zazen

Can't tell if your sarcastic with that Voldemort good vs evil example lol - as you were understanding Russia's position on the previous pages. Ukraine can be whoever they want to be and decide to be in terms of solidifying their identity - as long as they don't cause injustice to those they see as outside of the identity. That's no real threat to Russia in a security sense, only in pride - and if Russia were to be going to war for that reason its just pathetic. It's more of a cultural wound than a security crisis - more emotional than survival logic. The primary reason prompting Russia is Western alignment in the sense of a Western military force being on its border and within reach of Moscow. Ukraine aligning culturally with the West or to be their own thing can however be a stepping stone to something worse which is that if Ukraine aligns with the West and gains a Western level military force right on Russia’s border - that’s not a small issue for Russia. We’re talking about a military bloc that openly speaks about containing Russia, that Russia has had historic hostilities with to put it mildly, and with whom the world almost ended in nuclear annihilation once during the Cold War. And people don't understand the gravity or re-igniting that level of tension. @Kid A Understanding is not defending.

@Daniel Balan You think making fun of someone instead of critically thinking makes you look cool? I responded to you and purple together when I said read comment above. It’s not about size. Strategic proximity can be threatening regardless of size. Small countries like UAE or Oman could choke 1/5 of the worlds oil supply at the Sraight of Hormuz - that would threaten stability for nations much larger than them. Being big doesn’t make a nation immune to feeling cornered or threatened if they are done so strategically. If anything, Russia’s size makes it paranoid because it has that much more land and long borders to protect. Ukraine by itself isn’t threatening to Russia. It’s that greater powers have invaded Russia through it, through mainland Europe (Napoleon, Hitler etc). It wasn’t some tiny border country alone but a much larger force using that country as a corridor. Today that force would be US/NATO. US think tank talking of overextending Russia: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html Hmm Nordstream .. enjoy your high energy prices courtesy of the US. Enjoy beloved Europe being a vassal to the US - being a pawn in a larger geopolitical game. You could actually use some AI to help round out your understanding. And going by your twitter bio it seems your the one with a dark soul 😂 “Night Sky Lover - Black Metal - Dark Ambient Music” Also, stop smoking it’s bad for you.

Emotional memory of past hostilities can't be a main driver of policy, especially in a nuclear world with higher stakes. We can see how Palestinians feel - many want a one-state solution with all their land back. But that feeling can't and won't translate into state policy - because states operate with constraints, risks, and survival calculations. That brings me to the next point which is that survival trumps legality. I would love it if we lived in a world that stuck to laws and principles - but the reality of survival trumps the abstraction of laws inked on paper, like every time. That’s the real issue with Ukraine and NATO. It’s not about whether it’s “legal” for Ukraine to want to join - it’s how Russia perceives that move as a threat, especially with a history of invasions through that very terrain. If Romania can feel threatened due to past invasion, why can't Russia feel vulnerable about its weak spot? That's why Poland, Romania etc aren't really an issue to join NATO and why Ukraine in particular is the red line for Russia. It's best to not have two nuclear armed nations side to side, and to keep a buffer zone between them. Look at how tense things just got with India-Pakistan. And this isn't just two nations, its Russia bordering a Ukraine which would be part of a Western bloc via NATO - its a clash of civilizationz (Russo-Western) who've unfortunately had a hostile past with the whole cold war era. That cold war hangover still persists today affecting accurate assessment of the current reality. Maybe lets hold off on that until we become Bhuddas able to co-exist that close to each other - maybe then they can go Russian banyan together butt naked. Imagine if Britain started militarizing the border with Ireland - stacking up missile systems, positioning rockets in striking distance of Irish cities, and there was talk of making Britain great again like the old empire days. Even if they hadn’t violated a single treaty, what do you expect Ireland to do? Lets say there were also British think tank papers documenting how they want to 'encircle, contain and overextend' Ireland to bring it to its knees - making their intention clear as day. The US literally has think thank papers like this. So if this happened in the context of UK-Ireland, what should Ireland do? To remain legally pure they should just do nothing until a law on paper has been violated? In the UK, it's technically illegal in some cases to use excessive force against a burglar in your home. But if someone breaks into your house and you genuinely feel threatened, are you going to stop and think about the legals of breaking whats written with ink on paper or try not to have your blood on the floor instead? Survival trumps legality. Yeah - serious conversations about war and peace require one. How does your face look when you rage type comments in anger? Jokes aside brother - see comment above. And you guys should check out Jeffrey Sachs / Mearsheimer for an alternate view - not to excuse Russia but just to understand their actions.

Nothing fixed, but you did reveal the shadow side which is a helpful nuance. The Easts order turns to oppression (shadow), the Wests freedom turns to fragmentation. West: Individual → Freedom → Visibility → Expression → Spectacle. The political ideal is liberal democracy. West shadow: Atomized→ Impulsive→ Exhibitionism→ Shallow/Emptiness. The political extreme is anarchic libertarian. East: Community → Harmony → Discipline → Self-mastery → Sacred. The political ideal is a discern-ocracy (those of discernment lead) or wisely guided order. East shadow: Collectivism → Conformity → Centralized Authority → Norm rigidity. The political extreme is authoritarian traditionalism. Taliban is one extreme, Las Vegas is the other lol.

Nemra was assuming fear is the basis for every action taken - I just flipped it and rolled it into a question back to him to engage the mind (see his comment below). The Western mind often pathologizes Eastern discipline as fear - whilst that can be true, a lot of people are disciplined out of reverence, not fear. They take mastery over the self as a higher form of freedom than indulgence. They liberate themselves through the whole, whilst the West finds liberation through the self. There's a way to conserve something through liberation, just as there's a way to liberate something through conservation. Silence (being conserved) liberates the sound of music, the same way music (being free) preserves the silence. Songs are made of sound (expression) and silence (restraint). Just see Japanese culture, in particular the Samurai, do we think these people are being disciplined only from a place of fear? You assume modesty is something to overcome - how do you know that? What does need to be overcome is extreme conservatism, in order to come to a place of balance - which is now lost in the West who have gone too liberal, and are now facing a populist backlash for. The reason I talk from the Eastern perspective is more so because I know this forum is mostly Western/Liberal and would benefit from it - I understand the value in the Western orientation and the downsides of the Eastern one too. Dignity is performed in the West, whilst its protected in the East. The sacred aspects of life that hold meaning are seen as meaningful enough to be guarded in the East, whilst in the West they are seen as meaningful enough to be shared. The problem is both have extremes that end up ending meaning and dignity all together. In the East they protect something to the point they choke it off from the oxygen of life, in the West they expose it to the point all meaning is rusted by the elements or diluted entirely. Meaning is fragile. So it requires both exposure and protection - too much of either, and it collapses. If we wanted to simplify it even more we could say the West finds dignity in saying Yes to things (expression), the East finds dignity in saying No to things (protection). Obliviously there's also a spectrum. Why is it that we find complete nakedness (visibility - expression) not as beautiful or alluring as an elegant lady? Even just one step removed from nakedness, take the example of a stripper. Its called strip and tease - because whats teased is the guys ability to have full access - to touch and to see. And this gets guys to whip out wads of cash. Strippers play the Western game of visibility, but use modesty as a tool within that game. Humans instinctively equate access with value - what is hidden is protected, and what is protected is presumed valuable. This is why many find Arabesque belly dancers using veils or burlesque shows to be more alluring than simply being nude. That's why classically dressed women who are elegant exude femininity, by elevating the body instead of fully revealing it. Full concealment like in the niqab isn't alluring at all, because nothing is even shown to be valued - no soul or spirit is shown. It’s like looking at a rock, without a glimmer of gold. But the point with this is that it isn't Islamic - people conflate modesty (a value which protects that of value - women and sexuality) with erasure (an extreme). The same way liberalism can lead to hypersexualization.

Over 50 Muslim countries exist, most of which don’t resemble the Taliban in the slightest. In fact majority of muslims and muslim countries reject Taliban's practices which are either radical interpretations of Islam or not Islamic at all but cultural - but that then get conflated with Islam. Ijtihad is a principle in Islamic jurisprudence that allows Islam to be evolved and applied to different times. Even during the prophets life rulings changed in response to changing social situations. Islam isn't a monolith in how its manifested. @Nemra @Twentyfirst Regarding your guys discussion on modesty - we could flip it on its head and say: why do liberals fear modesty? (instead of Nemra asking why do muslims fear sexuality?). It's not really about fear to begin with really - liberals don't fear modesty, muslim's don't fear sexuality. The two just approach it from a different place. They have a different civilizational approaches toward sex, dignity, and self-respect. The use the same words, but live in different worlds in how they approach them. - In the West, the individual is at the center. The sacredness of the individual demands freedom of itself, which is expressed through visibility - visibility is equated with freedom, which is why expression becomes a virtue. The more exposed, the more liberated - visibility validates the sacredness of the self. The self finds liberation in and of it self, by itself - me, me, me. Boundaries are seen as chains because the concept of dignity is in the self having none. The West seeks to affirm the self outwardly. - In the East, the community is at the center. The sacredness of the whole demands harmony with it, which is expressed through restraint of the self - restraint is equated with harmony, which is why discipline becomes a virtue. The more restrained, the more harmonious - peace with the whole validates it's sacredness. The self finds liberation through the whole, because it's in accordance with something larger and higher than the self. Boundaries are seen as mastery of one self, for a greater self found in the whole - the concept of dignity is in self restraint. The East seeks to refine the self inwardly. We can see how those orientations have manifested in everything from politics to sex. In the West it's birthed a spectacle society - everything is more shallow because life is lived at the periphery acting, expressing the self, never sitting in the self being grounded. Its more performative, hence the activist culture, hustle culture, identity politics - about whats seen, visible. Identity isn't something to be cultivated internally but something to be displayed. Just look at how Trump and Elon had a spat made public. Imagine a grown ass man, tweeting some dirty laundry of another grown ass man - this is seen as undignified and juvenile from a eastern perspective. In the East, issues are handled discreetly behind doors and face to face. Even at a macro political level state to state - the West demands you pick sides and cut ties with their ''adversaries'' publicly. They ask Muslim countries if they condemn China's actions towards Uyghurs - to which many Muslims nations reply, we are partners with China and handle this sensitive issue with our parnet in private. Even with Israel - Palestine: people were always asked to publicly condemn Hamas's actions on October 7th - which is an insult to even ask such a question, to even think that person would agree with such actions. But its all for show you see. Even diet and spirituality - one must be identified with a sub-group and express this always, hence the meme about vegans not waiting long before telling everyone they are one lol. West: Individual → Freedom → Visibility → Expression → Spectacle East: Community → Harmony → Discipline → Self-mastery → Sacred Easterners generally don't splinter into endless identity subgroups because at a deep civilizational level, they don’t experience the self as an isolated, floating island. They're anchored within a web of meaning towards something larger than the self: family, tradition, faith etc. That larger context gives the self structure, continuity, and belonging. They don't need to find it elsewhere in such and such group or identity, because they are already anchored into one.

you’re pulling from 300 years of history to justify eternal fear and hostility toward modern day Russia. Back then was the era of empires where conquest and constantly shifting borders was the norm, and the norms of modern day borders and international law didn’t exist. Romania happens to be caught between a few of empires (Ottoman, Hapsburg, Russian) due to its location and flat land terrain making it easier to penetrate. But we're not in that century any more and now have international law, nuclear deterrence, global institutions, and much more rigid borders. Russia today isn't the Soviet Union trying to conquer Europe. If past invasions justify eternal distrust of Russia, then shouldn’t the rest of the world be just as eternally distrustful of the West who colonized the planet? Ireland was invaded 8 times by Britain - should Ireland always paint Britain as a boogeyman and treat it as if its like the British empire from the old days? Or does it relate to it as it exists in the modern day which isn't an empire or trying to be one? If you're going to use those 300 years of history to define Russia now, then by the same logic, we should live in eternal fear of the West. We don’t do that because we judge a situation based on context and present day reality which is that Russia today isn’t an expanding empire with a demographic surplus - it’s a stagnant/declining power reacting to what it sees as a threat on its doorstep - just like how the Cuban missile crisis was reacted to by the US. It;s not about defending Russia. You can’t apply 300 years of fear selectively. Either we all live in the past, or we try to deal with the world as it actually is. You're too emotional for geopolitics.

Was supposed to be one comment but added the below tweet separately by mistake* People will still say other people are unfairly harsh when criticising the US and why don’t they criticise other bad things in the world lol something called priority and being efficient with your time by honing in on the worlds largest imperial offender and sower of chaos.

Imagine complaining about radicals at your gates, then funding the very same radicals. lol

Very interesting points that bring nuance. Yeah Candace and that crowd don’t acknowledge bias enough or at all. They point to “we’re all already equal under the law” and that any disparity is simply merit based (quality that they attribute supremacy to) when it can be discriminatory based. The question is, are the disparities more due to merit or discriminatory bias? Discrimination is hard to quantify and find evidence for, whilst disparities are easily quantifiable and visible. The left at least acknowledge that bias exist, but try to remedy it top down which creates its own counter bias. Thats why I wrote that bias still exists even in a equal system, which you added to with your point that the world still has a bias towards collectivism - viewing people as collectives rather than individuals. But perhaps the remedy to collective bias (racism-discrimination) isn’t collective punishment or reward either, via DEI policies. The remedy isn’t reversing the dynamic but transcending it - which only happens organically at a spiritual/cultural level, not a political one.

This is true. Usually liberal and leftists heavily support Palestine, and predictably also support DEI. But isn't it contradictory: they understand that Palestinians (in Middle East) shouldn't pay for the sins of others who caused a horrific injustice to the Jews (in Europe), but that logic goes out the window when it comes to making groups (white people) in the present, pay for the past historical injustices caused to another group (black people). Both punish one person for another’s sin - and reduce people to their group identity. It's like moral racism or reverse racism - because it's identifying someone based on their race and treating them accordingly to protocol (DEI). Equity (equality of outcome - leftism) negates equality (of opportunity - liberalism). The leftists who vouch for equity, assume themselves to be an extension of liberal equality, but it ends up undermining the very principles of classical liberalism which are built on: fairness, neutrality, individual merit, and equal opportunity. The way to look at the political spectrum and make sense of it is this: Far left: Equity (outcome, forced) Middle Left: Equality (opportunity, fairness) Middle Right: Quality (discernment, earned merit) Far Right: Quantity (domination, measurable metrics) Quantity oriented means that which is visible, measurable, surface level - IQ, race, strength / might makes right, eugenics = leads to supremacist thinking to justify domination. Both extremes (far left and far right) reduce human beings to statistics, labels, or categories. Both extremes are metric based, surface driven, and inhumane in the end. They both assign value based on what you are (on the surface), not who you are (at your depth). They both trap you into a label or avatar of a group based identity - rather than liberating you as a person with equality of opportunity, to unlock the best of your qualities. Equity also doesn’t just steal opportunity from one person to give it to another - it steals dignity from both. Imagine getting a position not because you earned it but because your x group. Justice should be prospective by building towards a fair future, not retrospective by settling a historic injustice. The issue that leftists rightly point out is that bias can and does still exist, even in a equal system. But they can't top down engineer and fix that because it only causes its own version of injustice and unfairness. It just replaces bias with counter-bias - which ironically only empowers the far right to pendulum swing back in retaliation. They try to mechanically correct a spiritual or cultural flaw with a structural or political fix - when its a spiritual cultural flaw. The solution has to happen in the domain of the spiritual and cultural, and more organically - not some GMO forced fakery creating a chlorinated chicken. A balanced society doesn’t guarantee success, but guarantees a fair shot - and a soft landing if you fall. They level the floor from where everyone starts, not flatten the ceiling so that everyone can touch it. It protects the right’s principle of merit (quality) while preserving the left’s principle of fairness (equality). And they are both synergistic in that the more equality of opportunity you have, the more quality is allowed to emerge from it.

@Apparition of Jack Give me some popcorn too brother!

Who’s says they’re unattractive? Perhaps that attractiveness is made discreet as to not attract all kinds of hanky panky. Perhaps, theres some real baddies in the Middle East that be driving men mad enough to fight over them 😂

@Nivsch That’s good to hear. Even this is nice to see:

@Nivsch Do these oppositional voices in Israel ever mention that a worthy reason to end the war is also about ending the suffering of the Palestinians? Because it seems it’s always simply focused on the hostages. It just looks like Palestinian suffering is not morally relevant unless it affects Israeli interests ie getting back the hostages, less IDF deaths or cooling down the worlds anger towards Israel. The ending the war discourse always centres around approx 50 hostages now, as if the thousands upon thousands of suffering Palestinians isn’t worthy enough of a reason to ending the war also. Golan says Israel needs healing and rebuilding as if Gaza hasn’t just been demolished and traumatised to the extreme.

I think there's a lesson here in clarifying the discrepancy between societal talk vs state actions. On one level we can have maximalist aspirations and rejectionist emotional rhetoric expressed on the street, whilst having more balanced pragmatic actions taken at the state - politics level. We see this in how Gulf nations take steps towards Israel (such as the Abraham accords) even though locals are unhappy with it - because at a state level your operating via diplomacy, pragmatism, and state interests that are bound and checked by global norms, alliances, economic pressure, and military risk. In Israels case however, societal aspirations do translate a lot more to state actions - because the usual realpolitik and structural incentives that are supposed to be there to constrain them, are instead pushed to their limits and exceeded thanks to being enabled by the worlds superpower the US. Israel gets to act on its darkest societal instincts a lot more than other states would otherwise. A lot of the fear around a Palestinian state can rightly be pointed to the anger and maximalist positions they may hold at a societal level, despite at a organisational one being more pragmatic (such as expressed by the PLA or today by Hamas). But that fear misses how states function differently than stateless societies. Once Palestinians have a state with defined borders, international recognition, economic incentives, and responsibilities, their behavior will shift - not because their pain disappears, but because statehood tames maximalism. That emotion will be channeled into diplomacy, law, and survival strategy - just like it has for other national or liberation movements ie IRA in Ireland. It's the absence of a state that keeps that maximalism alive. Statelessness breeds desperation while statehood breeds accountability - to allies, trade partners and global norms. Once Palestine is on the map, its government would be forced to prioritize stability, legitimacy, and international support, not slogans. Meanwhile, Israel which is already a state - has no excuse for its behavior. Its atrocities and massacres aren’t theoretical or projection, but fact. Just see how at a societal level many Palestinians in the following videos hold maximalist positions, whilst at a higher level of state or political organisation they are tamed into diplomatic pragmatism in order to further the interest of their own people, even against their peoples own maximalism:

@Nivsch @Raze

@Breakingthewall The official UK government website refers to Palestine as occupied territory. This isn’t Hamas or Al Jazeera either. UK is not only a close ally of Israel, but played a foundational role in founding it via the Balfour declaration. If it’s not a occupation what would you call it? The idea that the land was empty can be de-bunked by a quote from one of the Zionist leaders at the time: “There is no misunderstanding Arab nationalism… It is not possible to bring them to accept the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.” — Ze’ev Jabotinsky, 1923 If it was empty why would they need to refer to Arabs living on it resisting them. The whole “a land without a people for a people without a land,” was a mythic justification with no basis in reality. You just know it’s difficult to find an occupation that ended with peaceful resistance, thus your recommendation for them to do the same would be futile and would inevitably lead them to violence. It would be great if they didn’t have to resort to violence, if non-violent methods like BDS weren’t literally banned, and the world’s superpower who enables Israel would ‘t keep vetoing peace and resolution…the latest from just a few hours ago: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164056 People will then flip around and bitch about me always bitching about the US. No shit Sherlock.

Are there any examples of occupation ending through peaceful resistance?

Where’s nuance and the application of a few brain cells gone? It should be common sense for people to separate an ideology or religion - from the atrocities or injustices committed in its name. Conflating Islam that 2 billion people follow with its most retarded radical expression in a landlocked, tribal and war torn country is nonsense. These are political decrees not universal Islamic rulings. It’s as silly as me saying: a Democracy in the Middle East is committing ethnic cleansing (Israel), another Democracy across the Atlantic Ocean (US) dropped two nukes on a civilian population in Japan.. “But people will still defend Democracy after this?”

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. 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:

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.

@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. 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.