BlueOak

Gay people are essential. Mammals and many other animals change gender preference based on the availability of resources, mates, and room for having kids. The urge to have sex and for companionship through life never goes away, it just reforms. We have too many people on planet Earth fighting over too few resources, and finding a partner has become harder than ever, thanks to a hyperfocus on 80's styled almost materialism of the top 10%. Where looks, income, false videos, and a fake image is projected, expectations are raised far too high from reality. That and the isolation caused by the current division in culture played to by media forces for money, and technological forms of communication create isolation and the breakdown of relationships across the board (moreover they never form), meaning people just want sex as a passing release rather than a meaningful pairing or partnership. If the OP really wanted more men in families, he'd completely ignore looking at the symptoms of the effects of social pressures, and look at the social pressures. He'd work on ways to keep families together, have a frank conversation about population levels, nullify technological impacts on putting across unrealistic expectations from dating sites, show people how to do more with less, and socialize more which leads to more relationships naturally, encourage politicians and news media to not focus on division to making a living, and encourage people to live together in harmony rather than competition. But of course, nobody's going to do that. BTW all that would help people who were gay too, so this isn't an anti-gay post, as I said at the top, gay people are essential and the number of gay people increasing is a natural biological imperative.

This is a good idea for a budget. I've been having a couple of oat milk in the diet as it's got a lot of nutrition in for the price, but the porridge is going to give me more than cornflakes when I do have it. Sometimes I'll make cereal half the meal for carbs in place of potato, couscous, pasta, or rice. It's a good pick.

Where anarchy exists terrorism and might makes right flourishes.

1 - People raid to recover hostages all the time, Europe has had to do it over and over and over again. You don't hear about the SAS much for example, because they do it so well. Those resources were at your disposal initially, you were not alone, thinking you were/are is part of the problem. Its understandable given your geo-political location. Hopefully Biden for example risking his political future, to stick with you, demonstrates otherwise. Heck every political party in the UK despite all the backlash is still with you. 6 - The heads of Hamas are safely in Qatar. At the start of this, when all the goodwill and sympathy was with Israel, they could have got the entire leadership. Either covertly without approval using international third parties, or with approval from Qatar. I think you all had that much sympathy and political capital because of what happened. I meant that about 2 and 3 as well. They are about using the geopolitical options you had/have. American special forces taking out Hamas in Gaza was a definite option before this started, that's not diplomatic to Palestine, I'm talking about the rest of the world. You could have got back most of your hostages and then done whatever afterward. Look at how America went into Afghanistan at the head of a coalition, it got real international support for the same understandable reason you could have had. It used all the expertise it could from around the world, in everything from intelligence, logistics, covert operatives, and firepower from every other country willing to contribute. - Israel could have had all of that, and that's not even talking about what you could have got from the locality as well. - Sure America stayed too long in Afghanistan but it achieved its initial objective. You say diplomacy has been tried. Not this kind. On the kinder end, you pick and support the most pro-Israeli arab you can find, you give them security, funding, and backing. Governments all over the globe have been doing this for decades, and sure at some point he's going to be targeted, but he's your man and you extend the best protection you can to him, he gets the aid, he gets the backing of the IDF when needs it. He improves Palestinian life and yes you are making that happen, restoring control, because that undermines the extremists while maintaining stability. An unstable anarchy leads to terrorism like this. On the extreme end of this, its going in with a peacekeeping force, taking out Hamas, and installing a friendly government. I think you would have five or six countries willing to go that far with you at the very start of this, and that would have been a better option than what you could currently have. Those countries would have been partially responsible for maintaining that government and keeping it safe from outside threats. Even trying that and having it fail was a better option, because you could show the world, look we did all this with all your help, and look they still tore it down. Sure it would have got pushback but it was one possibility. Part of diplomacy is making the effort anyway, even when you know its going to fail. With all these enemies around you, just reach out, make the effort and when it fails you turn around and say to the world, we tried, it didn't fail because of us. When Zelensky offered to come over, you should've grabbed that man and put him front and center. I know you might be gambling on the Russians instead, so if not him, get someone else there, but trying to do this alone is part of the problem you are facing and will face. People made trips to you and tried to do the political part for you, but it was all after the fact and lukewarm at best. 4) What's an example of pressure you can ratchet up? A, No aid is coming in next week. B, Three Hamas locations will be rubble by the end of the day. Increased as needed. C, Next week you will be cut off from any water, then power, then communications, then whatever. D, We are taking the north next week for ourselves. You can have 15 steps in this list, that gradually increase the pressure. Then yes, there is the danger a terrorist executing a hostage, but that is a danger anyway, and hostages have been lost with this current approach. It also means the population has an opportunity, a real opportunity, with an incentive to give up Hamas entirely. You can then use the carrot, give us these Hamas leaders and we'll double the aid next month, we'll send medical support, or someone to get your water running. Give us the top man and we'll give you free passage out of Gaza for the next two months, whatever the specifics are not important, just replace them as appropriate. Only the gradual approach is important, as it gives time for people to think and time for the pressure to work. 5, I know. It was working. The average Palestinian that was employed in Israel is not the Iran-backed extremist lunatic that caused this wave of violence. The people earning money, and feeding their families, are not the ones throwing rockets at you.

Thanks for the ideas. That was his recommendation for foods. Making it work. Don't feel hungry often. I have a coffee mid-day, and sometimes a slice of bread with it which gets me to about 2 pm, where I have a big meal. Real financial pinch at the minute and i've tried for 10 years unsuccessfully to lose weight, even at the height of my exercise 4 days a week, I never lost more than half a stone over the year, muscle gain is easier but the opposite is not so much for me. I want my food bill below 40 pounds a week, including any water I drink. So if anyone else has good ideas for cheap foods, i'd appreciate them. I've watched one guy on youtube try to eat for as little money as possible, and it seems a fun approach to try, but the more healthy foods I can get in that 40 quid the better.

The difference you both are referencing all depends on what you are putting in that needs purifying. along with of course the size of the person, the quality of their air, and their level of exercise etc.

Because Israel took the most extreme position first, which in any crisis is an indication of acting on emotion. Israel spent no time thinking through the problem, they acted immediately. If America hadn't got to delay them for a few days, there was a very real chance Israel's borders would have been overrun, or the death toll they experienced as a result of their actions would have been considerable. Then you assume things. I wouldn't have put young mens boots on the ground in the first place, tanks in urban areas suck. Here are five better options: 1) Professional special forces soldiers with air support, covert raids to get the hostages - THEN if they must do what they are doing. 2) International coalition forces acting together, bringing in as many countries as possible, so the resulting political fallout is diminished and buffered. America is world-class at special forces raids and would have bent over backwards to help. 3) A local diplomatic effort, when it fails you can say to the surrounding countries, well we tried. They might even get one or two helping or more willing to. 2) and 3) give you political legitimacy which means the world when you are surrounded by hostile neighbors, even just consulting them makes you seem more reasonable. Acting Unilaterally does the opposite. 4) No negoation. A slow ratcheting up of controlled pressure. Release the hostages or X happens. X happens. Then you say okay, Now Y is going to happen, you show power and control, using as much force as required and no more. This makes you seem in control and more reasonable, and also very threatening to those who cross you. Excessive uncontrolled violence just makes you seem irrational. 5) Occupation, without annihilation. Israel take the Palestinian people into their state and protect them. You give them a position in a federal or confederate form of government. Showing the complete opposite response, in a time they are very likely to want to cooperate given the insanity of what happened. Any Arab country that threatens you would then be threatening its own, and it wouldn't have the same danger or popular support. Using this period you completely eliminate Hamas's influence, with the help of those inside Palestine who would have supported getting to be part of 'their' and your state. - BTW I don't see a country on earth that wouldn't have bent over backward to help with this in many different ways, or condemned anyone opposing it given the situation. 6) *Add this to any of them. The political capital to eliminate Hamas's leadership was there. They could have used it and gotten rid of the head of the snake entirely either overtly or covertly. Instead, Israel chose the most extreme action with no heed to what happens next. This option was always available if all else failed, but Israel picked it first. When it could have picked it any time. What happens next is this. Israel occupies a territory. Gives all Arab nations in the region a reason to want to destroy them over the next 100 years, as the occupation won't end, and the memory of this will last generations. Even if just 10% of those in Gaza radicalize to violence, they've created 200,000 people ready to fight them. Iran stays aligned with BRICS. Russia has diminished anyway for the next 2 decades thanks to being crippled in Ukraine and stuck there on the border now, perhaps forever. This means Israel are reliant on America or a Hail Mary save from China in the coming decades. America is moving more isolationist, and China will be able to challenge its naval dominance directly. However I don't think either country has the stomach to really fight Iran on the ground now, miles away from their own homelands, let alone as governments move more rightwing, and they have been for the last 2 decades. So they either pay China a heap of money/influence and get their backing, or Israel is going to be in a considerably worse position at the end of all this. The violence from one direction will be gone, but all the rest will be increased for certainly my and your lifetime. war forced upon them. - No, wrong, they picked this response, entirely so. The action that happens after this is largely of their making, just like this action was largely of Hamas's making. Hamas's actions led to this, but the fallout of what happens next is Israel's choice. Israel making their living space into a prison led to Hamas carrying out this attack. The continued extremist rhetoric and violence action from Palestine and Iran led to that prison camp. In this case, each person acting in a way that brings division and violence is largely or has shared responsibility for the resulting effect.

Individuals are vulnerable. A genuine want from the general public rarely goes away, even if it's misdirected for a time to hating someone/something or its ringleaders suppressed. That only lasts a while, then they run a patriotic let's back the homeland because we need to go bomb someone. In times of growth people can get away with making things look better, putting lipstick on the pig because people get some crumbs, but when things naturally go the opposite way, all they can do is lie or say oh well there is nothing we can do, and by the way lets give the rich some tax cuts. They are doing a great job these days though saying 'oh don't worry things are great', 'Forget the higher prices you are paying for X', the mortgage to earnings bubble being higher than last time it went bang, prices are not higher at all, that energy and food price is nothing. Putting a dumb smile on a talking head with their thumbs up. Then we end up with Argentina and everyone losing their minds, because their sense of reality was grounded in a fictional reality to begin with - Eh whatever.

Failing to tax people an appropriate amount is not a solution to helping anyone. It's made the world so lopsided its starting to tilt over. That percentage the general public has shrinks every year. It's unsustainable by the nature of corporations to always need to take more. It has been for a long time and it has caused a great deal of suffering for a long time. For the rest, no shareholder is thinking how to make the world a better place. They think the company isn't making 10%, fire the director. Then the man at the top, is at their whims in decision making, just as much as any idealized character you want to assign to these personalities. Which are just people at the end of the day, who are very good at running a business or making/maintaining wealth. Not some great example of moral character to put on a pedastool necessarily making the world a better place, heck that's a stage green argument right there! As for method. Its not hard to design something that accounts for relatively few corporate giants. Obviously income level and profitability are the prerequisites. Taking into account b2b / business-to-business trading, fees for physical commercial rates (someone needs to do this before we have no high street left), service or product pricing, and commercial fees or payouts for selling/marketing online - amazon/YouTube, using outsourced cheap foreign labor etc The reason it's not hard to track how these costs are handled or who pays for them, is because the number of corporations to consider is relatively small, but it takes regulation and bureaucracy, the only thing that keeps power in check. It also takes a want from people for these things to exist, and that's only going to happen on mass when we hit absolute rock bottom suffering and pain. At this point its going to need to get really ugly.

Then they don't get their product purchased. We are not quite in monopolies for industries yet.

I made a self-indulgent single-line statement, to offer another reason people are not having kids. Economic pressure is a very real thing right now, it seems pointless to rail against that easily observed reality, are you trying to argue that everyone in those circumstances just isn't wanting money enough or doing enough to get it? To keep it more broadly focused and more useful, rather than about me personally: Your premise is flawed. It is a physical impossibility to do what you are suggesting across a large enough group. There is a finite supply of money, when there isn't it's all devalued. To get ahead financially of the average mean value, you have to deprive someone else, or cause an imbalance somewhere. If you were aiming for the exact average across the spectrum maybe, if enough other people were too, then it'd be committing the least harm, but nobody is, which means you are taking from somewhere that needs it more most of the time. Control is an illusion in this context. You no more control what the human population on mass is going to do next than I do. All you can do is be willing to change with it or not, and then master what's in demand at the current time, whether it's helpful or harmful has to take a secondary backseat. Sure there are a few careers that become obvious they are clearly helping others according to almost any set of value systems or beliefs. That number is quite small.

In life there are a lot of different value systems, skill sets, personality types, and environmental factors that dictate different end results for how much you can financially earn.

@Leo Gura I certainly can imagine it leo I lived through part of it, i'm middle-aged. Especially as I was close to that reality of 60's 70's and a child of the 80's, interacting with people from that time period growing up. We can do social issues if you like but you know that it'd 50 social issues one side that are better, and 50 that are worse. Isolation. Purely Cerebral communication leads to increasing divergence rather than a coming together. If we were in the same room our conversation would be mitigated by a lot more than the intellectual or logical part of our minds. Declining masculinity. Family breakdown continued not abated. Religious fundamentalism on the rise. Pure fantasy and conspiracy are being used as the basis of policy or social change. The objectivation of men and women coming back from the 80s leads to unrealistic expectations from partners. People don't see what others actually look like or behave, its all fake unrealistic standards. Public transportation is worse. Medical services are worse. Social movements for change are diminished or relegated to how they make someone feel over substantive change. Climate change and all the resulting effects such as food/water price and migration is getting worse. Protests are vilified or suppressed. Colonialism from eastern powers was reborn. Journalism is now completely unobjective, it's entirely owned by political interests and widens social divides as a way to earn income. Etc etc. If we want to be balanced I can do the positives. Racial integration is much more harmonious, we don't vilify skin tone or religion nearly as much. Gay rights have improved significantly. Free Movement in Europe existed for a time (but is likely to be significantly challenged by rightwing governments), travel is generally easier but is predicted to change globally. Physical crime is down, but scams are up. Corruption is down in England at least. The police are no longer hated but supported for the most part. Overly biased Anarchism was reversed (but seems to be coming back). Companies can no longer just dump waste on populations, for example, meaning bureaucracy was strengthened across the board but that looks under threat. The tools we have at our disposal to shape our own lives are 100 times greater, but again these are being corporatized gradually to reverse some of that. The amount of treatments we have for diseases increased even if the ability to obtain them decreased for many. Homelessness and general poverty levels I've already covered increasing, but at least we don't hate homeless people and drug users as much as we used to. People are more aware of their own actions, and of mental health issues even if conspiracy theories are threatening to reverse it. Education is being threatened now by political and religious ideology but overall the standards are higher in those institutions that are still free of it. Generally, divorce is down, even if it doesn't feel like it, because people are more capable of working through their own problems, understanding each other, and relating to their partners more. That's off the top of my head and I won't drag it out but we could both add 50 things into these columns. Sticking with economic issues, because that's how most people think. We are worse off. And we are worse off for many factors, not least of which is because socialism is suppressed. Liberalism will be suppressed in the coming decade or two if the overall patterns I see, and widespread social dissatisfaction with the status quo is anything to go by.

You are objectively wrong for Western Countries. Its all well and good saying 500 years ago life was worse. Yes it was, but that is so far out of relatable experience, that you'd be better off with a fairytale, movie, or story explaining why. My generation had it better than the current generation. My parent's generation had it better than I did. From the 60's to the 2000's quality of life was improving, from the 2000's to now, the quality of life has been decreasing. War and violence are on the rise, tension is at an all-time high, and competition between global powers is on a dangerous path. Day-to-day things cost a hell of a lot more, Homes cost a hell of a lot more relative to income so starting a family is harder, energy bills take a huge chunk out of your wage now. Jobs require more of you for less money. Supervisors do what assistant managers did for a fraction of the income. Shop workers are doing what three people did previously. You have to work to a later age and get less retirement. Commercial rates are so high businesses are shutting down left and right. Education went from being free to costing a fortune, healthcare here is going more private and costing more. That's just demonstrable economics and security. Not touching on social issues, climate issues, etc. Sure from the 80's to the 2000's there was a large jump in what you could achieve with your life with the resources available to you for example, but in everything I've seen or studied that has been or is being reversed. @Hardkill There is no hope for them to have it as easy as previous generations of recent memory. That's not democracy's fault. Far-right corporate-ruled countries WILL NOT change this, they are THE REASON it's happening.

Maybe we'll get a few trains fast enough for commuting over borders, and filling jobs, without the need for permanent residence. Though England's has just gone over budget and been canned.

The right traditionally requires corporate approval, and corporations require workers from somewhere. This is more true of the left these days also. Because we've shifted the overton window so far capitalist and right globally. Whatever anyone says in a speech or to camera, unless the numbers of migrants go down significantly it makes no difference to anything. They almost certainly won't as economic pressure still trumps anyone's idealogy, cultural preferences or feelings. Why, because a single mega corporation has more financial power than a smaller country. They could just shift their operations elsewhere, which is sometimes a possibility, but that just takes jobs out of the economy and reduces the quality of life for people living there. The left is just idealistic? What left? Liberal, well yeah it's a liberal ideology to have a push toward open borders. If you mean socialism, no that can be completely closed borders, depending on the type of policy best required for society as a whole. Rightwing Capitalism loves economic migration, to fill gaps in the workforce as quickly as possible. Again we take out socialism, we demonize it, and don't achieve any popular social change that lasts. It's not rocket science. Take any one of the four political pressures or compass points out, and the system operates in a flawed way: Socialism, Authoritarianism, Liberalism, and Capitalism. Can they tolerate a recession, not living to the standards they are accustomed, or being out of a job? I agree with you that's the motivation. A significant part of the population wants a similar culture to theirs near to where they live. If we analyzed why most people say this it'd be: Because those 'other' people are causing my life to be worse than it is. When they are gone who is it next? Its the poor, or the gay people, or the muslims, or them or them or them. Those people over the border, are to blame too. I know how about a war. That's how it goes. Its not everyone, sometimes you get a reason that holds up, like wanting laws that represent their own interests, rather than a different culture for example. But for most people, it's taking their economic situation and blaming another person for it. Rather than the complex set of circumstances that brought it about: Poor people carrying rich people on their backs, globalization breaking down, and the need for all countries to ineffectively try to do more themselves, an increase in other spending sectors like the military instead of social programs, resource shortages, trading routes being riskier now due to more hostile shipping lanes, climate pressures forcing migration, hostilities forcing migration, overpopulation and people's willingness to do anything about it or even talk about it. Climate pressures and war increasing food prices. Worker shortages from migrants being discouraged, a lack of investment in fundamentals like infrastructure, schools going backward in their level of education due to a focus on dogmatic targets vs practical education, creating stupider people. Politicians themselves listen to conspiracy theories and try to base policy on it, rather than the real world. This focus on fantasy not reality is because of spending time forever online, rather than in real life. Social media burying important issues in meaningless personal drama. We could talk about aging populations, more cramped conditions, causing stress, or more frequent illness. Isolation is brought on by technology so people can't or don't want to even relate to each other, it's all cerebral not practical, let alone creating a want to cooperate to fix problems, whereas with in-person communication they are much more likely to reach a consensus. I could go on listing reasons all day. Heck fresh water, something I never thought in my lifetime would become a competitive resource, now is. It's causing the death of countries like iraq, which causes migration, and that's not going to change as the planet dries up further, and more countries industrialize using dirty fuels. With people putting their hands in their ears and saying it's not happening, if I just close my eyes climate change, war, corporate greed, the demonization of socialism, and the 50 reasons I just listed, all the resulting conditions go away if I just blame someone else. Let's blame migrants instead. Let's vote for a man who will ban migration. Great. Then what, we'll all feel better with the new enemy to focus on. Doing nothing whatsoever about the problems themselves.

I am neither gay nor want children. Big shocker though, I liked sex. You can't tell me there are not a ton of straight guys who have that exact perspective, because I grew up with them. Some start wanting to settle down as they age, some have accidental families because they were careless, and others don't do either. I don't buy for a second that somewhere deep in every man's soul is a desire to father children. Not historically and not presently. Often historically it just came about from the physical act not by design, and often historically in some societies, it was a limited number of powerful or successful men who fathered most of the children. I am barely attracted to anyone though these days and that's another set of people, and another conversation. Oh and if you are wondering. I can't afford a family, which is the main reason for me personally during my lifetime.

Just sad that corporations have screwed things up so much, and left people with so little, that the economy matters less, than wrecking the economy by removing economic migration to feel like you are 'winning', to then go on and blame the government for not magically filling these new jobs immediately as soon as they appear, in a dynamic marketplace. Training takes time as problems arise, and you can't replace manual jobs with an aging local workforce either. Aka Brexit in Britain. This was achievable because socialism was successfully demonized as the enemy giving corporations no pushback, and all the clowns on TV don't realise (or want to ignore) you can't make a retired person go pick potatoes in a field on mass. So there goes one of many industries the country can no longer staff or run, along with many of the others by leaving the common market to increase bureacratic costs, which is what a lot of these further right governments want. It's not just immigration, that's the go-to rightwing blame feel good fest, like gay people, the poor, the homeless, other religions, etc. When you go far enough right, the enemy has to be external as well. There has to be a war to justify the external 'threat' that galvanizes an extreme-right government, fear essentially requiring a strong man protector to keep people safe. That's where we are headed on mass, smaller countries can also be used as proxy's for economic war, political influence peddling by Russia for example, or just outright conflict when they are located in the right place. I am just sorry I resisted Teal Swan telling me WW3 was coming ten years ago. What hyperbole, cooler heads, nobodies that psychotic I said, well we are certainly stacking the deck with people who will shoot first, (and are doing) then not worry about the fallout later. In fact, they'll now not only target civilian populations as a war strategy (Russia) but censor and fire you for talking about it (Israel).

Well let's take those two tragedies then. America built a coalition, got international support from other countries, got some legitimacy for its actions internally and externally, talked to the world about why it was going to do what it was going to do. Planned a complex operation. Used other countries' specialties where they could, and went in with a multi-national force with a clear goal of ridding the world of a dangerous terrorist group, using as much force as required, and no more than that. They were the victims of a horrific attack like Israel were, and they used that political capital to form an alliance. They spoke to any potential allies in the region itself, even tried to empower them as an alternative to the threat they were going after, and prosecuted any soldiers of theirs committing war crimes for example. - This is what's called using your mind, while not ignoring your emotion. Even if diplomacy had utterly failed to form a coalition response, ATTEMPTING IT, allows you a lot more leeway with other countries. To be clear I don't live in America i was a young adult and 100% behind their initial first few years in that country, to this day even after all that's happened I would be again in favor of America going into Afghanistan (not Iraq) Israel told people to get out, at least those that heard the message from a region with cut-off communications, gave a million people a couple of days to move down a road or two, then began to level an area and will now occupy/annex as part of their own country. Killing anyone or anything still in the region. Do you see the difference or the long-term effect or benefit of one over the other? Especially on the surrounding countries' relationships to Israel. America didn't have to remain bordered to Afghanistan either when it was all finished, they could just leave. Perhaps instead remembering the uncomfortable truth that America decided to leave Afghanistan because of how difficult such a task is, having different motives in nation-building, but the same end result to highlight. Israel is closer to the territory they wish to occupy, ethnic cleansing it of population, but surrounded by many more enemies, and reliant on an outside power to carry out these actions. They rely entirely on America to protect them from the results of any long occupation and ethnic cleansing from external powers like Iran. Which is a dumb idea long term if it wasn't clear from everything i've tried to highlight. My goal is honestly trying to make people think of the wider situation here, considering as much as they are willing to. Focusing entirely on the present/future also to keep it focused. *You added a bit more to the post but the overall message is the same. Its very true that my want for something to change barely ever affects the outcome of something, but 'we still keep trying like fools' as they say :). I also wanted to say the summary of why the bias is as strong as it is, was appreciated for understanding's sake.

Nothing in my post was saying Hamas had done anything positive for itself or its people. If you read it I said their leadership's actions in starting this wave of violence had led to their likely removal from Gaza. The entire post was reflecting on Israel, if you want my emotional response, it's to turn off the TV and let the situation play out. Withdraw all military support or intervention from either side, and let the region normalize entirely on its own. This is what is going to happen, as i've tried to warn above, for the reasons i've given above. Instead of reflecting on that, or even considering the end result, you looked at Hamas and said they are bad too. Well yes they are bad too. That won't help Israel. *And BTW to separate logic from emotion, you think through something. You don't go on your first emotional reaction. It is absolutely possible to engage logic over emotion, or with emotion as you suggest, or let emotion dictate logic. Part of the way you do this, is to get outside perspectives and listen to others.

Israel is dropping bombs on itself, in every way you'd like to imagine that word. It is causing violence for itself, and on itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism - Is no better than moral equivalency. When you go through tragedy, the worst possible thing you can do is act on that emotion immediately. You sit down, work through it and come up with a strategy that serves you not only now but in the future. Men call it domesticating their emotions, not ignoring them but not living under their thumb either. There were four or five options that were more logical than this, which I thought of in 5 minutes, let alone a group of intelligent people could do with time. Instead Israel chose the most extreme unilateral action from the get-go, and is now locked into a course. (Unless they finally engage their mind not emotion). Palestinians will likely no longer exist in Gaza because of the actions of their leadership. Look into the mirror and consider very carefully what being surrounded by enemies, while occupying Palestinian land in Gaza will do to Israel in the coming decades. Do it as logically as you can. Taking into account America keeps moving rightwing or at least isolationist, likely eventually aligning with autocracy. Iran is with BRICS, so your other potential partners can't back you in this act as you'd need them to. Regardless Russia's capacity to project power is diminished greatly for a couple of decades. Occupation cannot just go away. It remains a sticking issue permanently.

Traditional Western values are on the way out everywhere but Europe, and even there it isn't guaranteed anymore it'll hold. I think Russia, and Ukraine's defense of its government, managed to push those values back to the front of people's minds, but whether that will stick I have no idea. Trump has been praising dictators every other week, if the overton window shifts anymore right (which it has been gradually for 20 years), forget that concept entirely outside of Europe.

When I say 'not much changed' for America it was a bit dismissive. I think it brought together the Middle East against American interests more, into alignment with BRICS and Iran more. That should be recognized, but as America will be slowly becoming more isolationist, unless something major changes, ultimately the only people that will be affected is Israel. BRICS will by its nature take over the region into its sphere of interest again, like Russia used to. I don't think it'll ever stop someone from selling oil to their customers, just perhaps tipping the balance in economic wars more often. Like Saudia Arabia did in Russia vs Ukraine.

Yes. But don't worry it was pretty terrible anyway outside of Europe or the Pacific. As for neutral parties. Those that care about reputation will still care, those that don't won't. Nothing much changed. Biden just made Trumps victory more likely. Though when trump is in court all next year, he's broke financially from his civil trials, lawyer fees and constant losing, its not going to help him outside of his most infatuated supporters adoring the victim complex or anti-establishment chest beating. Rightwingers traditionally only back winners, and prefer strengthening institutions, especially ones responsible for law and order, but it'll be increasingly clear trumps losing repeatedly and running against these same institutions they want to preserve. It'll be a battle as to whether: Leftwing Populists want to support a corporate conservative in Biden, in an eternal cycle that kills all leftwing populism and encourages it on the right. Add to that now the ethnic cleansing guarded and supported by the American military which will deflate the democratic vote. OR Conservatives want to continue to burn down American institutions by electing a criminal, via Trumps continued attack on the FBI, the Courts, the Vote, the House, Homeland Security, even the military now, aka everyone who doesn't kiss his narcissistic behind. It is the epitome of both sides having to vote against their own innate interests, confronted with what they hate. Of course, there are people this serves, people who love corporations or people who love burning institutions down, rightwing anarchists for example, see Argentina for that result. On the extreme, I've heard some leftwing anarchists starting to lean towards Trump's rhetoric or at least to go third party, as don't forget you still have 4 potential people on the presidential ballot even when the primary is over with. If it was done right now, those two alternate candidates would pick up more of the voting share than America has perhaps ever seen happen before. Why do I care so much? Because England tends to copy America in some fashion, only with more supposed civility and less overt physical violence. That and the descent of America is the rise of the authoritarian replacement BRICS. If in any small way can slow that impending reality and disaster down till I am no longer on this Earth, it'd be useful. *Its Israel that this occupation will affect more than anyone. As the world becomes further and further right from this point, fewer people will care about what happens to anyone outside of their borders. Israel will be an occupying force entirely surrounded by enemies with a recent ethnic cleansing against Arabs to deal with.

If I had to reflect the counter to my own argument, it could be because of all these factors, Israel has decided now is the time they have to remove gaza from the equation as much as possible, as horrific a conclusion as that is. Long term though, all of this has pushed back any potential reconciliation of this issue in a broader sense so far forward in time, that I still feel unless something else majorly shifts in the region, it's going to present a tragic set of conclusions long term. Imagine a world where Israel was protecting Palestinians as members of their own country. Rather than expelling them they were welcoming them into one nation and making strong efforts to integrate both people into a state. Removing Hamas of course, as it has an incompatible worldview. No Arab nation would be the aggressor, because they would face the same wrath from other Arabs for attacking their own. A different world.