zazen

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

@lina True, why is it shocking that people resist? Over intellectualising and using spiral dynamic labels to paintball and colour code groups of people can trap us in making us think resistance is unique to a stage of development. People resist - their strategy, tactics and how they resist differ but they resist nonetheless. When we get back to basics of survival humans are more alike than they are different - differences in ideaology, lifestyle and tastes appear once people have enough prosperity and peace to indulge them. A family in the same house can differ vastly in their diets, media and ideas they have. But put them or even a collection of different people of different backgrounds and stages of development under Palestinian or Gazan type living conditions and they will come together to be preoccupied with trying to resist their shared oppression despite their differences because that’s just a human thing to do, not a less developed or stage red thing lol. The same way Israeli society have come together for the time being after October 7th for security reasons. Western countries are debating and complaining about an influx of immigration today. So we can imagine similar tensions with an influx of Jewish migration into Palestine which was majority Arab. What could have amplified it is the Balfour declaration being announced by the global power at the time which the Arabs felt threatened by and the subsequent state of Israel being realised. Also a nuance that matters is what type or strand of Zionism people are talking about. One can easily support the right of a persecuted people to have a safe haven for themselves, but that support stops when it comes at the cost of displacing and persecuting people already existing there only to continue the cycle. You can support the sentiment but disapprove of the strategy in achieving it or in simpler terms understand the why but dismiss the how.

@Twentyfirst @Karmadhi

@Vrubel @Nivsch Agreed theirs plenty wrong within Arab societies and they need to do their own work. The external environment amplifies this. But it’s difficult to know whether a certain group is truly developed or ‘civilised’ or that certain groups are just wealthy enough to pretend to be. If Americans were put in Gazans situation would it be any different. Even Ehud Barack said “If I was [a Palestinian] at the right age, at some stage I would have entered one of the terror organizations and have fought from there.” Even if they are less developed and it’s not entirely Israel’s fault for how they are - it doesn’t justify or make Israel’s actions right. Stages of development doesn’t make one group or person a different species that are inherently evil. It just means one group has developed more but those elements of other stages are still there lying dormant. Culture evolves faster than biology, and whilst we are in biological form we are chained or grounded by biology. Stage yellow and turquoise sages are still susceptible to biological reality as Osho was to his ill health despite being awakened or ‘developed.’ Developed groups still have the ancient instincts we finger point less developed groups for acting upon, and the more developed groups can just pull at those instincts in different ways. You can be a stage green eco terrorist for example - growth can also be a cancer. Is a broken orange/green society still better than a healthy red/blue society? Possibly, but a more developed society has more powerful tools with more leverage and potential for destruction which could make them more of a threat. A stage red primitive tribe might be sick and dangerous but their destruction will only be localised to their village surroundings whilst a stage orange techno-capitalist superpower though having more inclusive and broader values including democracy and science can inflict a negative global impact if this stage becomes sick, pathological or unhealthily manifest. A highly developed society generally has more powerful instruments / tools, but if the individuals of that society become unhealthy their potential for chaos is greater. The individual and wielder of the tool needs to be just as developed - a parrallel match because the stakes are higher. A sick red society may only cause ripples on the world stage due to their limited tools of power but a developed orange society with more powerful tools will cause a tsunami of damage. We can use spiral dynamics to make sense of the world or make our sense of self more righteous in relationship to others lower on the spiral. In the past it was whoever can defend the land keeps it - rights to land are based on the might of those fighting for it. With a national consciousness spreading and bordering up of the world including the Arab regions this would have eventually trickled to the Palestinians, they just didn’t get there in time for the nationalising party which kicked off in the mid to late 1940’s. Obviously nationalising can be taken to an extreme where every group, tribe or sect want their own nation - I’m not sure where that starts and stops and what a healthy amount is to be honest. For example now even Barcelona want to separate from Spain. If this Israel Palestine scenario was happening in the past people wouldn’t make such a deal of it as the unspoken word then was whoever had the might had the right but today we live in a post expansionist world - at least when it comes to geography. Powers now expand through commerce and capital. The board game of geography is replaced with the board rooms of corporations - but that’s another conversation.

God gave Aladdin a flying carpet but blessed giga-Zionist by carpet bombing onto him a hairy chest, back and long side curls to whip goyim. Chosen one. Giga-Islamists got blessed with black burqas to liberate their women from the male gaze so they can eat all the baklava they want.

The audacity lies in considering it acceptable for one group to take the land of another, with whom they lived mostly well for centuries, and were even protected by from European pogroms and persecution. To then engage in negotiations regarding the land they seized from that group, determining how much they will claim and then gaslighting any resistance as barbaric savage terrorism and making them feel guilty for the sins of the Holocaust which weren't theirs to begin with. They are then further gaslighted and labeled anti-Semitic for this when they themselves are semites. The anti-Semitic label is used as a verbal shield against any criticism and to muzzle rational voices. The actual crime that Palestinians are being punished for is refusal to submit. That’s all this conflict has ever been, from the very beginning. Palestinians refused to accept being thrown off their land and killed and forcibly displaced at the creation of the Israeli state in 1948, and that refusal has seen increasing violence and oppression under the premise that it’s possible to bomb and tyrannize a population into obedience. Nothing will radicalize you toward violence faster than seeing your neighbors and loved ones ripped apart, and your dignity shredded on your own soil. How dare the Palestinians resist, the Palestinians should just be peaceful in their blockaded strip of land where they were once given a controlled amount of calories as to be fed just enough to not die but not in excess as to be strong to resist. And the other Palestinians in West Bank should be at peace with the encroachment of their land via settlement expansion. They should be at peace with their subjugation and humiliation, we should give them the power of now so they can learn the first step to peace is accepting the moment and so they can ascend to stage green. The Zulus of South Africa, the Mau Mau of Kenya, the Vietnamese, the Afghanis, the Algerians - all should have just been at peace with settlers and imperialists who they resisted against successfully instead. The way spiral dynamics is misused is when it’s used to create a colour apartheid and discriminate between one group of people who on average orients around a certain colour and another. Palestinians are primitive and stage red which is impulsive, primal and fights back but when Israel fights back its deemed as noble defence of a noble people higher up on the spiral dynamics ranking.

Words such as occupation incite a allergic reaction to the ideologically captured because any discussion going forward from accepting this fact favour the ones being occupied to be more legally right and morally legitimate in their defence, even armed defence. The lack of intention for a two state solution is clear from the Likud parties founding documents and Bibis speech at the United Nations general assembly just this year in September before this conflict kicked off. ''The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.''

Certain words like occupation incite a allergic reaction due to the fact that once acknowledged, any discussion forward inadvertently favours the one being occupied in his legal rights and moral legitimacy to defence, even armed defence. The intention not to have two state is made clear as stated in the Likud parties founding documents and as showed when Bibi addressed the united nations general assembly just this year in September. ''The Right of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel) a. The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable and is linked with the right to security and peace; therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty. b. A plan which relinquishes parts of western Eretz Israel, undermines our right to the country, unavoidably leads to the establishment of a "Palestinian State," jeopardizes the security of the Jewish population, endangers the existence of the State of Israel. and frustrates any prospect of peace.'' Source - https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform-of-the-likud-party

So majority of the world including relevant institutions and governments who are actual allies with Israel must all be insane then. The only reason to present Jews who actually speak on Israel is because if a non Jewish opinion or critique is given its labelled anti-semitic. These are people who have every reason possible to be one sided due to their lineage directly being executed by the Holocaust - if they speak on the situation it deserves a listen with a open mind. Many Jews have spoken against the situation and call it for what it is. Everyone needs to put truth above their egos to the best of their ability and in order to discuss solutions agree upon some basic facts and the definition of words. Otherwise, we expand and shrink the definition of words according to our biases to fit in or take out what we want or don't want to associate them with. For example, I've said in another thread that there is debate around whether it is a genocide according to the international definition and by looking at Israel's actions and talking points to confirm or infer their intent. Say it isn't a genocide, don't Israel's actions and talking points at least point to ethnic cleansing? The definition of which is 'the mass expulsion or killing of members of one ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another.' That is bad enough to need to be called for what it is. If we fail to even see that then it can be called the next worst thing which is a massacre. Looking at the actions of settlers in the West Bank and how their using the massacre of October 7th to wipe out Gaza shows this. The Gazans have moved south and now after the ceasefire Israels plan seems to be to start targeting the south after making the north unlivable with nothing to return to. Where are they supposed to move to or escape to then? The sinai desert or force Europe to take them in so Israel can have its holy land. I can only assume these Gazans will not be given the right to return as Palestinian refugees aren't even given the right to return to land they or their parents lived in a generation ago but some New Yorker who has a loose connection to Israel or claims from a 2000 year ago history is given the right of return. Can we really say this is targeting Hamas: And beside the many other statements by Israelis in positions of power that show ill intent, here’s just one of the latest by which we can infer the intent to displace / ethnically cleanse Gaza: It's probably in Israel's best interest to not keep giving Palestinians a situation in which radicalisation is so easy to occur by the countless deaths of their loved ones and control of their freedom of movement and then to have to tackle the stain on their reputation world wide through pouring millions into a propaganda machine to tackle the anti-Semitism that comes from it. Even the Western media outlets who have generally taken the side of Israel aren't able to keep on being impartial as social media dismantles and shreds the propaganda in real time.

You can’t even accept the occupier/occupied dynamic between Israel and Palestine. Saying Gaza isn’t occupied because Israel withdrew is like saying a prisoner is free because the warden isn’t technically inside his jail cell. How can anyone move on to discuss solutions if the facts of reality can’t be agreed. Is the UK government and US state department who are both Israel’s allies good enough sources to confirm firstly that Palestinians are occupied? https://www.state.gov/reports/2016-report-on-international-religious-freedom/israel-and-the-occupied-territories/israel-and-the-occupied-territories-the-occupied-territories/ https://www.gov.uk/world/the-occupied-palestinian-territories/news Isreal apologists will claim any critique coming from a non jew as anti Semitic and claim Jews like Norman Finkelstein, Gabor Mate or Gideon Levy are traitors and self hating Jews if they give any critique.

“One thing the empire is about to realize is that the western public has lost all its appetite for war. All the careful sanitising, video-gamifying and propagandizing that has been put in place since Vietnam in order to build a platform of consent for “humanitarian” wars has cratered into nothing over the course of mere weeks. You can’t have an up close and personal relationship with the reality of bombs and all the things they do to human flesh and then go back to the way you were ever again. Millions of western eyes have been changed forever. “War” is not abstract any more.“

@jaylimix Maybe your heart and empathy aren’t real as you wrote this on another thread: ‘Israel is NOT evil, they do care about civilians, asking them to mouth south, calling off airstrikes if there are too many civilians around. The same cannot be said about me, I don't care about dead Palestinian children.’

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territories-opts-country-of-concern/israel-and-the-occupied-palestinian-territories-opts-country-of-concern#torture From the UK governments website on Israels use of torture: There are continued allegations by NGOs of mistreatment of Palestinian detainees by the Israeli authorities. Palestinian prisoner Arafat Jaradat died in Israeli custody in February 2013; Israeli authorities denied allegations that his death was a result of torture. The UK has made clear to the Israeli authorities the importance we attach to a full investigation into the circumstances of his death, including the allegations of mistreatment. Whilst noting that acts of torture are criminal under Israeli law, we called at Israel’s UPR for “necessity” to be removed as a possible justification for torture, and for all allegations of torture and ill-treatment to be promptly and effectively investigated, with perpetrators prosecuted. In December, the NGO Public Committee Against Torture in Israel reported that, following arrest, Palestinian child detainees were being held outside in iron cages for hours overnight. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni has publicly confirmed that, on hearing the reports, she immediately instructed the Israeli Prison Service to stop this practice. Further: https://www.omct.org/en/resources/blog/its-now-even-more-official-torture-is-legal-in-israel https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/