Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Karmadhi]

@PurpleTree I have noticed more than half of Israeli population are NOT Ashkanazi Jews and have roots from the Middle East

They are not European looking basically. Which is funny because whenever people want to insult Israelis they always say "Go back to Europe" when like half of them have 0 links with Europe. They came from other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq or Morocco.

How come almost all the PM are Ashkanazi Jews when half of the population is not?

Is there some sort of discrimination between the Jewish themselves in Israel (Ashkanazis have more power) or is it just coincidence?

@Nivsch Help us here  

Edited Sunday at 12:44 PM by Karmadhi

[PurpleTree]

8 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

@PurpleTree I have noticed more than half of Israeli population are NOT Ashkanazi Jews and have roots from the Middle East

They are not European looking basically. Which is funny because whenever people want to insult Israelis they always say "Go back to Europe" when like half of them have 0 links with Europe. They came from other Middle Eastern countries like Iraq or Morocco.

How come almost all the PM are Ashkanazi Jews when half of the population is not?

Is there some sort of discrimination between the Jewish themselves in Israel (Ashkanazis have more power) or is it just coincidence?

@Nivsch Help us here  

Yea and all the PMs are Eastern European Ashkenanzi

 

There are also western European Ashkenazi but not PMs. For example Germany Einstein, Levi Strauss, Kissinger.

[zazen]

@BlueOak The difference is that Russia see’s a superpowers imperial reach coming through a neighbour as a threat, while Israel sees the neighbour themselves (who is stateless and powerless) as a threat.

A proper threat assessment has to be made to distinguish between an existential threat, a national security threat, or a threat to empire and imperial domination. Otherwise situations are misdiagnosed and what is defensive is framed as domination or vice versa.

You can have a legitimate security concern, gone about in an illegitimate (yet understandable) way. Or an illegitimate or inflated security concern, gone about in an illegitimate way ie Israel or a unipolar hegemon maintaining its primacy in a multipolar reality.

Israel frames what is a national security concern (October 7th - non state actors) as an existential concern. In fact the far right frame Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat - recoiling at even the mention of the word Palestine.

The US frames a threat to their uni-polar hegemony as a national security threat. A illegitimate concern (maintaining global primacy in a multi-polar world ) + inflated concern (treating developments in far off continents as existential), handled in illegitimate ways (wars of choice, regime change, sanctions etc).

Understanding why a state feels threatened isn’t excusing what they do about it or how they go about it - in bad ways. But the main reason to distinguish it is because security concerns can usually be dealt with diplomatically whereas a power looking to dominate can’t be reasoned with.

Every territorial expansion or war isn’t imperial driven and based on domination - they can be security driven. The gains in territory are incidental and secondary not primary. It’s like saying all water is wet - on the surface it’s true but it oversimplifies and misses important distinctions.

Most of the cases you listed start with a proximity based security logic ie their not acting for dominations sake - that doesn’t justify their methods or make them clean. A unipolar hegemon skips proximity logic and treats developments in places thousands of miles away as existential threats.

Even their abuses of power are above law. The US literally has a law that allows it to be lawless - The Hague Act legalises them storming The Hague if one of their own are in the hot seat. But legal doesn’t always mean legitimate. Just now they’ve put a $50mill bounty on another head of states - Maduro of Venezuela. This is empire logic not security.

I put my those examples into Chat GPT with those distinctions:

Edited Sunday at 07:35 PM by zazen
Grammar

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

@BlueOak The difference is that Russia see’s a superpowers imperial reach coming through a neighbour as a threat, while Israel sees the neighbour themselves (who is stateless and powerless) as a threat.

A proper threat assessment has to be made to distinguish between an existential threat, a national security threat, or a threat to empire and imperial domination. Otherwise situations are misdiagnosed and what is defensive is framed as domination or vice versa.

You can have a legitimate security concern, gone about in an illegitimate (yet understandable) way. Or an illegitimate or inflated security concern, gone about in an illegitimate way ie Israel or a unipolar hegemon maintaining its primacy in a multipolar reality.

Israel frames what is a national security concern (October 7th - non state actors) as an existential concern. In fact the far right frame Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat - recoiling at even the mention of the word Palestine.

The US frames a threat to their uni-polar hegemony as a national security threat. A illegitimate concern (maintaining global primacy in a multi-polar world ) + inflated concern (treating developments in far off continents as existential), handled in illegitimate ways (wars of choice, regime change, sanctions etc).

Understanding why a state feels threatened isn’t excusing what they do about it or how they go about it - in bad ways. But the main reason to distinguish it is because security concerns can usually be dealt with diplomatically whereas a power looking to dominate can’t be reasoned with.

Every territorial expansion or war isn’t imperial driven and based on domination - they can be security driven. The gains in territory are incidental and secondary not primary. It’s like saying all water is wet - on the surface it’s true but it oversimplifies and misses important distinctions.

Most of the cases you listed start with a proximity based security logic ie their not acting for dominations sake. That obviously but doesn’t justify their methods or make them clean. A unipolar hegemons actions skip even proximity logic - the US treats developments in places thousands of miles away as existential threats.

Even their abuses of power are above law. The US literally has a law that allows it to be lawless - The Hague Act legalises them storming The Hague if one of their own are in the hot seat. But legal doesn’t always mean legitimate. Just now they’ve put a $50mill bounty on another head of states - Maduro of Venezuela. This is empire logic not security.

I put my those examples into Chat GPT with those distinctions:

We could say that what Russia (Putin) did in Chechnya is similar to what Israel is doing to Palestine/Gaza 

and it wasn’t that long ago.

[zazen]

On 29/07/2025 at 8:47 PM, zazen said:

@PurpleTree They’re going against them in Europe how, by spying on them? That's a clear abuse of power - but authoritarian not imperial which is aimed towards foreign groups. It's a grey area here because most if not all states have surveillance or spy on their citizens particularly if they pose some sort of threat - terrorism, separatist etc. That's normal behaviour for any state - to maintain territorial integrity and see any citizens threatening that as a national security risk. Especially when you have outside forces who'd like to de-stabilize and weaken you via those separatists.

Right now there's lots of protests in the UK at migrant hotels from the ''far right''. Migrants being housed at native peoples expense while native people's public services are diminished and buckling under pressure - unsafe streets, NHS trouble, homelessness etc. These groups could pose a threat for civil unrest or even war (unlikely I think) but I've read many comments from them saying ''we'r not scared of civil war, we in fact need one''.

Would it then be right or wrong for the UK government to spy on them to maintain national security? That's where things get murky. Even say if Catalonia wanted to separate from Spain - of course Spain is going to prevent that because its the natural way a state acts. 

@PurpleTree

Palestinians are trying to succeed at the self-determination of a state, not seceding from an already existing one. So it’s not about territorial integrity of an already existing state but denying a group the sovereignty of having one their already entitled to.

Balochistan is similar to Chechyna - already part of an existing state (Pakistan) but with a separatist movement. They’re dealt with aggressively which is authoritarian but not imperial. Different states deal with separatists differently, some more aggressive than others - but generally no state just willingly gives up territory as it can set off a domino affect for others to separate.

We were talking on another thread about Uyghurs and I responded regarding their treatment and how states act to preserve themselves.

Spain for example cracked down on Catalonian officials leading the separatist referendum. That can’t be classified as imperialism just because it’s aggressive or authoritarian - there are distinct differences. A country can be authoritarian without being imperial - North Korea for example.

Many people misdiagnose security logic and motive for imperialism and domination - which implies there’s no legitimate concerns to be solved diplomatically, thus the only solution is to deal with the “evil Hitler” militarily.

A unipolar hegemon like the US is blind to other nations security concerns because they believe they are the exception (American exceptionalism). They’re also the exception from international law and war crime persecution from the ICJ (Hague invasion act). They believe the entire globe is their sphere of influence but another powerful nation having one is imperialism.

Its the same underlying mentality Israel has towards Palestinians - arrogance and exceptionalism fuelling domination. It’s this same mentality that flips other countries reactions to imperialism and calls it imperialism itself. That’s how we get US officials calling the South China Sea a national security threat .. all the way in Chyna 😂 Ok boomer.

 

Edited Sunday at 10:26 PM by zazen

[Ajay0]

On 8/9/2025 at 1:49 PM, BlueOak said:

By BRICS standards this is war is justified and fine. Israel is taking what they consider theirs and forming buffer zones around their state. That's what China and Russia do, supported by their BRICS allies. If this is the reality most of the world is calling for, then that's what we have to accept, while pointing out its insanity of course.

*India is one step away from doing this to Pakistan also. Armenia - Azerbaijan. Turkey - Greece. Everyone - Syria. So its not like i'm cherry picking. This is the current global reality, which we either say spheres of influence don't work in the nuclear era and we need to progress as a globe to something better, like national sovereignty remaining within its own borders in a global league of nations, or accept this is what happens.

The India pakistan war only had a duration of 4 days, and it was ended with successful diplomatic negotiations between the two countries through communication channels. 

The only major wars taking place at present is that of Hamas-Israel in the middle east, and Ukraine-Russia in Europe with the latter over three years old .

The two world wars which originated in europe are considered to be strategic disasters that arose due to failures in diplomacy, and there is a high possibility that the ukraine war will also end up as a white elephant for all the parties involved unless there is diplomatic negotiations involved.

[BlueOak]

@zazen @Karmadhi @PurpleTree @all (Sorry if I missed anyone) Ajay0 I'll reply to you in a sec.

Tried something new I asked Chat GPT to rewrite my response into Green / Yellow / Turquoise thinking:

Green:

I understand the point some of you are making about “security logic” vs “domination logic,” and yes — the strategic contexts differ. Russia frames NATO as an existential superpower threat. China frames separatist movements like the Uyghurs as a vulnerability in a hostile region. Israel frames Gaza as a security concern but, in the far-right narrative, also treats Palestinian existence itself as an existential threat. Those distinctions are real.

But here’s my point: if our moral outrage depends on whether we agree with the aggressor’s framing, we’re applying selective principles. Both “security logic” and “domination logic” have produced mass civilian suffering, starvation, forced displacement, and cultural erasure. And when we excuse one set of atrocities because we buy the “security” story, but reject another because we see it as “domination,” we’re not being morally consistent — we’re just picking a side.

Recent examples make this clearer. Russia has forcibly deported thousands of Ukrainian children, bombed civilian infrastructure, and used occupation to change local identity. China has detained over a million Uyghurs, imposed mass sterilizations, and erased religious and cultural life. Israel’s war in Gaza has produced child death rates higher than Ukraine’s entire civilian toll since 2022. Different contexts, yes — but if proportional civilian harm is our red line, the outrage should be universal.

I’m not saying Russia = China = Israel. I’m saying if we justify one under the banner of “security” while condemning another, we’ve already abandoned an even standard. The civilian in Mariupol, Kashgar, or Rafah doesn’t care what the state calls its logic — they care that they’re starving, displaced, or burying their children. That’s the only consistent place to start.

Yellow:

I hear the points about “security logic” vs “domination logic,” and those distinctions matter — they help explain why Russia, China, Israel, and the U.S. each act the way they do. From inside their own worldview, each sees their actions as necessary, even if from outside that frame it looks abusive or unjustified.

But the danger is when we apply those distinctions selectively. If disproportionate civilian harm is unacceptable in one case, it’s unacceptable in all cases — whether it’s caused by an imperial ambition, a security fear, or a mix of both. The civilian in Mariupol, Kashgar, or Rafah doesn’t care what the official logic is. They care about surviving the day.

What I’d like us to explore is: how do we integrate these perspectives in a way that breaks the cycle? How do we address real security concerns without creating humanitarian catastrophes that feed the very threats we’re trying to avoid?

That’s the only consistent place to start, and it’s important to step out of our own perspective into theirs — not to justify, but to understand deeply enough to design something better.

Turquoise:

When I read these comparisons — Israel and Gaza, Russia and Ukraine, China and the Uyghurs — I see different branches of the same root. Each is a human system trying to preserve its identity and security in ways that harm other parts of the same living whole.

We can argue endlessly about whose logic is security and whose is domination, and we’ll always find examples that justify our chosen side. But at a planetary level, the distinction collapses — because any group that acts from fear, without seeing itself as part of a shared human fabric, will eventually harm others in the name of survival.

The real question is: how do we evolve to a place where security is achieved through deep interdependence, not force? Where protecting one’s people doesn’t require starving, assimilating, or erasing another? That’s not just policy — it’s a shift in consciousness, the same shift that would make all these conflicts obsolete.

Until then, the suffering in Rafah, Mariupol, and Kashgar is not “theirs” to bear — it’s ours. Each is a reflection of the same unresolved human story. The only consistent starting point is to step out of our own narrative long enough to feel that, and then act as though we believe it.


I have not edited these responses, so I am quoting it.
It sums up my position well, depending on who I am replying to or what my mental state is on that day.

I try to bring in that fear is the motivator, in all cases, and that we have to step out of our own perspective and into the people experiencing the suffering. The cause or framing isn't as important as the end result, it never is. I did see the pattern but I wasn't articulating sufficiently.

Edited yesterday at 06:24 AM by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

@Ajay0

I understand in the focus of this conversation that there are only two major wars we are focused on Ukraine Russia and Hamas Israel. But that’s only true if we ignore the wider picture: There are at least six major wars and around ten minor ones ongoing, many proxy conflicts and cold war–style standoffs. If we narrow the focus, the pattern remains, that states frame their actions as security, expand or occupy territory, and civilians pay the price.

India Pakistan, ended quickly through diplomacy. It’s an indicator for what’s possible when we intervene early in the cycle. I’ve heard rumors of new skirmishes today, but even so, escalation was prevented. If we remember to resolve and not destroy.

At a planetary perspective, these conflicts aren’t separate stories, they are different expressions of the same underlying human pattern. Or a system that still defaults to us vs. them when under threat. I’ve fallen into it myself here. Sometimes we call it security, others domination, but the result is the same. Fractured relationships in what could be a single, interconnected human whole.

Diplomacy works when we see ourselves as part of a whole. Recognizing the suffering in Rafah, Mariupol, or any other place on earth is not just theirs to carry, it is ours. As some like Raze try to do here. I do respect how hard that poster tries. The question is whether we can evolve to the point where security is found in interdependence, not just in force. That’s the consistent starting point in answer to all of these replies, and to quote a phrase I like exactly: It means stepping outside our own internal narrative far enough to feel that, and then acting like we believe it.

Feeling is the hard part in this age of cerebral internet access, where distance turns people into text, images, or avatars. It’s easy to make an enemy out of a moniker. But until we reconnect the human thread and pattern between all of us, the same fear-based pattern will keep playing out, in every region, under every flag, in every context. The outside world is the inside world, and that starts here, this is a microcosm of our world.

I've tried to elevate my response here. I struggle with feeling in these days of internet life I really do. The images, and stories blur together and I think that drops me into lower states of consciousness far too easily.

Edited yesterday at 06:23 AM by BlueOak

[Karmadhi]

3 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I try to bring in that fear is the motivator, in all cases, and that we have to step out of our own perspective and into the people experiencing the suffering. The cause or framing isn't as important as the end result, it never is. I did see the pattern but I wasn't articulating sufficiently.

I do not know why you think we are somehow pro Russia or China

I cannot speak for all the people tagged but I personally support Ukraine and was horrified when Russia started the invasion

However, Russia was from day one condemned and sanctioned by Western countries, something that is not happening with Israel

I think that double standards is what angers people the most

 

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, Karmadhi said:

I do not know why you think we are somehow pro Russia or China

I cannot speak for all the people tagged but I personally support Ukraine and was horrified when Russia started the invasion

However, Russia was from day one condemned and sanctioned by Western countries, something that is not happening with Israel

I think that double standards is what angers people the most

 

Double standard goes deep both ways though.

There are many people (in the world) on this forum on YouTube etc.

Who if China, Russia etc. do devilry they’ll look the other way.

But if let’s say a Western European country does devilry, oh nooon mon dieu the west colonialism, racism, evil evil.

[zazen]

6 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I try to bring in that fear is the motivator, in all cases, and that we have to step out of our own perspective and into the people experiencing the suffering. The cause or framing isn't as important as the end result, it never is.

But the cause is important to understand how to stop the suffering ? Collapsing all distinctions means we never get to the root cause. And the solution isn’t dissolution of all distinctions into a abstract multi planetary consciousness when we haven’t hacked multipolarity on the one planet we haven’t left yet.

Pretty much all of us are morally consistent I think in being against the suffering all these conflicts cause. But it’s about how to practically resolve or minimise them. Saying all suffering is bad doesn’t help solve it except state the obvious.

What looks like double standards is often the same standards applied to different situations. Liberalism collapses context and distinction to maintain a moral halo of universalism but never solve anything - except trip up over itself in contradictions and shield itself from reality that pierces through their utopian ideaology.

Green is going for a moral play and erases causality - which means no solution. Yellow is most pragmatic (rather than idealistic) as it acknowledges the others views and concerns (security). Then it mentions integrating perspectives to break the cycle. Integration would mean integrating the fact that certain constraints on freedom are required for larger freedoms - and that not all constraint is some assault on sovereignty and liberty.

The liberal minded have constraint phobia and want to sovereignty max as if every nation simply floats like a lone cloud and can do everything it wishes as long as it’s democratically voted. Then they ironically speak of interdependence and connected (“oneness”) meanwhile not acknowledging how smaller nations existence depends on  not crossing their larger neighbours red lines. If we took sovereignty and liberal maxing to its extreme it would mean every group and tribe voting to secede from territory until we have a 1’000 different nations fighting.

Turquoise wants to leapfrog to a multi-planetary level where all distinctions dissolve - when we haven’t even evolved to exist with multi-polarity on one we haven’t left. It’s premature. It then talks of shifting conciousness but what we need now is the current hegemon shifting its conciousness from a unipolar imperial mindset to a multi-polar sharing space mindset. This is peak mystic escapism and geopolitical bypassing because we are “all one”. Non-duality doesn’t mean no duality - maturing is learning to live within duality because as long as we live in form we can’t escape into some formless blob.

Edited 19 hours ago by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen

I agree that collapsing every conflict into, all suffering is the same without looking at causes would miss what’s needed to resolve them individually. But we are already operating inside a single global system, just one that’s dysfunctional, fractured, and prone to violence.

When I mention Gaza, Ukraine, Xinjiang, or Kashmir as connected, it’s not because they are identical in cause or context. It’s because the same system-level behaviours keep recurring. Security fears get weaponised, territorial control follows, and civilians suffer. Those behaviours reinforce each other across regions, what one power normalises, another adopts or justifies, and over time, it integrates changes into the global reality. That’s how the world evolves collectively.

Distinctions matter for practical solutions, but if we only look at each case in isolation, we miss how they feed back into the same global system. You can’t stabilise or improve that system by pretending each conflict is unrelated to the others. Just as no single power can control the whole world, this is the natural evolution out of unipolar dominance that you speak of. Where a multipolar perspective can exist in people's mind.

That’s why I keep returning to the: Step outside your own perspective point, not to dissolve all differences into a formless oneness, which would be an unhelpful daydream, but to get people thinking about the wider system we are all co-creating through our interactions. We are already part of it. The choice we face is whether to let it keep running on fear and reaction, or to start rewriting it consciously , and the first step is acknowledging that it exists. I understand and accept that past events have shaped the fears driving us today, but it doesn’t have to stay that way. That’s a choice every one of us makes every day.

@Karmadhi

I appreciate that you’re one of the few here who openly acknowledges the existence of a global reality. In a multipolar world, balance depends on a global outlook, not on treating each country in isolation as either sole antagonist or sole partner. Until that mindset becomes more widespread, BRICS will likely continue to appear, in practical terms (rightly or wrongly), as largely China-led, a new unipolar force in a different uniform. I may expand on that when I get to Zazen’s latest post in the other discussion.

When I talk about these issues, I try to keep the paradox in mind. In a connected global reality, we have to hold an individual’s suffering, a nation’s fears, and the concerns of bordering territories in equal balance. If I see a discussion tilting too far toward only one of those perspectives, I often try to bring it back to consider all.

Edited 10 hours ago by BlueOak

[Hatfort]

More target assassinations of journalists in Gaza, 28-year-old Anas Al-Sharif, along with other colleagues, were struck in their tent in Gaza city. The genocidal state and army of Israel want the land of Gaza empty of Palestinians, and no witnesses of their crimes.

Al-Sharif, aware of the danger to his life, prepared a testament in case this happened some months ago. 

Quote

This is my will and my final message.

If my words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice.

First, peace be upon you and God’s mercy and blessings.

God knows I gave all I had, strength and effort, to be a support and a voice for my people, ever since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys of Jabaliya refugee camp. My hope was to live long enough to return with my family and loved ones to our original town, Asqalan (Al-Majdal), now under occupation. But God’s will came first, and His decree is final.

I have lived pain in all its details and tasted loss many times. Yet I never stopped telling the truth as it is, without falsification or distortion, so that God may bear witness over those who stayed silent, accepted our killing, and did nothing to stop the massacre our people have endured for more than a year and a half.

I entrust you with Palestine, the jewel of the Muslim crown, and the heartbeat of every free person in this world. I entrust you with its people and children, whose pure bodies have been crushed under Israeli bombs and missiles.

Do not let chains silence you or borders restrain you. Be bridges toward the liberation of the land and its people, until the sun of dignity and freedom rises over our stolen homeland.

I entrust you with my family: my beloved daughter Sham; my dear son Salah; my mother, whose prayers were my fortress; and my steadfast wife Bayan (Umm Salah), who carried the responsibility in my absence with strength and faith. Stand by them after God.

If I die, I die steadfast in my principles. I bear witness that I am content with God’s decree, certain of our meeting, and convinced that what is with God is better and everlasting.

O God, accept me among the martyrs, forgive me my sins, and make my blood a light that illuminates the path of freedom for my people. Forgive me if I fell short, and pray for me with mercy, for I have kept my pledge and never changed.

Do not forget Gaza… and do not forget me in your prayers.

Anas Jamal al-Sharif

April 6, 2025

Edited 9 hours ago by Hatfort