Humanity Has Failed

[PurpleTree]

1 minute ago, Twentyfirst said:

Im sure Washington was for sale before Trump. Trump just has enough balls to do it in front of everyones faces

Larry Fink called and he said PurpleTree will own nothing and be happy 😃 

You know on a spiritual level it’s true. I already don’t own anything. There is no me to own anything. 

[Nemra]

24 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

You‘re obsessed with the west it’s cute.

Everything is West's fault. 😔

And if it's Western then it's fake, not natural. 😩

[zazen]

@PurpleTree  @Twentyfirst The gulf sending money is them buying the assurance of security. Its not so much to gain something as it is to maintain something: national security. They lack muscle but have money, whilst Pakistan and Iran for example lack money but have at least a decent amount of muscle: enough to be a deterrent . 

This is why Syria was taken under the umbrella of the regional players - with Turkish muscle and Gulf money.

This is also how the gulf exerts influence over Israel via current negotiations for normalisation in exchange for a Palestinian state. And have sold this plan to a global elite capital class who only care for the next best returns on capital in the coming decades of low growth in the West.

The gulf have no stick (muscle) to hit with but have the carrot (money) to dangle to achieve the vision they want for the region: a peaceful stable economic hub reviving the old Silk Road to become Europe 2.0, with their younger demographics read: consumer market, vast resources, deep culture and history, and enviable geostrategic location on the worlds largest landmass connecting the East and West.

Many Muslims are angry for the Muslim world (mainly the gulf with all their money) not doing anything - but they lack the sophistication to see the game of diplomacy being played. If the gulf tried something ballsy they know they’d end up like Iraq. And the other Muslim countries with reasonable muscle (Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt) have too many millions of their own people they need to worry about feeding and developing before they would sacrifice themselves.

Edited Monday at 09:29 PM by zazen

[Leo Gura]

When an alien slips on a banana peel, it's the West's fault.

[Nemra]

20 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

When an alien slips on a banana peel, it's the West's fault.

😁

[zazen]

Not all peels are Western but a lot are imported by the CIA (regime change / coups), subsidized by the IMF (austerity / privatisation) and guarded by NATO (enforcement of a favourable “rules” based order).

The West can’t be blamed for everything but it sure has intervened in pretty much everything.

It can’t insist on being the worlds police and bank, then be surprised when people look to why there’s chaos and debt.

Back to Israel’s moral development. Another day another atrocity:

Haunting. Humanity has failed. More broadly the humanity at the level of the US state. While Spain halting arms exports to Israel and hosting a gathering are symbolic - they won’t have the practical effect of stopping Israel’s onslaught when majority of their arms comes from the US (65%) and Germany (30%).

Almost the only way to stop Israel committing atrocities like above is to stop the arms used for them. Diplomatic pressure has no effect as they embrace the identity of being the victim even further as the world “gangs” up on them, furthering their resolve and reinforcing their paranoid aloneness in a “anti-Semitic” world.

Germany wouldn’t halt their large share of arms due to Holocaust guilt. So it falls squarely on the US - which is why they are synonymously hated by so many.

Muslim nations are either too weak or are dependent client states in practice - as their security is guaranteed by the US (Gulf, Egypt, Jordan). China prefers stability over confrontation. Europe has Holocaust guilt, is geopolitically timid and under the armpit of the US security umbrella. Turkey is a NATO member.

Only the US has the leverage to stop Israel in any material way, but chooses not to. What’s that about moral development?

 

Edited Monday at 10:53 PM by zazen

[BlueOak]

11 hours ago, zazen said:

Only the US has the leverage to stop Israel in any material way, but chooses not to. What’s that about moral development?

Arguing morals about a population is often a waste of time. You are arguing with a still small segment of the population (stage greens) using a moral or ethical framework that differs between different countries.

I know you are capable of systematic thinking, not just capable, but in social and political dynamics, extremely skilled, but you only apply it to those countries you identify with. 

Despite their attempts to cling to power. The US hasn't effectively been the world's police for about 20 years. The countries involved in these problems have to start taking responsibility for their own positions and actions. Otherwise, nothing will ever improve. Its exactly the same with people's personal life. Macro/Micro, especially now most of all, its part of what is being shown.

So laser-focused on Israel, Palestine, and the groups involved. Yes arms to these countries and the political, cultural or religious influence of those countries surrounding them play a factor, but its got to be put lower on the scale of accountability and responsibility than those directly involved, else guess what, Israel will always feel like they had less agency in this than they do too! And nothing changes.

If people don't assign accountability to someone, there is no pressure to take it.

---

Now i've appealed a quasi green-yellow argument, because yes I used morality or at least ethics there too

Someone is always going to ship arms to warzones. So you can try to block individual countries, but you'd be better off advocating for blockades of the borders, and even better off addressing the hostilities themselves, calling for the arms. Even better off addressing the fears that cause the hostilities and even better off addressing the pressures that cause the fears. 

Arms < Blockades < Hostilities < Fears < Pressures Causing them | Additionally Belief Structures Contributing to the pressures

---

The other thing on full display is that healthy masculinity has to rest on internal order, rather than external expression. I.E get things stable at home, rather than look to attack your neighbors or blame anyone else.

*NB At full accountability and responsibility for personal actions weapon shipments would naturally be lessened as a result, because nobody else could hide behind the victim excuse for one example, they'd be carrying the cost of it themselves and actually want to do so.

Edited Tuesday at 09:24 AM by BlueOak

[gengar]

@Leo Gura

I'm confused as to why you do not judge Israel's actions as terrorism.

I'm no expert in the field, but when I look at the definition of terrorism on wikipedia:

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."

Do you honestly believe Israel is not purposefully bombing civilians to scare them and make a political point that they are the ones in charge?

The most radical branch of Israel's government like Ben Gvir also have a religious reason behind their bombings, for them it's a straight up holy war to take out the evil arabs who are goyim and not like them, similar to ISIS etc.

How is this not terrorism?

[Leo Gura]

 

51 minutes ago, gengar said:

"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."

If you define it that broadly then yes, basically all war/violence and even policing is terrorism.

Does Israel do some terrorism? Yes.

The real difference is that Israel is a democratic state with some semblance of rule of law and some checks and balances. Moreso than Hamas. As a state Israel does not do suicide bombings of buses in Palestine. Israel also has rules for avoiding civilian casualties even though those rules are sometimes broken. But if you actually read the history of how they do targetted assassinations, they have canceled many hits of important Hamas terrorists simply because too many civilians were around. They may cancel a hit 5 days in a row just to ensure that no children are present. This is a historical fact. And it has exceptions.

We usually call it terrorism when there is deliberate targetting of civilians. And Israel has even done that. But mostly they avoid it.

For example, Israel will never hijack an international airplane full of Arabs and threaten to blow them up. That is pure terrorism. Hamas will do that to Jews.

This issue requires extreme nuance, not sloppy false equivalence.

Israel does evil, but it is a more civilized evil. And that difference matters. All groups do evil. It's a matter of degree and barbarity.

I am fully aware of Israel's evils. But there is still a difference.

The bottom line is that if you were to choose for your children to be born in Gaza or Israel, you would choose Israel because it is more civilized. In the end, that's what wins. It's not about fancy moral philosophy, it's about survival. Civilizations wins even as it does evil, because it is a lesser evil.

Edited Wednesday at 08:23 AM by Leo Gura

[zazen]

On 5/27/2025 at 10:07 AM, BlueOak said:

Arguing morals about a population is often a waste of time. You are arguing with a still small segment of the population (stage greens) using a moral or ethical framework that differs between different countries.

The thing is most countries don't differ on ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide - being morally wrong. There is no moral ambiguity to this situation which is why so much of the world has a stance on it - and so many feel confident enough to debate this with ardent Zionists despite not knowing every single detail.

This is reflected in countless UN resolutions where US-Israel and a handful of micro-states stand as pariah states against the world community. There are also countries who obviously abstain to avoid any consequence - but majority of the world has a consensus on this that's not in favor of Israel. https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/

On 5/27/2025 at 10:07 AM, BlueOak said:

I know you are capable of systematic thinking, not just capable, but in social and political dynamics, extremely skilled, but you only apply it to those countries you identify with. 

Thanks for the compliment man. I'd like to think I do enough critical thinking before commenting - I also don't identify with any country, ideology, political party or religion. The point of critical thinking is to reach a conclusion after examining all variables, actors, and power structures - and I have reached that conclusion.

The weight of evidence, history, and global influence clearly points to the West’s central role in many crises. Once you've critically assessed the global system and identified the most consistent enabler of violence, destabilization, and injustice - in this case, the US - it’s not bias to focus on it. It’s efficiency and prioritization. 

On 5/27/2025 at 10:07 AM, BlueOak said:

Despite their attempts to cling to power. The US hasn't effectively been the world's police for about 20 years. The countries involved in these problems have to start taking responsibility for their own positions and actions. Otherwise, nothing will ever improve. Its exactly the same with people's personal life. Macro/Micro, especially now most of all, its part of what is being shown.

The fact that other countries can't take tangible steps despite taking symbolic ones to stop Israel - shows that US is effectively and structurally dominant. They are the central node in the international system - with their power eroding but not yet eclipsed. This is where I have applied systemic thinking to come to my conclusion - rather than remaining eternally analytical spinning my wheels - we have to follow the structure of a problem to its root.

The US is regionally strong by land ( Europe, Middle East, East Asia ) with bases, alliances and security dependencies, globally strong by sea effectively acting as the worlds maritime police, and structurally strong through economic and political institutions. They police the world in this manner - diplomatically, politically and economically - instead of just with blatant boots on the ground. Anyone who opposes this order invites a lot of disproportionate retaliation that won't be in their favor.

That's changing as you've mentioned, but it's structural strength is still systematically embedded even though parallel structures are being built (BRICS+) and expedited by the US's very own actions at clinging to its primacy. The US still controls global financial infrastructure (SWIFT etc) and has 700 bases. It vetoes UN resolutions that would otherwise restrain Israel or hold it accountable. They aren't simply a vendor supplying arms to Israel but support Israel in every domain possible.

On 5/27/2025 at 10:07 AM, BlueOak said:

So laser-focused on Israel, Palestine, and the groups involved. Yes arms to these countries and the political, cultural or religious influence of those countries surrounding them play a factor, but its got to be put lower on the scale of accountability and responsibility than those directly involved, else guess what, Israel will always feel like they had less agency in this than they do too! And nothing changes.

Someone is always going to ship arms to warzones. So you can try to block individual countries, but you'd be better off advocating for blockades of the borders, and even better off addressing the hostilities themselves, calling for the arms. Even better off addressing the fears that cause the hostilities and even better off addressing the pressures that cause the fears. 

Arms < Blockades < Hostilities < Fears < Pressures Causing them | Additionally Belief Structures Contributing to the pressures

As I've mentioned above, the US isn't simply a vendor to Israel. Their the geopolitical scaffold that holds Israel up - a structural support system that allows Israel to lay its bricks however it chooses, which is to pave over Palestinian land and settle it. 

The US sits at nearly every level of that pyramid and causal chain you outlined. The US's own actions in the Middle East prompt a level of hatred towards the West and by extension Israel - that constantly make it feel fearful. Israel is too far gone into historical trauma, paranoia, and a worldview where dominance equals security. So we appeal to the actor that enables and empowers that madness, because it may still have the capacity for restraint.

If you want to get to the root of the hostilities its this: Zionism in its current form demands total dominance to feel safe, but total dominance ensures they never will feel safe as it’s at the expense of others. Zionists can’t seek safety of one people (themselves) by displacing another (Palestinians) in the most violent manner.

I agree everyone should work on themselves internally -  but Palestinians are not in the position to "self-actualize" when they’re denied basic rights, including the right to self determination that the world and international law tells them is theirs. Also, Palestinians  don't need moral perfection before they can get political liberation.

When the diplomatic avenue to their right is denied (ie US veto) and they take a undiplomatic violent one instead  - their gaslit as backwards regressive terrorists. When the West or Israel acts bad its framed as a ''reaction'' to trauma, when non-Westerners act bad its regressive and pathologized as inherent. This is how the Western narrative maintains its image - nuance and context is afforded to themselves and their allies but not to others.

There are hard limits to agency and accountability - there are things not in your power, but that are imposed by powers bigger than you. Telling a stateless, besieged population to “take accountability” while absolving the empire that funds, arms, and protects their oppressor is like telling someone pinned under rubble that they should’ve chosen a better place to stand.

This isn't me failing to apply systems thinking. It's me following the system all the way to its source of leverage - which in the case of Israel-Palestine, is the US. If Israel is unreachable and unreasonable due to trauma, paranoia, and impunity - then only the US can pull the brake.

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:01 AM by zazen

[Twentyfirst]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

If you define it that broadly then yes, basically all war/violence and even policing is terrorism.

Does Israel do some terrorism? Yes.

The real difference is that Israel is a democratic state with some semblance of rule of law and some checks and balances. Moreso than Hamas. As a state Israel does not do suicide bombings of buses in Palestine. Israel also has rules for avoiding civilian casualties even though those rules are sometimes broken. But if you actually read the history of how they do targetted assassinations, they have canceled many hits of important Hamas terrorists simply because too many civilians were around. They may cancel a hit 5 days in a row just to ensure that no children are present. This is a historical fact. And it has exceptions.

We usually call it terrorism when there is deliberate targetting of civilians. And Israel has even done that. But mostly they avoid it.

For example, Israel will never hijack an international airplane full of Arabs and threaten to blow them up. That is pure terrorism. Hamas will do that to Jews.

This issue requires extreme nuance, not sloppy false equivalence.

Israel does evil, but it is a more civilized evil. And that difference matters. All groups do evil. It's a matter of degree and barbarity.

I am fully aware of Israel's evils. But there is still a difference.

The bottom line is that if you were to choose for your children to be born in Gaza or Israel, you would choose Israel because it is more civilized. In the end, that's what wins. It's not about fancy moral philosophy, it's about survival. Civilizations wins even as it does evil, because it is a lesser evil.

But Hamas isn't allowed to civilize. They can't have above ground headquarters, an official army, be in leadership positions without being assassinated (you aren't allowed to assassinate leaders of other countries even if its without civilians nearby, by international law), proper nation borders, agriculture the way they want, access to land/sea/air borders, and so on. They are desperate and fighting an uphill battle. The last thing Israel wants is a more civilized (in the way you define civilized) opponent 

[Raze]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

If you define it that broadly then yes, basically all war/violence and even policing is terrorism.

Does Israel do some terrorism? Yes.

The real difference is that Israel is a democratic state with some semblance of rule of law and some checks and balances. Moreso than Hamas. As a state Israel does not do suicide bombings of buses in Palestine. Israel also has rules for avoiding civilian casualties even though those rules are sometimes broken. But if you actually read the history of how they do targetted assassinations, they have canceled many hits of important Hamas terrorists simply because too many civilians were around. They may cancel a hit 5 days in a row just to ensure that no children are present. This is a historical fact. And it has exceptions.

We usually call it terrorism when there is deliberate targetting of civilians. And Israel has even done that. But mostly they avoid it.

For example, Israel will never hijack an international airplane full of Arabs and threaten to blow them up. That is pure terrorism. Hamas will do that to Jews.

This issue requires extreme nuance, not sloppy false equivalence.

Israel does evil, but it is a more civilized evil. And that difference matters. All groups do evil. It's a matter of degree and barbarity.

I am fully aware of Israel's evils. But there is still a difference.

The bottom line is that if you were to choose for your children to be born in Gaza or Israel, you would choose Israel because it is more civilized. In the end, that's what wins. It's not about fancy moral philosophy, it's about survival. Civilizations wins even as it does evil, because it is a lesser evil.

- pre-Israel Zionists had organized terror militias, Palestinians didn’t even have an army, it was Zionist’s that introduced tactics like hiding bombs in shops. They were more “developed” technology and tactically than Palestinians but they were arguably less civilized as they were far more violent than Palestinians who lived relatively peacefully with their minorities prior to Zionism.

- during the 48 war, the Arab states did far less massacres of civilians in their captured territory than Zionists. When Arab states ethnically cleansed their Jews they killed a fraction of the civilians compared to Israel among the Palestinians it expelled. Yet the Arab states at time were far less “developed” than the European Zionist colonialists, their armies still used camels and they had low rates of literacy.

- Israel does not “mostly” avoid civilian casualties. Look up siege of Beirut, a new idf soldier refused his orders saying they’d kill too many civilians and they stripped him of his rank and did it anyway, or the goldstone report which found they purposefully targeted civilians. Soldiers literally bragged to the media about how many civilians they could shoot during the great march of return.

- for the current war NYT reported Israel was ok with killing hundreds of civilians in strikes if they suspected a Hamas commander would be hit. By this standard the suicide bombing aren’t terrorism because they can argue they may have hit a soldier off duty. A Us Gov whistleblower told 60 minutes Israel killed 70 civilians to bomb a tunnel that they didn’t even believe had a combatant in it. If a Palestinian militant killed 70 civilians to destroy some military structure that no one was inside you’d call them an undeveloped terrorist. But when Israel does it somehow it’s not as bad because they self declare to be civilized.

- what makes you think Palestinian militants never worried about civilian casualties? Suicide bombings only showed up in the 80s after decades of brutal occupation, the first by Hamas was only approved after idf made the Hamas founder listen to audio of them torturing his son. They stopped doing suicide bombings for over a decade (aside from recent attempts) because of the heat they got for hitting civilians. Meanwhile Israel let settlers kill more and more Palestinian civilians. 

- that’s like saying if you had a kid you’d rather they be born in nazi Germany than the Warsaw ghetto or they be born white in apartheid South Africa than black. Having better living standards at the expense of others does not make you the lesser of two evils.

You keep defaulting to the assumption that development automatically is reflected in actions and morality, that is not true, you can be more developed on paper and commit morally worse crimes than a lesser developed grip. You can be more developed and still be a greater evil compared to a lesser developed group if you are committing worse crimes.

Edited Wednesday at 04:54 PM by Raze

[hundreth]

24 minutes ago, Raze said:

- pre-Israel Zionists had organized terror militias, Palestinians didn’t even have an army, it was Zionist’s that introduced tactics like hiding bombs in shops. They were more “developed” technology and tactically than Palestinians but they were arguably less civilized as they were far more violent than Palestinians who lived relatively peacefully with their minorities prior to Zionism.

- during the 48 war, the Arab states did far less massacres of civilians in their captured territory than Zionists. When Arab states ethnically cleansed their Jews they killed a fraction of the civilians compared to Israel among the Palestinians it expelled. 

- Israel does not “mostly” avoid civilian casualties. Look up siege of Beirut, a new idf soldier refused his orders saying they’d kill too many civilians and they stripped him of his rank and did it anyway, or the goldstone report which found they purposefully targeted civilians. Soldiers literally bragged to the media about how many civilians they could shoot during the great march of return.

- for the current war NYT reported Israel was ok with killing hundreds of civilians in strikes if they suspected a Hamas commander would be hit. By this standard the suicide bombing aren’t terrorism because they can argue they may have hit a soldier off duty. A Us Gov whistleblower told 60 minutes Israel killed 70 civilians to bomb a tunnel that they didn’t even believe had a combatant in it. If a Palestinian militant killed 70 civilians to destroy some military structure that no one was inside you’d call them an undeveloped terrorist. But when Israel does it somehow it’s not as bad because they self declare to be civilized.

- what makes you think Palestinian militants never worried about civilian casualties? Suicide bombings only showed up in the 80s after decades of brutal occupation, the first by Hamas was only approved after idf made the Hamas founder listen to audio of them torturing his son. They stopped doing suicide bombings for over a decade (aside from recent attempts) because of the heat they got for hitting civilians. Meanwhile Israel let settlers kill more and more Palestinian civilians. 

- that’s like saying if you had a kid you’d rather they be born in nazi Germany than the Warsaw ghetto or they be born white in apartheid South Africa than black. Having better living standards at the expense of others does not make you the lesser of two evils.

You're still doing this childish Palestinians / Hamas are good guys. Israelis bad guys black / white shtick? 

Edited Wednesday at 02:24 PM by hundreth

[zazen]

@Raze @Twentyfirst  Leo says the issue requires extreme nuance- yet denies this nuance to the Palestinians, or in applying it to development and civilization. According to Leo there is a form of civilized evil. By that logic there is a civilized way of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide.

I wrote two pages back that there's a difference between horizontal (material) and vertical (moral) development - a distinction which is important here. 

On 26/05/2025 at 1:02 PM, zazen said:

I agree that they have lower development as a whole. Which is why I think distinctions are required between moral and material development - the horizontal and the vertical. But whats being posited here is that they have low moral development in particular - Raze put it very well that being materially deprived doesn't necessarily mean having less moral capacity. 

Like you said on the previous page - terrorism is their only option. Why? Because they're left little to no option - but you conflate this to mean they must have low moral development. The point is - Israel is granted the privilege of being violent while still “morally developed” but that nuance is denied to the Palestinians. Even though its the Palestinians who are in a much more dire material situation where their morality is severely tested.

Most materially and morally developed people who are then materially oppressed and suppressed, would be pushed to act immorally out of desperation. Which is why I also made the point about the Nazi's being materially developed yet acting morally abhorrent.

States are held to certain standards that non-state actors or an entirely stateless people aren't. Them acting restrained isn't a direct indication of their moral development - as their systemically embedded to an international frame work as a nation state. They need to at least perform restraint or the appearance of it ie ''warnings sent before we bomb your home, which your a refugee in because we drove you out some decades ago and plan on doing so again''.

That's what their doing now. Scooting them over to Rafah which was a previous safe zone but now an area of rubble, so their at the edge of the Sinai desert. This is no sign of moral development just because its done in a way that skirts under the radar of international law or scrutiny - though the world is hip to that game now. Never mind the recent polls by Hareetz showing the moral development at a societal level being appalling with 82% being in favour of ethnic cleansing.

 It's possible that you can have skyscrapers yet be spiritually bankrupt. Just like the Nazi's who were one of the most literate, industrialized societies - yet immoral.  Of course anyone would rather live in Israel over Gaza - that doesn't prove that such a place is more moral, only that it is more powerful.

The horizontal plane of development and civilization involves - material, nature, power.

The vertical plane of development and civilization involves - morals, nurture, principles.

To be truly civilized isn't just to be developed horizontally, materially - to amass power, and default to our animal nature where might makes right. It's also to be developed vertically, morally - to nurture our nature, to buffer power with principles.

The crux of civilization is to buffer power with principle, to nurture nature, to bring the vertical depth of morality to the horizontal surface of the material. We are not just a human animal but have a humanity in us.

Perhaps this distinction and nuance isn't afforded because it challenges spiral dynamics orthodoxy that the West are ahead in the development game - that it is solely defined by and lead by them. Westerners want to keep that mythos intact by avoiding the complexity of reality - but will gladly bring that complexity to obfuscate and explain away their own actions.

Old but gold:

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:58 PM by zazen

[Twentyfirst]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

@Raze @Twentyfirst  Leo says the issue requires extreme nuance- yet denies this nuance to the Palestinians, or in applying it to development and civilization. According to Leo there is a form of civilized evil. By that logic there is a civilized way of ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide.

I wrote two pages back that there's a difference between horizontal (material) and vertical (moral) development - a distinction which is important here. 

 It's possible that you can have skyscrapers yet be spiritually bankrupt. Just like the Nazi's who were one of the most literate, industrialized societies - yet immoral.  Of course anyone would rather live in Israel over Gaza - that doesn't prove that such a place is more moral, only that it is more powerful.

The horizontal plane of development and civilization involves - material, nature, power.

The vertical plane of development and civilization involves - morals, nurture, principles.

To be truly civilized isn't just to be developed horizontally, materially - to amass power, and default to our animal nature where might makes right. It's also to be developed vertically, morally - to nurture our nature, to buffer power with principles.

The crux of civilization is to buffer power with principle, to nurture nature, to bring the vertical depth of morality to the horizontal surface of the material. We are not just a human animal but have a humanity in us.

Perhaps this distinction and nuance isn't afforded because it challenges spiral dynamics orthodoxy that the West are ahead in the development game - that it is solely defined by and lead by them. Westerners want to keep that mythos intact by avoiding the complexity of reality - but will gladly bring that complexity to obfuscate and explain away their own actions.

He doesn't understand true civility or development. Reading too much western papers, psychology, and politics (which are all biased against anything non western) and ignoring behavior and patterns. "The CIA told me Afghan is underdeveloped so no point in traveling there to see myself"

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:52 PM by Twentyfirst

[BlueOak]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

The thing is most countries don't differ on ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, apartheid, starvation, and ultimately genocide - being morally wrong. There is no moral ambiguity to this situation which is why so much of the world has a stance on it - and so many feel confident enough to debate this with ardent Zionists despite not knowing every single detail.

This is reflected in countless UN resolutions where US-Israel and a handful of micro-states stand as pariah states against the world community. There are also countries who obviously abstain to avoid any consequence - but majority of the world has a consensus on this that's not in favor of Israel. https://unwatch.org/2024-unga-resolutions-on-israel-vs-rest-of-the-world/

Thanks for the compliment man. I'd like to think I do enough critical thinking before commenting - I also don't identify with any country, ideology, political party or religion. The point of critical thinking is to reach a conclusion after examining all variables, actors, and power structures - and I have reached that conclusion.

The weight of evidence, history, and global influence clearly points to the West’s central role in many crises. Once you've critically assessed the global system and identified the most consistent enabler of violence, destabilization, and injustice - in this case, the US - it’s not bias to focus on it. It’s efficiency and prioritization. 

The fact that other countries can't take tangible steps despite taking symbolic ones to stop Israel - shows that US is effectively and structurally dominant. They are the central node in the international system - with their power eroding but not yet eclipsed. This is where I have applied systemic thinking to come to my conclusion - rather than remaining eternally analytical spinning my wheels - we have to follow the structure of a problem to its root.

The US is regionally strong by land ( Europe, Middle East, East Asia ) with bases, alliances and security dependencies, globally strong by sea effectively acting as the worlds maritime police, and structurally strong through economic and political institutions. They police the world in this manner - diplomatically, politically and economically - instead of just with blatant boots on the ground. Anyone who opposes this order invites a lot of disproportionate retaliation that won't be in their favor.

That's changing as you've mentioned, but it's structural strength is still systematically embedded even though parallel structures are being built (BRICS+) and expedited by the US's very own actions at clinging to its primacy. The US still controls global financial infrastructure (SWIFT etc) and has 700 bases. It vetoes UN resolutions that would otherwise restrain Israel or hold it accountable. They aren't simply a vendor supplying arms to Israel but support Israel in every domain possible.

As I've mentioned above, the US isn't simply a vendor to Israel. Their the geopolitical scaffold that holds Israel up - a structural support system that allows Israel to lay its bricks however it chooses, which is to pave over Palestinian land and settle it. 

The US sits at nearly every level of that pyramid and causal chain you outlined. The US's own actions in the Middle East prompt a level of hatred towards the West and by extension Israel - that constantly make it feel fearful. Israel is too far gone into historical trauma, paranoia, and a worldview where dominance equals security. So we appeal to the actor that enables and empowers that madness, because it may still have the capacity for restraint.

If you want to get to the root of the hostilities its this: Zionism in its current form demands total dominance to feel safe, but total dominance ensures they never will feel safe as it’s at the expense of others. Zionists can’t seek safety of one people (themselves) by displacing another (Palestinians) in the most violent manner.

I agree everyone should work on themselves internally -  but Palestinians are not in the position to "self-actualize" when they’re denied basic rights, including the right to self determination that the world and international law tells them is theirs. Also, Palestinians  don't need moral perfection before they can get political liberation.

When the diplomatic avenue to their right is denied (ie US veto) and they take a undiplomatic violent one instead  - their gaslit as backwards regressive terrorists. When the West or Israel acts bad its framed as a ''reaction'' to trauma, when non-Westerners act bad its regressive and pathologized as inherent. This is how the Western narrative maintains its image - nuance and context is afforded to themselves and their allies but not to others.

There are hard limits to agency and accountability - there are things not in your power, but that are imposed by powers bigger than you. Telling a stateless, besieged population to “take accountability” while absolving the empire that funds, arms, and protects their oppressor is like telling someone pinned under rubble that they should’ve chosen a better place to stand.

This isn't me failing to apply systems thinking. It's me following the system all the way to its source of leverage - which in the case of Israel-Palestine, is the US. If Israel is unreachable and unreasonable due to trauma, paranoia, and impunity - then only the US can pull the brake.

 

1, The world may say ethnic cleansing is morally wrong but they do it anyway because, for the most part, they are not stage green.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_cleansing_campaigns

It's easy to condemn something and do nothing.

2, The US is one of several suppliers of arms; if they withdraw, someone else will arm Israel. It doesn't solve the problem; in fact, the only leverage they have over Israel is that they supply arms. to the extent they don't step over a line. If the US did, Israel just goes to one of these 25 countries, or others, or independent contractors.

https://247wallst.com/special-report/2023/01/11/the-25-largest-arms-exporting-countries-and-who-they-sell-to/

They are far from the only dealer they can buy from. This is why I put blockades higher up on the list of topics to focus on. Besides, if they did, they would lose a major strategic interest in the region, at a time when BRICS are expanding all the time, which would be a misstep. Especially nearing the possible 'official' start of a larger conflict across the globe.

3, If anything, the US having 700 bases weakens their ability to focus on Israel. If they had 5, those 5 would get their full focus.
Shall we estimate a dozen in the region? It's more their aircraft carriers which project power.

4, The weight of history does not support your assertion that the west is responsible for most of the wars. This is sadly your bias. I mean we could do a breakdown, but let's accelerate that topic:

I'll refer to large periods of history, you'll point to specific regional conflicts in a recent time frame (while also citing things that go back 100's of years), I'll go to wikipedia and link all the conflicts BRICS have been involved in, you'll try to justify it, and at that point I'll probably get tired out :D, which is what usually happens.

We can start there instead this time? Me justifying western conflicts from their historical perspective, you are justifying BRICS conflicts from their perspective, with me continuously bringing you back to the 6 human needs that drive all of humanity and reminding us all humans have fundamentally the same drives. Then i'll add on top that authoritarian regimes rule through more violence than liberal regimes, so it's a constant state of increased violence day to day, and we'll argue that vs larger-scale conflicts, etc.

This is where I say you don't apply systematic thinking to western nations. You probably could, you could entirely put aside bias of them, take their perspective, and explain it. I do this with Russia sometimes when I want balance. I don't know enough about China to do it effectively, though, only surmise it. 

5, UN resolutions won't restrict Israel much. Though i agree for what its worth. I wish they would restrict countries more. We could have an authority greater than nation states, stopping wars and enforcing diplomatic negotiations and a mature, neutral resolution. But the problem is, it's set up to require all the people from different fractured groups to agree.

I mean we can't even agree, and I've got respect for you. This is just a micro of the macro. Voting is just a poor way of coming to a conclusion, we'd vote differently, but we could draft something with both our perspectives in and implement it.

6, You brushed over the main point I was trying to make. That you are not putting enough emphasis on holding Israel accountable for Israel's actions. You defended Palestine, when my comment was largely intended toward Israel at this moment, as they are the aggressor. To the extent Palestine was the aggressor, yes they need to be held accountable for that also. But i'll go further, we should start looking at them both collectively in this case.

So blockade the region, the entire region, from getting arms. Negotiate with the entire region at once. These kinds of things. Make continued trade contingent on both sides stopping violence. I would rather a multinational force kept the peace, but now I am shooting for the stars.

We have to, we absolutely have to put the main accountability on the parties involved, no matter how they are doing what they are doing, or who is enabling it.

This is the critical misstep not being made. - Parents enabling their childs drug use are not doing anyone any favors, but if the kid was held accountable for taking the drugs, that would start to build that inside themselves, which is why prison sometimes works for example.
 

Edited Wednesday at 03:06 PM by BlueOak

[Raze]

2 hours ago, hundreth said:

You're still doing this childish Palestinians / Hamas are good guys. Israelis bad guys black / white shtick? 

No, I’m disputing the notion Israelis are morally “superior”, by any relevant metric their actions are worse.  The idea that having more economic and technological development by default means they must by default not be as bad in the crimes they commit is absurd when they’ve committed settler colonialism, ethnic cleansing, and now genocide. You can be more “developed” but commit morally worse actions and worse crimes than less developed populations.
 

The ANC killed civilians and committed terrorism, but they weren’t “morally worse” than the apartheid government. I’ll even grant Palestinian militants are worse than the ANC because historically they targeted civilians more, but Israel is far worse than South Africa’s apartheid government, even former anti apartheid activists who lived through it said this.
 

As an israel supporter you are no different, you’ve justified and defended monstrous atrocities far worse than anything Hamas has done multiple times. You’ve basically reverted into gross nationalism like on the other thread ranting about how this is all justified on religious grounds. The irony of accusing others of being childish when you proudly say you analyze the conflict from the perspective of being a nationalist Jew who thinks the religious claims of land ownership is relevant. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:48 PM by Raze

[zazen]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

6, You brushed over the main point I was trying to make. That you are not putting enough emphasis on holding Israel accountable for Israel's actions. You defended Palestine, when my comment was largely intended toward Israel at this moment, as they are the aggressor. To the extent Palestine was the aggressor, yes they need to be held accountable for that also. But i'll go further, we should start looking at them both collectively in this case.

So blockade the region, the entire region, from getting arms. Negotiate with the entire region at once. These kinds of things. Make continued trade contingent on both sides stopping violence. I would rather a multinational force kept the peace, but now I am shooting for the stars.

We have to, we absolutely have to put the main accountability on the parties involved, no matter how they are doing what they are doing, or who is enabling it.

This is the critical misstep not being made. - Parents enabling their childs drug use are not doing anyone any favors, but if the kid was held accountable for taking the drugs, that would start to build that inside themselves, which is why prison sometimes works for example.

To avoid diluting the thread or getting lengthy I'll stick to the main point.

Yes, Israel must be held accountable. But how? And who is an obstruction to that accountability?

Israel doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Its impunity is structurally enabled - militarily, diplomatically, economically - by the US. That’s why international mechanisms like the UN can’t enforce accountability: because the US vetoes it. Even the ICJ was threatened by the US.

So when you rightfully call for holding the main actors accountable, there is a nation above all that gets in the way of the mechanisms that are supposed to do so.

Other nations are too afraid to act not just due to geopolitical calculations, but because the US has weaponized global systems (SWIFT, sanctions, NATO pressure, military bases, IMF leverage). That fear is not theoretical, but deeply embedded in the system.

The US is functionally a main party involved in this, they aren't peripheral. Holding Israel accountable means holding the system that enables them accountable - and that system is upheld by the US.

[BlueOak]

@zazen

That is the crux of it. How do we do hold all parties accountable for their actions. It is the perfect question to ask and ask repeatedly. With the majority focus on Israel and Palestine, and not to negate your perspective, a secondary focus on those fueling and supporting the conflict.

For one, we acknowledge it. Right here and now, you and me. That Israel is responsible for a genocide. Palestine is responsible for a reprehensible act of terror. We don't go any further than that, we keep it simple. We don't make excuses for either country; we put them at the top of the list, directly responsible for making those events happen. They are personally recognized for it.

For two, once an understanding like that is agreed on by a large enough group of people, political pressure mounts. Though we don't have to ever agree on every detail zazen, (we never will ) we do need to agree on that much for it to stick. That political pressure slowly influences the secondary parties to stop enabling the behaviour.

Again I am not equating anything, there is no excuse here (that's the point) I am stating exactly in clear terms what both parties are directly responsible for in this period of violence.

---

As for the deeper question on how to help, or the how of something, which is a noble one, let me offer that below:

[BlueOak]

Here is the Political Minds Analysis of the this page + some core strategies:
Hyper-rational political analyst solving complex issues objectively

1. Moral Symmetry vs. Structural Asymmetry

BlueOak’s Core View:

• Emphasizes personal accountability and balanced attribution of moral responsibility to both Israel and Palestinians.
• Advocates for depoliticized moral clarity: “Israel committed genocide, Palestine committed terrorism. Period.”
• Proposes that acknowledgment by a large public can pressure enablers to change behavior.

Strength:

• This model aims to depolarize discourse by drawing moral boundaries in equal terms.
• It rightly emphasizes that clarity and shared consensus can be a catalyst for international or domestic pressure.

Limitation:

It risks flattening the asymmetries in power, agency, and systemic structure. By asserting equal responsibility without equal context (military power, statehood, international support), it may obscure the mechanisms that make one actor vastly more capable of destruction and impunity than the other.

2. Zazen’s Systems Critique

Zazen’s Core View:

• Argues that the U.S. is the structural enabler of Israeli impunity.
• Distinguishes horizontal development (material, technological) from vertical development (moral, ethical).
• Emphasizes that asymmetric accountability leads to asymmetric power consolidation and further violence.
• Urges focusing on levers of influence, not just surface actors.

Strength:

• Deep systemic analysis that traces power from battlefield actors to geopolitical structures.
• Effectively challenges assumptions that modernity or liberal democracy equates to moral superiority.
• Rightly points out that moral development is not guaranteed by institutional development.

Limitation:

Could be read as downplaying Palestinian agency, even when acknowledging structural oppression. There's a rhetorical risk in emphasizing structural causes to the point of appearing to absolve non-state actors of their moral responsibilities.

3. Leo Gura’s Civilizational Hierarchy Framing

Leo’s Core View:

• Argues that Israel is a "lesser evil" due to being more “civilized,” governed by law and constraints (even if selectively).
• Frames conflict outcomes in terms of “civilization vs. barbarity,” with survival as the arbiter of moral legitimacy.

Strength:

• Points to institutional differences and behavioral norms in warfare (e.g., IDF aborting missions to avoid civilians).
• Invites pragmatic evaluation of regimes based on comparative harm reduction.

Limitation:

• Relies on an uncritical civilizational metric that confuses development with morality.
• Risks legitimizing structural violence when done by “civilized” actors while condemning reactive violence as inherently more evil.
• Neglects the colonial origins and moral relativism that underpin such “civilized evil.”

4. The “Greater Evil” and Asymmetric Warfare Debate

Multiple users (Raze, Zazen, Twentyfirst) challenge the idea that more developed nations are inherently more moral. They note:

• Israel's historical and ongoing use of disproportionate force.
• The selective application of international law.
• The moral danger in using “standards” that privilege state violence over insurgent violence, when the latter may be more understandable (though not necessarily justifiable) given systemic oppression.

This aligns with:

Frantz Fanon’s and Hannah Arendt’s theories on violence: that oppressed populations often resort to violence when peaceful channels are structurally closed.

Realist critiques of international law, which point out its selective enforcement and geopolitical bias.

Final Synthesis

To effectively hold all parties accountable:

• Direct Responsibility: Moral clarity about atrocities should be affirmed.
• Structural Accountability: Systems that enable atrocities must be scrutinized, particularly U.S. support structures.
• Asymmetric Contextualization: Accountability must reflect material and institutional asymmetries (power, resources, international protections).
• Ethical Consistency: Moral standards should apply across contexts, but with contextual nuance (e.g., state vs. non-state actors).
• Policy Levers: Targeted sanctions, arms embargoes, and international legal mechanisms must include enablers, not just perpetrators.

Do you want a proposed model of how a multilateral accountability framework could look (e.g., involving a UN-mandated mechanism, ICC jurisdiction, and trade conditionalities)?

You said: Yes and also suggestions for individuals or small collective groups to assist

A Multilateral Accountability Framework for governments and institutions.

Actionable Recommendations for Individuals and Grassroots Groups seeking to promote justice and accountability.

1. Multilateral Accountability Framework

Objective: Create a scalable and enforceable mechanism that addresses the actions of both direct perpetrators and structural enablers of large-scale violence, like the Israel-Palestine conflict.

A. Core Mechanisms

Level Instrument Description

Legal Universal Jurisdiction & ICC Empowerment
Reinforce the mandate and reach of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with binding jurisdiction over war crimes, regardless of state ratification, through a revised UN Security Council resolution. Include enforcement provisions for state and non-state actors.

Economic Targeted Sanctions & Arms Embargoes
Impose smart sanctions (asset freezes, travel bans) on political/military leaders responsible for war crimes, from all sides. Implement arms embargoes via binding UNSC resolution (with automatic renewals and independent verification).

Diplomatic Multilateral Conditionality Agreements
Link bilateral trade, aid, and security cooperation to human rights compliance. E.g., require demonstrable progress on civilian protections and humanitarian access as conditions for military aid or financial loans (modeled after Leahy Laws, but globally applied).

Verification Independent Observational Force
Establish a neutral UN or BRICS-backed "Accountability Corps" composed of civilian monitors, legal experts, and forensic investigators to document violations, verify compliance, and issue regular public reports.

Conflict Resolution - Regional Negotiation Bloc with Enforcement Authority
Create a regional dialogue mechanism (e.g., Israel, Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, EU, U.S., BRICS observers) with power to propose binding solutions, mediate truces, and enforce arms suspension agreements with third-party monitoring.

2. Suggestions for Individuals and Small Collectives

These actions are designed to work within the limits of personal agency while leveraging broader systemic influence:

A. Educate, Frame, and Amplify

• Host teach-ins, reading groups, and public forums that examine the structures of violence (e.g., arms trade, UN vetoes, IMF conditionalities) rather than just focusing on visible atrocities.
• Emphasize distinctions between horizontal (technological/economic) and vertical (ethical) development in public discourse.
• Use precise, system-aware language: avoid "both sides" flattening but articulate asymmetry without absolution.

B. Targeted Advocacy

• Lobby politicians, especially in supplier states (U.S., Germany, UK, France) to end unconditional arms support.
• Join or support campaigns like:
• DAWN MENA, Jewish Voice for Peace, Democracy for the Arab World Now.
• Stop Arming Israel (UK) or CodePink (U.S.).
• Push for city-level resolutions (e.g., boycott-related procurement policies) as symbolic yet momentum-building acts.

C. Material Solidarity

• Support reconstruction efforts and medical aid through vetted organizations (e.g., Medical Aid for Palestinians, Palestine Children’s Relief Fund).
• Fund independent journalism and legal monitoring bodies (e.g., B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, Forensic Architecture).

D. Platform Resistance

• If you control or influence a platform (social media page, university club, podcast, etc.), create space for historically marginalized perspectives and long-form context—countering misinformation and narrative reductionism.

E. Strategic Civil Disobedience

• Engage in disruptive nonviolent actions where appropriate: sit-ins, protests at weapons manufacturers or government buildings.
• Use legal leverage (e.g., human rights litigation, FOIA requests) to expose complicity by local institutions in enabling arms transfers or foreign policy decisions.

Final Thought

Accountability is not a zero-sum game—it must be multi-scalar. To address state-sponsored violence or terror, accountability must scale from the personal to the planetary. Effective action requires a distributed network of pressure: governments, institutions, and people.

Edited Wednesday at 05:56 PM by BlueOak