Humanity Has Failed

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

Israel seems to have adopted and adapted the same tactic for their own geopolitical goal of domination.

Goal of survival you mean I guess. It's a matter of opinion, in your opinion Israel hasn't the right of survive, in the opinion of Israel they have. Who's right? Who wins, like always 

Edited Tuesday at 10:52 AM by Breakingthewall

[Nivsch]

On 30.5.2025 at 0:46 AM, zazen said:

To say Israel is an arm doesn’t mean it lacks agency - it means its power is structurally enabled, funded, and shielded by the US to serve shared strategic interests.

Israel has its own will, agency, and objectives - but its ability to act on them with impunity is sustained by US capital, weapons, vetoes, and geopolitical legitimacy. Without the US Israels regional dominance and global standing would be constrained greatly.

But yeah, he does overlook that besides just geostrategic or financial gain, there is ideological support especially by Christian Zionists / evangelicals. That is where the contradictions and complexity emerge. Because their are different factions of elites with different interests that are diverging today more than they are aligning.

The Financial Industrial Complex (FIC) wants regional stability to attract capital and build markets. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) wants managed conflict to sustain defense spending. The Ideological-Religious Complex (IRC) wants prophecy - both secular (American exceptionalism) and religious (Evangelical end times).

The first two factions want profit, the last wants prophecy - divine and civilizational. The military and ideaological faction usually overlap - why not have profits and prophecy? They are otherwise known as neocons.

The financial elite faction are mostly indifferent to ideology as they chase profits. As Western returns shrink, they’re seeking higher returns and expansion into new markets ie the Global South which includes the Middle East. But to tap new markets, they need something the other factions often undermine which is stability. They have still profited off of instability, but perhaps peace may now promise more than chaos.

Through that lens it makes sense as to what’s going on. Otherwise many Zionists are asking how could Trump betray them by talking with Iran? This is why the negotiations currently taking place between Iran-US-Israel-Saudi. Trump seems to be representing the financial elite faction - Bibi represents the neocon faction, It’s basically old money (Neocons) vs new money (Blackrock).

That’s why: Larry Fink from Blackrock was alongside Trump in Saudi, Saudi and Blackrock have been working with each other for a while, the UAE and Kushners firm are aligned. When MBS of Saudi says Middle East will be the new Europe - those aren’t just baseless statements.

It kind of all seems to make slightly more sense when seen from this lens, with all the players and incentives involved. Trump of course sides with the more powerful and highest bidder which is the financial elite who have eclipsed the military elite in power and leverage since some time now.

But again, this kind of coasts over the civil and humane aspects - the bottom-up aspects that I see as the real and most significant factors shaping this alliance between America and Israel. I accept that the factors you mention play a role too, just not the major one in my opinion.

Edited Tuesday at 05:04 PM by Nivsch

[zazen]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Goal of survival you mean I guess. It's a matter of opinion, in your opinion Israel hasn't the right of survive, in the opinion of Israel they have. Who's right? Who wins, like always 

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival.

Your saying who wins is right - as in might makes right..yet on another thread you argue against the US using might to achieve dominance - not survival. That's the key distinction, whether something is for survival or domination. Survival is a right, survival dressed up as domination and imperialism isn't.

Just like US-UK maintaining their control over oil resources in a foreign land isn't survival but domination and imperialism.

13 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Just because it's a lie. Unless you consider "values" to destroy the Nord Stream to sell its gas to Germany and force it into recession, and to provoke a war in Ukraine to force all of Europe to buy its weapons.

How many wars has China started? The US starts wars for business and pretends it's doing so for democratic values. Its game is always lying, and being its ally is being its lackey and potentially betrayed at any moment, as Kissinger said. 

The survival term can get abused when used too loosely to justify anything. Like the recent shootout at the aid area in Gaza of which the details are still fuzzy. A IDF soldier can just say the kid lifted a baguette in joy and I thought it was a rocket launcher, so I shot for my survival.

 

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, zazen said:

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival.

Your saying who wins is right - as in might makes right..yet on another thread you argue against the US using might to achieve dominance - not survival. That's the key distinction, whether something is for survival or domination. Survival is a right, survival dressed up as domination and imperialism isn't.

Just like US-UK maintaining their control over oil resources in a foreign land isn't survival but domination and imperialism.

The survival term can get abused when used too loosely to justify anything. Like the recent shootout at the aid area in Gaza of which the details are still fuzzy. A IDF soldier can just say the kid lifted a baguette in joy and I thought it was a rocket launcher, so I shot for my survival.

 

The Jews think the Arabs want their disappearance. The US doesn't think Germany wants them to disappear. They are its allies, but it impoverishes them to enrich itself. I don't justify the murders in Gaza; it's a terrible situation. But I think the cause is that Israel perceives a threat, so it reacts by becoming an aggressor. Israel thinks it must expel the Palestinians to survive. It doesn't do it because it can't, but it's what it wants as a nation. It's not to become richer, it's out of fear.

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Where have I said Israel doesn't have the right to survive? The previous page I literally said the two state solution has the logistical issue of the West Bank being a vantage point overlooking Tel Aviv, thus threatening their security/survival.

True you said that and many Israeli and Palestinian politicians have considered this possibility very seriously, but after years of violence on both sides, the point has been reached where Palestinians, and Muslims around the world in general, hate Israel to death. For Muslims, Israel is the devil, and they only see their point of view.

So, how could Israel want to have such a close neighbor who hates it to death and whose population is growing at an exponential rate? It would be suicidal. The chances of war would be 100%, not even 99%. It's guaranteed. So, who will win the next elections in Israel? The hard wing, like always 

[Twentyfirst]

8 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

If the United States were to stop funding Israel, perhaps at some point a coalition of Arab countries could exterminate them. That seems like a fantastic idea to many, who are very clear that the Palestinians are the kind hobbits and Bibi is Sauron in the dark. It's wonderful to see everything like in a Walt Disney movie! Then, when Israel was about to be exterminated after a fun war with some 8 million dead, it would unleash its entire atomic arsenal on Iran, Turkey, Yemen. Then people will say: this isn't necessary, the Jews should leave Israel because the Palestinians were there first. It's all very simple, right?

You are forgetting there isn't a real hatred of Jews or anti semitism in the region. Never has been. If US stopped funding Israel the zionists would leave or get murdered and only Jews would remain. Then the Jews can have a chance of actually integrating into the region and not being some weird deformed mutant isolated in their little corner

[Twentyfirst]

@Breakingthewall You don't understand colonialism at all. It has no mercy or stopping point. It is a parasite that kills the host and cannot be reasoned with

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 07:13 PM by Twentyfirst

[zazen]

@Breakingthewall Yeah its a dilemma. And both sides are too far gone into trauma and dis-trust to solve it themselves. That's why I think only outside forces can do something about it - but for that there has to be enough incentive pulling the players with enough leverage to cause a shift, away from the status quo. We are seeing signs of this, hopefully its not to late before the Ultra Zionists achieve their final solution.

4 hours ago, Nivsch said:

But again, this kind of coasts over the civil and humane aspects - the bottom-up aspects that I see as the real and most significant factors shaping this alliance between America and Israel. I accept that the factors you mention play a role too, just not the major one in my opinion.

I get what your saying as its strong and emotion based. I think in most cases its top down strategic interests of the elites that drives foreign policy and alliances vs the bottom up cultural affinity and vibes of the people. Top down is like the skeleton and structure that builds alliances, the added cultural aspect gives soul to that alliance which helps maintain them for sure, a bit like glue. 

For example the US has or has had alliances with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,  Egypt to name a few - they don't have cultural affinity to each other but serve interests. The US-Israel alliance is unique because it has a cultural overlap with elite interests - that softens and brings warmth to that relationship but I'm not sure it sustains it long term which is what geopolitical alliances are usually built on. It could be the exception though.

Another point is that other Western democracies with supposedly similar values to Israel have heavily criticized Israel or taken steps against it. France, Ireland, Spain, Norway, and even Netherlands are taking bold stands. France is co-hosting a major UN conference on the two-state solution later this month and trying to lobby the UK and others towards a two state solution and recognition of a Palestinian state. These are big moves we would have never imaged could happen - even just the way the media has turned.

It's unbelievable to even see headlines like this in such a publication as the Financial times:

 

These things take time to play out. But what it tells me is that there has been a clear re-alignment, the old game has been demoted for a newer profitable one.

Like what was discussed on the previous page about the funding of radicals, the game used to be: underwrite (fund) radicals, to undermine (sabotage) realism and anti-imperialism. That served geo-strategic goals (resource access) as well as perpetuated a threat narrative to justify military spending and feed the military-industrial complex, which was the dominant industry of the US after WWII.

Now the game is transitioning, with resistance and tension between factional elites into: underwrite (partner with) the realists (peacemakers), to undermine the radicals, who cause chaos and kill what could have been your future consumers ($$). Instability threatens capital flow, investor confidence, and long term access to emerging growth markets. The rise of the Finance-Tech-Consumer Complex has eclipsed the Military-Industrial Complex and is slowly re-calibrating US foreign policy against the wishes of the MIC neocons who have more institutional entrenchment.

I think viewing the US as a sovereign state in the classical sense trips us up in understanding how it functions ie it's a strong ally that always has our back.  It's not like a state pursuing unified, long-term strategic goals and sticking to them. It's more like a platform that different elite interests operate through, usually aligning, sometimes diverging, but more so diverging today.

Israel and Palestine right now are locked in mutual trauma and maximalist positions due to that trauma. The ability to force a resolution now lies with bigger actors - not just the US but a mix of financial and diplomatic players (EU, GCC, BRICS) who can collectively bend the remaining elements in the US who get in the way of a resolution. The peace process is bigger than just Israel-Palestine because the stakes are too big now.

Edited Tuesday at 09:01 PM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

@Breakingthewall You don't understand colonialism at all. It has no mercy or stopping point. It is a parasite that kills the host and cannot be reasoned with

 

 

Colonialism is when another nation conquers you and you become a colony, like India and England. Israel's migration has resulted in the creation of a country in a place where there were settlements but which was never a country.

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

You are forgetting there isn't a real hatred of Jews or anti semitism in the region. Never has been. If US stopped funding Israel the zionists would leave or get murdered and only Jews would remain. Then the Jews can have a chance of actually integrating into the region and not being some weird deformed mutant isolated in their little corner

more or less all the Jews in Israel are Zionist 

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, zazen said:

That's why I think only outside forces can do something about it

If I have to bet I would bet that expulsion of the Palestinians is being planned, and no one will be able to prevent it. They will harass them until coexistence becomes absolutely impossible, and then they will be expelled to Jordan or any place. It will be a risky and terrible move, but if you've already bombed Gaza like you have, it all makes no difference. Is now possible living together? I don't think so. And turkey is going to yell a lot and then take part of siria

 

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

just the US but a mix of financial and diplomatic players (EU, GCC, BRICS) who can collectively bend the remaining elements in the US who get in the way of a resolution

Do you think that anyone really cares about the Palestinian? They're just a tool of diplomacy. Does anyone care about the 300,000 dead in Yemen and the humanitarian disaster unfolding right now, with widespread cholera outbreaks and 80% of the population on the brink of starvation?

No, because it doesn't sell; it doesn't serve to blame others, create moralistic rhetoric, make politics among Muslims, act as if they were in solidarity in Europe, etc. It's all publicity; no one cares at all.

[Twentyfirst]

@Breakingthewall So what are you even saying. Your solution to all this is that Palestinians should never resist again and just hope everything works out? What else does your position consist of?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Twentyfirst said:

@Breakingthewall So what are you even saying. Your solution to all this is that Palestinians should never resist again and just hope everything works out? What else does your position consist of?

If I were them, I would engage in serious nonviolent resistance to achieve a Palestinian state, seeking the best possible conditions. But the Palestinians don't want that. They want to expel Israel because they hate them so much, and that's impossible.

[Twentyfirst]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

If I were them, I would engage in serious nonviolent resistance to achieve a Palestinian state, seeking the best possible conditions. But the Palestinians don't want that. They want to expel Israel because they hate them so much, and that's impossible.

There are a lot of Palestinians of different temperaments, ages, even religion. There is also a diaspora in occupied West Bank, Gaza, Israeli citizens, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, EU, USA

They all want to expel Israel from the land instead of a one or two state solution?

[zazen]

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Do you think that anyone really cares about the Palestinian? They're just a tool of diplomacy. Does anyone care about the 300,000 dead in Yemen and the humanitarian disaster unfolding right now, with widespread cholera outbreaks and 80% of the population on the brink of starvation?

No, because it doesn't sell; it doesn't serve to blame others, create moralistic rhetoric, make politics among Muslims, act as if they were in solidarity in Europe, etc. It's all publicity; no one cares at all.

You mean people or states? Palestine has been a documented injustice for decades so over time it's built up visibility via a support network of charities, NGO's and journalists backing their cause. It's also not a one off occasion of injustice but ongoing.  It's also got the involvement and complicity of the West, which just so happens to be where the most vocal activism is. Palestine also has religious symbolism and is too geo-strategically interconnected to a region with vital resources and trade corridors to simply not care about for states and elite interests - even if they don't care for it at a emotional or humane level.

Yemen is of course tragic but geopolitically peripheral to most Western agendas. Public outrage and solidarity are powerful but don't always translate to structural tangible changes unless it can affect elite actors, markets or state decisions. Palestinians can scream, just like Yemenis scream, but unless the scream threatens someone’s interest or serves a larger power’s agenda - it will unfortunately remain an echo.

Elite interests change things faster than public interests, even though the soul of a people can be moved faster than the structure they live under can be changed. We've never really seen protest at a global scale like we have for Palestine, and sustained over time. This trickles to the top in charge of the structure because it shows there can be a potential cost to maintaining the status quo of that structure - politically, economically or reputationally. It starts conversations in the halls of power - ''what if they don't vote for us?'' or ''what if this poses a investment risk or reputational risk to our brand?''

Just see how mainstream Western media outlets are now interviewing (grilling) Israeli representatives over this aid massacre: 

Even The Guardian coming out with a Documentary:

Everyone running for moral cover all of a sudden because the immorality of the situation has now become too evident and costly - politically, economically, and reputationally - to be associated with.

The vibe shift laid the emotional and moral groundwork. But parallel to that, some elite actors were already realigning for their own strategic and economic reasons. So the public didn’t cause the realignment all on their own, but accelerated and legitimized it. The street and the boardroom are converging - one through outrage, the other through opportunity.

 

Edited 22 hours ago by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

We've never really seen protest at a global scale like we have for Palestine, and sustained over time

That's because are Jews against Muslims, the Turks have been killing Kurds for almost 100 years, and no one cares. The Palestinian problem affects Muslims because they find it humiliating that people of another religion subjugate Muslims, but if it's between Muslims, they don't care. 

9 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

There are a lot of Palestinians of different temperaments, ages, even religion. There is also a diaspora in occupied West Bank, Gaza, Israeli citizens, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, EU, USA

They all want to expel Israel from the land instead of a one or two state solution?

Yes but the most common is that they think that Israel must to dissapear and any other option is just preparing for the moment when they can make Israel to dissapear. What do you think, that Israel must dissapear or remain? 

If all the Muslims, including the Palestinian, accept Israel as state, then the Palestinian could have a state , and the Israelites would vote to progressive politicians, but as long as they have a mortal threat surrounding them, they will vote for the hard wing. This is Netanyahu when young, what would you expect from a president who, when he was 25, parachuted into enemy territory to kill enemies like a commando and who's elder brother died in combat when he was 30?

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Twentyfirst]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's because are Jews against Muslims, the Turks have been killing Kurds for almost 100 years, and no one cares. The Palestinian problem affects Muslims because they find it humiliating that people of another religion subjugate Muslims, but if it's between Muslims, they don't care. 

How is it anybody's fault that the Kurds don't get the attention you think they deserve? The only time the Palestinians get attention is if they cause a terror attack and even then they are shamed for it

Muslims care because they know that Israel destabilizes the entire region not just Palestine. They also don't like genocide/ethnic cleansing and have felt the consequences of 1948 and 1967

Everyone should care about Palestine. Look at what Americans have to sacrifice with their tax dollars. Israeli citizens get better perks than American citizens do. Americans are losing their privacy and free speech over criticizing Israel. Palantir has every single Americans profile consisting of social security numbers, tax details, vaccine status, AI recongition, and just about everything you can think of. People in USA and EU are feeling deep shame at what their government is doing to help Israel

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes but the most common is that they think that Israel must to dissapear and any other option is just preparing for the moment when they can make Israel to dissapear. What do you think, that Israel must dissapear or remain? 

You are confusing Israel, Jews, and Zionism all with each other. Zionism has to disappear. If you don't understand that then you are not understanding of the entire conflict

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

If all the Muslims, including the Palestinian, accept Israel as state, then the Palestinian could have a state , and the Israelites would vote to progressive politicians, but as long as they have a mortal threat surrounding them, they will vote for the hard wing. This is Netanyahu when young, what would you expect from a president who, when he was 25, parachuted into enemy territory to kill enemies like a commando and who's elder brother died in combat when he was 30?

You said it yourself. Israel wants mortal threats surrounding them as an excuse to take more land. They don't want a solution so it's not really up to the Palestinian behavior to earn one. Plus you have to remember that Palestinians can act however they please on their own land as they are not guests but the indigenous population 

[zazen]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's because are Jews against Muslims, the Turks have been killing Kurds for almost 100 years, and no one cares. The Palestinian problem affects Muslims because they find it humiliating that people of another religion subjugate Muslims, but if it's between Muslims, they don't care. 

The Kurdish issue doesn't have a clear actor oppressing or aggressing against another, because there are multiple countries involved with differing degrees of tension and suppression against Kurdish movements in each. So it's just not as clear as Israel - Palestine. There also isn't any clarity on a solution to rally around, unlike Israel - Palestine which has UN resolutions affirming their right to self-determination and statehood.

Kurds are geographically dispersed across multiple nations (Turkey, Iran, Syria, Iraq), often in non-contiguous regions. That gets in the way of forming a unified Kurdish state. It's hard enough for one country to cede territory, imagine having four already established states coming to a agreement to cede their territory and make way for a new state.

Palestine is a territory recognized by the UN, even if it’s not universally respected. The Kurds unfortunately missed the window of state formation during the post WWI colonial border drawing. If lines had been drawn differently back then, the conversation today would be different. But once nations have formed and solidified, its extremely hard to re-draw them.  That;s why the Kurdish cause is treated as separatist while the Palestinians is framed as liberation. One is a claim to statehood within international law, the other is a challenge to already existing states.

17 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

If I were them, I would engage in serious nonviolent resistance to achieve a Palestinian state, seeking the best possible conditions. But the Palestinians don't want that. They want to expel Israel because they hate them so much, and that's impossible.

If Palestinians just sat there and read eckhart tolle do you think that would stop Israel? 

Non-violence only works if it can bring about some sort of cost/pressure to the players involved. Non-violence doesn’t mean non-disruption: but Palestinians are largely cut off from the tools of pressure/disruption because they are seiged into a enclave.

In liberation movements non-violent resistance is a exception not the rule. Occupation is violent by nature, especially when rooted in settler colonialism which wants to uproot the existing population. Settler colonial projects rarely concede voluntarily.

Even Ghandi's example of non-violence wasn't purely so, it was paired with violent uprisings and had its own violent wing. Any non-violent means of resistance only worked so far as they could impose a cost - communal riots, boycotts, strikes, the salt march etc. Same with what aided the ended of South African apartheid.

Palestinians are boxed into a system where even non-violent disruption is impossible or crushed brutally if it takes place - say in West Bank. They don't have the same unified platform or space to coordinate mass action like Gandhi's India or South African ANC, because they are fragmented. They also have no real economic clout to pressure Israel with the same way Indian workers had on the British in India.

Non-violent tactics don't work the same way under occupation. Which is why its up to outside players to change things, or expect violent uprisings as inevitable, unless we expect Palestinians to be Bhudda's in such a environment. Imagine hearing this kid and expecting a Bhudda to emerge from his circumstance:

 

Edited 14 hours ago by zazen

[Raze]

6 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

If all the Muslims, including the Palestinian, accept Israel as state, then the Palestinian could have a state , and the Israelites would vote to progressive politicians, but as long as they have a mortal threat surrounding them, they will vote for the hard wing.

Are you incapable of absorbing new information? 

I have told you three times now about the Arab peace initiative, which offers full normalization in exchange for a Palestinian state.

What part of this do you not get?

 

Meanwhile this is from the charter of Israel’s ruling party

Quote

 "Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea#Similar_sayings_by_the_Israeli_right

This is the longer serving and current prime minister

https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-boasts-of-thwarting-the-establishment-of-a-palestinian-state-for-decades/

This is the UN vote for a Palestinian state, feel free to look at how all Muslim countries voted.

 

Edited 14 hours ago by Raze

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Why does North Korea get all of this attention when people try to demonize the far-left, but Turkmenistan never gets any attention and people never use it as an example to demonize the far-right?