zazen

Former CIA officer and executive director of The Council for the National Interest on whether Israel is a good ally of the US:

Maybe the best we can do beyond voicing our opinion via protests etc is to vote with our wallets and feet. If money dictates outcomes, influence the flow of that money. Financial consequences is a domain vested interests actually have skin in the game for.

Basically asking the Lebanese to go to civil war or they’ll be Gaza’d.

Interesting tweet on China: https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1841329313427460347?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ This translated discussion (link at bottom) between two of China's top international relations scholars - Zhang Yunling and Tang Shiping - is really interesting. It illustrates just how profoundly different Chinese thoughts on foreign affairs are, and how much more sophisticated they are than what we're used to hearing in the West. First of all, small bio: - Zhang Yunling is the Director of the Institute of International Studies at Shandong University (next to the birthplace of Confucius) and a Member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, China's most prestigious institution for social sciences. - Tang Shiping is a distinguished professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, Shanghai's top university. He's on Twitter by the way: @ShipingTang A summary of some of the more interesting points: External constraints are helpful for China Zhang Yunling says that "external constraints—as long as they do not lead to confrontation or attempts to destroy China—are actually helpful for our country". Which at first glance is completely counter-intuitive: if you listen to Western international relations scholars like Mearsheimer, a country's foremost objective should be to have as little constraint as possible. So how does it make sense? Zhang explains that "all major powers have a tendency towards self-centredness and hegemony. [On account of] today's challenging international landscape, maintaining hegemony involves enormous costs." So in effect he believes that external constraints help check these natural impulses to be self-centered - aka hubristic and not listening to the world - and/or hegemonic, which he says "involves enormous costs", meaning it is not sustainable or beneficial for China (or any other power). Zhang further emphasizes that this view is based on his "basic judgment" that "in today's world, no country has the ability to invade China anymore." Which means that external constraints shouldn't be too worrying as they effectively aren't existential. One way to view it is like in a competition between companies. A company that's unconstrained, with no competition, will become a fat complacent monopoly and in the long run this sows the seeds of its eventual demise. Against black and white thinking This is typically the one thing that we in the West have the hardest time with in Chinese thought, because it comes so naturally to us to think in absolutes, to see something as either "good" or "bad" and someone as either "with us" or "against us", which always necessarily leads us towards confrontation. This way of thinking is however almost completely absent from Chinese thought, they simply do not think like this. This is reflected in the discussion here. For instance Zhang argues that in reaction to the U.S. forcing countries to take side, China shouldn't start doing so in turn but instead opt for the concept of “choosing projects, not sides” [选项不选边]. And in case some countries do choose to side with the U.S. the concept with them should be “choosing sides but still choosing projects” [选边亦选项] whereby "these countries may have to side with the US on certain issues, but this does not mean they will completely refuse to cooperate with China." As Zhang explains, the overall objective of all this is to "create a flexible space for coexistence" as opposed to "be swayed by our emotions" and "define relationships based on the choice of sides". Similarly for China's periphery they speak of the concept of "my neighbours and I", meaning that "China and its neighbours jointly create a region of coexistence, with the goal of achieving coexistence and coprosperity". This is in stark contrast with, for instance, the US's Monroe doctrine of establishing a "backyard" through brute force. As Zhang explains, China's approach purposefully establishes no hierarchy between countries, prioritizes dialogue and negotiations "instead of traditional military force", considers others' interests, all with coexistence and mutual prosperity as ultimate objectives. Also, they have a concept of "close but not intimate" [近而不亲], meaning that they purposefully seek to maintain certain distances or boundaries with their neighbors in order to avoid situations of dependence and to uphold the concept of China not imposing sides. Some will immediately say "but the South China Sea" or "but the Philippines", but looking at the bigger picture it's absolutely undeniable that all in all China's neighbours have become prosperous thanks to China's rise. For instance it's incredible to think that ASEAN's economy added more to global economic growth between 2000 and 2020 than did the whole of the EU! And a big part of the reason is because China-ASEAN trade exploded from $40 billion in 2000 to $975 billion in 2022. It's also undeniable that despite skirmishes here and there, peaceful coexistence is a fact: there have been no wars in the region in over 4 decades and it's undeniable that countries in the region aren't forced by China to choose sides. On the contrary, countries that are involved in these skirmishes like the Philippines are those that - quite the coincidence - unequivocally chose to vassalize themselves to the U.S... All in all, this shows that China doesn't see the world in binary terms but rather seeks the emergence of self-reinforcing mutually beneficial system with its neighbors and the world. Which is less costly for China (in terms of military, paying off vassals, etc.) and in the end more beneficial: if your neighbors thrive, if the world thrives, you also benefit in multitude of ways. At the end of the day it's a more sustainable and flexible approach than a Monroe doctrine imperialist approach with all the negative consequences we witness today. On the new world order They say that "China does not seek to replace or defeat the United States" but still "hopes to change the world", in particular by "giving more space to developing countries and creating opportunities for shared participation in and distribution of global wealth". For this Zhang proposes the idea of “building temples, renovating temples, but not demolishing temples”. He defines it as such: "China can establish new systems [i.e. economic, regulatory, political etc.]. If you are able to, go ahead and build them, [but] your ideas must be widely accepted. This is not about forming alliances or drawing together military cliques; rather it is more about reflecting China's economic interests. 'Renovating temples' means supplementing existing systems. 'Not demolishing temples' means being a builder, not a destroyer." They also differentiates the notion of "responsible major power" as opposed to the U.S. which they see as a "destructive power". More concretely, they argue that a "responsible major power" has three roles: "defender [捍卫者], contributor [贡献者] and builder [建设者]" which is to be contrasted from "the traditional path of hegemonic expansion". This is in the context of them believing that in the new world order "power will shift from being overly concentrated to being more dispersed", so China sees itself as playing a crucial role in shaping a more balanced global system that better represents the interests of non-Western and developing countries, while still working within and improving upon existing international frameworks rather than overturning them entirely. Overall conclusion: This discussion reveals a level of strategic depth in Chinese foreign policy thinking that often goes unrecognized in the West, and one that's also more and more absent in Western thinking. What's particularly striking is the emphasis on sustainable, long-term strategies that see the world holistically as opposed to a sum of parts. By advocating for a "flexible space for coexistence" and rejecting the binary thinking that often dominates Western approaches, it shows that China is simply playing a different game altogether. We're very, very away from the halfwitted neocon thinking we've been too used to... Ultimately, this discussion underscores the need for Western policymakers and scholars to engage more deeply with Chinese strategic thinking. If only to understand what China actually seeks instead of our usual habit of assuming they think like us, but also because it offers fascinating ways of redefining how international relations could potentially work.

On point and sharp. Check this short 1 min clip also: https://x.com/utism_/status/1843006917012226388 "We are going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing it off with Iran" and here we are.. Israel and the US are terrorist states, not terrorist societies - but its political elite and vested interests.

Reporters are sick of the bullshit: 'We hear that Putin, Khomeini are war criminals, they're terrorists, as if they're too inherently evil or immoral for us (West) to be able to negotiate with but meanwhile, this administration has financed a genocide in Gaza for the last year and everyday your up there denying accountability for it. So what gives you the right to lecture other countries'' 'It is a genocide, you are abetting it, and risking nuclear war in Ukraine''

This 13min video shows how Iran got to where it is today really well: Kim Dotcom: ''Iran is a victim of decades of injustice perpetrated by the US and the UK in an effort to control Irans oil. They couped the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and installed a US puppet until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Over 500,000 Iranians have died in the US-Iraq war against Iran. Even more died because of US sanctions. Iran is not a terrorist state. Iran has been forced to defend itself against regime change efforts and colonial aggression from the US and their satellites in the Middle East. The Iranians should be applauded for aiding the Palestinian people in their struggle against the illegal occupation by Israel and decades of injustice, theft and dehumanization. Iran has a long history of standing up to bullies. The Persians have fought the Romans, the Turks and the Mongols. Survival is deeply encoded in the Iranian DNA. A war with Iran would be a massive miscalculation by Israel and the US. Iran has prepared for this war. It has a formidable army and a significant arsenal of long range ballistic and hypersonic missiles. Russia and China would support Iran in a war against the US and Israel. Ukraine in reverse. With the big difference that the US can never defeat Iran unlike Russia which is currently destroying the Ukrainian army and its NATO equipment in the US proxy war. The Rand corporation should have titled its infamous warmongering research paper more accurately: ‘Overextending and Unbalancing America and the EU.’ A war against Iran would result in an acceleration of the inevitable decline of US empire and the destruction of Israel. The risk of Israel utilizing nuclear weapons against Iran is significant. It would not lead to victory but to global condemnation and punishment against the Jewish people. Whoever is in charge of the US Govt right now should establish urgent client control and stop the mass murdering war criminal @netanyahu before it’s too late. Jews everywhere should demand the resignation of this lunatic for the purpose of self preservation. Watch the video below to understand that the so called ‘terrorists’ in Iran are simply the victims of endless bullying and deserve nothing but respect from any fair minded person. Resisting evil bullies who want to steal your natural resources is not terrorism.''

Is a occupier balanced with who he occupies? Is a business owner in balance with who works for him? Is a person with a rock and a person with a gun equally responsible for the violence they commit between one another? The problem isn't that Palestinians want a state, the problem is Israel obstructing them from one which is their right by law. If you win the lottery for a million dollars and I get in the way of you receiving that million dollars - am I right or wrong for doing so?

Seems like the ethnic cleansing and dispossession will continue if this video indicates what looks like West Bank 2.0 in the making : New buffer zones created in Gaza by dividing it into fractured blocks to be monitored via check points stationed in multiple corridors. So instead of occupying it from outside, they will occupy it from within. Any Hamas fighters or ''resistance'' to this dystopia that pops up from the tunnels will be stamped out like a game of whack a mole as the IDF will be watching like hawks over it. This isn't a solution, only a escalation of a already intolerable reality. As if we haven't seen what Israel has already done with their power except nothing but abuse it in the West Bank with settlement expansion. This reality will be copy and pasted onto Gaza as the precedent is already set. All this done in the 21st century, backed by the West. The world failed the Palestinian people, shame.

Twitter thread from Mouin Rabbani: 1. The Axis of Resistance is a coalition rather than a formal alliance. It consists of states, movements, and militias that share the common objective of confronting and reducing US and Israeli influence in the Middle East, and at times of weakening governments allied with the West as well. 2. Iran is the most powerful member of this coalition and therefore a central and highly-influential player. But it does not command the Axis of Resistance. It is more the Germany of the European Union than the Soviet Union of the Warsaw Pact. Its influence is also far from uniform and, as demonstrated by the shifts in Iranian-Syrian relations during the past quarter century, changes over time. Some militias operating in Iraq and Syria have all the hallmarks of Iranian proxies. Yemen’s AnsarAllah clearly does not. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was closely involved with the establishment of Hizballah, which for good measure fully subscribes to the Islamic Republic’s system of rule. But it is today powerful enough to make its decisions in Beirut rather than Tehran. Hamas for its part has had an ambivalent relationship with the Axis. At the outset of the Syrian civil war Hamas broke with Damascus, and its exile leadership moved not to Beirut or Tehran but Doha, and a rupture with Iran lasting almost half a decade ensued. 3. It’s transparently clear that the 7 October attacks were neither an Iranian initiative nor coordinated with the Axis of Resistance. So transparently clear that US and Israeli intelligence have come to the same conclusion to preserve their credibility. I don’t believe Hamas ever expected its coalition allies to immediately unleash similar offensives of their own upon Israel. It must have understood that just as Hamas prioritized its own interests and agenda, others would do so as well. 4. Nevertheless, Hizballah on 8 October opened what it termed a support front against Israel, and over the next two months was joined by Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria. Iran played a supporting role, except when it was directly targeted by Israel. 5. The purpose of the support fronts has been to engage in multi-front attritional warfare against Israel, and to a lesser extent against its allies, in order to raise the costs to Israel and its Western sponsors of continuing the genocidal campaign against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. To this end, they have repeatedly stated that their attacks would cease the moment a ceasefire takes hold in the Gaza Strip. 6. Preventing coordinated or unified action by its adversaries has been a guiding principle of Israeli statecraft going back to the 1949 Armistice negotiations that ended the Palestine War. De-linking the support fronts from the Gaza Strip, and then from each other has therefore been an Israeli priority. 7. As a rule, states and conventional militaries prefer to avoid wars of attrition, particularly when these are prosecuted on their territory. They are too costly in terms of the social, economic, and manpower losses involved. This forms the crucial context for the dramatic escalations of the past week. 8. Israel’s dilemma in this respect is two-fold: Its campaigns to de-link and suppress the support fronts risk their escalation into additional full-scale conflicts independent of the war against Gaza. And secondly, the longer this campaign continues the greater the prospect of a full-scale regional conflagration. 9. In other words, the combination of Israel’s inability to achieve a decisive outcome in the Gaza Strip, and refusal to accept a ceasefire agreement, has forced it to play double or nothing. Either Hizballah capitulates and dismantles its support front, or it will face the full force of the Israeli military. Yemen has withstood similar efforts by the US-UK naval task force in the Red Sea. Short of a mortal Israeli blow against Hizballah and its military capabilities, a scenario that no one takes seriously, it also won’t work in Lebanon. 10. Yet from Israel’s perspective the challenge is also a unique opportunity. With Biden wrapped firmly around his finger, Netanyahu believes that the period until January 2025 is ideal to provoke a direct US-Iranian confrontation. And he seems to have decided that the road to Tehran goes through the southern suburbs of Beirut. 11. Just to be clear, tails don’t wag dogs. Dogs wag tails. Washington may well have liked for Israel to approach things differently, but it is geopolitically invested in preventing an Israeli defeat. And that is what makes this moment so particularly dangerous. END

Deplorable. Regarding assassinations:

That's not justification do to horrible acts to others though. Otherwise, we can say that whats happening to Gazans can now be done upon Israelis, which is wrong. Israels Mossad headquarters is based in a densley populated area of Tel Aviv filled with civilians - can we say Israel is using human shields? Does this become a legit target? Of course not, but Israels government thinks different when they see Palestinians. But we must learn from history and not commit the same mistakes, or similar. What makes Israel a special case is it was founded in the 20th century when the world had already adopted new norms around self determination and de-colonisation. Even if we put the founding of Israel behind us, the issue is they still continue to expand settlements till today and take territory or deny territory to Palestinians in the form of their own state. The focus is because the West completely backs and sends money to Israel unconditionally while not having as much concern for their own citizens (Hurricane Helen as a recent example). The entire America First meme indicates how fed up people are. So not only can the West play a massive part in stopping this grave injustice, but they can focus on their own issues. Thats why its the focus of today, because we can do something about it. Most countries were found on violent histories - but thats the point, that violence is history and not a present reality as nations have largely resolved their territorial disputes and settled within their borders. But no nation is obstructing another group from having their own today except Israel. You can't just keep millions of people stateless into the 21st century as if their a random tribe in the Amazon rainforest.

True, it’s one thing to call a just cause glorious, it’s another to call the violent means to that end, in and of itself glorious. Theirs glory in the cause, not in immoral acts done in pursuit of that cause. Tribal thinking will generalize the best of their group while exceptionalising the worst of their group. Cherry picking the worst examples of a society is problematic as it reduces a society to its worst elements. But I think in Israel’s case theres just been so many cases of bad behaviour caught on video and for such a small country that it looks more systemic rather than as isolated anomalies. It’s obviously not all the population, but it’s sizable enough to shift state policy and politics. I’ve seen pro Palestinians quote polling which showed that most Israelis don’t think Israel was going hard enough on Gaza in their bombing campaign, even I shared that here before - but I’d have to verify how reflective such polls can really be ie what’s the sample size etc. Its messy to generalize with such things.

Where have I minimised? I’m simply sharing a video which goes into how October 7th was amplified to justify what Israel has done afterwards. The beheaded babies, systemic rape, babies in ovens, narrative about the children of light vs darkness and of Western civilisation vs a backward civilisation full of savage barbarians. This is the deception and use of atrocity propaganda. “Atrocity propaganda exists because it is an extremely effective tool in shaping public opinion and justifying extreme actions. By dehumanizing the enemy, it creates the emotional and moral groundwork for violence, war, and oppression to be seen as not only acceptable but necessary. The power of atrocity propaganda lies in its ability to simplify complex conflicts into clear narratives of good and evil, leaving little room for nuance, debate, or peaceful alternatives. Once people are convinced they are fighting monsters, there is no limit to what they will tolerate in the name of self-defense or moral duty. This is why, time and again, governments, militaries, and regimes resort to atrocity propaganda—it’s an essential part of selling the public on the idea that extreme actions are not just justified but morally imperative.” Atrocity propaganda only works if it can stay ahead of the truth, which is hard in the digital age.

Graphic lyrical video as a reminder to what our eyes witnessed a year since this all began. Unsettling re-visiting some of the scenes from those first few months and to remember all the discussions on this forum. To think this was all justified and backed by the West. That similar scenes and rhetoric are being used now towards Lebanon - this is how large segments of the Middle Eastern population view Israel and America as terrorist states.

@Inliytened1 A good documentary showcasing Israelis deception regarding what occurred on October 7th, to justify their disproportionate response following it:

Of course Palestinians won’t become absorbed into Israel, that’s rhetorical. The point of the questioning is to expose the weakness in Zionist justifications by getting them to defend the untenable (forever occupation) or reconsider their position. The fact Heaven evades the question and responded to you proves its effectiveness.

So they relocated to somewhere they weren’t living and took over a portion of land from native people already living there? If the roles were reversed wouldn’t Israelis resist this or any other group? Maybe it hasn’t been a success because of occupation. If Israelis demand security so bad, how can security be achieved by occupying people forever who will naturally resist it? The point is, Jewish people lost everything 75 years ago, but Palestinians have been losing what’s theirs for 75 years and still continuing till today - can you acknowledge this injustice is the core of the issue, just as it was for Jews? The ones responsible for destruction should be held to account for reconstruction. Just like Germany and Japan had to pay reparations after WW2 or Iraq destroying Kuwait.

@Heaven Hypothetically, if Palestinians occupied Israelis, should the Israelis resist this occupation? Also hypothetically, let’s say Israel defeats Hamas and they no longer exist. What should Israel do with all the Palestinians that remain in Gaza and West Bank? Will they become part of Israeli society with equal rights or be given their own state?

India can make the same case that its in a bad neighbourhood, flanked by two nuclear countries, or South Korea by one. We don’t see India or the Koreas acting the way Israel does - they navigate those tensions like every other country. Israel is unique in its disregard for International law and Geneva convention violations in how they commit them so brazenly with arrogance. Just see Israel’s UN speech and Irans - and they see who is the one speaking of peace and who of war, and who speaks with such arrogance and mocks the UN. Israel officially isn’t nuclear yet have the Samson option that threatens nuclear strikes as a last resort - no other country would be allowed to exist with such nuclear ambiguity. If someone wins a lottery worth a million dollars, are denied those millions dollar, then go on to pursue it - are they entitled or just obtaining what’s rightfully theirs? If we don’t want Palestinians to so fervently pursue statehood, we shouldn’t have made it their right enshrined in international law - that’s not entitlement, that’s just them pushing their legal right.

Even if we put aside the debate on who’s native or not, that’s exactly the point - if both sides are equally native then both have equal claim to rights and dignity within that territory. If they don’t want to live together and want to slice up their own states that’s fine too - just don’t try to justify denying the other natives what’s theirs and morally grandstand about it which is what really rubs people the wrong way and what the West excel at.

That’s exactly the point - these demographic and security issues are where the geopolitical/logistical complexity come from. But that doesn’t negate the underlying moral injustice at the core - which is to deny a people inclusion into your state or exclude them from having their own if you don’t want them to be a majority demographically in your own. Israel’s constant refrain about security threats from neighboring countries while valid to an extent, doesn’t make it special. Every country lives with the reality of potential conflict. India and Pakistan, China and India, even Germany and France - all of them have histories of violence, yet they coexist as sovereign nations. What makes Israel different? It’s not security, it’s entitlement. The idea that Israel alone gets to deny an entire people their right to self-determination because they might be dangerous in the future is pure hypocrisy. We face risks every time we walk out the door, but we don’t lock up or strip away the rights of everyone just because danger might exist. So why should Israel be any different? The moral clarity here is simple: denying people their freedom and using fear as an excuse to do it is unjust, no matter how complex the geopolitical web gets.

It’s complex in that it’s hard to resolve due to geopolitics, logistics and power interests. But it’s simple in terms of moral clarity. You can have moral clarity on a issue while acknowledging its broader geopolitical and logistical complexity. Take the following: “Imagine if in America, Native Americans were not integrated into the country’s democracy but were sidelined instead. Then, when they demanded a state of their own due to being unwanted, they were denied even that possibility. When they resisted, they were labeled and gaslit as terrorists.” Is there any moral complexity in this? In denying people entry into your state but also keeping them from having their own with the use of violence? Most societies agree that theft is wrong (moral clarity) whether it’s small scale (personal goods) or large scale (land and property). But we can also recognise the complexity in solving those issues like addressing inequality and increasing opportunities. I’m not anti-West, I’m an anti-naughtiness.

People often see the issue as complex and full of weeds not to be got into but it’s actually pretty straightforward. Straightening it out is hard, but it is simple to see who is the wronged party as acknowledged by the founding father of the nation - and that that party is still being wronged today is the whole problem. The only reason people may find this situation complex is due to the decades of history in which a lot has happened and they lack the knowledge of facts on - including a ton of propaganda to obscure the situation. But if looked at bluntly, there is no moral high ground for the Israelis in this, just a moral quicksand that they and the West collectively are sinking in. Can this really be what the West are backing and taking the world to the brink of global war for? Common lol.

The point of sharing Ben Gurion’s words a few pages back was to highlight at least a inkling of acknowledgment on his part of who is the aggressor and instigator of injustice in the Palestine issue - though he justified it through Zionist logic. Most countries, if not all, are founded on violence. The difference as I’ve emboldened in the post above is that Israel hasn’t finished finding itself in the context of what it claims to be their homeland. Across the world nations have resolved their territorial disputes by integrating indigenous or external groups as citizens, rather than excluding them in an apartheid-like system or leaving them in a state of limbo for decades into the modern age. Ironically, it’s the natives who are oppressed into a purgatory realm of statelessness who are called ‘backward’. Imagine if in America, Native Americans were not integrated into the country’s democracy but were sidelined instead. Then, when they demanded a state of their own due to being unwanted, they were denied even that possibility. When they resisted, they were labeled and gaslit as terrorists. If one can’t see the absurdity in this, they must be absurd themselves.