zazen

A big issue in conflicts is when both groups judge their own side by their best, while being ignorant of their worst. It’s one thing to ignore the worst parts of your society, it’s another to acknowledge them. But it’s a whole other to actually justify, defend and protest the most depraved aspects of your society - even if those who do so are few in number. The fact that they feel emboldened enough to be able to do so indicates the Overton shift towards radicalism. The table of world opinion has turned so swiftly that we have influencers heads in America (Israel’s greatest ally) discussing their support for Israel and the history of their relationship. Who would’ve thought:

Alice Weidel has called for Ukraine to compensate Germany for the damage caused to its economy as a result of the attack: “The economic damage to our country caused by the demolition of Nord Stream presumably ordered by Zelensky - and not Putin as we were led to believe - should be "billed" to Ukraine.”

A similar phenomena is happening on youtube where every next podcast title is filled with 'doomsday, civil war, collapse' rhetoric and a shocked face as a thumbnail - nauseatingly cheesy. Perverse incentives. You see the same podcasts and guests being recycled between each others shows discussing the same plight of the West and the world. Not that what they are saying isn't valid, or partially so - just that the circle jerking over it to profit of off clicks and ads is so boring and played out. It's like, why not have a convention where all these guys come together to discuss and brain storm solutions. But obviously that wouldn't result in the numerous videos, clicks and pay outs each youtuber would receive.

The same reaction from women to men happens when they see the discourse among red pill Youtubers and respond with 'not all women' to add nuance to the discussion. Saying not all women or not all men is simply a plea for individuality - that neither side should be judged as a collective but more as individuals. Both sides will see this as deflection, rather than a correction. Both sides will go about legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Both sides will universalise their experience of the bad apples amongst the other gender. The accusation that this phrase (or not all women) derails, is itself a derailment. It suggests that any defense or clarification is an attack on the conversation's integrity. I think it can become a derailment when the grievances aren't being listened to, and anything that hurts the ego of the opposite gender gets responded to with such a phrase. It's like, Okay, we know not all men or women, but we're discussing the men and women who do act out badly. The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations.

@BlueOak Good summary. Their size is definitely their achilles heel, its one thing to have a large land mass with a large population to defend it - its another to have a large land mass and extensive border with a small and dwindling population that will struggle to defend it. Definitely a embarrassment for Putin and Russia, something Western media are revelling in though the glory may only be lived in the short term. The economic incentives are heavily in favour of US industry. It seems they want to throw Zelensky under the bus now that they see no real way out of this mess. They want it to come to a end whilst saving face, hence Germany cutting aid in half just last month. US has its own domestic issues to deal with and wants to re-orient to China as the next boogeyman.

Might be a move out of desperation. What makes Ukraine think they can successfully take the fight to Russia by invading Russia itself with the same lack of military personnel, resources and hardware / munitions that have failed them in their own country where they have the home advantage. Might also be a distraction from the recent news of Ukraine being behind the Nord stream sabotage. https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/15/ukrainian-team-blew-up-nord-stream-pipeline-claims-report Not going to poke the holes in the story, but if Ukraine have acted independently of Western/US approval - it only makes it all the more embarrassing that so much money is getting funnelled from the West to Ukraine, only to have them commit a act of economic terrorism affecting their very own donors and supporters and escalate tensions with Russia. Same goes for this Kursk incursion which many are saying has only been able to occur thanks to advanced NATO equipment / Western intelligence. Kursk of all places, where one of the most pivotal battles of World War 2 took place. A quote from Heinz Guderian who was a prominent German general - ''It's impossible to move forward, and when we move backward, the road is filled with the corpses of our comrades. When you start an offensive, you don't just stop because it's getting difficult, but once you've gone in, you never get out again.''

Just because something is a construct, doesn't mean its useless. The concept of the noble lie was that some things may not be objectively true, but are created to exist in order to serve a utilitarian purpose or smooth running of society. If we de-construct all constructs, we'll end up eroding many psychological pillars that hold our world together, including our selves. Money itself is a construct, a shared myth to facilitate our global economy. Organised religion is a noble lie to foster cohesion and ''positive'' behaviour - heaven is the carrot, hell is the stick. Subjective beliefs have objective consequences. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters, because it can matter-ialise in reality. What purpose does seeing everything as a construct serve? Beside feeling special for a moment as if we've stumbled upon a secret exposing the matrix - to loosen our grip on labels, concepts and identity and allow for more plurality?

Yeah, I think extremism is something any human is capable of tapping into but that the majority don't. Religion and certain beliefs can definitely nurture extremism as can extreme situations. Extremism can also be non religious and motivated by ideology, politics or nationalism - but those are treated religiously. Communist extremists come to mind, or Kamikaze fighters in Japan who would commit strategic suicide based on the cultural code of Bushido which emphasised honour, sacrifice and loyalty to the Emperor. With Islam in particular, the idea of martyrdom is predisposed to extremism as it can be too easily distorted away from a defensive interpretation to a offensive interpretation. The situation doesn't help that the world recognises Palestinians to be occupied as this gives the extreme factions among them justification, they can simply say - ''Look, we aren't going to them (proactively, offensively), they have already come to us and we are occupied, so any action we take is defence (reactive) thus justified.'' This is where even if all our beliefs are constructs and subjective, subjectivity still has objective real world affects. Subjectivity in a sense literally matters because it can matter-ialise in reality. Racism is biological extremism, fanaticism is psychological extremism, totalitarianism is political extremism, fundamentalism is religious extremism.

Definitely negative incentive structure in place to continue the blood shed. On the macro, the occupation and periodic operations provide further incentive for bloodshed, as does this 10 month campaign of unleashed hell. Emotional fatigue has set in over Gaza despite atrocities occurring weekly but just this week two stories sparked outrage again. Four day old twins killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza while their father went to register their birth - on returning he found his twins, wife, and their grandmother dead. Another was a school bombing killing circa 100, whilst they were doing their morning prayers. The UK felt the need to comment: When atrocities or the defense of them occur (ie protests shown above) we are told these are just the bad apples of Israeli society. When atrocities are committed by Palestinians we are told this is inherent in Arab society - the extremism and 'low development.' Westerners exceptionalize their crimes (its a minority who commit them and not their society that gave birth to them), but generalize others crimes (its something inherent to 'their' culture.)

Building settlements on what could be their state literally erodes the trust and peace - that is the low bar set for Israel, to simply stop taking more land. But from the world of realpolitik, I see where your coming from - which is why I've sadly concluded before that there doesn't seem to be a solution, except one that is imposed from outside, which there is very little will to do (US just approved 20 billion dollars worth of weapons to Israel). Israel will only act out of pragmatism, not principle - and only when there is enough pressure politically, economically, and physically (survival) might they concede to some sort of settlement mediated by outside forces, not directly with Hamas of course. Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice. Because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal world order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice for peace, but often we default to the natural order of power where peace before justice prevails. That peace is usually attained through the existence of or imposition of power - even if it delays justice and prolongs current injustice. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If You Want Peace, Prepare For War. The existence of power acts as a deterrence, which brings about peace so long as that power isn't abused. Justice for peace is how we hope the world could work, grounded in law and principles. The existence of or imposition of peace before justice, is grounded in power dynamics and pragmatism. The world works between the two. Laws and institutions were created to make right, what might often would (through blood) but that left the door open for revenge and retaliation only to perpetuate conflicts. That is the basis of us calling ourselves civilised, but we aren't - we're on our way to it. It's the hypocrisy (of calling oneself civilised whilst the other barbaric) that rubs a lot of the Global South the wrong way, including Westerners themselves against their own political class. The hypocrite stands on a pedestal of their own making, pontificating about virtues they fail to embody and casting others as evil, for sins they themselves commit and attempt to conceal through propaganda and linguistic gymnastics. This lack of integrity, and gap between actions and words is what erodes the trust you rightly pointed to that needs to be built. This is why the world is bifurcating between the East and West, and parallel systems (BRICS) are being built which the West now bemoans. The next decades will be heavily predicated along these lines.

Not to say Elon Musk is a saint, or that any deceptions listed here aren’t true - the question is what are the users implying from listing his flaws? If the conclusion is to box him into category bad, this overlooks what is at times required in the game of business and power. It’s easy to misread someone’s intent as bad, when it’s misguided. The more you delve into the realm of cunning and power, the more it stains you. Knowledge of power is intoxicating, and once you grasp it, it seduces you to use it. No doubt Elon has wielded power to achieve his goals. He may not be a paragon of transparency but you don’t win in the game of business and power by telegraphing every move. He may neither be a genius in innovation and likes to play up his image of a real life Tony Stark for branding - but he has enough technical knowledge and leadership skills to steward geniuses under one roof towards a vision.

Conflating gender identity with biological sex muddies the waters and the discussion unnecessarily. We can acknowledge the reality of biological sex while recognising the validity and complexity of gender identity. Nature loves exceptions. Acknowledging these exceptions doesn't negate the broader reality of biological sex dimorphism. The reason hominids or we even exist is thanks to dimorphism. It's not an either/or situation. Just acknowledge that sex is typically binary while also accepting that there are individuals who don't fit neatly into those categories and are their own. Respecting these exceptions isn't about denying biology. Dimorphism runs deep. It's not just about genitals or secondary sex characteristics. It's in our bones, muscles and brains, right down to the cellular level. These differences aren't trivial - they've been crucial to our survival and evolution as a species. Yes, psychology plays a significant role in our sense of identity, no argument there. But to dismiss the role of biology is to willfully ignore the very foundation of what makes us human. You can't reduce "being a woman" to just what's in your head any more than you can reduce it to just what's between your legs. Both matter, interact and are inseparable parts of the whole. The extreme hypothetical of transplanting a female head on a male body isn’t currently even possible. Even then, that brain developed in a body, a body shaped by chromosomes, hormones, and even reproductive organs. To act like these biological realities are somehow secondary or optional is to engage in a kind of magical thinking that ignores how deeply interconnected our minds and bodies truly are.

If we’re talking social roles then that can be more malleable - such as what is woman hood or man hood. But if we’re talking biology then it’s clear. We can’t identify our way out of biological reality any more than we can identify our way out of the laws of gravity. If I identify as a balloon, will I defy gravity and start floating? Sounds nice, but it’ll never happen. This stems from a ideology not based in reality, but attempting to impose itself upon reality. There’s a difference between the quicksand of subjective reality and the solidity of object reality.

Agreed. There is a deep irony in how the very tools and systems created by Stage Orange - associated with rationality, capitalism, and scientific progress - have led to the resurgence of tribalistic behaviours and identities more characteristic of earlier stages like Stage Red (egocentric, power-oriented) and Stage Blue (authoritarian, rule-based) in Spiral Dynamics. Silicon Valley titans who are stage Orange poster children have given us social media platforms that are essentially digital campfires that bring out our inner stage red tribalism to dance around in echo chambers, beating our chests and throwing virtual spears at the 'other.' We’re still religious without religions - and behave dogmatically handing down commandments of groupthink we think is “right” while the “other” is wrong. Social justice warriors and stage green guardians of the galaxy are using Orange stage tech to religiously enforce their values like stage Blue dogmatists, all while claiming to be the vanguards of evolution. Humans are complex enough to encapsulate stage Red rage, stage Blue righteousness, stage Orange technology, and stage Green idealism. There's a dangerous trap in developmental theories that risk creating a new hierarchy that can be used to justify oppression the same way colonial powers once used concepts of "civilization" to justify their domination of "primitive" peoples. Those who use Spiral Dynamics in this way are often exhibiting the very traits they claim to have transcended. They're engaging in tribal thinking (Red), us-vs-them mentality (Blue), and rationalization of power structures (Orange), all while claiming to operate from a more "evolved" perspective. The truth is, human societies and individuals are far more complex than any single developmental model can capture. Palestinians, Israelis, or any other group aren't monoliths that can be neatly categorized into a single stage. They contain multitudes, with individuals and subgroups spanning various levels of development according to different metrics. Moreover, what constitutes "development" is itself a culturally loaded concept. The Green stage values of Western liberals might look like moral decay to those prioritizing traditional values, just as capitalist notions of progress might seem destructive to indigenous cultures prioritizing harmony with nature. Who gets to decide? When the excesses of "Stage Green" are criticised such as when the pronoun brigade broadly accept identifying themselves however they wish ( we literally got pregnant man emojis 🫃🏻) These constructs are often defended as just an overreach of a more advanced developmental stage green. But what if it's not an advanced stage at all, and instead just a delusion fueled by an ideology that isn't grounded in truth or reality? Why is this delusion considered better than the delusion of a religious fundamentalist who believes in martyrdom?

While it's clear that both Israelis and Palestinians have made choices that have influenced their current situations, it's crucial to understand that Palestinians are living under conditions defined by occupation. This is not just a matter of opinion but a legal principle recognised globally. The argument that Palestinians should prioritise peace and state building to gain statehood overlooks the fundamental fact that their rights as an occupied people are non-negotiable and not contingent upon proving their "worthiness" for statehood. The West, and the international community have established legal norms precisely to protect those under occupation and to prevent this kind of conditional justice. The hypotheticals being debated of Hamas wanting to genocide are contentious simply for being hypothetical and the fact that peoples objectives change when conditions change - that said, its wiser to listen to threats than not. And Hamas leaders have threatened not genocide out right but to get rid of Israel as a state - doing so would effectively result in the killing of countless civilians. During the era of Jim Crow laws in the American South - hypothetical cases were also made for fear of retribution and genocide. Events like Nat Turner rebellion (parallel to todays October 7th) fed into those fears. This rhetoric helped maintain such a unjust system of dehumanisation and lack of sovereignty. Many Palestinians seek justice, freedom, and a state of their own which are simply aspirations that are enshrined in international law. If international law hadn't stated these are their rights maybe they would manage their expectations and not fight for those rights. But to have those rights be their in black and white then gas light them for fighting for them and framing them as barbaric terrorists is vile and ironically un-civilised. Civilisation isn't just about skyscrapers, gadgets and gizmos you have at home, its about how you interact with other societies beyond your borders - and often we see that Western nations interact with the global south in a win-lose extractive dynamic through a capitalist system they pioneered. Blaming Palestinians for not having achieved peace while under occupation is akin to blaming a person for not thriving while being held captive. Their first and foremost priority, as it would be for any group in their position, is to achieve their fundamental rights, including the end of occupation. Only when these rights are secured can we realistically expect the conditions necessary for long-term peace and prosperity to take root. It's simply not up to Israel or the West to decide when Palestinians are "ready" for statehood. The international legal framework already recognises their rights - it's up to the global community to ensure those rights are respected and fulfilled.

US, Qatar and co were mediating for a potential ceasefire deal just yesterday. Odd that these atrocities occur at such times - possibly to nuke the deal and derail it.

@DocWatts Agree with your post above. We need to not be so optimistic we’re blind to current and future dangers, yet not be so pessimistic we’re paralysed into nihilism and non action. The progress narrative often suggests the path is rocky but in the right direction. In reality, the steps we take forward can generate such severe externalities and unforeseen consequences that the single step back becomes catastrophic, not only undoing the progress we thought we made but sometimes dragging us to the abyss. Also, some of those steps forward may be forward in the wrong direction - we need to differentiate between change and progress and not conflate change with progress - change is cosmetic, superficial and quantitative whilst progress is deeper, substantive and qualitative. Put another way, the three steps forward, one step back analogy assumes the steps forward and back are of equal weight. But the back step can be so profound and far reaching in its impact, that it completely negates, and even exceeds, any forward momentum. We need to redefine progress to be more holistic as it’s often easier to quantify the material, and harder to quantify the immaterial aspects of life that are much more meaningful. Focusing on materialist metrics over meaningful ones and simplistically saying the world’s better is too simplistic. We should ask - at what expense have scientific and technological advancements occurred? And have these translated into social and spiritual well being, or are they destabilising. Economic growth has occurred unequally and is now eroding buying power through inflation to the point of a whole “hustle culture” and gig economy needing to spawn. The pace of change and disruption requires people to reinvent themselves every few years or decades causing psychological distress and job insecurity that didn’t exist before. To illustrate, in the past people’s surnames often reflected their occupations ie Smith for blacksmiths, Baker for bakers, Miller for grain mill workers. We can develop all the tools we want (through science and technology ie progress and advancement) but what good is the tool if the user of the tool isn’t well enough to use them. Another way to put it is this: we are developing lifestyles but don't have life quality. A parallel to this is that we have extended lifespans but not necessarily health spans.

So Israel just assassinated a more rational political negotiator from Hamas and now have Sinwar who is way more emotional and vengeful as the new leader of Hamas - yet say they expect peace before statehood. It's actually Israel that has it backwards. Justice is more a prerequisite to peace than the other way round (as has been seen historically - South African apartheid, US civil rights movement, Northern Irelands Good Friday agreement to name a few) Peace isn't just the absence of conflict but the presence of fairness (human rights), equality (not of outcome like woke people demand) and the resolution of legitimate grievances (that when go unaddressed lead to illegitimate avenues to addressing those legitimate grievances such as terrorism). People under occupation aren't supposed to play some 'How to win friends and influence people' game where they need to prove their worth. The very international system of law that the West pioneered in setting up states who is occupied and what their rights are. These aren't negotiable. Yet, Israel thinks otherwise and stands alone at every UN resolution with US in it's corner embarrassing itself. They lay thick the hypocrisy that can be cut with a knife when the values and system of law they claim to up hold in reality aren't aligned with what their actions show.

@Consept Good info all round. I also think what adds to their anger regarding jobs is that a lot of the types of jobs migrants do can be done undocumented with cash payment allowing them to earn benefits on top of the work their doing - essentially playing the system. I'm not sure how much of this is being done but I wouldn't consider it a large proportion. Last I checked, 0.5% of UK's population is made up of asylum seekers, and 15% of immigrants aren't born in the UK. Some proponents of the far right claim this to be reverse colonisation or an invasion. A lot of issues are systemic in nature (low economic growth, demographic decline, urbanisation and atomisation), that then get attributed in a tribalistic manner towards immigrants or towards those that don't share the same colour, creed or beliefs. Whilst there are definitely legitimate grievances and a feeling of societal decay, the cause is wrongly identified. These are excesses of stage orange, which cause a reversion to stage red and blue ideologies. What is clear is that the face of urban Britain is changing at a very rapid rate, and they think that change is the cause of their societal decline. The legitimate grievance regarding immigration is that you can't have net migration being so high without improving and expanding the infrastructure needed to support that migration. The problem is when legitimate grievances are gone about in illegitimate ways and weaponised by nefarious interests and ideologues. Maajid Nawaz - ''Instigating riots as a distraction from the real causes of our problems is a tried and tested method used by those with power to maintain their grip. What you have all been witnessing is the mass-radicalisation of many of Britain’s white working classes, which occurred after many British Muslims had already been radicalised in the previous decades. This is a process of reciprocal radicalisation. The way such radicalisation works is by hijacking and monopolising existing legitimate grievances resulting in truths being used to spread division. When people ask me what are the causes of radicalisation, I say the causes are legitimate grievances that are exploited by hardened ideologues who then manipulate vulnerable young people by pointing to those legitimate grievances and radicalise them. Now, at no stage in the process of radicalisation is it suggested that the grievances are not legitimate. So if you look at Islamist radicalisation, whether it be the genocide in Bosnia whether it be the invasion of Iraq whether it be racism at home or whether it indeed be the civil liberties violations that occurred during the war on terror decade under George Bush and Tony Blair, these are all legitimate grievances like Guantanamo, that people can point to to say this is radicalising Muslims. In comes the hardened ideologue and exploits those grievances to manipulate the angry young teenage Muslim into a path of radicalisation. Why do I mention all this? Because Tommy Robinson has just been freed from prison. And Tommy Robinson is involved in this process of radicalisation. He and his supporters have some legitimate grievances that they point to, which end up radicalising themselves and the rest of their constituency. And we need to understand the process of radicalisation here to understand how to tackle it. Because the media silence around Tommy Robinson and why he went to prison and why he was revealed, or indeed the refusal to discuss some of the issues he raises, or indeed the desire to character assassinate the person that he is, won't make him go away, just as it doesn't make Trump go away.''

''The fact that Israel would not have responded to October 7 by ending the abuses which caused it doesn't change the fact that this would have been the correct thing for Israel to do. It just means the same depravities and injustices which gave rise to the state of Israel continue to exist and express themselves to this day. It means Israel itself is the problem. Which means the real issue with the objection "Well what SHOULD Israel have done in response to October 7 then?" is that it's asking the wrong question. The correct question to ask is, what should the world do about Israel? What should the world do about this murderous entity which keeps trying to drag the world into a horrific new war with Iran and its allies? What should the world do about this apartheid ethnostate whose relentless abuses were so egregious that Palestinians felt they had no choice but to carry out the October 7 attack? And when you peel back the layers of this question you find that the question underneath it is, what should the world do about the US empire? What should the world do about this massive globe-spanning power structure which feeds into Israel's abuses as a matter of policy to advance its own agendas of destabilisation and division in a geostrategically crucial resource-rich region? What should the world do about the international power structure centralized around Washington which continuously terrorizes and abuses populations around the world with the goal of capturing them all under a single power umbrella? I keep saying "the world" because this isn't just an Israel problem or a United States problem. Clearly. We stand here on the precipice of what could easily become a massive new war in the middle east because of Israel's actions and the US-centralized empire's psychopathic facilitation of them, which means this affects all of us. Even if we manage to avoid full-scale war this time, we know we'll be on the precipice again in a few years.'' - Caitlin Johnstone

I think the middle ground here is that both have legitimate grievances and histories from which they see the situation. Both sides have gone about those legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Things aren't binary (purely good vs evil) but more so a continuum or spectrum. It's easier to see and say that Israel are leaning more towards the negative end of the spectrum in this scenario - regardless of how radical or what stage colour the other side is. The scenario has radicalised them, and the larger power has had more of a hand in shaping that scenario. That doesn't absolve the other side from any responsibility, but there are limits to self agency. Agency and choices are constrained by the reality of occupation, economic deprivation and lack of sovereignty. Can we get angry at a gardener in a desert trying to grow flowers and failing? Or a bird with clipped wings trying but failing to fly? Their first priority is to rid themselves of their environmental constraints - and that is literally in their right. The West's very own laws rule that Israel is an occupying force which means the occupying group have certain inalienable rights including defence, even armed defence. If the West chest beats the supremacy of its development and heads the current world order and international system - then don't have that same system tell a dispossessed group of people that its in their right to defend themselves against a occupation, then gaslight them about their uprisings. It's not up to the occupied group to show the world they deserve not to be occupied because ''they have ascended to stage orange rationality over radicalism or religionism''. Thats a universal right. They aren't to be subjected to some demeaning test like some kids who need to show their grown ups. Both sides also aren't monoliths, there are factions within Zionism and Hamas / resistance groups with differing views. Theres a old video of one of the founders of Hamas saying they don't hate Jews but only have a problem with Zionism itself. But being realistic, no ones going to see the Israeli state disappear now that its established, and anyone hoping or planning on it aren't serious partners for peace. The video Leo shared of one of the current Hamas leaders spouting for the erasure of Israel despite not having the capability to do so, exposes their intention once they do have that capability ie a Palestinian state with a military. So of course Israel would thwart that. All serious players in the region know Hamas in its current form with its current rhetoric from some of its leaders simply can't be part of a serious governance structure after all this.

They've definitely made it un-inhabitable. According to the UN there are 40 million tonnes of rubble which could take up to 15 years to clear up before even getting started on re-building. ''Debris poses a deadly threat for people in the Gaza Strip as it can contain unexploded ordnance and harmful substances.'' @hundreth The objective might be to eliminate Hamas, but Hamas is just a avatar representing a cause. That cause is resistance to a situation, that situation is occupation (already known but further confirmed by ICJ earlier this month) and denial of Palestinian statehood, dignity and rights. As long as that exists, resistance in some form will exist. To get rid of Hamas we need to get rid of the situational cause for their existence. Of course this is easier said than done due to logistics, ideologies, resentment and entightlement. The remedy is simple, but difficult and full of hurdles. Gaza's situation and what Israel has made of it entangles them even more - the hope initially was that Palestinians would be cleansed to Egypt, but Egypt will never allow this. First, to not be complicit in ethnic cleansing and cause domestic uprising. Second, to not be caught in a fight with Israel if and when Hamas / some Palestinian resistance were to launch attacks from Egyptian lands. But then if they don't let Gazan's in they are also in a way complicit in their suffering in Gaza - this is Egypt's bind. With Gaza now destroyed and only habitable in some make shift tent territory for the foreseeable future, Israel has put 2 million people in this unacceptable purgatory which only shifts world opinion towards Israel in the negative the longer this goes on. It seems they want to shift attention to the North towards Hezbollah and Iran to deflect from the quagmire.

Good reminder of the objective, but good to remember that some objectives don’t reach their intended goals. If the goal is de-escalation and a ceasefire or end to the conflict, then I’m not sure if this achieves that in the macro. “Political assassinations and continued targeting of civilians in Gaza while talks continue leads us to ask, how can mediation succeed when one party assassinates the negotiator on the other side?” tweeted the Prime Minister of Qatar. “So Israel murders Hamas political leader and key negotiator, Ismael Haniyeh, and wants us to believe it is serious about negotiating a ceasefire?” tweeted Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin. “And it kills him at the inauguration of Iran’s new president Pezeshkian, who campaigned for better relations with the West. Instead of a ceasefire and a regional de-escalation, Netanyahu is gunning for a full-scale regional war.” “Saying they want a ceasefire and then assassinating the guy they’d negotiate it with is a pretty clear sign of how serious Israel is about diplomacy,” tweeted Ajam Media Collective’s Alex Shams. Not to mention the breaching of sovereign jurisdictions including Irans. The last firework retaliatory display from Iran in response to the Syrian consulate attack was just a show of capability, not their actual competence if they had to go to war. They communicated with the US on when how and where they were going to attack so it could be intercepted (though even then a few failed) and to save face in order to de escalate tensions. Not sure what’s to come now but I don’t think they want a full on war either. They’re part of the BRICS network now and re-establish good ties with Saudi basically wanting to focus on economic development.