zazen

The first sentence could easily describe Gaza, just on a larger scale and through a different mechanism. The second sentence oversimplifies their condition. These tents aren’t glamping luxury retreats - they lack even the necessities like food water medicine. You can understand that death isn’t the only tragedy but so is psychological suffering as in the case of Israeli hostages - this same reasoning can be applied to Gazans who are wounded, had loved ones die, been told to move around like sheep to safe zones which aren’t always safe. They are hungry, can’t access medical care and forced to get amputations without anaesthesia. They don’t know whether they’ll wake up in heaven the next morning or end up cleansed to the Sinai desert never to return to homes that are now rubble. Both suffer from power games being played that crush innocents lives in body and soul.

Any heart that hasn't fully been propagandised to dehumanize and value one life over another would feel bittersweet at the return of the hostages - the relief of a life returned to its home is sweet, the cost it took to get there bitter. A total of 7 hostages have been returned in over 7 months of destruction, death and displacement of over 1.5 million Gazans - the joy of having less than 1 hostage a month being returned is clouded by the cost to life, dignity and hope of 2 million Gazans. The tragic irony is that those hostages could have tasted freedom much sooner if the government that claims to prioritise their return accepted earlier permanent ceasefire deals - they instead only insisted on temporary ones so they could regroup, rearm and continue destroying Gaza in pursuit of Hamas. The Israeli state would rather have Palestinians submit to them than demand dignity and rights by standing up to occupation.They would rather use the hostages to shield themselves from criticism to go easy on Gaza, prolong their political career and cleanse the strip to make way for a greater Israel some amongst them dream of. Western media will zoom in on tearful reunions while blurring out the kids graves in Gaza. They'll interview hostage families but never the Palestinian father dangling his headless child. They manufacture consent for their support of Israel by minimising the victims created by the Israeli states actions. The empires eternal con is to parade small mercies to hide vast cruelties. They'll wave a flag of compassion over one life saved, while using it to shroud the mountains of bodies they've made. If the far right within Israel get what they want which is a settled Gaza, when they boast themselves to be a developed nation and to look at their beach resorts - we'll remember it was built upon the bones of Palestinians. Their development will just be a fancy tombstone for a people they've tried to erase.

Thanks man, likewise you share good up to date information.

True, defending aggression with hypotheticals of worse aggressions just seems to lack social intelligence of how they come across + a minimisation of the suffering the current aggression is causing. Destiny seems to imply that the current level of aggression is justified because it hasn’t yet reached the most extreme level of aggressions ie Nuke.

@Inliytened1 Two pages back I commented this regarding Jewish history of persecution.

Fine line between making a judgment and observation. Trauma doesn’t grant anyone a pass to inflict more trauma. Past trauma should become a lesson in empathy rather than an excuse for brutality. Well done to Israel for not nuking Gaza - the world is grateful they only just dropped a tonnage of bombs larger than Dresden and Hiroshima combined on a strip of land where the majority are women and children which by default mean innocent. You can’t assure someone you don’t know of what they have or haven’t been through. But I can assure you that attempts at justifying the actions of Israel by comparing them to a more extreme scenario of using a nuke doesn’t come across well. This only shows how successful Zionist propaganda is at echo chambering those within it - that things they think are normal to say aren’t - and that they only may realise this when their viewpoints come into contact with the outside world which pushes back on it.

If this is Israel going conducting a war of defence I wouldn’t want to know what a war of offence looks like - probably like using a flamethrower to light a candle.

@Twentyfirst You asked about why they were hated in the past so gave some reasons simply related to economic incentives driven by religious differences. If you know other reasons please list them. Of course past traumas shouldn’t be weaponised to justify present day injustice and the ugly manifestation of Zionism. Perhaps that’s what you get when you marry unhealed trauma and a level of power that corrupts. Israel has become a reflection of the injustice its founders once fled. A group who were once marginalised now marginalise another to the coast of Gaza with no where left to go except a barren Sinai desert.

The US House of Representatives just passed a bill to sanction ICC officials: the diplomatic equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum because the adults are trying to serve justice, that may hold the toddler accountable. Ironic that the self-proclaimed global gladiator of justice who architected the international order is now lashing out at the very court that’s job is to deliver justice and order. The American eagle once soaring high is now flapping its wings under a burden of hypocrisy that erodes its global standing - and all for a foreign state that gives barely any thanks for it.

@Twentyfirst Minority communities are scapegoated for the problems of the majority. It's ironic that the prohibitions and restrictions imposed on Jews by Christian societies pushed them into specific economic roles that, paradoxically, became pathways to financial success and influence that they were then resented for. Christian doctrine forbade Christians from engaging in usury, creating a vacuum in the moneylending sector that Jews filled. This led them into the heart of wealthy circles allowing them to wield informal influence over powers that denied them formal entry. When economic struggle came Jews were blamed, and debts owed by kings and nobles were conveniently erased by expelling their creditors (Jews). Marginalization breeds radicalization. The social and economic marginalization drove many Jewish intellectuals towards radical ideologies like socialism and communism, which promised an end to their oppression. These ideologies were revolutionary and would shake the established power structures which further led them to be persecuted.

Yeah, that definetely complicates things because it’s militarily strategic and with the history between the two groups would make it very risky to allow each other to have. The same area (West Bank) where the Palestinian state would be is at the same time unrealistic for Israel to allow unless it is a demilitarised region - but then it isn’t a state in the truest sense with full sovereignty. Not sure what the solution could even be. Maybe managed by a group of other neutral players / peace keepers.

If someone wanted sum up the situation of Israel / Palestine in one word it would be: occupation. That’s a word a lot of Israelis deny to describe the situation with or rationalise the existence of. Logically to follow up we should ask: does occupying a group of people make another group of people (the occupiers) more or less safe? Whenever occupation is acknowledged by Zionists it’s rationalised and re-defined as being a needed “security measure” in response to being attacked - but they are being “attacked” due to occupation. Those attacks are what Palestinians deem resistance and what international laws tell them is their right. How can the West create an international system of law that tells a group of people they are occupied and have the right to resist that occupation, and then support a country that is executing that very occupation. When people are denied a state their denied a certain type of more 'civilised' and accepted means of protection - when they don't have a military, navy, air force, intelligence agencies or the backing of a global superpower they need to resort to guerrilla warfare and other unsavoury uncivilised tactics like suicide or terrorist attacks - which they are then gaslighted as savages for. It is savage - but it doesn't detract from the cause being a just one of equal human rights, self determination and dignity even though they go about it in undignified unjust ways of which they have been left with little choice.

Stage blue thinks their God conscious but are only conscious of the humanised commandments they projected and imposed upon a Godly reality infused with God. They rightly have an intuition of God consciousness but are incapable of going the full way in articulating or encapsulating the truth of God consciousness without creating half truths laced with falsity. The question of the future isn’t whether one believes in God or not but how they believe in God. As a being imposed upon reality with commandments projected by the King archetype from the human subconscious - where God is claimed to not be human but is humanised nevertheless to cope with the immensity and complexity of reality. Or God as a being infused within reality, an essence permeating all and externalising itself in all forms but that is not external to any form big or small. Where God is witnessed as an inherent quality of the universe rather than an external entity imposing himself on the universe from afar. In stage green we return to the soul by valuing empathy and interconnectedness. The shadow of green is when it becomes utopian by ignoring the reality of form - that inherent differences exist with inherent inequalities we’d like to equalise but that we go about equalising in a tyrannical or dysfunctional way. Stage green stifles innovation like blue - but in a different way. Blue isn’t open to change, green wants change but wants to change reality to what it can’t be or won’t accommodate.

@Danioover9000 Yeah, while the extreme end of stage orange wrecks the world with capitalist greed, it at least creates a world in the process, driven by autonomy and innovation, even as it’s on a path to ruin. Stage blue doesn’t destroy the world, but it doesn’t create it either. Stage blue doesn’t sell its soul for the material, but isn’t connected to the material world the soul came to experience either. Stage blue ethnocentric fundamentalists think they’re creating a better world, when they’re really building one on exclusion—anyone who doesn’t fit their rigid mold of caste, color, or creed is left out. They think they’re superior to orange because they orient around something “transcendental” rather than the trivial material world. But they haven’t moved past the surface of their tribe’s skin color or been able to capture the essence of their scripture. They believe they can change the world in God’s image, but they’re not even part of the world they want to change. They stay isolated in their anti-materialist communities and rural homesteads and think they’re building culture or gaining power and leverage when power and leverage isn’t built in isolation from the world but when engaged in it. Reminds me of Tradcon preppers who think they’re immune from state overreach or internet culture on their farms. Stage blue stifles the soul, while stage orange disconnects you from it as you chase the material. But at least in moving, you might eventually find your way back to the soul through and out of the material onto the other side to stage green.

Interesting points - I've wondered if the worst shadow manifestation of a stage orange person (greedy Darwinian hyper materialist) is still better than the worst shadow manifestation of a stage blue person (ethnocentric religious fundamentalist) because its the worst of a higher stage vs lower stage. Any stage can form a shadow of itself, the question is what values that shadow forms or orients itself around.

Bumping this well written comment. We forget what has occurred when countless atrocities blur together, this post acts like a reminder. How many ‘incidents’ have happened to which the perpetrator (Israel) say they will investigate it only to be forgotten about and on to the next atrocity we go. Regarding the debate on whether this is genocide or not:

Every step forward in combat technology creates a wider chasm between the killer and the killing field, making it easier to execute mass slaughter while keeping one's sanity somewhat intact. The closer you are, the more soul-scarring the experience: a knife cuts deeper into the psyche than a gun; a gun less so than a warplane, a warplane less than a missile fired from a sterile, cold screen. The end effect on the ground is equally brutal for the victims. Anyone unleashing bombs on densely populated areas knows exactly the kind of havoc they're wreaking. It’s not some accidental 'oops we got a few civilians but at least we eliminated a Hamas fighter.' They know the blood price of their action because it’s been live streamed the past few months.

I can but think that framing them as equally responsible overlooks the power asymmetry between a technologically advanced occupying force, backed by a global superpower with vast diplomatic, financial, and military support, and a besieged population lacking all the above. For 50% of the responsibility one side seems to be causing at least 80% of the suffering if not more.

This hits the nail on the head. It isn’t just the death but the displacement, dispossession and destruction of the little these people had. To add insult to injury they are then starved and attacked in places they sought refuge. And this isn’t done to 100 people or a 1000 but up to 2 million. It also says nothing of what they have suffered the past decades and what the young who haven’t lived for barely 2 have been born into.

@Karmadhi The way you laid out those numbers shows a stark difference not only in scale, but in the time scale these deaths have occurred within. Killing 1% of a population over 20 years paints a different picture to doing the same within 6 months. The speed and scale of the brutality is matched only by the swiftness and scale of the condemnation of Israel's actions.

What’s replaced broken bodies buried under rubble are burning bodies in flammable tents - tents that should be offering refuge to people who fled concrete chaos. When discussing whether a situation constitutes the worst or best case of a ‘negative’ definition, it should still be remembered that the situation still falls within a negative definition. While Palestinians haven’t been culled en masse which is the extreme end of the definition of genocide (mass scale death with intent behind it) - they have been on the receiving end of mass scale dispossession and destruction making their land un-livable. To be annoyingly particular and go by the definition of genocide it states destruction and not just death within its definition - destroying hospitals, fertile land with crops, denying and restricting aid seem to fit close enough to that. Regardless of death, destruction and dispossession - even if we were to say no intent was involved in any of this: Moral outrage can still be expected - not from the intent for mass death and destruction, but the lack of intent to minimize mass scale death and destruction in pursuit of the “enemy”. The neglect of the many in harms way when going after the few who hurt you. While genocide meh be debated due to lack of scale / intent what can’t be is the disproportionate response for which we need a new word : neglecticide - when the pursuit of a few enemies steamrolls over countless civilians causing mass scale collateral destruction and dispossession, a neglect for human life on steroids.

@Merkabah Star There’s a video of a man holding up a headless body. Another of a burnt charred corpse being dragged - won’t share it here to respect guidelines and users. Not sure what else needs to happen for something to happen. Where does the line get drawn to whether something is now a genocide or not - regardless of the definition of genocide being met or not it’s clear that massacring should stop. It can seem as if desensitisation and low morale has set in but the world still goes through the motions of protest as we witness new atrocities weekly. When there’s so many incidents and stories people think why bother debating the obvious - if not about what needs to happen, at least on what needs to not happen - innocent death. Shocking how some Zionists will justify this as collateral damage for the goal of “survival” as if they couldn’t just focus on securing their border. Since when did defence become offense anyway.

@lina Only two days after the ICJ rules Israel to stop the Rafah offensive. Horrific defiance of this sort only comes from a deeply unhealthy and traumatised society. Pinning the blame on Bibi and his party is just an easy out from having to look in the mirror. There are IDF soldiers mocking death and destruction, IDF standing by whilst settlers sabotage aid delivery and trash it. Israelis and the Western backers of Israel can’t just scapegoat Bibi and throw him under the bus now that world opinion has shifted heavily and they don’t want the heat. Even Cartoon Network (CNN) is critiquing Israel. The Zionists narrative is melting faster than sugar in tea, and so is the Western moral high ground they like to make official through fancy words and documents yet do so little to act on.

@Nivsch Apparently Hamas just took in IDF soldiers as hostages which means these protests are going to increase. The survivalist politics of the current government is chaos for Israel and the West by extension as its backers. Gaza is the thread that unravels the fabric of Western institutions to show their corruption and hypocrisy. Looks like Israelis have been heavily propagandised into redefining defence as attack and the cost of conflict as justified collateral - but that seems to be changing now as months have gone by without meeting two of the main goals (get hostages back and defeat Hamas) Survival is like a false flag and smoke screen used as a pretext for a darker agenda.

Hypnotic, mystical, otherworldly aesthetic, ancient yet somehow modern.