Nivsch

@Leo Gura Ok makes sense to me, and quite interesting to further think about this topic. Thanks for clarifying

Leo, I am not sure about the answer, but what if kindness, when placed even subconsciously, as more fundamental than other traits, might in some way filter and partially block the more raw and mysterious aspects of ourselves? Because kindness, when defined as a main principal of our behaviour, can still skew the story of the relationship to a specific direction. Even when stems from assertiveness and strength, I have a feeling right now that it might still narrow and supress in one way or another the full spectrum of what we can express or suggest to the other person in the dynamic.

Showing the 360° real version of you will always require some calculated risks, but those risks are necessary for you to be the authentic you and therefore attractive. The "Nice" strategy happens when you try to polish out those risks zones, but then you suppress an important part of yourself. I struggle with this myself, but came to realize my own blind spots and hidden too-nice bubbles I showed, and to fix that gradually especially lastly as I understand better what that I am doing.

(Head of Israeli opposition, translated)

hamas is uprising against any settling of Jews in the land from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem that shows any clue of creating a Jewish hegemony in any kind. We didn't need any Nakba to come to the situation in March 1948 when Jews were almost wiped out completely from this land. Yes the emotions of Arabs even then were complicated and included fear of stealing their land, a beginning of mass purchasing of lands by the Jews, but also religious and highly ideological ones. If Ben Gvir and Smotrich want to grab all the land without Palestinians stole their land before, then why won't the extreme parts of Palestinians want that too, purely out of ideology and not because of past Nakba? Just Ben Gvir mentality but in the opposite direction. Also when Iran and Hezbollah want to wipe out Israelis from the land, is it karma or a genocide?

Not Arabs (and not Jews per se) but hamas, Hezbollah and each terror group which already represents the chunk of Palestinians or other ethnic groups that went through radicalization and want to wipe out violently all of Israeli citizens at this point. Agree with the refinement you pointed out.

Your logic is utterly twisted and wrong. Without IDF, 10M Israelis and Jews would be killed, whereas without Nazis, 17-20M people would be alive.

A photo I took about a month ago near my town. Today its day 642.

Senior Israeli journalist Michal Peylan. (more than 70% of the public want to end the war according to surveys) Translated with Google Lens

Israeli Major General criticises the strategic failure and the very premise of the war in Gaza. https://www.facebook.com/share/1B5qUcuP9z/ Major General (res.) Yitzhak Brik is a widely known and highly respected military figure in Israel, renowned for his repeated and outspoken critiques of the IDF’s preparedness in recent years. A Bitter Failure for the IDF Ground Forces in Operation "Gideon's Chariots" Maj. Gen. (res.) Yitzhak Brick " When Herzi Halevi was replaced by Eyal Zamir as Chief of Staff, Zamir promised the Prime Minister and the public that he would do what his predecessor had failed to do. He declared that he would dismantle Hamas, free the hostages through military pressure, establish military governance in Gaza, control humanitarian aid, and allow political leadership to replace Hamas' rule. I sounded the alarm. I spoke to the media and wrote in the press that Zamir’s statements were empty — the IDF, in its current state, is incapable of defeating Hamas or freeing the hostages without a political agreement. I warned that resuming combat under Zamir would lead to the death of some of the hostages, to many casualties among our forces, and ultimately to disgrace and humiliation for the ground forces, exposing the vast gap between his promises and the worn-out capabilities of our units in the field. Contrary to Zamir's claims, the IDF does not control 75% of the Gaza Strip — and even if it did, it would be meaningless. The IDF operates above ground, while Hamas remains intact underground in the tunnels. Hamas emerges from the tunnels, strikes our soldiers, and retreats — turning IDF soldiers into easy prey. The IDF is suffering severe attrition inside Gaza. The Chief of Staff is begging the political echelon to end the war and reach an agreement, but he sounds like a voice crying in the wilderness. Thirty thousand Hamas fighters continue guerrilla warfare from underground. All the destruction caused above ground has done nothing to disrupt Hamas' underground operations. In Operation "Gideon's Chariots", the IDF suffered dozens of fatalities and many more wounded. It failed to defeat Hamas and did not free the hostages, despite the Chief of Staff’s promises — ending up empty-handed. Yet Zamir continues to flatter Prime Minister Netanyahu. He has lost his spine. No Chief of Staff in the history of Israel has ever behaved with such sycophancy. Recently, the Chief of Staff presented the cabinet with two options: conquer Gaza and establish military rule, or reach an agreement. I must stress — there is only one realistic option: an agreement. The IDF has no ability to impose long-term military governance in Gaza. The standing army and reserves cannot sustain it. There are no replacement forces, and sooner or later they will have to be released. Even if possible, Hamas, entrenched in its tunnels, would wage guerrilla warfare and inflict massive casualties. The IDF does not have the means to destroy hundreds of kilometers of tunnels. The result would be disastrous: the death of all the hostages, heavy losses, and a national catastrophe — without defeating Hamas. By the time the government understands this, it may be too late. Our politicians are using our soldiers as pawns to serve political agendas, not security needs — and the Chief of Staff enables it. Using military forces for purposes not directly tied to national defense, but rather to serve narrow political goals, undermines the moral role of the military, weakens motivation, and harms operational effectiveness. On Monday, a meeting is scheduled between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. This presents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Israel — and for Netanyahu personally — to walk hand-in-hand with Trump toward a comprehensive agreement with Iran, a ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and new regional alliances. If Netanyahu chooses this path, he may still be remembered not only as the one who brought disaster upon the nation — but as the one who helped shape a new Middle East together with Trump and strengthen the State of Israel. Time will tell if Netanyahu will seize this rare opportunity — and whether the interests of the nation will prevail over narrow political survival. "

@trenton Even if we assume for a moment that the leaders aren't operating with morals at all but only out of interests, but how do the things you said contradict moral development of the wide public?

Whoever chants "death to" (no matter the side) is a red flag. In this case you can see also the body language and tonality that don't leave you any room of doubt.

The environment provides you the protection that allows you to sit and learn, but the structural process is still on you. I feel now this is the only kind of developmental intergenerational inheritance we can be sure about.

@aurum But neurological adaptation imposed by the environment is meaningless if not self-learned.

No content has any value if you hadn't built the neural pathways allowing you to run it through and understand it.

Because structural development happens to the individual, whereas the new generation can only inherit the content the previous generation have learned but not the structure it had, so theoretically, structurally, each generation can still start its development from zero.

In the personal level I am sure it is true. In the cultural level I tend to think its true but @trenton has an interesting point that at least for now might dispute that.

@Leo Gura I don't know which side in this discussion is correct, but what if the progress we see around us isn't because of moral development, but only because the evilness merely being distributed to tinier pieces (due to more complex restraining mechanisms) so it disguises itself better, but the total sum of the evil is still the same just as it was a millenia ago? I think this is @trenton 's point. I personally want the moral development to be true, but I can't deny this possibillity in the meantime.

The war continues only because of Ben Gvir, Smotrich and Netanyahu. "Death to IDF" means Oct7 in the entire Israel. Zero moral development.

The exact same moral development of Smotrich, Ben Gvir, their parties and their supporters, just in a content reverse.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1DkiVDeiPh/ " Since the ceasefire with Iran and the killing of seven soldiers in Gaza, the public discourse about the war in Gaza has shifted rapidly—a change we haven’t seen since October 7th. The combination of these two events made it powerfully clear to the public that a war can be ended—and showed the horrific cost of not ending it. The fact that these two shocking events occurred within 24 hours seems to have triggered a collective awakening for many. Over the past two days, calls to end the war have strengthened, intensified, and even reached into coalition ministers. Gafni and Deri (!!) have called for ending the war. Gafni added that soldiers are dying pointlessly. All the protest leaders (Shikma Bresler, Redman, Eyal Noh’e, Yaya Pink, Moran Katzenshtein, and others)—who not long ago supported continuing the war or avoided calling for its end—have in recent days expressed a firm stance for ending the war, explicitly referring to the needless deaths of soldiers. Yesterday’s major protest by activist groups was under the banner “Stopping the War in Gaza.” Senior journalists have also sharpened their tone. Ben Caspit wrote that “the only reason another seven ‘flowers’ fell last night is because of Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who are frightening Netanyahu”—not security, not victory over Hamas, not protecting Gaza-area residents. Rather, just threats by Ben Gvir and Smotrich against Netanyahu. That’s what he wrote—and horrifically, he’s right. And there are many more voices like that. What’s happening among the broader public? Even before the war with Iran, a large majority already supported bringing back the hostages and ending the war. According to our Acord survey (see the slide in the images), conducted in May, 70% of the public support ending the war versus only 15% against. Even among government supporters (!) there were significantly more supporters than opponents of ending the war (47% vs. 30%), and among opposition supporters there was a 91% consensus in favor of ending the war. Other surveys show similar findings. Now we can estimate that public support for ending the war may grow even higher—potentially reaching 80% of the public. That has never happened in Israel during wartime. With all due caution, we can say that there may be a developing political and public momentum and a social norm against continuing the war—along with other external factors (Trump, etc.)—that could bring about an end to the war in Gaza. But that’s far from being decided by the government, because alongside public pressure there are “Kahanist” ministers threatening to bring down the government if it ceases the war, and a prime minister equipped with a poison machine, eager to spread the lie that Hamas isn’t ready for a deal to release all hostages—a lie that dampens the struggle to end the war. And as Ben Caspit said, as parents of soldiers shout—soldiers are now dying pointlessly in the strip. And hostages are suffering, and perhaps—even perish—despite the possibility of bringing them back immediately. And Gazan civilians are dying by the dozens every day and suffering from terrible starvation. Yet in the government, there are ministers who prefer death over life. It’s a pity that the pressure to end the war is only arising now. In the future we will look back in disbelief. A massive loss of lives and suffering could have been avoided if this had happened a few months—or a year—ago. But there are still many more lives to save. And that is the most important thing to do now: apply every possible pressure on the government to end the war. Write, share, protest. Support the activists. Until we stop the war in Gaza and bring back all the hostages. That day may not be far away. It might depend solely on us. We are on a life-saving mission. "

After going stressfully to the shelter every time Iran launches rockets to here, it is much easier to underdstand the suffering of Gazans who don't have warnings in their phones, don't have shelters and are much more valunerable to a much more frequent bombings. This is by magnitudes more scary. Definitely NOT a genocide, but traumatizing and though reality.

This is valid, still doesn't mean it is responsible or mature enough to have it. Perhaps they should have thought about this before declared so passionately on their desire to eliminate Israel and the US.

Iran isn't under such a massive numerical disadvantage that it needs nuclear weapons for balance. Iranian leaders may indeed have religious restraints as you explained and I respect that, but democratic restraints are far more reliable and robust.

Resolving the nuclear and ballistic missiles threat.