any other group be it a minority (muslims) or one different to them.

@Vrubel The political centre of gravity in Israel has moved so far right which makes it come across as far right to the West. The West green lighting Israel's actions up to now has partly been a way to wash away its guilt of its historic treatment of Jews which climaxed as the Holocaust - but you can't wash away and clean your conscience with more blood (of the Palestinians) which only causes further guilt. That limit can now be seen with the addition of New Zealand, Australia and Canada joining in on the UN vote to support ceasefire just this week and Biden's latest comment. Tipping point has arrived. Bennet doesn't agree that Israel are even occupying and thinks that Palestinians already have a state - Gaza. Laughable. That's why he's seen as far right. The first few minutes below: And the below aren’t interviews of Israeli settlers but the general Israeli society:

To add to above regarding funding - it was just today that Saudi announced bidding to become majority shareholder of Heathrow Airport (UK's busiest airport). Whilst Saudi definitely wields its money - it's how it does so. It seems to be diversifying its assets away from dependence on commodities whilst Israel and the lobby directs it towards lining political pockets and its political agenda that support the status quo of Israel being discriminatory, dehumanising and un-dignifying to the Palestinians at its best if it can even be called as such - and destabilising the region at its worst.

I think a problem may be that people get hung up on the literal definitions of words too much and play semantics. If words are taken too literally of course they won't define what your trying to define, but also if their stretched to fit in things to absurd degrees to the point those words become only metaphorical then of course they can't be used to communicate effectively either.

There's only one country here not two - Israel. Apartheid simply means a two tiered legal system which is discriminatory.

@Raze That Norman / Alan discussion was like two heavyweights in the mental cage. When Norman smirked during Alans remarks you know had caught him out. @Danioover9000 Indeed. Need to aim to go meta and not get mucky in the mud as Leo mentions. The thread was going off the rails and Leo came to verbally slap us into line and away from our biases which was needed lol

I will do a gratitude meditation with just that in mind but would like to point out also to Israel and any Isrealis to be grateful to have allies and friends that come to you with good intentions and are not rolling and drowned in the emotions your people are under that blinds your bloodshot vision and fogs your brains in the fog of war. It can take a dispassionate look at the problems of reality and your situation to come to the most compassionate solution for all - though those busy in vengeance and war will reframe this otherwise. When Isreals foot reflexively straightens and pushes down on the accelerator of retaliation and revenge locked into place - be grateful for that friend who will come to dislodge your foot and push down the brake to stop your nation and peoples going off the cliff that you not only drag yourselves off of but the regions - maybe even the world, including that very friend.

People with different intentions will call for a ceasefire. They could just want genuine peace and to stop innocent lives being lost, they could be Hamas supporters that want them to have some breathing space to regather and re position strongly to counter Israel or they could genuinely see that this non stop destruction Israel is committing is actually the real threat and loss of security for Israel. As can be seen from todays news from Biden and as Osama Bin Shapiro's love letter stated - Israel can't afford to lose its main or only ally in a region it can't afford to be lonely in. The same day Biden says that Bibi can’t deny a Palestinian state the Israeli ambassador says no to one.

Think this one, I’ll add some more videos maybe you aren’t used to seeing due to algorithm and echo chambers. Excuse the captions as obviously people post them with anger and hatred but they still show things words can’t describe or that aren’t trusted.

Advisor to Defence Minister Gallant, former head of National Security Council and former IDF operations chief Giora Eiland, 21 November: “Our mistake is that we accepted the American narrative, which is false, that says in Gaza we have—what? The Hamas, which are very bad people—kill them. And next to them there are two million poor good people, and they should be cared for. Not just not kill them, but also that [Israel) should make sure they have water and food and medicine and even fuel to operate their electricity and sewage systems and other things. That’s a very severe mistake. Wars aren’t won when you kill the last of the combatants of the other side. Wars are won when you collapse an adversary system. The weakness of the adversary system [in this case] is not on the military side—Hamas’s military [branch] is very strong, very organised, very well equipped, and the tunnels give [them] very very very significant ability and durability.” Interviewer: “So what are you saying, that we shouldn’t care about what happens to civilians in Gaza, that it shouldn’t be a consideration of Israel [in the fighting]?” Eiland: “No, not that we shouldn't care—we should care [and make sure] that there is a severe humanitarian disaster there, and severe epidemics, and horrible pressure, and cries to the sky—because that's how wars are won” Interviewer: “These are not things I've heard from you in the past” Eiland: “These things are a necessity of reality. Israel is in no less than an existential war…” Interviewer: “Right, but how does a humanitarian disaster in Gaza serve Israel’s interests?” Eiland: “A humanitarian disaster is the only way to bring about the end of the war in a desirable way. Think about it this way: the poor women of Gaza, who are they? They are the mothers and sisters and wives of the Hamas murderers. Gaza’s system, unlike [its characterization by the US which I mentioned earlier] that there is Hamas and there are civilians—it is not true! Gaza is a state that is entirely united around its leader and its ideology for 15 years, without any dissent and with enthusiastic support…. The weak point [of Gaza] is their civilian population, and when it cries to the sky, maybe Sinwar, who is a psychopath, won’t be interested. But the thousands of Hamas terrorists, whose mothers and wives and children who will start suffering from severe illnesses, are the point of weakness. If we want to win the war—that’s how you win a war”

And that's people who are on this forum exposed to Leo's body of work and self development, non duality and love etc lol

@Nivsch Yes, it’s important to look into why the proposals for a state have been rejected. This post covers some of it.