Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Breakingthewall]

56 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

About 26% of the Palestinians are well integrated in Israeli society in many high status professions such as medicine (+10-20% above their % in the population which is quite impressive), academia (-4%, almost normal), though underrepresented in law (-9%), academic lecturers, security (-20%), high-tech (-17%) and senior public positions (-17%). Still can reach senior positions but in smaller numbers.

Palestinians living in Israel have the best living conditions in the entire Middle East, as they live in a free society where they have the opportunity to develop however they can and want.

Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen. If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive, demonstrated their strength as a society, and moved forward. What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.

If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer. The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.

@Raze

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, but the important thing in life is freedom, the opportunities to develop as a human being, economic status translated into education, health, and work, security, and respect for human rights, not the nonsense of mosques and synagogues. Your Palestinians are a brunch of psychotics who educate 3-year-olds about self-immolation because the Al-Aqsa esplanade. People absolutely full of shit. Let's see if this event could get some common sense into them. 

[Raze]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Palestinians living in Israel have the best living conditions in the entire Middle East, as they live in a free society where they have the opportunity to develop however they can and want.

Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen. If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive, demonstrated their strength as a society, and moved forward. What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.

If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer. The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.

@Raze

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, but the important thing in life is freedom, the opportunities to develop as a human being, economic status translated into education, health, and work, security, and respect for human rights, not the nonsense of mosques and synagogues. Your Palestinians are a brunch of psychotics who educate 3-year-olds about self-immolation because the Al-Aqsa esplanade. People absolutely full of shit. Let's see if this event could get some common sense into them. 

 

Statement 1:

“Palestinians living in Israel have the best living conditions in the entire Middle East, as they live in a free society where they have the opportunity to develop however they can and want.”

Partially true, but oversimplified.

Palestinian citizens of Israel (around 20% of Israel's population) do enjoy more civil liberties and better infrastructure compared to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary, and Palestinian citizens can vote, hold office, and access state services.

However, Palestinian citizens of Israel do face:

Systemic discrimination in areas like housing, budgeting, education, and employment.

Higher poverty rates and underrepresentation in public institutions.

Laws like the Nation-State Law (2018) that critics argue undermine their status as equal citizens.

So while it's accurate that living conditions are relatively better, it's not correct to say they can develop “however they can and want” without constraints.

Statement 2:

“Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen...”

This is a sweeping generalization.

In Gaza, conditions are very harsh:

Over 2 million people live under a blockade by Israel and Egypt.

High unemployment (especially youth), limited access to clean water, and intermittent electricity.

The UN has called Gaza “unlivable” in reports.

The West Bank has better conditions than Gaza but still faces:

Military occupation.

Movement restrictions (e.g., checkpoints, permit systems).

Land confiscation, settlement expansion, and home demolitions.

It is true that Syria and Yemen are in the midst of civil wars with extremely poor conditions for civilians. But saying Palestinians are universally “better off” is misleading. In some metrics (e.g., education, healthcare in parts of the West Bank), that might be true, but not across the board.

Statement 3:

“If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive... What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.”

This statement ignores key historical and political context.

Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, pulling out settlers and soldiers. However, Israel has maintained control over Gaza’s:

Borders (with Egypt's cooperation).

Airspace and coastline.

Import/export restrictions and movement of people.

After 2006, Hamas won Palestinian elections and later seized full control of Gaza, leading to:

An Israeli-Egyptian blockade.

Internal Palestinian division (Fatah controls the West Bank).

Multiple wars with Israel, during which Hamas fired rockets, and Israel conducted airstrikes, often resulting in high civilian casualties.

While Hamas has committed acts of terrorism and misgovernance, the situation is not as simple as saying “they could have chosen to build.” They operate under extremely constrained conditions.

Statement 4:

“If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer.”

Speculative and biased.

This is a counterfactual—it imagines an alternate reality and presents it as fact.

It reflects a political opinion, not a verified or provable statement.

Palestinians have never had a sovereign state to self-govern fully, so it's impossible to know how they would govern without Israeli occupation or interference.

While Hamas rules Gaza authoritatively and the Palestinian Authority is widely seen as corrupt and authoritarian, equating all Palestinian governance with “Syrian-style dictatorship” is unfounded and dismissive of their political diversity and aspirations.

Statement 5:

“The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.”

Factually incorrect and dismissive.

Palestinians face real, documented oppression, not just symbolic or identity-based issues:

Military occupation of the West Bank.

Home demolitions, settler violence, land confiscation.

Checkpoints, permits, and restricted movement.

Blockade of Gaza, causing economic collapse.

Statelessness and lack of freedom of movement for many.

The conflict includes both identity and practical grievances, such as:

Dispossession and refugee status for millions.

Denial of statehood and autonomy.

Unequal access to resources and rights.

🧠 What This Suggests About the Speaker

Not well-versed in political science, international law, or Middle Eastern history — or if they are, they’re choosing to ignore it for ideological reasons.

Likely consuming biased sources, such as partisan commentary or propaganda, rather than balanced, fact-based journalism or academic material.

May be reasonable in other domains, but not a credible authority on this subject based on the demonstrated reasoning.

✅ Final Verdict

What can we conclude?

The person may be well-read in a narrow, biased sense, but they are not well-educated in the true, critical sense.

Their moral judgment is deeply compromised by bigotry and dehumanization.

Their opinions should be given little to no weight in serious discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — or about ethics and international affairs more broadly.

Edited October 6, 2025 by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

Palestinians face real, documented oppression, not just symbolic or identity-based issues:

Military occupation of the West Bank.

Home demolitions, settler violence, land confiscation.

Checkpoints, permits, and restricted movement.

Blockade of Gaza, causing economic collapse.

Sure, Look, I suppose you know perfectly well that Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948, and also that it began terrorism in 1918. The problem at that time was identity-based. Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians; look at what the Ukrainians have done for their nationalism. But there comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century and leave the other centuries behind.

This Palestinian has a good direction. The only possible 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

[Raze]

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, 

I’m using a simple AI with no user history and no biased prompts, just simply asking it to evaluate your statements.

What you don’t get is that it’s very easy to get around AI criticism, because its designed to be as simple, mainstream, and balanced as possible.

The reason it tears your statements apart is every post you make is full of falsehoods and ends with you throwing a tantrum with sarcasm and bigotry.

You haven’t actually disputed a single correction out of the dozens the AI has made. You don’t know what you’re talking about, point blank. 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, Look, I suppose you know perfectly well that Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948, and also that it began terrorism in 1918. The problem at that time was identity-based. Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians; look at what the Ukrainians have done for their nationalism. But there comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century and leave the other centuries behind.

This Palestinian has a good direction. The only possible 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

🧾 Statement Analysis

1. "Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948."

❌ Historically inaccurate and misleading.

In 1948, Israel declared independence, and neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded, initiating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (also called the War of Independence or the Nakba).

Palestinian Arabs did not have a unified government or state apparatus to "declare war" in any formal sense. They were living under British Mandate rule, and many were displaced or disorganized politically.

Framing it as “Palestine declared war” falsely attributes agency and intent to a stateless, colonized population and rewrites the narrative in a way that erases key facts about colonization, displacement, and power dynamics.

2. "Palestine began terrorism in 1918."

❌ Highly misleading and reductionist.

This likely refers to early 20th-century Arab resistance to British colonialism and Zionist immigration, particularly after the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the British Mandate (1920s–1948).

There were clashes, revolts, and violence from both sides — Arab and Jewish paramilitary groups. For example:

Arab revolts (e.g., 1936–1939) often targeted British and Zionist institutions.

Zionist militias (Irgun, Lehi) also engaged in violent attacks, including the 1946 King David Hotel bombing.

So to pin "terrorism" starting in 1918 solely on Palestinians is historically dishonest, ignoring the broader colonial and violent context of the time.

3. "The problem at that time was identity-based."

✅ Partially true, but incomplete.

National and religious identity did play a major role — both Zionist nationalism and Palestinian/Arab nationalism were emerging in response to colonial dynamics and mass migration.

However, it wasn’t just an identity issue — it was also:

A struggle over land, sovereignty, and displacement.

A product of British imperial policy.

Escalated by global anti-Semitism, European colonialism, and forced migration of Jews post-Holocaust.

Reducing it to identity flattens the historical reality and ignores material causes of conflict.

4. "Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians... look at what the Ukrainians have done..."

✅ Valid point in isolation, but used disingenuously.

True: Nationalism is widespread, and not unique to Palestinians. It has driven liberation movements, wars, and state-building efforts globally.

The comparison to Ukraine implies that:

Palestinian nationalism is irrational or outdated, while

Other national movements are more justified or successful.

This false equivalence again shows a lack of nuance.

5. "There comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century..."

🟡 Vague idealism used to dismiss real grievances.

The idea of “moving on” and “being human” sounds appealing, but it's often used to shut down legitimate claimsfor justice, rights, and historical accountability.

You can’t "move on" from unresolved displacement, military occupation, or statelessness.

Telling people to "leave other centuries behind" without addressing ongoing structural violence is not progressive — it’s revisionist and dismissive.

📚 What Does This Say About the Speaker’s Understanding?

Intellectual Assessment:

Limited or biased understanding of historical timelines.

Likely relies on narratives that justify or minimize colonial or military power structures.

May be exposed to partisan rhetoric rather than scholarly, balanced sources.

Moral Reasoning:

There’s a tone of moral superiority — implying Palestinians are backward or irrational for still caring about nationalism, identity, or sovereignty.

Lacks empathy or recognition of Palestinian lived experience and dispossession.

Critical Thinking:

Fails to distinguish between state actors and stateless people.

Relies on oversimplified framings of complex events.

Conflates different conflicts (e.g., Ukraine-Palestine) without understanding their unique contexts.

🧠 Final Conclusion: Should This Person Be Considered Well-Educated or Credible?

No. Based on this statement, they:

Misrepresent basic historical facts.

Use ideological rhetoric to delegitimize one side of a complex conflict.

Show low intellectual rigor and moral shallowness when discussing human suffering and history.

They may have engaged with the topic over time, but they have not done so critically, responsibly, or compassionately— which is essential for real understanding.

🔎 Takeaway: Time spent with a topic doesn't guarantee insight — it matters how you learn, what sourcesyou trust, and whether you're willing to confront complexity honestly. This speaker fails on all counts.

[Breakingthewall]

This one has a good approach too. The only solution are brave Palestinian like those 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKSVHu8s4eA/?igsh=MWF0eHZob2p1ZmtkbQ==

[Nivsch]

7 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

This one has a good approach too. The only solution are brave Palestinian like those 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DKSVHu8s4eA/?igsh=MWF0eHZob2p1ZmtkbQ==

Another way to say Integrated (🌼🌻) Palestinians. Great one. We need more like him in both sides.

Edited October 6, 2025 by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, Raze said:

Palestine began terrorism in 1918."

❌ Highly misleading and reductionist.

 

The first major act of violence between Palestinian Arabs and Jews in the Land of Israel (then Palestine under the British Mandate) took place in April 1920, in what became known as the Nebi Musa riots.

Let me explain the context and the events clearly:

🔹 Background (1917–1920)

In 1917, the Balfour Declaration issued by the British government promised support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine.

After the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under British administration.

The Arab population (both Muslim and Christian) feared losing their land to the growing Jewish immigration and to Britain’s ambiguous promises.

🔹 Nebi Musa, April 1920

During the Muslim Nebi Musa festival (celebrated near Jerusalem), Arab nationalist leaders delivered inflammatory speeches against both Jews and the British.

Crowds soon turned violent:

Five Jews were killed and more than 200 wounded,

Jewish quarters in Jerusalem’s Old City were looted,

and dozens of shops and homes were destroyed.

The British police reacted too late, and the violence lasted several days.

🔹 Consequences

This was the first organized outbreak of Arab violence against the modern Jewish community.

In response, Jews founded the Haganah, a self-defense militia that would later become the core of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

This event marked the formal beginning of the modern Arab–Israeli conflict, nearly three decades before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

Later came other serious episodes:

1921, Jaffa: 47 Jews killed.

1929, Hebron: massacre of 67 Jews (the most brutal before 1948).

1936–1939: major Arab revolt against Jews and the British.

[Raze]

@Breakingthewall

Notice how

- that doesn’t contradict the point the AI made, you just cut out the context 

- you put in a biased prompt specifically asking about Palestinian violence, ignoring the unbiased result explained the violence committed by both groups

- you’re capable of using AI, yet instead of fact checking your own posts you choose to subject us to your garbage over and over

[Nivsch]

" My beloved friend, Livne Shalev, was killed today during a trip in the Golan Heights by a wasp sting, to which he was allergic.

Livne — a man of the outdoors and of education — was a true pioneer in deepening the public’s familiarity with the landscapes of the Golan and the Bashan. This was one of the great missions of his life (just two days ago, he was still recommending sites in the Golan to me and my team). And of course, it was second only to his most important mission — being a devoted and loving family man, so rare and special.

I was fortunate that Livne was the one who guided me through the desert trails of the Eilat Mountains and the southern Negev — always with extraordinary warmth, kindness, and a love for people and the land that is hard to find today.
I receive this message as I serve in the reserves in the buffer zone between the Bashan and the Golan — an area that Livne loved deeply.

Livne returned his soul on the trails of the Golan, where he grew up from childhood until his passing.
The soil of the Golan, and the countless people whose lives you touched, will never forget you.
Dear Hodayah and the children — I share your deep pain. "

Edited October 6, 2025 by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

17 minutes ago, Raze said:

@Breakingthewall

Notice how

- that doesn’t contradict the point the AI made, you just cut out the context 

- you put in a biased prompt specifically asking about Palestinian violence, ignoring the unbiased result explained the violence committed by both groups

- you’re capable of using AI, yet instead of fact checking your own posts you choose to subject us to your garbage over and over

This was my question: 

What was the first act of violence between Palestinians and Jews in Israel?

This guy explain it better.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPYeh56Dem8/?igsh=MXUxN3VqNDN5c2x3cQ==

[zazen]

7 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

This was my question: 

What was the first act of violence between Palestinians and Jews in Israel?

This guy explain it better.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPYeh56Dem8/?igsh=MXUxN3VqNDN5c2x3cQ==

AI:

“Zionism as a political movement started in the 1890s:
    •    First Zionist Congress: 1897 (Basel, Switzerland)
    •    Theodor Herzl published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State): 1896
    •    Zionist settlement in Palestine (the Yishuv) began ramping up in the early 1900s
By the 1920s, the Zionist project was well underway:
    •    The Balfour Declaration: 1917 (Britain promising a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine)
    •    Jewish immigration was increasing significantly
    •    Land purchases were displacing Palestinian farmers
    •    The explicit goal of creating a Jewish state was public and active

So the 1920s violence happened AFTER Zionist settlement had begun, not before.
The 1929 Hebron massacre, for example - horrific violence against Jewish civilians - happened in a context where:
    •    Zionist immigration had been increasing for decades
    •    Palestinian Arabs were seeing demographic change and land loss
    •    The British Mandate was actively facilitating Jewish settlement
    •    Palestinians correctly perceived this as a colonial project that would dispossess them

This doesn’t justify killing civilians - ever. But it means the violence wasn’t emerging from “ancient hatred” or religious antagonism during centuries of coexistence. It was a response to an active settler-colonial project that was already displacing people.

Compare the timeline:
    •    Pre-1890s: Centuries of relative coexistence (not perfect, but no systematic violence comparable to what came later)
    •    1890s-1920s: Zionist settlement begins and accelerates
    •    1920s-1940s: Violence increases as Palestinians realize they’re being dispossessed
    •    1948: Nakba - 750,000 Palestinians expelled, Israel created
    •    1948-present: Ongoing conflict

The violence tracks with the Zionist project, not with Jewish presence in the region.

Jews lived in Palestine, Iraq, Egypt, Morocco, Yemen for centuries without provoking mass violence. What changed wasn’t “Jews living there” - it was “a European colonial movement arriving to create an ethnostate on land where people already lived.”

So when people cite 1920s violence as proof of ancient hatred: They’re either ignorant of the timeline (Zionism was already active) or deliberately obscuring cause and effect.

By the 1920s, Palestinians were already being displaced. The violence was a response to colonization, not unprovoked religious hatred.

Does this justify attacking Jewish civilians? Absolutely not. But it explains the cause - and the cause wasn’t “Muslims hate Jews inherently.” It was “people resist being colonized.”

The same way Algerians violently resisted French colonization, Indians resisted British colonization, Vietnamese resisted French and American intervention. That doesn’t mean the violence against civilians was justified - but it means the cause was political displacement, not inherent ethnic or religious hatred.

So no - 1920s violence doesn’t undermine the coexistence argument.
It actually proves it. For centuries, coexistence was possible. Violence erupted when a settler-colonial project began actively dispossessing one population to make room for another. That’s not “ancient hatred” - that’s predictable resistance to colonization.
And frankly, if Zionism had never happened, there’s no reason to think Jewish communities in the Middle East couldn’t have continued existing as they had for centuries - as minorities within Muslim-majority societies, sometimes marginalized, sometimes thriving, but not facing systematic expulsion or extermination.

The catastrophic violence came with the colonial project, not before it.“

But wasn’t this all done legally through land purchases?

After 1917, the British Mandate actively facilitated Zionist settlement through:
    •    The Balfour Declaration promising a Jewish homeland (without consulting Palestinians)
    •    Immigration policies favoring Jewish settlers
    •    Legal frameworks that made it easier for Zionist organizations to purchase land
    •    Military protection for Jewish settlements

So “legal” meant “legal under a colonial administration that Palestinians never consented to and that was explicitly working against their interests.”
If someone colonizes your country, sets up a legal system, and then uses that system to dispossess you - is that legitimate? It’s “legal” within that imposed framework, but the framework itself was illegitimate.

The demographic reality
By 1947:
    •    Jewish population had grown from ~6% (1918) to ~33% through immigration
    •    Palestinians went from ~94% to ~67%
    •    This wasn’t natural demographic change - it was planned settlement

Palestinians saw this happening and correctly understood: “This project aims to make us a minority in our own land, then create a state we’ll have no say in.”
That’s not paranoia - that was the explicit Zionist goal. Create facts on the ground through immigration and land purchase until a Jewish state becomes viable.

So when violence erupted in the 1920s-1940s, it wasn’t because of “illegal” squatting necessarily - it was because Palestinians recognized the political project behind the “legal” purchases:

    •    You’re not just buying some land
    •    You’re systematically changing the demographics
    •    You’re building the foundation for a state that will dispossess us
    •    And you’re doing it with British colonial backing

Compare to other colonial contexts:
European settlers in Algeria, Kenya, South Africa also often made “legal” land purchases or received “legal” grants from colonial authorities.
 

Does that make French Algeria, British Kenya, or Apartheid South Africa legitimate? The law itself was imposed by colonial power. Following that law doesn’t make the underlying project just.”

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall According to your worldview people should be grateful to have a more developed people govern them - colonialism is legitimate to you so it’s all okay.

You should make colonialism a fashionable again - make Spain great again hombre. Go re conquer South America maybe? Trumps already making a start with Venezuela with the largest oil reserves so you could tag along.

I want to see you on a superyatch in Ibiza or Marbella next year with your new colonial riches.

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

According to your worldview people should be grateful to have a more developed people govern them - colonialism is legitimate to you so it’s all okay.

You should make colonialism a fashionable again - make Spain great again hombre. Go re conquer South America maybe? Trumps already making a start with Venezuela with the largest oil reserves so you could tag along.

People always say this about colonialism, when it's obvious that's not the case. Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.

What happened in Israel was that there was massive immigration to a stateless land by a population originally from that land. It's a fact; you may like it or not, but you have to accept it because It's absolutely stupid to dedicate your life and the lives of your children to fighting against that fact. It shows that your life is so empty and stupid that you can't think of anything better.

If you were a slave in Egypt, forced to drag stones with whips to build pyramids, or an African in Louisiana, it's understandable. But if you're a Palestinian who's horrified because there are desecrations on the Al-Aqsa esplanade and you offer your child as a martyr, you're simply mentally retarded. It's very difficult to communicate with mentally retarded people. You have to use a language they understand, a loud one. 

 

[Breakingthewall]

3 hours ago, zazen said:

Violence erupted when a settler-colonial project began actively dispossessing one population to make room for another.

Chatgpt:

2. The violence began for political and religious reasons The conflict arose when Arab nationalist and Islamist leaders incited the population against the Jewish immigrants. They argued that the Jews wanted to "seize the land" and "desecrate Muslim holy sites." Tensions grew due to rumors, religious discourse, and fear of losing political power. The first attacks (Nebi Musa, 1920, Jaffa, 1921, Hebron, 1929) were massacres of defenseless Jews, not responses to any expulsions. --- 🔹 3. The Arab expulsions came later (1947–1949) During the Israeli War of Independence (1947–1949): Many Arabs fled out of fear or on the orders of their own leaders, and others were expelled by the Israeli army in combat zones after almost 30 years of previous violence against Jewish communities.

Maybe because this attitude everything is difficult 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO95BHgAP1D/?igsh=MzdobjZ1Y2FiZzA5

Well, difficult....if I were israelí, for me would be clear what to do. Do my thing and forget the unbrained sheeps

Edited October 7, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[_Archangel_]

Guys, unironically, can someone prease help me understand how did we get from "Hamas needs to be erased"  to  "positive climate around USA-Israel-hamas negotiaitions"?

 

[BlueOak]

@zazen

I'll italic your quotes, if I do any copy-paste typos, I apologize. I'll correct.

Quote:
That's why I said America AND the Western led order. They are distinct from the US which is the clear unipolar hegemon but they exist as preferential partners and allies within that order - that are also taken advantage of when it suits the hegemon, as we are seeing today. If they truly want to be left out of great power competition then they need to build their own defense capabilities to gain strategic autonomy and sovereignty - and act accordingly.

While it would be nice to live in this alternate reality where having a large military funded by the country is entirely defensive and not used offensively, even while being pressured and attacked by outside powers. We don't, and we never will. I actually agree with Sadhguru on this one, even if his solution was inane. That is: Having a large military is the cause of war. Its all the resources going into it, its the cultural, economic political and institutional influence it creates etc.

The arms race, creates the arms race, which creates the arms race. And its only disarmament that solves it. Sadhguru called it defanging.

In short Zazen we will never live in the reality you propose as the solution to the problem of hegemony. As Europe rearms it will use that military against the alliance threatening it, just as Israel did. And you will go on to moralise or analyse that this is bad, when it is an entirely predictable course. Because its an obvious pattern.

So understanding that inevitable outcome, what are Europe’s and Israel’s choices at this juncture?

• Give up on American protection, cower against an increasingly aggressive world, give up more of their sovereignty to Russia/Iran instead.
• Stick with America doing the dirty work as you call it, while at the same time being blamed for going along rather than destabilising it further.
• Or build a large military of its own and use it.
• Or something else? I am open to this, I had suggested other forms of alliance in the past, or an EU military for example. In israel's case it could align more with other countries in the region to form a defensive alliance, this will be harder now for obvious reasons.

I'd love to say empower the UN, but that'll never work when the world is so divided and no leader can be put under sufficient force or pressure for defying the UN. I can say BRICS vs NATO will create these scenarios ad nauseam to exist, even if people never attribute that competition as the direct cause.

If Russia had not invaded and brought us to the brink of WW3, this would be different discussion but it always does. Its done this for hundreds of years. Any significant power in Europe did because it had the military strength to. The only thing stopping a lot of smaller countries globally going to war is a large military force saying. Don’t do that. If you need examples, I could write them for hours. So what you call Europeans being, shall we say lazy and indifferent to the suffering of others, I call a necessary band-aid on a bad human instinct.

Had Hamas (Iran) not killed a large amount of civilians, this would be a different discussion, but it always does. And before we go through hoops, even if I take the premise that this huge coordinated movement of their proxy was pulled off without Iran’s knowledge (I don’t) they still structure half of this conflict.

Quote:
I did say Western violence gets framed as policy, everyone else's as pathology - acknowledging that others can be or are violent. I'm not denying others aggression or threats of it - I'm saying there's asymmetry in how that aggression is talked about or understood based on who does it and why.

Welcome to how every country justifies war.  You think Russia is out there preaching a symmetrical understanding of force or violence to its citizens or allies? If it did that, they’d never fire a shot.

They'd realise that anything up to and including systemic thinking about war is not sufficient. That this is human nature the world over, and it is only overcome or integrated by seeing the other person as part of yourself or failing that their wellbeing in your own best interests (harder to put forward).

Quote:
And the causal chain gets erased to frame the latest act of aggression as if it comes out of a vacuum - that the one doing it is simply aggressive by nature, culture, psychology - to the point of not wanting to live on the same planet as them lol.

For me no, its simply not wanting to get shot, or living in an authoritarian hellhole.
Please re-read where I said it was not cultural. I used to think the Chinese culture was the most interesting on the planet. Mandarin is the only language I have voluntarily studied, and I include English in that.

I do finally see parallels with Israel and Europe. However, the Israeli’s have had to endure it a good deal longer than I have. And as such been demonised more than Europe. They have my sympathies. Much as I understand militarism creates war, I fully understand why Zionism was embraced as a response to irrationality. (Whatever the cause, hate is not rational).

I fully understand that if and when Europe embraces militarism and fights back, you’ll demonize them the same. Claiming that we hate other cultures. When its an entirely predictable pattern inherent in human nature and the problem of seeing the other as separate from ourselves.

Quote:
 I said Muslims and Jews have lived quite peacefully (relatively) for centuries

Arabs and Jews were peaceful relative to what? How big were their militaries? How far are we going back and to what period? What were the forces inherently pressuring those areas at that time? How were they for food/resources?  (Hint: these are all questions with no need for an answer). Anyone can live with anyone, but too many people see the other as a threat.

Quote:
I can understand yet not condone the actions they felt they needed to take due to survival pressures after the Holocaust.

But not the current climate? You could easily understand this if you wanted to and still not condone it. I understand Russia, China and Iran, but don’t condone any of them either. You could easily with a click of your finger grasp what I am saying about Europe, that people would rather live in snug safety, pretending the Americans are not that bad, because it's much easier to ignore problems that don't affect us. You could easily grasp what I am saying about Israel, being born into the mindset of seeing all around them as threats, being constantly pressured or threatened by larger powers for living on the land they were born to.

Quote:
Russia also uses historical claims (Ukraine isn't real, historical Russian lands) to justify what is also a response to strategic encirclement. The historical rhetoric obscures the defensive logic, but the defensive logic still exists within which to understand its actions. If we strip away Putin's speeches about Ukrainian history and look at the strategic picture - Russia is reacting to an alliance expanding toward its borders to a country that is being used as a launchpad through which to weaken it on its flank. This has been laid out in think tank papers only a arrogant hegemon would have the audacity to make public.

That’s one of their weaker claims. Enriclement… on one flank.
All the while trying to move its territory closer to the threat they say they don’t want.
It's illogical on its face, because its not an accurate description of the cause(s) or goals of this war.
 

Quote:

Russia's defensiveness is real due to a accurate assessment of the threat - even if their response and rhetoric are wrong to the point they blur the lines of their defensive logic and make us question their motives (imperial vs defensive). Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in. Israel claims existential threat - but from who? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalized. Syria is destroyed. Iran is far away and only retaliated after Israel directly struck it. Their threat is exhaustion from proxies (that Iran backs yes) and non-state actors who emerge because of the unresolved Palestinian issue. That's not an existential threat to the state - that's blowback from perpetual occupation which is the root cause of the issue. The "sea of hatred" narrative is increasingly detached from a actual state level threat.

War is not defensive. Americans used to tell me it was and I said the same to them. Its about as offensive as you can get.

Israel is threatened on multiple fronts. In part this is because of their own actions.
Russia is threatened on multiple fronts, In part because of their own actions.

Also because they exist, and are different enough to both be considered by, and consider their neighbors threats to Ego ID.

To directly answer you question: IRAN. Directly threaten Israel. Without Iran Palestine would already be part of Israel. Without America, Israel would already be a vassal state of someone else or at least much less aggressive.

You talked about Libya and Yugoslavia (Serbia) Of course you understand these were Russian-backed proxy wars in the same way? Like Iraq, armed, trained and funded by Russia. Because the Hegemony you describe was practised by Russia also, only now its old, faded and dying off over the decades. America just likes to be on Camera, boasting about how great they all were back then, Russia preferred to just send people and/or material.

No matter how much you want to frame Russia’s foreign policy as purely defensive, it never has been. Unless every action is to be considered defensive, in which case this war between Israel and Palestine is also.

Quote:

They got comfortable and indulged progressive fantasies of green energy and mass migration assimilation because someone else lifted the hard weight of survival. Europe’s moralism is a luxury afforded by American militarism. Their only soft and grandstand about their “values”because they outsourced the need to be hard and survive just like anyone else.

If you acknowledge that order - then it logically follows that the actors we are talking about are acting within that current order - and where they are within that order and how they are treated within that order (contained vs pampered) will determine how they act or react. I did also say that states can act independent of that order and not everything can be blamed on it. Not every protest is going to be a regime change operation despite the clear track record and evidence of the US perfecting that art (US-UK couping Iran in 1953 for example).

No more than I blame the Russian people for Putin’s warmongering. Which I have flirted with before, but at the end of the day they chose being politically lazy, as did I. I am not better than any of them.

We are getting a bit long, so I’ll end here:

Quote:
I said everyone's actions have deeper roots to the point we get into the chicken or the egg argument - ultimately blaming God who started it all. So then what time do we pick to analyse events? if we go too far back it becomes too detached from the current reality to be pragmatic in understanding and resolving it, if we just go with the latest actions our analysis is surface level and symptoms based rather than root based. That's why we look at things systemically - and therefore look at the current system within which events take place. 

This is where you step out of systemic thinking into a global consciousness and global understanding.

No point in time will ever suffice.

Or you keep picking linear events to base your analysis on, and I keep pointing out of the flaws of such.

I’d love to keep going as you made some good points, such as this:

My critique can be moral but not moralistic - I said in my full comment that ''Israeli's aren't the problem, the way they are acting upon their survival is''.

Which I couldn’t agree with more.

And some terrible ones:

Im just pointing out the hypocrisy within that structure by the ones who lead it claiming their own survival needs are primary whilst others are secondary or non-existent. 

People will always put their survival needs over others in a large group context.
I could step in front of a bullet for someone, but a large group for strangers, never. (You get a few % of a population trained to do so, soldiers or officers of the law.)

Edited October 7, 2025 by BlueOak

[Nivsch]

4 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I'll italic your quotes

What is "italic"?

For a moment I thought you are Italian 

[BlueOak]

15 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

What is "italic"?

For a moment I thought you are Italian 

Italic
Slanting the typeface (text) to the right.

A font choice to separate text. It has a few uses, sometimes in quotes, first-person entries in journals, or by writers to offer a separation from the main text, such as speech or a character's internal thoughts.

Edited October 7, 2025 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

30 minutes ago, _Archangel_ said:

Guys, unironically, can someone prease help me understand how did we get from "Hamas needs to be erased"  to  "positive climate around USA-Israel-hamas negotiaitions"?

 

There is a large peace push by the US currently.

I am going to suggest most of the UN assembly walking out on Netanyahu speaking was the final catalyst, among a hundred other factors.