zazen

Yeah, thinking that Israel is no longer going to exist is just as dangerous, delusion and unethical from the present moment of today as is the version of Zionism that dehumanises, denies and destroys Palestinian life and statehood. It’s pretty disgusting seeing some of the comments from more pro-Palestinian social media of how Iran shouldn’t have stopped last night and go for another round etc. Revelling in revenge.

Good thing I noted it as apparent news and not confirmed. Saw that in a few places on twitter, MSN news and Military Watch Magazine - claimed by Iran and probably circulated. They hit Nevatim air base where they house F 35's, so that must be the reason behind the claims - but Israel could have moved them out of sight. Not much media coming out of Israel regarding last night, possibly a black out or restriction on sharing any images/videos..All eyes instead on the North at the Lebanon border from this morning where their are IDF casualties. Can't believe Sky News let him on and speak that long

Last time Iran responded in April (to the consulate attack in Syria killing members of the IRGC) they gave advance notice and sent their less capable missiles and drones so that the West had enough time to intercept them. They just needed to put on a show to save face and not escalate the situation by not killing anyone - they still targeted a installation to show their capability of precision and ability to penetrate the iron dome. This was to demonstrate, not to annihilate. Likewise, no casualties have been reported so far in this retaliation. For this response they gave no such warning and used much more capable munitions to send a message. They penetrated the Iron Dome and struck various bases including Nevatim air base which is where Israel receives US bombs that are taking countless lives - and where apparently 20 F-35 jets have been destroyed. This is a response to escalatory actions from Israel. Israel rains down bombs, launches assassinations, threatens incursions into Lebanon, spills actual blood on foreign soil - and when Iran dares to flex its capabilities without shedding blood or wounding anyone, suddenly their the ones who are the aggressors - primitive, savage bloodthirsty people from backward cultures. This restraint is twisted by the media machine as defeat and weakness and lauded as a show of Western supremacy and strength. Besides a decades long occupation and what we have seen in one year in Gaza, in just the two previous weeks of a new front in Lebanon the following occurred: ''More than 1,000 people have been killed and about 6,000 wounded as a result of Israeli strikes, Lebanon’s Health Ministry has said. And about 1 million Lebanese people have been displaced'' - Al Jazeera. The Wests collective supremacist ego that demands global dominance won't let them just cool their jets and come to the negotiating table, instead their now salivating over this as a golden opportunity to 'change the face of the Middle East forever' and rid it of 'terrorists'. Talks of attacking Iran nuclear sites, punishing Iran and even attacking oil facilities - as if none of these will throw the region, if not the world into a tail spin of hyper inflation, chaos and bloodshed. Former Israeli PM Naftali Bennet's tweet: ''Israel has now its greatest opportunity in 50 years, to change the face of the Middle East. The leadership of Iran, which used to be good at chess, made a terrible mistake this evening. We must act *now* to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, its central energy facilities, and to fatally cripple this terrorist regime.''

The world should step in to pressure the US to stop facilitating Israel to the extent it is. When the child is being unruly, it’s the parent that other parents in the room go to. In this case America has given Israel a free pass to do as they please for far too long. When they call on Israel to de-escalate, ceasefire and clean up their conduct and then go on to send billions despite Israel never listening - that becomes an unhealthy habit of behaviour that becomes a moral hazard for Israel itself. Some amongst the US elite even wish to use Israel as a Middle Eastern political battering ram, to see Israel escalate against Iran but who will bear none of the costs or pay the blood price for their neocon fantasies. If America didn’t unconditionally back Israel, Israel wouldn’t do what it’s doing and we wouldn’t be where we are. https://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1841135520715342013?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

@Nivsch Hope you and your loved ones are safe. Hopefully this wakes up the international community to step in and de-escalate the situation. If Israel responds (which is likely) this will get worse.

Westerners celebrate the idea that their relatively peaceful and stable societies are the result of democracy and human rights. Western countries aren't only more peaceful and prosperous due to democracy (or the perception of it) but due to anti-democratic practices abroad. The prosperity and peace they enjoy within their borders is underpinned by maintaining a inherently anti-democratic, hegemonic order beyond their borders. The West speaks of principles but acts with power, to them power is the principle though they speak in opposing terms. The attitude is that peace and prosperity is attained through the existence of or imposition of power - even if it delays justice and prolongs current injustice. Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum - If You Want Peace, Prepare For War. The existence of power acts as a deterrence, which brings about peace so long as that power isn't abused or challenged. Justice before peace is how we hope the world could work, grounded in law and principles (Sachs). The imposition of peace by positions of power is grounded in power dynamics and pragmatism and often how the world does work (Mearsheimer). The world works on a spectrum between the two - between power and principle. We dance between the aspirational values our society claims to cherish but that our political class and state fails to embody - and who often default to what is already embodied in our base human nature which is raw power and survival. This causes a collective cognitive dissonance and a visible hypocrisy. It's this hypocrisy of calling oneself civilised whilst the other barbaric and primitive that rubs a lot of the Global South the wrong way. The hypocrite stands on a pedestal of their own making, pontificating about virtues they fail to embody and casting others as evil, for sins they themselves commit and attempt to conceal through propaganda and linguistic gymnastics. This lack of integrity, and gap between actions and words or between rhetoric and reality is what erodes the trust needed in a multipolar world. This is why the world is bifurcating between the East and West, and parallel systems (BRICS) are being built which the West now bemoans. The next decades will be heavily predicated along these lines.

The whole paradigm of containment is problematic. The US only seeks to develop the world up to the point they can benefit from, but not to the point it challenges their hegemony. China, Russia and co go to war out of necessity, the West goes to war looking for the next one... and even its utmost prominent analyst Mearsheimer who claims to be a scholar of realpolitik, can't come to terms with the reality that China's growth poses no existential threat that needs containing, but rather engaging with.

Ending occupation and granting Palestinians sovereignty can be viewed as much more necessary than another war that could go regional. Not saying simply giving them sovereignty is easy (logistically) but its simply the cause of a lot of the problem.

Often I write, as I think others do too, from the lens of international politics and justice (idealist - Sachs) because thats the cultural marinade of liberalism we're all swimming in. It's the liberal order we're trying to (and told to) build. It defers to justice before peace, rather than the game of power politics human nature finds it far too easy to default to (realist - Mearshimer). We created psycho-political frameworks of laws and institutions so that we don't have to use the might makes right way of doing things which is often bloody and brutal. We went from managing our societies through raw physicality to refined psychology - doesn't the notion of us being civilised rest upon this shift? From raw to refined, from physical brawn to the psychological use of our brains to affect change and peacefully transfer positions of power.

You've acknowledged injustice taking place in that statement. Its morally inconsistent to decry human right abuses in one part of the world while ignoring the ones your own country is enabling and that you actually have a part in stopping. The West/US just backs, facilitates and funds Israel which as you've highlighted is oppressing Palestinians. Its outrageous to back a country that lacks the respect it does for its backers and perpetuates injustice. How many times has the West/US called for de-escalation or a change in conduct only to not be listened to and have the opposite be done in the name of your own values (Western). This is why the West has lost respect in a lot of the worlds eyes, as if it already hadn't done so before. Because while they publicly oppose violence and Israel's conduct, they facilitate it, and in the case of the US most likely green light it in private. It's highly unlikely Israel is tactically assassinating enemies in other sovereign countries, and dropping 80 2000 pound US made bunker buster bombs (in Beirut) without US approval. Not only does Israel deny sovereignty to Palestinians, it infringed upon other sovereign nations with impunity. Either way, the West are complicit and Israel's actions are also viewed by many as Western actions, particularly American. This is why a lot of world view the West as not having changed in some fundamental aspects, namely the supremacist entitled attitude it has for groups or regions other than itself. We haven't evolved beyond violence, only in our methods and means of committing it. Having netflix and pride parades doesn't make one 'civilized'. Don't mistake cosmetic change for character change or a shift in consciousness. Don't mistake vertical development in the material world for horizontal development in the spiritual.

That’s why I said perceived threat, whether they are or not - Israel can be perceived that way due to their history of having occupied that part of Lebanon for 18 years. The 2006 war is still fairly recent enough to be used to fuel this perception. Also, there are daily airspace violations by Israel breaching Lebanons airspace and sovereignty. The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the Lebanese government have repeatedly reported these violations but nothing is enforced or changes. And these incursions go into the hundreds annually which contribute to the perception of a potential threat. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/09/huge-scale-and-impact-of-israeli-incursions-over-lebanon-skies-revealed-research-overflights

My bad, I can’t read Hebrew and trusted the post. What does it state? Whatever it may be, the point is that though a tactical win can be celebrated to boost morale it shouldn’t be viewed as a decisive blow and the beginning of a peaceful Middle East that Israel heroically ushered in. That’s just some of the sentiment I’ve seen online ie Jared Kushner's tweet. It is definetely symbolic and a huge hit on Hezbollah, including the aura they’ve built around being ahead in counter-intelligence. Thing is, Hezbollah isn’t just a militia anymore but an institution embedded within Lebanons politics and society. It’s evolved beyond its origins as they’ve pledged to be defenders of the Shia community in Lebanon which makes up almost a third of its population and who predominate in the South. As long as Shias in Lebanon exist, they’ll exist, and have a mechanism to continuously renew their ranks in the face of a perceived threat from Israel. If Israel thinks the moment is ripe off the back of this to invade Lebanon or start attacking it the way they have Gaza - I’m not sure how that will turn out. Hezbollah have thousands of miles of tunnels and it will be a game of guerrilla warfare in their favour. In almost a year Hamas are still operating in Gaza with limited communication, supply chains etc. On top of that, Israel will have to deal with the global backlash and made to look like the aggressors yet again just as with Gaza. Maybe this was the strategy of Hezbollah, to tarnish Israel’s image and lure them into the den.

This is Israel’s response to the West literally calling for a 21 day ceasefire proposal to de-escalate and off the back of receiving another 8 billion USD from the US. Almost a year on from October 7th and the West has completely facilitated Israel to where it is now - which doesn’t seem any safer. They mistake their “enemy” to be a snake they can strike in one blow, when it’s a hydra. As if decapitating hydras has ever been effective strategy - it only represents a tactical win that gives a false sense of hope.

So occupation is now called restriction? Yes, violence from both sides is fuelling a cycle of retaliation that you call the chicken and the egg problem. But it misses the wider point if you zoom out enough to see the occupation of a people by another as the fundamental driver of the violence. This is more like a wolf sheep problem where the wolf (Israel) is a wolf dressed up in sheep’s clothing to look innocent. Since when did defense mean going towards the aggressor? If someone throws a punch at you, you raise your arms in defense - you don’t move deeper towards the aggressor. Israel just uses this ‘defense’ label to justify taking more control and land.

From Caitlin Johnstone: “It's obviously false to say the US seeks peace in the middle east, but it's not really accurate to say it seeks war either. To me that's like saying water seeks wetness or fire seeks heat; war is just what the US empire is made of. It's the thing that it is. Everything about the US-centralized power structure is pointed at continuous military expansionism and mass military violence. Once you've decided that it's your job to try to bring the entire population of your whole planet under the rule of a single power umbrella at any cost, you've accepted that you will be using violent force in perpetuity, because that's the only way to subdue populations who have no interest in such an arrangement. You might tell yourself that you want peace, and at times you might even actively try to avoid war, but everything about the way you've arranged your operation makes war inevitable. This is the kind of environment that western empire managers spend their careers being groomed into accepting as normal. So they might actually believe they are telling the truth when they say their government wants peace, but this is the same as a fire saying it's doing everything it can to cool down the firewood. It is the fire's nature to burn, and it is the US empire's nature to make war. War is interwoven into every fiber of its existence. It's written into every part of its code. As soon as the mass-scale use of violence ends, the globe-spanning power structure that's loosely centralized around Washington will end. War is the glue that holds that power structure together. Both the mainstream "progressivism" of Bernie Sanders and the right wing "populism" of Donald Trump try in their own ways to argue for a kinder, gentler empire which avoids unnecessary conflicts and abuses, but these arguments are deceptions in and of themselves, because the empire is made of conflict and abuse. The less war, militarism, economic strangulation and proxy interventionism there is, the less US empire there is. The empire can't roll back its violence any more than a shark can swim backwards. The only way to end the forward movement of a shark is to end its life. The wars will not end until the US empire itself ends. This doesn't mean ending the US as a country, it means ending the globe-spanning power structure comprised of allies, assets and subjects that's held together by endless violence. Every foreign policy official in Washington, London, Paris and Canberra has been groomed to view this as the worst possible outcome and to avoid it at all cost, and to spend their careers fiendishly dedicated to the project of ensuring that the fire keeps burning and the shark keeps moving forward. Only ordinary members of the public with normal healthy human values will ever be able to see this. The problem isn't that western officials keep making bad individual decisions at each individual juncture in foreign conflicts of interest, the problem is that the existence of the western empire guarantees foreign conflicts of interest, and ensures that violent force will be used to control their outcomes. Those who support the US empire will occasionally look back on history and acknowledge that in hindsight there were some bad individual decisions made with regard to Vietnam or Iraq or wherever, but they'll never admit there is an innately murderous structure in place that guarantees Vietnams and Iraqs will continue to happen in the future. But that is the reality, and you'll never hear it acknowledged in the state propaganda services known as the mainstream western press. Our rulers are too far absorbed into the imperial machine to recognize this as true, so you will reliably hear them babbling about seeking peace and avoiding civilian suffering — even as they take steps ensuring that peace will not happen and civilians continue to suffer. These are the only moves they can see on the chessboard. The options that would lead to real peace are not even recognized as legal moves in the game. So they keep moving the pieces around in accordance with the rules of empire, and saying "Oh how sad" when families are incinerated and children are ripped to shreds, but saying that it was the only move available on the board. Our world is on fire, and the US-centralized empire is the flame. We ordinary people must find some way to extinguish it, before it torches us all.”

@Raze OP specifically mentioned they’re taught to hate Jews as a whole and not just Israeli’s - so they’d rebuttal your links with that. @Revolutionary Think It’s not about excusing extremism on either side but understanding the conditions that give birth to it. If black South Africans had developed deep-seated resentment or even racism toward white people during apartheid, would we be asking why they felt that way, or would we be focusing on the structural violence and oppression that made such feelings inevitable? The point isn’t to turn a blind eye to any form of hatred, but to interrogate the conditions that cause it. Extremism doesn’t arise in a vacuum - it’s the predictable outcome of generations of oppression, dehumanization, and violence. The situation in Israel and Palestine is also asymmetrical which will result in asymmetrical bias if looked at with clarity. Yes, extremism exists on both sides, but the power dynamics are not the same. The Palestinians are an occupied people, living under a military regime that controls every aspect of their lives. To act like it’s just about two sides with equal power hating each other is to ignore the brutal reality of that occupation. It’s like pointing to black South Africans during apartheid and saying, “Well, they’re being taught to hate white people,” while completely overlooking the racist state apparatus crushing them daily. People call for balanced takes on situations when the reality on the ground isn’t balanced - it’s the slow-motion destruction of a people under occupation, while the world watches and debates “both sides.” It’s about recognizing who’s carrying the heaviest burden in this conflict, and asking what we can do to unburden them - not just in coverage but in terms of the systems that are actively driving extremism on both sides. Just like in apartheid South Africa, the goal isn’t to justify the hatred, but to dismantle the system of violence that fuels it. We can graduate from tribalism to diplomatic, balanced, both sideism - but I've seen, including in myself that this can become a easy out and a way to pretend to be nuanced (because we see both sides) when we aren't nuaned enough to conclude what side is more wronged. Seeing both sides is the first step, but then its concluding which side is the more aggrieved in a situation that needs to happen - which takes more work. Just because we don't devolve into tribalistic bashing of one side, doesn't mean we have clarity on asymmetries when they actually exist and can see them.

A video on shifting blame onto the Jews for every conceivable problem:

Interesting video: A lot of Americans like to hail the constitution as an inked embodiment of their progress - they assume a purity of purpose that never existed in the founding of that document. The initial Constitution didn’t extend voting rights to non-whites, women or non-landowners - it was for white male landowners (the wealthy elite). As voting rights expanded, the value of voting contracted as elites consolidated and entrenched themselves in the state apparatus, what often gets called ‘the establishment’ or ‘deep state’. That’s why critics of democracy including Westerners themselves feel disillusioned and often say democracy is more an illusion than a reality - because special interests (elites) still control things just as before. As Leo said, ideals take time to materialise. I’ll add that vested interested also use those ideals as a cloak of rhetoric to cover up underlying power dynamics, where that power actually lies and who it serves. Similarly, the idea or ideal of a chosen people gave moral cover to European settlers in the new Americas and set the tone for justifying their “manifest density” - that they are divinely ordained to expand and claim land. This is where Israel and America are similar, except that America has fulfilled its manifestation (domestically) and Israel hasn’t - though this same attitude still causes America to seek and maintain global hegemony which is why critics claim America or ‘the West’ hasn’t evolved from its colonial days. Early European settlers were heavily influenced by the Bible as it was the most widely read book at that time. This is why in America places have Biblically referenced names like Salem, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron and Zion. Thomas Jefferson who is considered a man of Enlightenment said the following: “The acquisition of the country from the Indians is to be carried on by the extension of our settlements..by driving them back within narrower limits.” Sounds similar to what’s coming out of Israel today.

I’m sure this guy is wrong on some aspects, but interesting listen nonetheless.

A big issue in conflicts is when both groups judge their own side by their best, while being ignorant of their worst. It’s one thing to ignore the worst parts of your society, it’s another to acknowledge them. But it’s a whole other to actually justify, defend and protest the most depraved aspects of your society - even if those who do so are few in number. The fact that they feel emboldened enough to be able to do so indicates the Overton shift towards radicalism. The table of world opinion has turned so swiftly that we have influencers heads in America (Israel’s greatest ally) discussing their support for Israel and the history of their relationship. Who would’ve thought:

Alice Weidel has called for Ukraine to compensate Germany for the damage caused to its economy as a result of the attack: “The economic damage to our country caused by the demolition of Nord Stream presumably ordered by Zelensky - and not Putin as we were led to believe - should be "billed" to Ukraine.”

A similar phenomena is happening on youtube where every next podcast title is filled with 'doomsday, civil war, collapse' rhetoric and a shocked face as a thumbnail - nauseatingly cheesy. Perverse incentives. You see the same podcasts and guests being recycled between each others shows discussing the same plight of the West and the world. Not that what they are saying isn't valid, or partially so - just that the circle jerking over it to profit of off clicks and ads is so boring and played out. It's like, why not have a convention where all these guys come together to discuss and brain storm solutions. But obviously that wouldn't result in the numerous videos, clicks and pay outs each youtuber would receive.

The same reaction from women to men happens when they see the discourse among red pill Youtubers and respond with 'not all women' to add nuance to the discussion. Saying not all women or not all men is simply a plea for individuality - that neither side should be judged as a collective but more as individuals. Both sides will see this as deflection, rather than a correction. Both sides will go about legitimate grievances in illegitimate ways. Both sides will universalise their experience of the bad apples amongst the other gender. The accusation that this phrase (or not all women) derails, is itself a derailment. It suggests that any defense or clarification is an attack on the conversation's integrity. I think it can become a derailment when the grievances aren't being listened to, and anything that hurts the ego of the opposite gender gets responded to with such a phrase. It's like, Okay, we know not all men or women, but we're discussing the men and women who do act out badly. The phrase 'believe all women' while well-intentioned, has morphed into a presumption of guilt for men, where they are presumed guilty until proven innocent - often without any evidence to back up the claims being made. This is where men speak out against the incentives in place to use false accusations.

@BlueOak Good summary. Their size is definitely their achilles heel, its one thing to have a large land mass with a large population to defend it - its another to have a large land mass and extensive border with a small and dwindling population that will struggle to defend it. Definitely a embarrassment for Putin and Russia, something Western media are revelling in though the glory may only be lived in the short term. The economic incentives are heavily in favour of US industry. It seems they want to throw Zelensky under the bus now that they see no real way out of this mess. They want it to come to a end whilst saving face, hence Germany cutting aid in half just last month. US has its own domestic issues to deal with and wants to re-orient to China as the next boogeyman.