zazen

Their was actually a defensive logic to it which makes it totally understandable. This is where a proper threat assessment has to be made. Usually the threat is entirely exaggerated (Iraqs case was fabricated) which is where the devilry comes. Nothing is as black and white or absolute. The abstractness of ''laws'' will never negate the reality of survival - that will be acted upon regardless of those laws making those actions ''illegal''.

Because the US is the global hegemon and holds a dominant position in the current system. Digging a little deeper: both invasions are bad, but one is based on fabricated lies of a threat (Iraq), the other is based on at least some level of perceived threat (Ukraine) - the severity of which is obviously debated. One is lies to justify imperial domination for gain, the other actually has some tangible facts on the ground indicating a threat - allowing us to understand the act was preemptively done for preservation (national security) rather than purely for gain. One has a empire logic to it, the other has as least some survival logic to it. The argument of whether Ukraine is a threat or not is debated, but no serious person can say no threat at all existed. When we say Urkaine we don't mean Ukraine itself but a global superpower trojan horsing its aims through Ukraine. This is a country that neighbors you, that is used by a rival power bloc (US-West) you have had a historic Cold war with, who have think tank pieces talking of containing and overextending you, that have a track record of naughty behaviour their entire existence, that's ignored your red lines and security concerns or calls for a security architecture to be established post soviet era, that's increasing its military interoperability in a region that has been a historic invasion corridor, that Western strategists themselves have warned against - all this is apparently no threat at all. This threat was explicitly talked about, warned about, and eventually responded to in the final straw that broke the camel's back. The non-Western world didn’t endorse Russia’s invasion, but it understood it - because it followed a logic familiar to any nation that’s ever had to navigate security, encirclement, or survival. By contrast, the US invasion of Iraq was built on outright fabrication and had no logical foundation to understand it. Both were condemned and escalatory - but only one could at least be understood on some basis of security. Iraq poses no security threat to a superpower entire oceans away on a different continent - compared to Russia's proximate threat on its border, however illegal, brutal and morally wrong it was for them to invade. Russia annexing land is secondary and incidental to their primary aim of neutralizing the threat. US obviously can't annex land it doesn't border - that doesn't mean it can't annex its resources and plunder it imperially. The key word here is lies - and an actual threat assessment being made rather than fabricated upon those lies. It's just as bad as Israel exaggerating its threat assessment of Hamas posing a existential threat to them - when they simply put their guard down, or as some have speculated stood down to allow the attack to continue and use it for their ethnic cleansing aims. The most militarized and surveilled place on earth (Gaza), by a regional power backed by a global superpower - against a non-military stateless group of people besieged - is somehow a ''existential'' threat. Get the fuck out lol

@Breakingthewall But then how do you explain the entire anti-colonial struggle? Were they stupid to do that? Your basically a imperial boot licker and pro-colonialism. Let's say people don't care for sovereignty and would trade some for development and glory - ok fine. But if I accept that false premise - what development were the Jews bringing at THAT time? It's not like it was the British Empire saying we're going to build a state so you can enjoy our glory - it was a persecuted, powerless and stateless people. The only lesson Western Europeans taught in fact was that these same people were trouble makers which is the reason for their persecution. It's like me saying your stupid for not investing in Bitcoin in its early days. Your hindsight logic to justify something unjust falls flat on its face. According to you - Palestinians should have accepted partition because of development that didn't exist yet, based on evidence they didn't have, from refugees of a people Europe had just tried to exterminate for causing trouble in their own lands (anti-Semitic nonsense) but that they somehow wouldn't in Palestinians? You need a siesta to gain some clarity and think through your arguments - maybe this afternoon. Thick taco you are lol I still love you though.

@Breakingthewall So people are mentally ill and retarded for resisting displacement or loss of control? You’re using wordplay to deflect from the main issue - by saying they’d still be on the land even if it’s just within a Jewish state. Well, any remaining Ukrainians will still be in the Donbass after Russia has annexed it from Ukraine - so it’s cool? It’s like me saying you no longer own your house and are now a tenant who rents it - but technically your still in the house so its fine? Note - you’re IN the house, it’s not YOUR house anymore. But don’t worry - I’m a great landlord and won’t hike your rent too much papi. You said you’d blow a superior people to benefit from their development. Would you whore yourself out to be under Alien rule with their superior development? Humans have a soul and certain dignity to themselves not tied simply to the material world. Majority of humans have fought for self-determination regardless of the “other” who may determine the outcome of their lives better - hence the entire anti-colonial struggle. Your framework just sells your soul to the highest bidder. When the Chinese are ahead of the West in the next decades invite them to rule you and suck them off too as you’ve said you’ll do.

And your telling me not to humiliate myself? Haha.

@Breakingthewall So you would voluntarily let yourself become a minority in your own land? If you lived in Barcelona as a Spaniard, and it became a majority Catalonian ethno state - it’s okay because technically your still physically there and not expelled, your just sharing the land? You’ll say but we all have equal rights. But being a minority with “equal rights” means you have rights until the majority decides you don’t. A state governed by Catalonians for Catalonians is fundamentally different from a state governed by Spaniards for Spaniards. The world was de-colonising at the time. The principle was “you were colonized before, so now you get full self-determination”. Not “you were colonized before, so you should be grateful for partial self-determination while recent immigrants get the majority of your homeland.” You’ve said before that Palestinians would be better off under Jews and that they’ve always lived under someone else’s rule so are used to it. By your own stupid logic - the Jews haven’t had a state so should be used to living stateless and shouldn’t attempt creating one of their own. Spaniards never governed themselves in modern history as they’ve been conquered by Romans, Visigoth’s and Moors - so when the Moors leave, Spaniards should be grateful to get 45% of Spain while recent Catalonian immigrants get 55% including beautiful Barcelona. You got some crazy bigoted views on Muslims. And lack the nuance to even understand what’s being discussed.

In hindsight they would have kept way more of their land if they accepted partition - compared to any of the later proposals. After 1967 they've had to concede to only having 22% of their original homeland compared to 45% in the original partition. Even on that 22% settlements keep on increasing and yet - Palestinians are told their the ones who are being to greedy with what they want, such gaslighting. But what needs to be understood is that at the time of partition it was essentially legalized theft and viewed as such - they were bound to resist and reject the imposed deal as mostly anyone would have. If someone had something precious to them stolen from them decades ago and they fought the thief - I can't really say ''you should have just given it away as maybe you would have had both eyes today instead of losing one in a fight''. As your from Spain - just imagine the scenario like this: Imagine Catalonians fled Catalonia 1000 years ago and were spread throughout Europe - only 10% of the population of Spain were Catalonian throughout the ages. They were then persecuted over the centuries in Europe and the superpower of the day (the US) decided enough is enough - lets facilitate Catalonians going back to Catalonia to establish a homeland for their security. Within 20-30 years a influx of Catalonians migrate to Spain increasing the percentage of the population from 10% to 30% and buying up land which amounted to owning 10% of the land of Spain in the end. Then, the USA tells Spain that their going to have to divide up Spain to make a state for the Catalonians. The partition plan would be imposed on Spain (not proposed or even consulted on) . It would give away 55% of Spain to the Catalonians, including some of the most fertile and industrialised land, the biggest ports and one of the nicest cities (Barcelona). You have no say in this and it is decided by daddy USA. What are you and your hombres doing about it? Another scenario - image you have two houses and live next door to your parents. A far distant uncle gets into bad business with the wrong guys and loses everything. A mutual family member tells you you must move out of your house and back into your parents and give up your house to this uncle you and your parents have barely any connection to except this mutual family friend - will you happily give it up to help out? Why not - he's your family after all? My point is - no one just willingly gives up their home. It wouldn't matter whether this distant uncle is a different religion to you or a liberal or conservative etc your the same blood yet you'd naturally feel hesitant for being forced to give up your house. I used the actual Israel / Palestine numbers for the Catalan example but to be accurate - today Catalonians are 16% of the Spanish population and owns only 6% of the land. They've been flirting with secession also. If the US or EU just forced Spain to give up 50% of Spain to this 16% Catalonian population who only own 6% of Spanish land legally - do you think the Spanish would just sit there and accept it? Speaking of US imposing certain situations on Spain: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-floats-dropping-spain-nato-alliance-2025-10-09/ Trump thinks Spain should be thrown out of NATO because their not keeping up with spending commitments. Imagine US just unilaterally does that. What you gonna do about that papi?

Brilliant analysis!!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqx7ygq41o - ''Notably, no details surround the disarmament of Hamas - a key point in Trump's plan. Hamas has previously refused to lay down its weapons, saying it would only do so when a Palestinian state had been established.'' Only phase 1 in a multi-phase process that could be de-railed or difficult to implement in later stages - it's still early but a welcome end to the killing. Historically every peace attempt between Israel and the Palestinians has been vulnerable to sabotage - all it took was a extremist spoiler on either side and a single attack would erase years of diplomacy as each side would then use that as a excuse to upend the entire process. But the past also isn't bound to repeat because context changes - the actors involved, the power dynamics between them and the leverage each has over the other. Past deals collapsed and couldn't be pushed through because they depended on fragile trust between enemies. Today's deals might endure because they depend on shared profit among elites - their are larger stakeholders involved who have skin in the game and incentive to push till the end - perhaps even despite hiccups and roadblocks. The actors today include include Gulf wealth, global finance, and transnational capital - not just politicians or ideologues. Those actors have leverage and long term interest in regional stability they can profit from - they can underwrite and enforce deals through investment rather than just promises. There's a reason Jared Kushner is at the fore front of all of this - he's deeply tied with Saudi capital which has leverage to shape outcomes. This is all part of a bigger picture of the world order shifting and new centers of power emerging that can challenge, hedge against, and co-opt the old uni-polar order in which the West reigned supreme in and could uni-laterally call the shots in. No longer - insha'Allah. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/witkoff-and-kushner-wont-leave-egypt-without-a-deal-us-official-vows/ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-witkoff-kushner-israel-hamas-talks.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/10/07/the-double-life-of-jared-kushner-mixing-business-with-politics-as-emissary-for-his-father-in-law-donald-trump_6746194_19.html

That's true - I'm not disputing that. The Arabs in the Israeli state would enjoy in the development (even if unequal) in fact my father in-law himself has and done very well with Jewish business partners so I have first hand proof of this. But the point being missed is that majority of the Palestinians on the land wouldn't be in that Israeli state to enjoy that development because the whole point was to have a Jewish majority state. Even if Palestinians had capitulated completely and said “rule us, just let us live with you so we can benefit from your development” the Zionist movement wouldn't accept it without undermining its core principle of maintaining Jewish majority and control. If Israel settled the entirety of the land the population breakdown would be almost at parity 50/50 Jewish/Palestinian - which under a single state with equal rights defeats the point of a Jewish majority state. Eventually that population of Palestinians would have a tug of war for political and economic power if there was major inequalities. In 2018 Israel passed a law where ''Legislation stipulates only Jews have right of self-determination in the country'' '“We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides. An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come..” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law Also - a demographic majority isn’t the only way to maintain dominance - it can also be done through structural, economic, and institutional mechanisms regardless of there being equal rights. One example is land ownership and zoning. ''Over 90% of land in Israel is owned or controlled by the state or quasi-state Zionist institutions (like the Jewish National Fund and Israel Land Authority). By law or policy, much of this land is leased to Jews only. Even if Palestinians had full citizenship, that control structure could keep most land effectively inaccessible to them.''

The UN resolution in 1947 was imposed by a colonial era UN, not proposed by a more balanced UN in 1967 which had a Arab bloc representing the Palestinian cause - thus giving it more global legitimacy which is why it formed the basis for all future peace talks and solutions. Also - the population was 33% Jewish and 10% of land was legally owned through preceeding Zionist land purchases : how does that line up with 55% being proportionate based on population or even land ownership? This is why it feels like day light robbery made legal through colonial power. Obviously violence isn’t good or condoned - but this understands where their coming from. Person A deciding how much of person Bs house person C can have. Person B gonna be pissed. I wrote in the other thread: The reason it was seen as unjust (partition) was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence. Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given 55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports. Also the issue remains not just of how much but what kind of land. From AI: The Arab state had no secure or direct links between its three regions. Its sections were separated by Jewish-controlled corridors, meaning movement between them required crossing another sovereign state. It had no central port and limited arable land. So while both maps looked patchy on paper, the difference is that Israel’s map was designed to work, while the Arab one wasn’t. Israel’s side was given: The fertile coast, Ports and infrastructure, Defensible borders, And connected internal routes. The Arab side was given: Fragmented enclaves, Sparse infrastructure, Economic dependency, And disconnected borders. In essence, both were divided — but only one was viable as a state.

Agreed. Thing is it’s usually the one with the power who has the ability to make change - yet they aren’t incentivised to change the status quo because it serves them. Past occupations ended when the cost became too high to maintain. That cost has been absorbed and insulated due to the global hegemon the US shielding and supporting Israel. But now global opinion has shifted hard and the diplomatic, economic and human cost seems to be a burden that’s mounting. Israel obviously has the added complexity of needing to share a small piece of land together (one state) or bordering eachother (two state) - with the same people they have a great deal of animosity between. The trust aspect is going to need to be compensated for by third parties, peacekeeping efforts, a mutual security architecture, integrating Palestine into the regional economy so they have something to lose etc. It has to be done in phases and also exclude Hamas from governance - which I remember they said they’d be willing to step down if it was for a Palestinian state. The fault part is only relevant in the context of recognising who has the power to change the situation but isn’t. Israel can end the occupation, Palestinians can’t end their own occupation - as that’s what being occupied means. They can only try make the occupation costly (uprisings, violence) but that becomes suicidal due the asymmetry in power that will be visited upon them as we have just witnessed. Hope for the best - I think this current deal may actually get an exchange of hostages and a break in fighting but implementation of next steps will stall for various logistical issues and fighting may continue. Hamas for example won’t dis-arm without promises of a Palestinian state - but that hasn’t been explicitly laid out in this proposal as far as I know.

But the Zionist project didn’t want to include them within their “colony” to enjoy that development and wealth. It was to have a majority Jewish state which is why they needed to drive out as many Arabs as possible to make it viable. It wasn’t only about geography but demography. Are you starting to see the situation differently now with all the context? Raze has provided plenty of it as well. I see you keep going further back in history now till 1920. I’d suggest to continue to before Zionism and ask AI about how Muslims / Jews lived in the region. Could scramble your view of the “evil Muslim”.

If someone comes to burgle my house multiple times, and each time I attack them - did I always start the violence? Yeah. But of course I did because I’m the one who somethings being taken from. Showing up with the stated aim of creating a Jewish majority state in a place where 94% of the population is Arab is…kinda provocative no? Such a thing would have violence as a reaction baked into it. The Arabs may always attacked first but the conflict started with the introduction of the Zionist project with its stated aims fully facilitated by a colonial power. There’s a difference between a organic amount of immigration where those coming are settling in along side you vs in-organic mass migration with those coming in along with a colonial power with the aim of displacing you to create their own state ie settler colonialism. “The Arabs always started the violence.” Sure - just like Native Americans “started the violence” by resisting their own genocide. Just like Algerians “started the violence” against the French who only wanted to peacefully colonize them for 130 years. Just like the slaves “started the violence” by running away from plantations. AI 1. The first outbreaks (1919–1921) After World War I, Britain took control of Palestine under the Mandate system. The Balfour Declaration (1917) had promised a “national home for the Jewish people,” while also promising not to harm the rights of the existing inhabitants — but it never defined what that meant in practice. Between 1919–1921, Jewish immigration rose sharply, financed and organized by Zionist agencies. Land purchases followed, and some Arab tenant farmers were evicted when estates changed hands. The local Arab population saw an obvious pattern: a European colonial power was backing a settler movement that spoke openly of creating a separate national homeland on their soil. The first major riots came in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921) — both sparked by rumors that new Jewish arrivals and Zionist parades signaled an imminent takeover. Several dozen people were killed on each side. 2. Why this was political, not religious Before this period, relations between Jews and Muslims in the region were generally stable and often friendly. Long-settled Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed lived under Ottoman rule without systemic persecution. The hostility that emerged after 1917 wasn’t religious in origin — it was about colonialism, sovereignty, and demography: The new immigrants were mostly European and came with political aims (a national revival) rather than simply economic migration. They were protected by the British army and administration. They established separate institutions, farms, and labor unions that excluded Arabs. So the Arab population didn’t suddenly “hate Jews”; they opposed a colonial project that threatened to displace them. 3. The parallel you drew to right-wing populism in Europe is insightful Yes — in both cases, it’s about the perception of rapid, externally driven demographic change and the fear of losing cultural and economic control. But there’s an important difference: In Europe today, immigration happens within a sovereign political system. In Palestine after 1917, the local majority had no sovereignty at all — decisions about their land and population were made by an imperial power that explicitly favored another group. So their backlash wasn’t just “populism” — it was anti-colonial resistance. 4. In short The early Arab violence of 1920–21 wasn’t born from ancient antisemitism. It was born from a modern sense of betrayal — that their homeland was being re-engineered by outsiders, under the banner of another people’s national project. They saw Zionism not as “Jewishness” but as European colonial expansion in a local disguise.

That's the hardest thing to pin down. We've had many high level officials speak in ways that show intent to destroy, punish or settle Gaza haven't we? Or are we supposed to say they aren't in the army so it doesn't matter what their intent is..but then we can't pin down what IDF soldiers intent is either, though some of it has come clear in their videos mocking the destruction and death they cause. Also, policy gets transmitted from the leadership of which we have clearly seen not the best of intent shown. Regardless of intent - I can say my intent is to kill the spider in my room - but I don't burn the whole house down. I can have the intent to blow out a candle and ''only target'' it but then come in with a tornado to do so blowing the entire house down - or even better I use a flamethrower which only keeps the candle flame (which poetically represents Hamas / resistance) alive. It's not enough if your intent is to narrowly target Hamas if you also don't have the intent to avoid harming innocent civilians you collectively punish. The whole place is ruined dude. Firstly, I'm well aware of the history. Secondly, I'm gonna be that guy and say I have family and friends in Israel so may not more than most about the situation. I hate the way in which Israel exists (as an occupying force) and also what its done. But you'll be surprised to know I simultaneously actually feel sorry for the bind the Jewish people find themselves in. They've been persecuted for centuries mainly by and in the West, culminating in the worst of crimes against humanity (Holocaust) which distorted their moral compass to such a extent as to lead them to do what they needed to do, due to survival pressures - to settle a homeland against the very people they historically lived in relative peace with and sought refuge in from persecutions in Europe. Those Palestinians suffered for the crimes of the West. And in order to maintain the state of Israel of as it is requires ongoing violence - which puts Israel in a bind which is that how do you free people who harbor that much anger for what you did to them - if you obviously aren't going anywhere and need to be in close proximity to those same people? It's a fucked up situation and Israel is in a bind of sorts due to the structural logistics of living among or next to the people they have committed those crimes too, unlike other occupiers who could retreat to a safe distance (Britain leaving Kenya or French leaving Algeria for example). The longer this goes on only compounds the issue. And then, US and Western support which Israel relies on a having is being questioned all together as public opinion among citizens in its allied nations plummet. People are suspicious more than ever of any dual loyalty and support for Israel - support Israel very much needs. They are questioning the outsized influence Israel has on their political apparatus. Jews around the world receive increasing discrimination due to be associated with Israels actions - because Israel does what it does and exists how it exists in the name of the Jewish people. I said that this is a political problem that doesn't have a military solution - but you double down on that and default to ''war is war'' essentially might is right. Jews of the past who were persecuted sure wouldn't want to hear that would they. Even if war is the path you want to take - that only works if that war is total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing - which the worlds norms has shifted far from. If you think Israel existing with that stain is good for it then be my guest. But the current situation of occupation is unsustainable, your solution of all out war is inhumane and will not bode well for Israel long term - and the only solution left which is a political one will require a leap of faith and trust in the process. A trust in that providing Palestinian the dignity of statehood and rights would tame their pain and any intent on revenge. That having a state introduces incentives that tame those instincts due to having something to lose which is the very state they struggled for - including their own legitimacy as a new found state in the world community. I wrote about why Jews have unfairly been hated down the centuries here:

UN Definition “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Article II In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: 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.“ The definition of looking unlivable. Zios will say they hit Hamas though.

As it says in the beginning of your paragraph - the violence mainly broke out after the UN vote. No one obviously condones all the violence that follows - but the question has to be asked why? And then another question is why is one UN vote acknowledged as unjust while another isn't? For example - those for the Palestinian cause and most of the world have consensus around the 1967 UN resolution rather than the 1947 one 20 years earlier, but why? The reason is that the 1947 resolution partitioned Palestine without the consent of its inhabitants. Arabs and Palestinians rejected it outright as a foreign imposed plan that violated self-determination. It was passed by a colonial era UN where most of the Global South had no vote. It created Israel through external legitimacy, not negotiated legitimacy and it basically carried a stain of a colonial imposition. The reason it was seen as unjust was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence. Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given 55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports. The 1967 resolution on the other hand is accepted as the basis for peace by consensus. Because 20 years later the UN also changed to reflect more of the world after decolonization and new members getting absorbed into it. 1947 UN was a institute that belonged to the age of empire, 1967 UN was more balanced and reflective for a new age of diplomacy. But even then and still till today - it is structurally biased and is trying to be reformed. ''The UN Security Council is built on the power structure of 1945, not the reality of the 21st century. It enshrines who won World War II, not who represents humanity today.'' For example - the the 5 permanent members are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. They can veto decisions made by all the rest. No representation of the Global South or even the Middle East or Muslim world which makes up a quarter of the population. The rotating 10 seats of the non-permanent members is just a charade if their votes can be vetoed by the permanent 5 anyway. But even among that 10 there's no dedicated category for the Middle East: Chat GPT ''Non-Permanent Members (10 seats, elected for 2-year terms): They rotate among regional blocs: 3 for Africa 2 for Asia-Pacific 2 for Latin America & the Caribbean 2 for Western Europe & Others 1 for Eastern Europe'' @BlueOak This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists. Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD, UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns. I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc. Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ). And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

@Nivsch Of course they'd rather live there than anywhere else - that's their home. Beside that, the quality of life is much better than other countries in the Middle East which have been destabilized and war torn. That doesn't mean there isn't discrimination within Israel or that Israel isn't committing crimes against Palestinian elsewhere such as in the West Bank or Gaza. The logic of colonial powers used to be “Look how well the natives live under us compared to their neighbors.” Using Arab citizens as a moral shield is a common Zionist talking point. But coexistence in one sector doesn’t erase systemic domination in another, or the discrimination faced by those coexisting. I have family (in-laws) in Israel, mainly Nazareth which was shown at the start of OP's video - they are living well but obviously not perfectly. They wouldn't live anywhere else because that's their home. But they are also angry about the injustices taking place in West Bank and Gaza - they rarely talk about it out of fear of being picked up via surveillance or questioned. Most Palestinians are just getting by and keep quiet because they don't want to ruffle any feathers and get into trouble. They know of whats going on but avoid talking or sharing too much via social media, whatsapp etc in case their stopped, interrogated etc. Again - in the interviews you won't always get entirely honest answers when their face is on camera due to this same reasoning. Beside the West Bank and Gaza, the two most blatant examples in how Palestinians are treated unequally are the land/zoning laws and the 2018 Nation-State Law. From AI: ''1. Land and housing laws Around 93% of Israel’s land is owned or administered by the state or the Jewish National Fund (JNF). The JNF’s charter specifies that this land is to be used “for the benefit of the Jewish people.” As a result, Arab towns rarely receive permits to expand, even though their populations have grown dramatically. Entire Arab villages (especially in the Negev) are “unrecognized” — meaning no water, electricity, or schools, and frequent demolitions. ➡️ Example: Al-Araqib, a Bedouin village in the Negev, has been demolished over 200 times since 2010. 2. The 2018 Nation-State Law This Basic Law officially defines Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.” It states that only Jews have the right to national self-determination, downgrades Arabic from an official language, and promotes Jewish settlement as a national value. In practice, it constitutionally cements second-class status for 20% of citizens who are Arab.'' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law

@Breakingthewall @Raze Adding to your conversation from AI (battle of the AI’s lol) 1. Colonialism evolved beyond the outdated 19th-century definition Classical colonialism (Britain–India, France–Algeria) involved imperial control from a metropolis. But by the 20th century, scholars recognized a distinct form: settler colonialism, where the settlers themselves are the colonizing force, often backed by imperial sponsorship rather than direct rule. Key examples: United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa. None of these were “metropolis-based” empires by the end — they were settler projects that displaced indigenous populations to build new sovereign homelands. Israel’s case parallels those, not the British Raj. 2. Zionism had imperial sponsorship — the “no metropolis” claim is false While Zionists weren’t acting “for” an empire, their success was enabled by one: The British Empire’s Balfour Declaration (1917) explicitly endorsed “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Britain administered Palestine under a League of Nations mandate, which institutionalized Zionist immigration and land acquisition while restricting Arab political autonomy. That is a colonial relationship: a foreign empire facilitating settlement by a non-indigenous group against the will of the local population. 3. “They legally purchased land” — factually partial Yes, some land was purchased, but most of it was: Bought from absentee Ottoman landlords, not from the peasants living on it. Later acquired through force after 1948, when 700,000+ Palestinians were expelled or fled (Nakba). By 1949, Zionist forces controlled 78 % of Mandatory Palestine, far beyond the partition allocation — achieved not by “legal purchase” but by military conquest. 4. The indigenous presence argument Continuous Jewish presence in small numbers does not make 20th-century European migration a “return” in the political sense. Using ancient ancestry as justification for modern displacement is like: Italians claiming Tunisia because Rome once ruled it, or Hindus claiming Afghanistan because of ancient Gandhara. Historical connection ≠ political entitlement. 5. The correct academic classification Modern historians and political theorists (Patrick Wolfe, Lorenzo Veracini, Rashid Khalidi, Ilan Pappé, among others) classify Zionism as settler colonialism because it meets the structural criteria: - External migration backed by imperial power. - Establishment of exclusive sovereignty. - Displacement and replacement of the native population. - Creation of separate legal and political systems privileging settlers. Whether motivated by religion, nationalism, or survival doesn’t change the structure. _____

AI: ''In 1988, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally accepted Israel’s right to exist on the 1948 borders and recognized UN Resolution 242, which calls for peaceful coexistence. That’s the basis of the Oslo Accords (1993). Since then, the Palestinian Authority has officially recognized Israel and sought a two-state solution. Hamas, yes, originally rejected Israel’s legitimacy—but even Hamas has, in later statements, accepted a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders as a “long-term truce,” implicitly recognizing Israel’s existence within those limits.'' All members of the Arab League and later the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) which includes 57 Muslim majority countries have adopted the Arab Peace Initiative in 2002 which includes recognition of Israel in exchange for Palestine statehood just as the Indonesian president says in his speech. They've maintained this position till today. No one at a serious level is calling for the disappearance of Israel or that it doesn't have the right to exist. But I get what you mean in terms of there being a lot of hate and rage against Israel among every day people - this is true. And now this rage isn't only in the Middle East or among Muslims but now in much of the world. The difference is that states behave differently to people - so the rhetoric we hear on the streets shouldn't be extrapolated out to the level of the state. I actually wrote about this before here:

@Breakingthewall Under Israel’s Law of Return (1950), any Jew - including converts - has the automatic right to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. That includes you in Spain papi - even with no ethnic or genealogical connection to the region. Meanwhile a Palestinian whose family can trace continuous residence in Jerusalem, Jaffa, or Haifa for hundreds of years has no such right to return if they were expelled or fled in 1948. That’s why many scholars and critics describe the system as ethnoreligious privilege built into a settler-national framework. That’s how we get Jacob from Brooklyn settling his ass all the way in the Middle East:

Settler colonialism isn't merely interested in the resources of new lands, but also in the land itself in which to carve out a new homeland. The obvious issue is that if people already inhabit the land you must create a justification for displacing them from it. The common ''a land without a people for a people without a land“ slogan. Settler colonialism is when: people from elsewhere arrive to permanently settle, they aim to replace or subordinate the existing population, they establish political dominance, they're backed by imperial/colonial power (Britain). That's exactly what Zionism was: European and other Jews immigrating, explicitly aiming to create a Jewish-majority state (requiring demographic replacement), backed by British colonial power (Balfour Declaration, British Mandate), establishing political structures (Yishuv institutions) to govern independently of existing population Herzl who is one of the founders of political Zionism wrote to Cecil Rhodes in 1902 (a notorious colonizer) framing the issue as a colonial project that Britain should get behind: “You are being invited to help make history,” he wrote, “It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor ; not Englishmen, but Jews . How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.” Revisionist Zionist Vladimir Jabotinsky, in an essay titled The Iron Law (1925) wrote that: “A voluntary reconciliation with the Arabs is out of the question either now or in the future. If you wish to colonize a land in which people are already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find some rich man or benefactor who will provide a garrison on your behalf. Or else-or else, give up your colonization, for without an armed force which will render physically impossible any attempt to destroy or prevent this colonization, colonization is impossible, not difficult, not dangerous, but IMPOSSIBLE!… Zionism is a colonization adventure and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. It is important… to speak Hebrew, but, unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot – or else I am through with playing at colonizing.” Zionism as a ambition for a homeland is noble, but the logistical reality of the land in which they want to make home already being inhabitated requires viewing Palestinians as obstacles to be removed, subordinated, or in your own words treated as "mentally retarded" people who need violence to understand that they aren't truly being oppressed like slaves. Every piece of land on Earth has been inhabited by different groups over millennia. A connection from 2,000 years ago doesn't override the rights of people currently living there. The Jewish immigrants coming in the 1900s-1940s were Europeans (Ashkenazi), Middle Eastern (Mizrahi), and others who had lived elsewhere for generations. They weren't "returning home" in any meaningful sense - their great great great grandparents many many many generations back may have lived there, but they didn't. From AI ''If Native Americans were persecuted, fled, and returned 1,000 years later, would that be colonialism? It depends on how they return. Scenario A (not colonialism): Native Americans return Integrate into existing American society Seek minority rights, cultural recognition, maybe some land back through negotiation Live alongside current inhabitants Scenario B (colonialism): Native Americans return with European backing Declare they're creating a "Native American state" Start immigrating en masse to achieve demographic majority Establish separate institutions Use force to expel or subordinate current inhabitants Create a state where only Native Americans have full rights or are the majority where they can politically dominate Scenario B is colonialism, even if they're "indigenous." Because what matters isn't where your ancestors lived 1,000 years ago - it's what you're doing now to people currently living there. And Zionism was Scenario B. Strip away the narrative and look at material reality: - People (many from Europe) arrived - To a place where other people lived - With explicit goal of creating a state where they'd be majority - Backed by colonial power (Britain) - Displaced existing population to achieve demographic dominance - Used force to maintain it That's colonialism, regardless of ancient ancestry claims.'' Ancient claims don’t override the rights of current inhabitants - otherwise every border on Earth becomes contestable. Religious affiliation isn’t a land title either. Judaism spread as a religion, not a single ethnic line, so the idea of a universal '‘Jewish return'’ often means people whose ancestors converted to Judaism claiming territory on religious grounds. That’s like saying two billion Muslims have a right to ‘'return'’ to the holy land of Saudi Arabia for some of that oil wealth - clearly absurd. Jews from Poland, Russia, or Ethiopia claiming automatic right of return to Palestine on religious grounds raises the same issue. Most early Zionist settlers were Ashkenazi Jews who’d lived in Europe for over a thousand years - yet ancestry alone can’t justify displacing others. Building states based on genetic ancestry leads to ethnonationalism and exclusion of others based on genetics such as Hitlers Germany. Note how all those incidents occurred after the introduction of a particular idea (Zionism) backed by a colonial power. From AI ''There were political and religious elements. But why were those effective in mobilizing people? Because there was a real, material threat to address. You can't incite a population to violence against a threat that doesn't exist. Arab leaders pointed to Jewish immigration and said "they're coming to take the land and create a state" - and they were right. That wasn't paranoid incitement - that was accurate description of the Zionist project's explicit goals. From the First Zionist Congress (1897), the stated aim was creating a Jewish homeland/state in Palestine. By the 1920s, this wasn't hidden - it was public Zionist policy. So when Arab leaders said "they want to seize the land," that wasn't a lie or distortion. It was literally true. Religious framing (threats to holy sites, etc.) was the mobilization tool, but the underlying cause was the political reality of settler colonialism.''

AI failed me. That sucks and no one can condone it - but it is understandable in the larger context which is that Israel withdrew from Gaza but didn't withdraw their control over Gaza. The withdrawal was seen as a reconfiguration of occupation by simply moving the troops to the periphery. If I'm in a toilet that's occupied you don't need to be sitting on my lap to occupy and exert control over me - you standing outside the cubicle not letting me out also counts as exerting occupational control over me. This is why things need to be part of a peace process that has a political horizon resolving the root issue. Israel withdrawing unilaterally which isn't in the context or framework of them doing so as part of a phased peace plan with a political path to Palestinian statehood (whether its one state with equal rights or two separate ones) isn't ending the conditions that perpetuate Hamas to want to continue firing rockets. The logic of "we can't give them freedom because they're violent" just creates a circular trap where the conditions that generate desperation and violence are maintained, then the violence is cited as proof those conditions must continue. This is flipping cause and effect. It says Palestinians are denied freedom because they’re violent - when in reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom. If the argument is that Hamas can’t be trusted because of its violent past, history itself refutes that logic. Movements engaged in armed struggle often transition into political actors once their grievances are acknowledged and negotiations become genuine. Terrorism didn’t disqualify the Zionist or Irish independence movements - Menachem Begin bombed the King David Hotel and became Prime Minister of Israel. So did Yitzhak Shamir who was part of Stern gang and who ''the British arrested twice for his militant activities.''. The IRA bombed London and got the Good Friday Agreement. The ANC used violence and got South Africa. You don't de-radicalize people by keeping them in radicalizing conditions. Piers Morgan always used to say he's in a moral quagmire with this situation - I don't think its much of a moral quagmire as much as it is a logistical one. Theirs pretty much global consensus and moral clarity on what the problem and solution is which is to end occupation and establish a path to Palestinian rights / statehood rather than them being indefinitely left in a limbo of statelessness. It's about how to get there in a low-trust environment which is why third parties need to be involved. The problem is that the worlds unipolar hegemon has no pressure or incentive to change the status quo but instead underwrites the entire situation - maybe that's slowly changing now. In past liberation struggles there were costs inflicted on the occupier that made them end their occupation. This is why much discourse and anger is targeted towards the US - rightly so. It comes down to a few key points 1. A political problem can't be resolved with a military solution. The military solution only works if its total ie genocide or ethnic cleansing. Fortunately or unfortunately for some this isn't possible today as it was in the past (Australia or USA being settled) because the norms have changed. 2. You can't de-radicalize people by keeping them in the same conditions that caused them to become radical - siege, humiliation, and statelessness. 3. The argument of Palestinians being denied freedom because they’re violent flips cause and affect. In reality, their violence comes from being denied freedom. 4. Every liberation movement had radicals and fighters once branded as terrorists, yet they all transitioned into legitimate governance once a political path opened. Statehood incentives behaviour in such a way that being stateless doesn't - because in the former you have stake in something you can lose, in the latter you have nothing to lose. 5. Palestinian rights and statehood isn't in question - that has been settled by global consensus. It's the implementation of it in a low trust environment which requires third party mediation but that is blocked by the current uni-polar hegemon who claims to be the mediator. The US is a key variable in perpetuating the injustice of this status quo.

@Breakingthewall According to your worldview people should be grateful to have a more developed people govern them - colonialism is legitimate to you so it’s all okay. You should make colonialism a fashionable again - make Spain great again hombre. Go re conquer South America maybe? Trumps already making a start with Venezuela with the largest oil reserves so you could tag along. I want to see you on a superyatch in Ibiza or Marbella next year with your new colonial riches.

- Complicity in a plausible genocide that should have been prevented from actualising into a full on genocide “ ICJ declared Israel guilty of genocide — that determination could take years — but it did mean the Court found the claim “plausible enough” to warrant urgent restraint. Under international law, that ruling was a binding warning: states party to the Genocide Convention (which includes most of the world) are obligated to prevent genocide once there’s a plausible risk. Despite that, no major power acted — the U.S. continued arming Israel, Europe largely stood by, and international institutions were effectively ignored. So, yes: historians will likely look back on that as one of the clearest moments when the world had both legal and moral clarity, and still did nothing.“ - Also AI fakes of people distorting our reality, short form content scrolling that rewires and brain rots us. Oh and Onlyfans.