zazen

I provided a link indexed with up to 65 laws that discriminate. So unofficial organisations can't sway and influence government bodies such as AIPAC in USA for example? Half the members of the government agency Israeli Land Authority (ILA) that manages and allocates state lands belong to JNF. From Wiki: In 1953, the JNF was dissolved and re-organized as an Israeli company under the name Keren Kayemet LeYisrael (JNF-KKL). In 1960, administration of the land held by the JNF-KKL, apart from forested areas, was transferred to a newly formed government agency, the Israel Land Administration (ILA). The ILA was then responsible for managing some 93% of the land of Israel. All the land managed by the ILA was defined as Israel lands; it included both land owned by the government (about 80%) and land owned by the JNF-KKL (about 13%). The JNF-KKL received the right to nominate 10 of the 22 directors of the ILA, lending it significant leverage within that state body. Sure, its a Jewish state like you say - but then people can't claim with moral superiority its a democracy when it's really a ethnocracy. Like I said, I'm not against Israel's existence or its right to defend itself, its just in how it currently exists and goes about its defence. The fact remains that Israel can't have the remains of an oppressive discriminatory system and security apparatus and expect to be loved by the world. That makes the Jewish diaspora feel probably more unsafe and disillusions the majority of the Jewish youth away from Israel as the polls show in the US. If the Jews want so bad to live as a Jewish state then at least give the Palestinians a viable state as a solution so they can go live there in peace. Rabin who wanted peace was assassinated instead, and any offers haven't met the international criteria of being a sovereign state - thats why they are rejected by the Arab side. The land on which the Palestinians would have their state (West Bank) has been encroached by settler expansion almost nullifying or making the solution even harder.

@hundreth ''The fact remains, Israel receives an incredibly disproportionate amount of contempt and hate given what many consider it's biggest crime: existing. There's nothing Israel can do to satisfy you except for committing suicide and ceasing to be.'' Past colonial foundations exist but don't discredit present existing states (Israel) that came from it. Thats not the issue. The issue is when an oppressive and discriminatory system and security apparatus still exists as a residue of that root colonialism that needs to be rid of in the 21st century. Relics of past colonialism that are unjust can't exist in a post colonial world as most are opposed to it. Just as relics of religion and tradition that are unjust can't exist in a post religious and traditional world - although we shouldn't just throw the baby out with the bath water. Most sensible people aren't calling for the end of Israel, but the end of how it currently exists. I even commented two pages back that I'm all for defending their existence and right to defend itself.

@hundreth What you deem the label of occupation is a reality for 5 million Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza. In Israel proper they aren't legally occupied but are discriminated against. Occupation doesn't mean like when you go to the toilet 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. But if you want to see the discrimination about Israel proper itself and exclude the occupied territories. Heres a link to a list of laws within Israel that discriminate: https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index One example is land purchase: ''A large percentage of land in Israel is under the control of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which has a: “specific mandate to develop land for and lease land only to Jews. Thus the 13 percent of land in Israel owned by the JNF is by definition off-limits to Palestinian Arab citizens, and when the ILA tenders leases for land owned by the JNF, it does so only to Jews—either Israeli citizens or Jews from the Diaspora. This arrangement makes the state directly complicit in overt discrimination against Arab citizens in land allocation and use..”. The JNF is not the only entity blocking Palestinian citizens of Israel from purchasing, leasing or renting land and property, but also by so-called regional and local councils, which account for the vast majority of land. These councils have the authority to block anyone from settling in these areas that do not seem like a “good fit”. In a Statement submitted by Habitat International Coalition and Adalah to the United Nations, it was estimated that almost 80% of the entire country is off limits to lease for Palestinian citizens of Israel.'' The same channel you shared has a video asking the question if Israeli Arabs feel occupied (not Palestinians of West Bank or Gaza) - most said yes, though legally speaking what they describe is more discrimination than occupation. As for the guy you shared - of course he/they wouldn't want to live elsewhere as thats their home and by the backing of the West it is a safe and more prosperous country. That doesn't mean the existence of injustices and oppression still don't exist.

@hundreth Whataboutism but since we're gonna play that game - I agree they should move to secular states and have human rights issues. A difference between them and Israel however is that they aren't occupiers, have a 'security' structure akin to apartheid as confirmed by Amnesty and Israeli human rights group B'tselem or systemic discrimination (some of them sure ie Emiraties in UAE). Neither do they attempt to elevate themselves and claim themselves 'to be the only democracy in the Middle East'. In the minds of those who often say this they think it confers an automatic moral superiority to Israel which further distinguishes it from its “backwards” neighbours. The assumption is that just because they are a democracy that is for the people and by the people that this translates to listening to the needs and wants of its citizens, who generally tend to reject war, misery and repression - but what is advertised isn't what is often practiced by the state as we can see from many war mongering democracies in modern times. Jim Crow United States was classified as a democracy at the time. If a state practicing untold injustice and repression against its own citizens let alone people abroad could maintain the moniker of democracy, then how can anyone claim that being a democracy automatically makes a state good or just? A system is no more moral or corrupt except by the agents within that system making it so. As you reference the official United States government I will reference them also to confirm that they also refer to Israel/Palestine as occupied territories: https://www.state.gov/reports/2016-report-on-international-religious-freedom/israel-and-the-occupied-territories/israel-and-the-occupied-territories-the-occupied-territories/ And a article about rising tensions along religious lines : https://www.uscirf.gov/release-statements/uscirf-expresses-concern-integrity-religious-sites-jerusalem-area “Recent attacks at sites of religious significance in and around Jerusalem restrict religious freedom for people of many different faiths. We hope that as Ramadan, Passover, and Easter approach, all houses of worship will be respected,” said USCIRF Commissioner Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum. Words such as occupation, apartheid, or systemic discrimination incite a allergic reaction to the ideologically captured Israel apologists because any discussion going forward from accepting these as realities favour the ones being occupied or discriminated against to be more legally right and morally legitimate in their defence, even armed defence. That is why they are so blatantly omitted in any discussion and often denied.

Israel doesn't allow their own population in their national registry to identify as Israeli - only Arab, Jew, Druse etc because doing so could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s Jewish character the Israeli Supreme Court said. Israel considers itself both Jewish and democratic yet has struggled to balance both. The country has not officially recognized an Israeli nationality. In a Supreme Court case, 21 petitioners argued that Israel is not democratic because it is Jewish. They say that the country’s Arab minority faces discrimination because certain policies favor Jews and that a shared Israeli nationality could bring an end to such prejudice and unite all of Israel’s citizens. “The Jewish identity is anti-democratic,” said Uzzi Ornan, the main petitioner who runs “I am Israeli,” a small organization devoted to having the Israeli nationality officially recognized. Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/supreme-court-rejects-israeli-nationality-status/amp/ It says quite a lot about Israel that a unifying egalitarian identity not based around ethnicity would “pose a danger to Israel’s founding principle: to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people“, as the court ruled. The fact that such discrimination is seen as a cornerstone of Israeli society only reinforces its colonial ethnocratic nature, and undermines any claims to equality among citizens.

The 1947 UNGA resolution wasn't the first partition scheme to be presented. In 1919 the World Zionist Organization put forward a ‘partition’ plan, which included all of historical Palestine, parts of Lebanon, Syria and Transjordan. At the time, the Jewish population of this proposed state didn't even reach 2-3% of the total population. Obviously this proposal was too unrealistic but it shows the entitlement of the Zionist movement in wanting to establish an ethnic state in an area where they were so utterly outnumbered. Even after waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine, and a much smaller area allocated to the Jewish state in the 1947 partition plan, the proposed Jewish state wouldn't have a Jewish majority without more immigration and settlements. Even on the eve of the Nakba, the Jewish population in mandatory Palestine was less than a third. If we consider that most of this population arrived during the 4th and 5th Aliyot (Between 1924-1939), then majority of those demanding partition of the land had barely been living there for 20 years at most. The UN partition plan allotted approximately 56% of the land of mandatory Palestine to the Jewish state. Why, then, were Palestinians expected to agree to give away most of their land to a minority of recently arrived settlers? Why is the rejection of such a ridiculously unjust proposal framed as irrational or hateful? Any public acceptance of the partition plan by the Zionists was tactical in order for the newly created Jewish state to gather its strength before expanding. This can be referenced by many meetings taking place at the time and comments by the Zionist leadership: Partition: “after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine “ — Ben Gurion, p.22 “The Birth of Israel, 1987” Simha Flapan.

@Nabd Agreed and thanks for also pointing out that the Palestinians among them also abuse their cause. They may withstand the genocide/massacre but the point I think Lina also made is that what events set in motion for them (Hamas) to exist in the first place and which party has more power to affect change - Palestinian people disempowered and beholden to Hamas or a state body such as Israel with one of the most advanced militaries in the world and a superpower behind it. Most people don't see this as complicated - that the Palestinian treatment over decades is unjust. What is complicated is the solution or how we get to the solution with such vested interests on both sides who benefit from the status quo staying as it is. There exists a whole category of Palestinian leadership who profit from the suffering of the Palestinian cause as do Western interests in having a excuse in the Middle East as Biden once said (if there were no Israel we need to create one) to pursue geopolitical goals in a resource rich region. Who caused that cause (Palestinians) to exist in the first place that could be exploited on both ends - a cause that most with a moral conscience support though it doesn't mean we support those who hijack that cause for personal gain such as Hamas. Legally and morally I think the Palestinians are more in the right - they are the more aggrieved party in this situation. So I will side with their cause, but that doesn't mean I will always side in how they go about achieving their cause. Just as I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself but not the way in which they exist currently at the expense of the natives of that land or how they go about defending themselves killing innocents. The Palestinians emancipation is also the Israeli's emancipation - Israel will free itself from the stained negative reputation it has worldwide that it needs to waste resources on propaganda for in order to rid itself of. People on this forum are a minority and a lot of the world are unconscious and ignorant and easily associate people with their governments - Israeli's won't need to tackle indirect hostility or cold shoulders from people in the world due to this. That could all end with the Palestinians being given their rights and dignity. The burden of being a constant warden of a captive population and fearing for resistant retaliation which keep them in a constant state of fear and that cunning leaders like Bibi exploit for political power can end so they can put their energy to more noble pursuits.

There are facts and then there are the moral judgment of those facts. The fact is both sides commit terrorist acts and are devils committing evil. The scale of a act doesn't absolve the agent of that act from being labelled a terrorist, there can be state terrorism too. If we say Palestinians are Hamas's first victims or any people who the terrorist claim to be fighting for - we have to ask what enables the existence of those terrorists in the first place, what enabled their cause they claim to fight for? As far as legalities, it's in the Palestinians right to resist occupation, even armed resistance - a legal grey area comes when they start using terrorist methods and attacking civilians yes. They are occupied and addressed as such by all the relevant bodies and nation states including the US and UK who are Israel's allies - so that isn't even disputed which is a common rebuttal. As far as who has the moral high ground and is the more evil side - a group that are expansionist in their aspirations at the expense of anything in the way including natives in the way of that expansion seem more evil than the group of natives who's aspiration is one of localised resistant defence. The difference is the native inhabitant views it as a territorial defensive dispute of their home land and the other a conquest legitimised by religious sentiment that claims it as their homeland 2'000 years ago. A groups rights and moral high ground stops the minute they start infringing upon another existing groups - which is what the case is here. I am not approving Hamas's tactics, just analysing the place from which it comes - understanding doesn't mean endorsement. People who were once deemed terrorists such as Mandela of South Africa or Mat Turner of the slave revolt are today deemed heroes of emancipation. The elites are not morally consistent in applying their definitions, labels and judgements but morally strategic in applying them to their allies and to their interests. Morality and values then are used more as political sticks to undermine adversarial and hostile people and states rather than as a matter of principle.

@lina True words. In fact former Prime Minister Rabin who wanted peace was assassinated by Bibi's incitement from a far right extremist. ''Rabin was murdered on November 4, 1995, by Yigal Amir, an extremist Jew, who was opposed to the Oslo Accords and the handing over of control of parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians as a part of a landmark peace agreement. In the weeks before the assassination, Netanyahu, then head of the opposition, and other senior Likud members attended a right-wing political rally in Jerusalem where protesters branded Rabin a “traitor,” “murderer,” and “Nazi” for signing a peace agreement with the Palestinians earlier that year.'' And if we like to just look at present day we have Netanyahu citing a biblical reference to “Amalek” in the context of the “destruction of Hamas” and to “eradicate this evil from the world.” A highly intentional religious justification for Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza’s Palestinian innocents. The “annihilate Amalek” theme invokes support from the divine in this modern crusade to exterminate the Amalekites, interpreted today as every Palestinian. Genocidally charged language that Bibi references to get support from American evangelical Christian Zionists. Their propaganda is not only domestic but to the US “market” as one Israeli spokesperson described it - because it is a market that provides financial support and diplomatic shielding to their agenda. Heres a video of your quote by Yassin:

I followed up by saying their present day actions and position isn't one of peace if you read beyond the first paragraph - just like you responded only to the first paragraph of my other post - but I understand your busy so I've underlined it. It would be easier to only look at present day but we need to look at what caused both sides to get to today. They reap what they sow and if they sow the wind they will reap the whirlwind of todays destruction.

@Leo Gura @Raze @How to be wise Both sides have mutually exclusive claims that are self terminating especially if we look solely to their founding document and charter - including the Likud parties which won't recognise any Palestinian sovereignty from the river to the sea. If Israel are unable to live peacefully alongside such a ideology Palestinians are unable to live peacefully alongside Likud parties and the extremist ideological version of Zionism that has become manifest. Both sides founding documents were written decades ago and parties evolve so we can only look at more recent times actions. From the Israeli side we see settlement expansion on what could have been the Palestinians state and from Hamas though they softened and revised their charter to not call for the destruction of Israel in 2017 their actions and words in present day show otherwise. Each reacting to the other. After Hamas revised their charter the following year in 2018 the tried the great march of return which shows they attempted peaceful protest and in which Israel shot at disabled people, press and medics which could clearly be seen. They blow the knee cap of thousands. It wasn't totally peaceful but from which side we will not know - did some Palestinians start becoming unpeaceful and throwing rocks during the march to escalate things or did Israel shoot first and they react as such. It seems they have no avenue but terrorism when the BDS (economic protest) movement is prevented, peaceful marches (peaceful protest) turn into blood bath and kneecapping sports for the IDF. Then when they see Israel and the Arab world building ties (Abraham accords) which completely leaves them out the picture they feel thrown under the bus further, and the increasing settlement expansion and violence in the West Bank this year - all this culminated in them lashing out and going back to a extreme stance it seems. The fact of the lack of IDF on the October 7th attack is revealing - they were all mostly in the West Bank - why? Due to settler drama and expansion. So its tricky to say who started what and who's reacting to what. It seems Hamas started this battle but the war was started by the extremist brand of Zionism.

Good article. It mentioned Vietnam which reminded me of this clip - if Hamas have built anything like these tunnels I’m not sure.

Believing you can get rid of violent resistance groups with bombs is like believing you can get rid of a bruise by punching it harder. Bombing them only nurtures the very conflict Israel seek to eradicate - it legitimizes and enables factions of resistance even more. If Hamas are eradicated another group or faction will fill the power vacuum for resistance. You get rid of resistance by giving them nothing to resist in the first place ie occupation.

I wrote that tongue in cheek but relating it to the current conflict: What differentiates a terrorist from a resistance group that uses terrorist tactics? What enables the existence of terrorists to even organise in the first place? I can understand having to stop a group that are expansionist in their aspirations but what of a group who’s aspiration is localised to their native land and resisting occupation of it? I think a nuanced distinction can be made between a native territorial dispute and a conquest of empire with expansionist ambitions. The difference is in intent being one of a local resistance vs globalist conquest (which is what Hitler, Mongols and ISIS were) What I wrote following that from the post is below for further context: “In order to deal with barbarians you need to embody some of their values because they are incapable of embodying some of your 'higher' ones. They don't have rationality but have the law of the jungle which is that they respect strength and ruthlessness. And so you become what you despise and what your higher values go against in busying yourself in dealing with them - so why not leave them be rather than complain about them resisting when you pin them down to the floor through occupation, siege and blockade. I expect nothing less than for people to resist despite what spiral stage we colour code and paintball them with. Even a ant resists in order to survive. If 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 an alien reaction or lack of reaction if no resistance occurred. It is probably in Israel's best interest to not take their cue from how America has dealt with the war on terror through bombardments. A chihuahua can't learn and act like the Pitbull it aspires to be. America has a geography blessed with vast seas on its sides, a ally to its North and a weak nation to its South that insulates it from its foreign adventures. It can go around bombarding regions and barely have any repercussion, in fact Europe bears the brunt of the cost via the refugee crises caused by these Wars. However Israel acting that way endangers it in a way America acting that way doesn't. Israel sits by itself in a angered region. Israel's actions have enraged the global south and even domestic Westerners (its own allied nations). Even Western media outlets critique Israels actions as they are unable to keep up with propaganda that gets shred by the advent of social media and alternative media. Their are limits to Americas interests - they can't just bankroll the expulsion of 2.3million people and destruction of their homes with the current technology that allows the world to see it and Israel can't afford to lose America and its domestic support either.”

Unlike bacteria, viruses are not considered living organisms because they cannot carry out essential life processes on their own. Instead, they rely on the host cells to replicate and reproduce. The host that empowered it and causes it to exist is your habibi Bibi Netenyahu and the conditions of the Palestinians. You mock forum user's who I think are balanced and not ill intentioned but then say things like this. The first step in resolving a issue is to not dehumanise the other but understand the cause and chain of events that lead them to their actions. The overton window has shifted so far right in Israeli society that neutral or centrist takes are considered unbalanced it seems. ''So you expect them to admit a five sentences explanatiom length? '' I replied to you with much more than 5 sentences - in fact I responded with 5 points on why the 'best' peace proposal of Camp David wasn't good enough in meeting such basic criteria of a state to which you haven't even responded.

The one way Westerners are made unsafe in their homes is by unconditional support to Israel which invokes more extremism. The one way we can all be safe including Israel is by coming to a decent peace proposal. In case you missed it this is why previous ones are usually rejected: (Also my post at the top of this page on dealing with stage red) Shout out to @Raze for sharing relevant media from X and @Danioover9000 @lina and @kenway for good, balanced and articulate posts I've come across since spending time on this forum.

If Palestinians are stage red - barbaric, unreasonable and stupid like you say then why even try reasoning with them in the first place? Just give them a state and let them be. Their so stupid and dysfunctional their country will never become powerful enough to threaten Israel anyway rite? If they are stage red, then we can only expect them to fight and resist as that's what stage red does apparently and resistance isn't just a human thing. So why would it be wise to keep occupying , controlling and dealing with such people if we know its completely in their spiral stage of development to fight back? Correct, Afghanistan is a great case study on how to deal with red including how America dealt with them - nothing came of it except destruction, further radicalisation, war profits, a stained reputation for war mongering and a embarrassing departure. In order to deal with barbarians you need to embody some of their values because they are incapable of embodying some of your 'higher' ones. They don't have rationality but have the law of the jungle which is that they respect strength and ruthlessness. And so you become what you despise and what your higher values go against in busying yourself in dealing with them - so why not leave them be rather than complain about them resisting when you pin them down to the floor through occupation, siege and blockade. I expect nothing less than for people to resist despite what spiral stage we colour code and paintball them with. Even a ant resists in order to survive. If 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 an alien reaction or lack of reaction if no resistance occurred. It is probably in Israel's best interest to not take their cue from how America has dealt with the war on terror through bombardments. A chihuahua can't learn and act like the Pitbull it aspires to be. America has a geography blessed with vast seas on its sides, a ally to its North and a weak nation to its South that insulates it from its foreign adventures. It can go around bombarding regions and barely have any repercussion, in fact Europe bears the brunt of the cost via the refugee crises caused by these Wars. However Israel acting that way endangers it in a way America acting that way doesn't. Israel sits by itself in a angered region. Israel's actions have enraged the global south and even domestic Westerners (its own allied nations). Even Western media outlets critique Israels actions as they are unable to keep up with propaganda that gets shred by the advent of social media and alternative media. Their are limits to Americas interests - they can't just bankroll the expulsion of 2.3million people and destruction of their homes with the current technology that allows the world to see it and Israel can't afford to lose America and its domestic support either. Just as you mentioned, it isn't only defence but deterrence - deterrence is supposed to be disproportionate to scare off hostility but only causes further hostility. Not only is the scale of destructive deterrence horrific but the timescale of it. Israel has destroyed over 50% of Gazans homes, I think its now 70% - in just 2 months. Even if they are given a doubtful right to return what are they returning to? Israel could easily claim Hamas are still amongst the Palestinians so they can't return and sayonara them into the Sinai. A sure fire way to never get rid of the virus that is Hamas is to keep fanning the flames of the Palestinian cause by expanding settlements in West Bank. Netenyahu funded and empowered Hamas to oppose PLO. As Palestinians are stage red and speak the language of respecting strength, the PLO look spineless to them and unable protect or do anything as basic as even stopping the settlement expansion which leaves no choice for the Palestinians in terms of who to vote for or support except the ones strongest enough to at least resist, even the worst kind of resistance that is the October 7th atrocity. But sure, all this is supposed to keep Israel safe.

I found your response to the video. Lets look at why they refused the proposals by looking at the most 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. None of these are ingredients for the creation of an actual sovereign state which meet the basic definitions of a sovereign state and the minimum international standards of one . The nerve, arrogance and entitlement to displace inhabitants from their land then negotiate with them about their land and offer such proposals is a insult to their dignity and intelligence. Ultimately, 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 Israeli's deluded 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. This is how all of the “generous” Israeli peace offers play out. The majority of people who hear about this on the news 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 stupid bloodthirsty savages. This is why the discourse always focuses on the number of offers, because it distracts from their content and unviability.

@Nivsch @Danioover9000 Speaking on a Palestinian supporting the Israeli side or Israeli the Palestinian side, here is an Israeli who shows the Palestinian side very well. I think its been shared here before. It’s 10min but worth listening. I think when people say pro Israeli or pro Palestinian we automatically think that means anti the other side but it could just mean you support peace for all except you see one side as being the more aggrieved and wronged side.

Their can’t be peace if the IDF shutdown any protest or talks from Israelis that favour or humanise Palestinians: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0iAML0uBnx/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA%3D%3D If Israel is a democracy and democracy claims to be by the people for the people and represent the people, then the following seems to show a sentiment opposing peaceful coexistence.

@Karmadhi Good list 👌🏼 Religious texts can easily lead to radicalisation if ignorantly interpreted.

A essay I came across on why men don’t want to pursue fatherhood: “A lot of men aren't interested in being patriarchs anymore. They're forever teenagers. Just want to have sex all the time and socialise with their friends. They're not building anything. They're not sacrificing anything. There's no greater goal. It's just perpetual adolescence. Just pleasure seeking for its own sake - at the cost of everything else. Hedonistic materialism as the ultimate value. A spiralling path to nowhere that consumes many years, a journey full of exhilaration that leads to a destination comprised of emptiness. A modern day malady. So it strikes me there are different classes of men, who can be differentiated by their connection to the transcendent as marked by their willingness to sacrifice. Call this metric "heroism" - the desire to transcend one's self by living for something greater than the self. Heroes + extreme individualists thus inhabit opposite sides of a spectrum. The former are rooted in something greater than themselves, whilst the latter live only for themselves. One plants a tree to provide shade he won't enjoy, the other logs forests so he can party in Cancun. Extreme individualism, marked by irreligiosity + hedonism is the ultimate boomerism It is the sacrifice of everything else for the temporary indulgence of the self, rather than the sacrifice of the self for the long-term improvement of everything else Boomers don't plant trees. In every great story that resonates deeply within the masculine psyche, is the archetype of the hero - a king of sorts, who combines the intellect of a magician with the ferocity of a warrior. What does a king care for? His kingdom, his nation, his people. It's never about him. Not all men are destined for greatness, but all men can be a microcosm of greatness. Most men won't become great statesmen, philosophers or scientists at the cutting edge of human management and development. Most men will not be a hero to the many, but they can be to a few. They can be the heroes of their own families, the ultimate caretakers of their own people. The one people come to to manage affairs of the tribe. Small scale heroism is what it is to be a patriarch and it is through family most men will find their connection to the transcendent. This is why a patriarch is objectively superior to low trust individualist mercenaries who live only for pleasure. He has more marks of heroic kingliness, because like all kings he is rooted in the transcendence of sacrifice. He is the evolution of the boy The greatest scam the decay of western civilization ever pulled on men, was convincing them it was foolish and pathetic to grow up by undermining if not out right removing their rights over women and children by penalising men who take up the mantle with easy + frivolous divorce. Essentially, the architects of the system realigned incentives so that becoming a father and husband is "dumb" because years of sacrifice can be undone and ripped away on a whim, whilst making being a perpetual hedonistic teenager "smart" because that way you can't be punished. The rights of women are therefore an imposition on the sanctity of family when they become so great they disrupt the rights of men. Men will not grow up and leave boyhood, if their sacrifice isn't honoured. A king has a legacy. A hero has a legacy. A divorcee has a ruptured, derailed or no legacy. So whilst I shun the number of men in perpetual adolescence who avoid the mantle by shirking the burdens that would lead to their spiritual growth - I am not entirely without empathy for their decisions. I understand how systemic forces have manipulated them into eternal boyhood. The truth is, you haven't won. Being an eternal pleasure seeking hedonist does not mean you win. It's just how you protect yourself from a system that is hostile to anyone trying to build anything that lasts. You have not won. You have simply regressed so you can't be wounded. And even then you're still wounded. Only it is the sheer swirling vortex of emptiness derived from an absence of anything meaningful in your life that wounds you, rather than a punitively immoral unjust legal system. Winning this game is making sacrifices that result in legacy. You can distract yourself with pleasures, you can laugh with dishonourable men, and sleep with dishonourable women. You can chase your thrills as a mercenary with no kingdom, thinking fast, quick on his feet - but in your quiet moments alone, there it is, haunting you. The void.“

We need more flexible ways to include women’s gift of motherhood along with their aspiration to work and express their intellectual and creative talents. Womens education and participation in the work force has meant motherhood and settling down have been pushed till later in life around late 20’s - 30’s which goes against the reality of fertility and the reality of meeting someone as easily as it gets harder - mostly due to logistical and practical reasons. Too busy with work, more tired, less sociable environment and places to meet - we’ll never been in a more sociable environment with similar aged single peers as in college. Dating and hookup culture which perpetuate and extend adolescence and not to mention the time taken out from failed relationships and having to recover from breakups for both sexes which makes them jaded and take breaks from the opposite sex completely or get sucked into toxic ideologies. Theres also way more distractions and lifestyle options in today’s world. Huge segments of the population are swept up in a virtual exodus and away from the real world of social life, decide to be nomadic or fill their time with hobbies of all sorts that we didn’t have access to before. Economics is a major reason. Before, a single wage could provide for a family of four, now even a dual income just about makes it. A lot of men just don’t feel ready for it. The multiple factors contributing to it could be sexual health and polarity, structural, social and spiritual. - Sexual health and polarity: prioritise having children when younger and healthier, an culture that embraces a healthy masculinity and femininity to create more magnetism that draws the sexes together rather than androgynous feminised men and masculinised women. - Structural: incentive structure to promote family formation and flexible work for women (work from home and 3-4 day work weeks could help), court system - Social: negative social ideologies that are misandrist (radical feminism) or misogynist (strands of the red pill) need to be pushed less by the algorithm due to their virality as they create a toxic dynamic between the sexes, getting more social / creating opportunities to meet more people for adults that don’t involve clubbing late which older people can’t recover from and can’t afford to mess up their work productivity for. -Spiritual: honour parenthood and the gift of and perpetuating life.

A worthy read I came across on Twitter: “Mass Immigration: Economic migrants do not emigrate at scale to places which aren't already prosperous, therefore the countries they flock to were great before they even turned up. They are redundant rather than necessary, which is why the powers that be who profit from their arrival at the expense of the national interest repeatedly bleat about how necessary they are - because if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it regardless of its validity. Pioneers are different. Pioneers emigrate somewhere that is undeveloped, or at a low level of development - with the promise opportunity awaits IF ONLY they work to build the nation. They are seduced by the prestige of being heralded as nation builders, the greater freedom that comes from living in a less developed and therefore less tightly regulated state, and the potential for massive growth that can only be found in places which haven't been built up yet. They are not there to benefit from an already developed society, and set up mini parallel societies in the form of ethnic enclaves which take money out of the economy in the form of remittances sent to their families abroad, but to build up the country and become a citizen. Their loyalties lie with the land they're in, not some far flung foreign land from which their genes derive. Pioneers are nation builders, the very first generation to usher in greatness through the sweat of their brow to build a great country. Economic migrants on the other hand are simply opportunists. They are generally not there because they love you or your people and want to become one of you, but because your country is richer than theirs and they want some of your money. They want a better life, which is understandable - who doesn't? But their pursuit of a better life shouldn't come at the expense of your way of life, which it inevitably and invariably does if the limits on how many are permitted entry aren't sufficiently restrictive. Mass immigration is a lazy way of dealing with a declining birth rate to prop up tax revenues, a way for big business to depress wages and prop up asset values (thus directly lowering the quality of life for a society's poorest and most vulnerable) and when it comes to skilled migration, a toxic way of compensating for an inadequate education system by poaching brilliant people from much less developed nations. If you had a skills shortage in a non-globalised world, how would you deal with it? You'd improve your education system and filtering processes for identifying cognitive brilliance and train up more of your own people to become doctors and teachers, instead of try to entice the best people from less fortunate and more struggling lands to abandon their people in order to come and make an already successful society even more successful. If your people weren't making enough babies, what would you do? Take a long hard look at your economic and cultural practices, identify the elements which are suppressing fertility (eg: high real estate prices, lack of religiosity, feminism etc), and set about correcting them to reverse the trend - stated more generally, you would incentivise family formation amongst your own people, rather than replace yourselves with foreigners because you're greedy and not having enough babies. You mould your population to what you need them to be through the actions of your policies, with the identity and culture of your people placed in the front and centre of your mind - this is what it is to put your country and people first, as opposed to sacrificing your people's identity and interests on the altar of economic prosperity. Good governance is about serving the people, not the economy, and although the people certainly benefit from a strong economy, there are particular policy choices such as open door mass immigration which sacrifice the long-term prosperity, identity and cultural integrity of a people for nothing more than short-term economic gains. A good leader and his party does not simply think about how to solve the problems of today, but likewise of the unintended consequences and second, third and forth order effects of how the solutions implemented today form the paradigm of tomorrow. They view a branching tree with multiple effects deriving from a cause, and then those effects becoming causes which too branch out to have their own effects. They do their best to predict, to be psychic, to anticipate what will come and to prevent worst case scenarios whilst trying to optimise for the best case and there are hopes that AI can aid in this endeavour, but stated in a simple manner: they try to problem solve a highly complex system with branching pathways (society) across time. One of my favourite leaders I studied was known for planning at least 50 years ahead of time. The Chinese, likewise, as questionable as their regime may be, likewise appear to operate on long timescales both internally and geopolitically. A good leader is more practical than ideological, but that does not mean he should be unpatriotic - for a leader is, by definition, there to further the interests of his people through the nation's improvement - and a man cannot devote himself to a country that he does not love, which is why men who love other lands are hard pressed to devote themselves to yours.”

Thank you 😄 Not only more developed colours but all of them as we see waved around on the LGBT flag. Imagine that was used to represent and bring spiral dynamics to mass consciousness lol