zazen

Bro we've been over the peace offers before and why they weren't good enough for the Palestinians or deemed as fair. It wouldn't be a true state or sovereign basically. A few Israeli security points would remain, demilitarised, no ability to form alliances or agreements with other nations without Israels approval, resources such as water still within Israels control etc. What difference is there to that and what the current situation is in West Bank? Israeli military control it and what have they done with their power or allowed to be done? Settlement expansion. Also, stopping settlement expansion isn't enough anymore, a lot will have to be removed which is almost impossible considering how far right the settlers are and now that they are armed. Its a tough situation because the land that is actually seen as the holiest part to Jews is in the West Bank which is supposed to make up any future Palestinian state.

Man is animal, but he is also more than animal. If we reduce ourselves just to our instincts then why not just breed like rabbits and eat sugar all day. It's because instinct was harnessed through discipline that civilisations were created, not because we indulged instinct which is what end of empires do when abundance satiates them. Universal consciousness / godhead /life itself is older than even instinct - it's this life that is exploring itself and evolving itself back to its own realisation but through the material world of biology and instinct. Biology and instinct chain down the soul which wants to transmute its limitations, not indulge them risking its own destruction and that of others.

@Nivsch People can see Israel's side in this - they just don't agree to the entitlement that some of its population have. When people mention apartheid, occupation or ethnic cleansing they're referring to West Bank or Gaza more so than Israel proper. Like that video you shared of that girl asking where is apartheid - its like showing Beverly Hills mansions and saying where is the income inequality? But completely missing out the ghettos of LA. You have acknowledged the settlers are a problem also so you're aware of it, maybe just not the scale or how big of a problem it is. The settler expansion in West Bank gets in the way of a two state solution. But if there isn't going to be a two state solution because the settlers aren't going to move then what is Israels choice? To go on as its going on and hope the world just forgets about Palestinians? It can't go on the way it is.

Instinct, unconsciousness and evolution aren't higher though. Hitler took Nietzche's concept of the superman (ubermensch) and perverted it. It takes a level of wisdom and consciousness to understand the same level of wisdom and consciousness. Hitler became a false prophet of Nietzche's philosophy and not only misinterpreted it but acted upon that interpretation to create the atrocity he did. When Nietzsche talks of the will to power it doesn't mean will to dominate and win the survival of the fittest - to be absolutely darwinian. Yes, its intoxicating, grand and stroked the ego - but this is the same myth and archetype of the Hero which other cultures feel affinity to. It's just not done at the expense of others. Power isn't a problem, its the misuse of it that is. Power in the service of lower forces wreak inhumane atrocity.

Resistance is baked into occupation - it can be expected until that occupation has completely subjugated the original population, genocides or cleanses them or has finally integrated them into a democratic state like America and Australia for example. How this occupation is resisted will differ - India mostly had peaceful resistance against British occupation while the Algerian, Kenyan, Vietnamese or South African resistance included violence. Are Nelson Mandela from South Africa or Matt turner from the slave revolt terrorists? The level of resistance depends on the level of oppression. The feminist suffragettes in England for example protested, vandalised property and committed arson in order to obtain the right to vote. Were they oppressed to the level Palestinians are? When the avenues to peaceful protest have been blocked oppressed people are left with no other option. The BDS movement which helped end South African apartheid is out lawed legislatively - theres no talks of a two state and if there is one its only dangled like a carrot to keep them pacified and waiting while their land gets rapidly taken away in West Bank - any discussions of a state only offer 'less than a state' in the words of Rabin with limited right of return, security presence etc which fails meeting the international standard of a sovereign state. Israel thought it can just go on as is and the Palestinian issue is just a thorn on its side that needs removing whenever it pricks them - that the world will forget about them and it could go on to normalise with the Arab nations - this is why they had a uprising and put their cause back on the world stage including Israel's atrocities which they self incriminate themselves with boastfully - it was a cry for the world not to forget them, a violent cry.

Besides the details, doesn’t this whole conflict basically boil down to when Israel was created, how it was created, and how it currently exists. Israel was established during a time when nationalism was popular but colonialism wasn’t. It was a humanitarian cause done on the back of European atrocities to the Jews culminating in the Holocaust - it was colonial power with the entitled colonial mindset which aided its establishment. British colonial interests married to a humanitarian one. The first Zionist bank established was named the ‘Jewish Colonial Trust’ - the endeavour was supported by the ‘Palestine Jewish Colonization Association’ which willed its land assets to todays Jewish National Fund that which serves as a global fundraiser for Israeli settlement expansion. The right to self determination and national consciousness came into the world, fine - but this doesn’t mean the right to self determination at the expense of dominating another group. The Palestinian locals were expected (without consultation) to give away a majority share of their land (56% in the partition plan) to a minority of recently arrived settlers who had been there at most 20 years and only made up a third of the population. If Israel’s creation had occurred this way a few decades earlier it would have encountered less resistance and condemnation as it does in modern times as back then might was right. The few nations that remain today (Anglosphere) from colonisation developed over a much larger span of time - multiple decades to centuries and during a time where strength was respected and accepted once it had established itself over weakness. Israel faces ongoing conflict and condemnation due to its perceived artificial creation and its ongoing occupation and subjugation of the inhabitants unlike states that organically evolve more naturally over time due to the geographic, political and cultural situation of the land and people. Remaining states that started as colonies do so by integrating the locals in a democracy. Israel wasn’t a grassroots movement so much as it was a top down implant. People from elsewhere revived a dormant language (Hebrew) used mostly in the context of religion for their newly formed nation, claimed it as their native tongue and tied it to their ancestral land. This creation was not in harmony with the region's natural circumstances and naturally caused disruption as it was thrust on already existing people for which it had little context or receptivity. Would it be correct then to say the project of Israel was a unnatural foreign imposition done in such a rapid space of time - in a time when colonialism was dying and in a world which now rejects any remains of it including the remaining colonial mindset that entitles one to take another's land and subjugate any locals resistance to this, which then gaslights this resistance as terrorism and any criticism as racist. The region still feels the shockwaves of Israel's inception and the locals are still undergoing oppressive dispossession till today.

What’s the military objective of cutting food and water? Also:

@Nivsch Israel can make a case that they need to destroy buildings to block the tunnels underneath to trap Hamas or cut fuel which can be used for various needs of Hamas - obviously these have secondary effects which threaten civilian life but they can be passed off as accidents of war. Still, with some logic we can understand what these lead to on the civilians. But I just can’t see any excuse for cutting food, water and hindering aid which are primary effects at threatening life of civilians there. What military objective does it achieve? What’s the excuse? That Hamas will use banana peels to slip up IDF like Mario kart or start a food fight or use water cannons.

True. Exposure to information isn't learning - like sitting in front of food but not eating it, and if eating it not digesting it properly. Education in the original sense of the word and its root means to educe - to draw out and bring out the humanity and best in us. Going by what the Nazi's did that isn't the best of humanity but the worst of it. Excess rationality, logic and intellect has a way of rationing us away from life, atomising our existence and mechanising us to be efficient - but it has no inner light, morality or vision which guides them. Rationality, logic and intellect are tools that the Germans mastered, but they didn't master themselves - the wielders of those tools. They missed their internal essence that they share with humanity and of which those tools would be used in the service of.

What should define a terrorist? A few notable people including John Meirsheimer have stated that Hamas are a resistant group at its core, but with terrorist tactics at its periphery that should be condemned and rightly so. What’s being condemned isn’t the cause itself which is a just one (emancipation) but the methods and actions used in the name of that cause. A rebuttal to this will be then what defines a just or unjust cause? Like you said, terrorist groups exist while no one oppresses them and just for their own sake or for unjust causes they deem just - a cause that includes infringing upon other peoples territory or sovereignty with a orientation towards globalism. A unjust cause and a real threat to be thwarted by a coalition are groups with expansionist aspirations who rely on violence - whose ambition isn't just a homeland but all lands. A important detail that's left out in discussion knowingly or unknowingly is the context of occupation and oppression which are both to be resisted against. There's a difference between a resistance organisation with terrorist tactics vs a terrorist organisation with terrorism as its main strategy and operating system. A resistance group like Hamas choose terrorist tactics like a tool out of a toolbox to achieve their objective - terrorism itself isn't an objective. They aren't a threat to Europe or the region who’s will is to impose sharia law on everyone like ISIS for example. If they were the threat their presented to be more of the world would be in support of this war despite the 'collateral' damage - as the world come together against Nazism. Resistance is baked into occupation - it can be expected until that occupation has completely subjugated the original population, genocides or cleanses them or more humanely has finally integrated them into a democratic state (unlike anything similar to apartheid). How this occupation is resisted will differ - India mostly had peaceful resistance against British occupation while the Algerian, Kenyan, Vietnamese or South African resistance included violence. Are Nelson Mandela from South Africa or Matt turner from the slave revolt terrorists?

Well said. It’s not just truth that is the first casualty of war but in this case it’s the truth tellers also - journalists and press have literally been pressed out of existence under rubble. Israel can make a case that they need to destroy buildings to block the tunnels underneath to trap Hamas or cut fuel which can be used for various needs of Hamas - obviously these have second order effects which threaten civilian life but can be passed off as accidents of war. Yet anyone with minimal logic understands what these lead to but if dishonest will deflect from the responsibility of the consequences. Even then, there just can’t be any excuse for cutting food, water and hindering aid which are first order effects at threatening life. What’s the excuse? That Hamas will use banana peels to slip up IDF like Mario kart or start a food fight - or use water cannons. I’m confident in using the term ethnic cleansing but was hesitant to use genocide as these are heavy words but it’s hard not to anymore.

@kenway It’s crazy how they continue to act and speak in incriminating ways despite knowing of a global hearing in the coming week. Like you said it seems their ramping up bombardments before possibly needing to cease - similar to Lebanon in 2006: ”Over the final days of the conflict, the Israeli use pattern changed dramatically. According to the UN, Israel fired 90 percent of its cluster munitions during the last 72 hours, after the UN Security Council had passed Resolution 1701 calling for a ceasefire on August 11, but before the ceasefire took effect at 8 a.m. on August 14.105 During this period, there was also an intensification of bombardment by other weapons, including artillery strikes as well as the aerial strikes on civilian homes with 500-pound bombs.“ - Human Rights Watch More snippets from recent days:

@Karmadhi @Danioover9000 Besides the population density and size of bombs being used, the high civilian casualty compared to Ukraine or other wars must be due to having no where to flee. Also not just the scale of the bombardment but the timescale of it. I wasn’t aware either of how bad the situation was - past 3 months Iv grown to know more about the predicament as has the heart grown heavy in witnessing the suffering.

That’s nuts. In their 2006 war with Lebanon obscene amounts of cluster bombs were used for the land area.

Maybe a important nuance and difference between ISIS and Hamas is that ISIS's aspirations are globalist and expansionist to all lands whilst Hamas's are localist and defensively resistant against occupation of their homeland. ISIS and Nazi's are thrown in to label and link Hamas to toxic expansionist genocidal ideologies and unjust causes the world came together to fight. The former are globalist death cults whilst the latter a localised defensive resistance movement that yes - do employ terrorist tactics that should be persecuted equally as any other group. Nazis wanted to universally exterminate Jews from the planet and imperially dominate a entire continent and beyond. Hamas's territorial aspirations are isolated and limited to their land and in defence of it - not expansionist oriented which infringes on other peoples rights or lands. There’s a reason the world came together to defeat the Nazi’s or ISIS but in this situation the world votes against and condemns the war wishing to de-escalate - except very few. The fact that Israel is backed by a global power, has one of the most advanced militaries in the region and possibly nuclear yet still insists it needs to establish deterrence capacity as if what it already has isn’t enough - yet it still gets resisted against and attacked should tell that force doesn’t work unless it totally subjugates, cleanses or genocides the other side which risks it losing its last remaining major ally being the US. Has US liberating the Middle East worked? Attempting to bomb ‘terrorism’ out of existence doesn’t always work and what we think is in our best interest (defence via war) isn’t. When Germany and Britain were bombing each other both populations came together for more resilience and resistance against the other side. As can be seen by the increased popularity in polls for Hamas today and what in Britain was known as the ‘Blitz spirit’ - a term to symbolise their resolve, resilience and national unity in the face of hardship caused by the Nazi’s blitz bombing campaign. If Israel say they don’t want a Palestinian state it’s ironic that bombing them only nationalises them further. One can say ‘but look, the Nazi’s were defeated and there is peace now’ sure - but at what expense and what level of international acceptance at the time. Post WW2 institutions and foundational documents were created (UN, Geneva convention and universal declaration of human rights) to promote peace and equality, protect and sanctify life and persecute and prevent further war crimes and atrocities. The standard of what is acceptable has shifted. Which is why any explicit genocide or ethnic cleansing campaign has to be discreet, subtle and slowly go under the radar of the world - it has to be a process not a event. Resistance movements are built on the blood of martyrs which Israel ensures a continual supply of. Their called grassroot movements for a reason - you can't get rid of them unless you poison the soil ie genocide, expulsion or brutal subjugation. Resistance will never stop unless the soil is destroyed because its the soil (people) that keeps the grass (resistance) growing. If Israel or any countries safety requires the occupation, imprisonment and oppression of a people, they don't have safety and never will. Everything they obtain through oppression is inherently violent and must be upheld through violence - that violence will be justified through ideas of superiority and the idea that those you oppress must be more violent and oppressive than you.

An advert in Haaretz newspaper on September 22, 1967 from the socialist organisation at the time known as Matzpen: "This Zionism of conquest (as opposed to coexistence) is suicidal for Israel and for the West that supports it. The real security of a state is when it gets along well with all its neighbours. However, such a strategy of forced expulsion of the descendants of the inhabitants who lived for centuries in Ottoman Palestine has very little chance of ever being accepted by Israel's neighbours, near or far. This is the perfect recipe for eternal war. Even the United States might one day grow tired of the arrogance of an Israeli right that denies Palestinians the very fact of being a nation. The prolongation of this war is also suicidal for the West. Because it hands over on a silver platter to Vladimir Putin a double gift he dared not dream of: the daily proof of the double standards in Western moral lessons." - Renaud Girard Interesting speech at Oxford union 8 years ago:

President Jimmy Carter

I think it can only take a small percentage of radicals to lead a society in a bad direction. What about this poll from Israel’s democratic institute: What’s your thoughts on this video:

@Danioover9000 Lol, all in good faith. True, important we know what each of us means by our definitions or else we're just talking past each other. Doesn't it exist at the expense of never offering the other side a fair sovereign state that when they fight for the dignity of they're subjugated, oppressed and gaslighted for as savage. The military occupied area of West Bank which could possibly be their future state gets continually eaten away at through settlements - that's not a peaceful atmosphere for negotiations. From the river to the sea has different interpretations but in practice they have negotiated and come close to accepting recognised borders (not from the river to the sea) but these deals fell through on other details such as right of return, rights to resources (water), demilitarisation and the issue of still having Israeli security points within their 'sovereign' state. So Israel would always have the means to protect themselves but the Palestinians don't? Likuds charter also mentions from the river to the sea and that no other sovereignty will be recognised within it. On the contrary and in practical reality Israel has implemented that via military occupation and settlement expansion in the West Bank and now clearing out Gaza - that's actually from the river to the sea in practice and not just in ink. Palestinians have one of the highest literacy rates in the Arab world. West Bank is littered with check points and trouble for kids on the way to school not to mention delays and clashes which obviously restrict access - including permits restricting development of enough schools. I guess they are also preoccupied with securing their survival before higher aspirations of higher education like in Gaza where schools are routinely destroyed or damaged through periodic operations which btw the current destruction of schools only shifts these kids into what will probably come to be make shift camps where Hamas can more easily recruit motivated vengeful kids who've had loved ones die. Couldn't the October 7th atrocity likewise be provoked by past atrocities done to Palestinians. Just by the numbers alone they have suffered far more deaths than Israeli's and much more discrimination - this can never justify a genocide however and each life matters besides the numbers. The elderly politicians themselves aren't fighting yet it's 'old men who plan for wars that young men die for'. It is admirable of Israeli society to create a sense of national pride and unity (as long as that doesn't manifest in particularly ugly ethno-nationalistic ways) and the meaning that comes with that. 'Man dies for fiction more so than facts' - we are dreaming creatures that die more readily for symbols we attribute meaning to (a religion, a flag, a idea) The centre of gravity has moved much more right blurring the middle and aligning the society especially when it comes to this war and after October 7th. The polls showing Netanyahu popularity plummeting is good at least, though other troubling polls show over 75% believe in Gazan's leaving Gaza being a good idea or majority of Jews (80%) not caring for how much suffering Palestinians incur in the next phases of fighting: True they aren't oppressed to the level of a Warsaw ghetto or slaves and its silly of people to equate Israeli's to the Nazi's also. Again with how words are used it doesn't have to be the most absolute use of a word to apply as people can describe situations in metaphorical ways like when David Cameron called Gaza an open air prison in the past which isn't true in its most literal sense but partially true in the sense of freedom of movement and restrictions. If we're talking international law then definitions require more precision to be used and applied (genocide, ethnic cleansing for example). Otherwise, certain words are used as analogous to make a point. A revolt or resistance doesn't have to exclusively be only to the most extreme absolute versions of oppression and it doesn't deny the fact that some form of oppression is occurring that needs resisting and protesting to. Ethnic cleansing/displacement is still happening whether they live in a nice house or not - maybe it's worse if a family had a big house with a nice garden in West Bank which they get dispossessed of because their loss is greater - nonetheless a home is a home whether big or small. As for Gaza - they exercised their freewill and democracy which was overseen by 3rd parties and deemed a fair election but they made the mistake of using their freewill to choose the wrong party not as sympathetic to Israel/the West. When people are denied a state their denied a certain type of more civilised and accepted means of protection/deterrence - when a group doesn't have a military, navy, air force, tank units, intelligence agencies or the backing of a global superpower they need to resort to guerrilla warfare and other unsavoury uncivilised tactics for offence and defence like suicide or terrorist attacks - which they are then gaslighted as savages for and I get it, it is savage - but it doesn't detract from their 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.

If we don't agree on definitions we are by definition not communicating and going in circles. Leo said a ethnic cleansing campaign has been in process over the decades not genocide, which is a more accurate term for what's currently happening. The UN definition of genocide are ''acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Which entail the following categories: 1. Killing members of the group; 2.Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3.Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4.Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5.Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group'' Of course we can stretch definitions to absurd degrees to fit things in and prove our points so we need to use them with reason and not play semantics. For example, if I take point ''2. Causing bodily or mental harm'' I could stretch the definition of that to include someone calling a certain group mean names or underdeveloped which could affect their mental health which of course isn't genocide. The UN definition of ethnic cleansing is ''rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group.'' Isn't that what has been happening in the West Bank through settlements the past decades? Displacement, dispossession, expelled - different words pertaining to the same thing. If intent is there, including actions upon that intent that lead to attempts which are failed or are done in a long subtle process which go under the radar of the worlds eyes and human rights organisations - shouldn't that suffice in meeting the definition. https://www.btselem.org/communities_facing_expulsion If people measure ethnic cleansing purely by population numbers that leaves out a lot. Cleansing doesn't mean expelled from the land as in the territory or the state of Israel to another state or territory but implies any area being lived on. If 10 Palestinians are displaced from North London to South London I can't say 'but the population still has 10 Palestinian in London so they aren't being ethnically cleansed' because the definition means removing a certain group from one area to another, not one sovereign state or territory to another.

@Gennadiy1981 @Vrubel Respectfully - yes Israel did win the war. No one needs to dispute that or that Jews as a group have contributed to their own nation and globally. Rational people aren't disputing Israel's right to exist or defend itself; the concern lies in the current state of its existence and its conduct in defense. Theirs no issue in the legitimacy of its existence but in how it currently exists at the expense of another group (local inhabitants). The problem is not the cause for its existence but the manner in which it conducts itself in pursuit of that cause. Similarly, it's not the Palestinian cause (for self determination) itself that is unjust, but rather the methods employed in advancing that cause ie October 7th Another concern lies in the underlying purpose behind a defensive war and the weaponization of a opportunistic moment to sneak in a more malevolent agenda - transferring Palestinians off their land ( if the term ethnic cleansing is too inflammatory ). There exists another perspective in favour of what is in Israel's (and the Palestinians) best interest as the current path is only in the favour of a few who send others to die in order to save their own skin - politically and physically. Unfortunately the propaganda apparatus of vested interests have done a great job to block any other perspectives including the eyes of Israeli society which are reflexively bloodshot with ruthlessness vengeance - not enough to whole sale kill all Gazans, but enough to not care about not killing them indirectly.

I followed your link which seems to be your x profile - if so why post things like below. You think your supporting Israel but your only discrediting them even more by association to your genocidal memes and rhetoric. You corrupt the cause in how you conduct yourself in pursuit of that cause.

Could be the voices of their own allies getting louder in condemnation and the genocide case next week that South Africa has filed which is a stain on their reputation. Also the ample proof of self incriminating intent on display by Israeli leadership who speak candidly/arrogantly and the tik tok army who make a mockery of the devastation this war is causing - self owning themselves via a Chinese app in a Middle Eastern conflict facilitated by US arm shipments - ahh globalisation. October 7th obviously rattled Israel's psychological god complex and sense of superiority including their tech/spyware/arms industry which relies on a certain level of confidence. ''The Palestinians are human laboratory rats to the Israeli military, intelligence services and arms and technology industries. Israel’s drones, surveillance technology — including spyware, facial recognition software and biometric gathering infrastructure — along with smart fences, experimental bombs and AI-controlled machine guns, are tried out on the captive population in Gaza, often with lethal results. These weapons and technologies are then certified as “battle tested” and sold around the world.'' - Chris Hedges The reason this conflict and this thread has been popular is because of what's at stake and partial familiarity to the situation. The region its in, the players involved, the religious-colonial-racist undertones familiar to large parts of the world which are now relics of the past, and what the second order effects and ripples of this region destabilising have on a global level. If things escalate - we could be looking at global inflation through energy prices sky rocketing via oil fields being targeted and sea transit lane disruptions causing supply chain shocks - not to mention the high death toll - all this underpins the global economy which is already limping from covid with increasing inequality and all during a election year of Israels main imperial backer the US.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/france-germany-slam-far-right-ministers-calls-for-voluntary-emigration-of-gazans/amp/ French FM: “We condemn the statements of Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, which call for the emigration of Gaza residents. The Israeli government does not have the right to decide where the Palestinians should live on their land.” German FM: “We reject in the strongest terms the unhelpful statements of Israeli government ministers regarding the displacement of the population of Gaza. The Palestinians should not be expelled from Gaza, nor should the area of the Strip be reduced.” @Danioover9000 Interesting clip to analyse the body language for. Regarding the Beirut assassination .

Excuse the propagandic captions, titles and links but sometimes pictures say more than words. Interesting short video : ‘But Hamas started the war on October 7th’ - meanwhile it was the deadliest year before October 7th for Palestinians in West Bank with increasing settlement expansion, restraints and no justice for settler thuggish behaviour. Why can they get away with this? IDF state backed complicity. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges wrote in “A Gaza Diary” on how he had been in war zones and witnessed atrocities before but never seen soldiers barking out obscene insults to lure Palestinian children within range of their gun sights to sport shoot at for fun which he witnessed several times. Get why the world is condemning the Israeli state now? Critique and anger isn’t directed at normal Israeli’s necessarily nor is it anti-Semitic. It’s the actions of the state and the domestic propaganda that normalises such things.