zazen

This is the point of @Some dude on the net , though hes bashing the point in too much as if you are unaware of the facts. The US has a interest in Israel's existence. They need Israels existence to justify their existence in a critical region. That's how they view it and speak of it in their own terms - as a 'investment', in terms of the material and less of the moral. Less ideological alignment and more an alignment of interests. Zionism to them is just a euphemism for Western supremacy and domination - US hegemony. The nuance is that campaigning elects candidates, whilst lobbying influences what policies those candidates select. The fact that Israel and the US both serve each other symbiotically is why AIPAC isn't even in the top 20 lobbyist contributors. They don't need to be as much when Israels interests align with the US political elites interests.

At its best, religion is not an echo chamber of dogma but a pathway to transcendence. At its worst, religion is dogmatic but atleast dogmatic about the right thing - the infinite. Modern echo chambers lack the transcendental orientation that religion has and cater to the lowest common denominator of human consciousness. Echo chambers created by modern media are far more restrictive because they are built on the finite. These systems are designed to manipulate human psychology by amplifying biases, playing on emotional triggers, and creating self-reinforcing loops of information. Unlike religion, which at its core aims to lead believers to transcend the ego and connect with the infinite, the echo chambers of the internet are often designed to keep users locked into narrow, polarized perspectives for the sake of engagement and profit. Perhaps the goal isn’t to escape echo chambers, but to operate within a good one. If we consider form - whether it’s words, structures, or identities - as an inevitable aspect of the human experience, then echo chambers are not simply prisons of thought to be escaped, but the natural byproduct of living within any kind of form. What matters is the quality of the form, the chamber, or the echo. The difference between a “good” echo chamber and a toxic one is its willingness to engage with ideas from outside its own walls or to be so all encompassing and transcendental that it contains smaller chambers within it. While the quality of the echo chamber (container) matters, it is secondary to the consciousness that inhabits it. This doesn’t mean we should neglect the importance of creating better, more refined containers- more accurate, flexible, or inclusive systems can certainly support higher consciousness. But a sophisticated form on its own doesn’t guarantee higher consciousness. You could engage with the most nuanced philosophical system or the most elevated mystical tradition, but if your consciousness is closed off or unreflective, that form won’t have the transformative power it could. The ultimate primordial echo we are all after is that of God, the divine echo. The echo of the Divine is not just another chamber in the endless cacophony of human constructs. It’s the transcendental echo, the one that transcends and encompasses all other echoes because it is not bound by the limitations of our finite, fragmented understandings. The echo of God reverberates through all of existence, from the smallest particle to the furthest reaches of the cosmos, and yet it transcends it all at the same time. It is both immanent and transcendent. Other echo chambers are narrow by nature. They trap us in small minded paradigms, limited by the walls we ourselves build. These walls could be political ideologies, religious dogmas, cultural identities, or intellectual frameworks. They may serve a purpose for a time, give us comfort, or a sense of belonging, but they are inherently constricted. They lock us into a particular worldview that we start to mistake for reality itself. Religious chambers orient towards the transcendent, though even among them some are more accurate than others. Take Islam for example - in its essence, it's one of the most profound echo chambers precisely because it emphasizes the infinite - the oneness and transcendence of God (Tawhid). That focus on the infinite, the eternal, and the formless reality of God sets Islam apart from many other frameworks, particularly those that might rely on more complex theological structures like the Trinity. While the Trinity involves a kind of multiplicity in the divine, Islam's emphasis on the absolute oneness of God is, in a way, a more direct alignment with the notion of transcendence. The problem is not the chamber of Islam itself, but whether an individual is attuned to the divine echo within that chamber. Islam can be approached at different levels of consciousness - its not just the container (chamber) but the consciousness within it that matters. For those who are spiritually attuned, who seek the infinite echo of God, Islam (and religion more broadly) can become a profound path toward union with the divine. It becomes a chamber that amplifies truth, goodness and the beauty of the ultimate reality. But for those whose hearts and minds are closed, even the most perfect chamber will ring hollow. What holds back other chambers compared to Islam is their tendency to either fragment the divine (as in polytheism or the Trinity), focus too much on forms (as in Hinduism), or deny the transcendent entirely (as in secular humanism or Marxism). Islam’s strength lies in its focus on Tawhid, which points directly to the infinite oneness of God, an idea that is both transcendent and inclusive.

What gave rise to the Mullahs in the first place? How did Iran get to where it is: Kim Dotcom: ''Iran is a victim of decades of injustice perpetrated by the US and the UK in an effort to control Irans oil. They couped the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953 and installed a US puppet until the Iranian revolution in 1979. Over 500,000 Iranians have died in the US-Iraq war against Iran. Even more died because of US sanctions. Iran is not a terrorist state. Iran has been forced to defend itself against regime change efforts and colonial aggression from the US and their satellites in the Middle East. The Iranians should be applauded for aiding the Palestinian people in their struggle against the illegal occupation by Israel and decades of injustice, theft and dehumanization.'' From Chat GPT: The rise of European colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries had a profound impact on the Muslim world. Many Muslim-majority societies were colonized by Western powers, leading to a deep sense of humiliation, loss of sovereignty, and cultural dislocation. Colonialism introduced foreign systems of governance, education, and economics, which often clashed with traditional Islamic structures. In response, some parts of the Muslim world turned inward, rejecting Western influence and emphasizing a return to "pure" forms of Islam as a way to resist colonial domination. This reactionary response led to the strengthening of conservative and literalist movements, which sought to protect Islamic identity from what was perceived as corrupting Western influences. Movements like Wahhabism (which emerged in the 18th century) gained prominence as a defense mechanism against foreign domination, advocating for a return to a strict interpretation of the early Islamic practices. A Uniquely Early Expression of Green Qualities While many societies and religions have moments where they display Green qualities, Islam's early history, especially during the Golden Age, stands out as a unique and early example of a civilization that, despite being deeply rooted in religious tradition, managed to exhibit a high degree of cultural sophistication and intellectual freedom. In some ways, it could be said that Islam was ahead of its time, incorporating Green values long before the West reached the same stage during the Enlightenment. The Oscillation Back to Blue and Orange However, after the Golden Age, many Muslim societies shifted back toward the more rigid, hierarchical structure of Blue (traditional, law-and-order-based thinking), particularly with the rise of imperial powers and the need to defend the Islamic world from external threats (e.g., Crusades, Mongol invasions). These circumstances led to a more insular interpretation of Islam, focusing on the preservation of tradition and the defense of religious orthodoxy, which is more characteristic of Blue thinking.

The West is oriented around autonomy (individualistic) whilst the East is oriented around harmony (collectivistic). @PurpleTree A lot of Chinese who have recently come out of poverty and moved up the economic scale haven’t as yet become accustomed to certain practices and mannerisms. In fact China has programs that teach to help a lot of the country folk with this - at least their investing in their people. Would America invest in programmes to teach Americans public twerking or naked pride parading is bad manners lol Some prank clips of people taking the whole plate isn’t relevant to your point.

@DawnC What are your thoughts on the conflict, flesh them out if you have the time and desire? As for geopolitical context I have commented on it a page back, and there are videos being shared here which delve into that. What's biased is the expectation that critiques must be watered down with endless context to be considered valid. This demand for exhaustive background serves more to obfuscate than illuminate. Highlighting harmful ideologies or policies doesn't require an encyclopedic account of every societal nuance.

A very valid point and more comprehensive than mine which was more tactical, rather than strategic. As most of us aren't in positions of power and politics to affect systemic change I was answering pragmatically at the level of working with what we can personally do - but its a tool in a broader strategy. Boycott and divest movements have to be big enough to affect change, as in the case of apartheid South Africa. They can't dismantle the system alone but apply pressure if mass adopted. There's a reason the US outlaws BDS. It supposedly works. Moral responsibility means we need act where and how we can, on incremental change vs a all or nothing approach. When given the chance to stop harm, we do so, regardless of the potential for others to continue it. The US is currently supplying Israel in its ethnic cleansing and destruction campaign - we shouldn't not try stop that because someone else may fill the supply. And tackling the root cause of the supply chain doesn't mean ignoring the next supplier, we deal with that when it comes. The U.S. is not just another dealer in the global arms trade, its the chief architect and enforcer of a global system that perpetuates violence, war, and militarism. In this context, targeting the U.S. arms manufacturers or defense contractors isn’t directly parallel to going after small time drug dealers - it’s like going after the cartel boss. The U.S. arms industry, military bases, and geopolitical strategies fuel conflicts across the globe. They’re not just supplying a demand, they’re creating it through aggressive foreign policy and regime change operations. https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051 If any other nation had a globe spanning network of warmongering and covert operations which destabilise countries into chaos, bloodshed and misery - we should tackle them too. This isn't to be anti-US.

You mean Palestinians supporters taking joy in revenge on the IDF or the IDF committing their crimes? I've just seen very big twitter accounts taking joy in the revenge aspect, posting pictures of dead IDF soldiers with captions like ''Another Zio liquidated'' along with support in the comments. Its off putting. I can get the pleasure in enjoying justice and the tables turning against a brutal occupation, but to enjoy inflicting pain and destruction crosses that line - leave that to them with their Tik Tok videos. Of course they've been doing it from before, its just seems clear they've done this in retaliation and frustration for what happened with Hezbollah yesterday which is pathetic.

Be skeptical of every source from a position of curiosity, rather than caution. Because you say you are overwhelmed and paranoid, it’s best to come from a frame of curiosity - gamify life to lighten the burden on yourself. Reframe caution to curiosity - curious about the sources (people or authority positions) biases, incentives etc. Hone in on your skill to be discerning so you can eventually trust yourself to trust others - it will pay dividends. You’ll still get bit once in a while, but the joy and abundance you gain by trusting others will outweigh having your trust betrayed once in a while.

Palestine supporters shouldn’t be taking joy in this though, as Iv seen some do. Israel has responded by bombing tents sheltering displaced families in a hospital in central Gaza. Despicable. https://x.com/marionawfal/status/1845608225674330531?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ

https://x.com/rnaudbertrand/status/1843548618361582057?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Check the above link to learn about China’s “democracy”. Some of it: In effect what "whole process" means is that China's democracy isn't about the spectacle of election campaigns and the (often hollow) promises of competing parties, but about fostering a culture of continuous dialogue, consultation, and collaborative problem-solving between the government and the people. It also means that China's view of democracy is outcome-oriented as opposed to procedural. The idea being that what really matters are the practical results of governance (as per the article: "delivering sustained, stable, and sound national development") as opposed to viewing mere electoral processes as the basis of democratic legitimacy. Now, what does "people's democracy" mean? Aren't all democracies "people's democracies"? "People's democracy" is a historical communist term to contrast with what was termed "bourgeois democracy", where the state in capitalist countries was seen as offering only formal political rights while maintaining economic inequality and the dominance of the capitalist class. Whilst the meaning has evolved somewhat since then, it still retains this idea of prioritizes the welfare and will of the masses over the interests of elites or special interest groups. As the Quishi article states, China's policies must "truly reflect the people's concerns, embody their aspirations, promote their wellbeing, and meet their desire for a better life." This idea also has roots in traditional Chinese culture, which has always emphasized collective harmony and social cohesion over individualism. In contrast to Margaret Thatcher's famous assertion that "there's no such thing as society" - now widely held in the West - the Chinese worldview sees society not as a mere aggregation of individuals, but as an organic entity with its own existence and importance. This perspective is reflected in the article's emphasis on "fostering social harmony" as a key goal of their democratic system. Lastly, in a "people's democracy", there's also idea that the people are not just voters, but the driving force behind national development. This perspective is clearly reflected in the article, which emphasizes that "the people are the true driving force behind history." It goes on to state that Chinese modernization "must firmly rely on the people, respect their creativity, and harness their collective wisdom and strength." This view stands in contrast to liberal democracies where citizens' primary political role is often reduced to choosing between competing parties. In the Chinese system, the CPC's role is also that of an organization that mobilizes and channels the people's energy and is able to effectively harness their collective power for national development. Last point, which I'm sure many of you will be asking themselves is: "yes that's all good and well, but is it really a democracy if people can't choose their rulers?" The Chinese view on this would be that it more democratic to have rulers selected based on objective meritocratic criteria, based on how well particular officials have served the people and on exam results, than on opinions shaped by candidates' skills at campaigning or at appealing to narrow interest groups. Also, as the article emphasizes in China's system accountability is built into ongoing processes and institutions (and not just through elections): "leading Party and state bodies and their personnel are required to exercise their powers in strict accordance with statutory mandates and procedures and wholeheartedly serve the people." Which is hard to argue when you look at the sheer number of officials who get disciplined or even sent to jail every year, even some at the very top. No other country on earth has its officials face such level of scrutiny and accountability. And as we've seen before there's direct public oversight here too as the people are encouraged to report officials if they're corrupt or engage in misconduct. Lastly, as stated before, the Chinese system provides numerous channels for people to influence policy and governance beyond just choosing leaders. So the concept of "official" is somewhat different from Western notions. In China's whole-process people's democracy, officials are seen more as executors of the people's needs and will, rather than disconnected decision-makers. Their legitimacy stems not from being elected, but from how effectively they implement policies that reflect and serve the people's interests. The idea is to have a system where political legitimacy is continuously earned through tangible achievements rather than periodically granted through ballots. So there you go, admittedly a very different view of democracy from what we're used to in the West. You're obviously free to think whatever you want about it but I like the "Ideological Turing Test" idea, where you shouldn't be allowed to criticize something if you aren't able to explain it in ways indistinguishable from that of someone who defends the position. As such this gives you a brief overview of how China sees its democracy, from their viewpoint, far from all-too-easy caricatures of it. And personally that's what fascinates me most about China: how it sees the world in dramatically different ways from the West. Ways that challenge us to question so many things we take for granted, like in this instance the nature of representation or our approach to political legitimacy. We often pride ourselves in the West on our openness to "diversity" but typically what we mean by that is a mere ersatz of diversity, people who remain well within the Overton window. What we have here with China is TRUE diversity, not just in appearances only, but in core concept of philosophy and societal structures. And instead of fearing it or smearing it as we so often do, we should instead engage with it, try to understand it as it offers an immensely necessary mirror through which we can reflect on ourselves.

Yes. The US has already been forcing their hand indirectly by not enforcing any conditionality upon Israel, who then act forcefully upon the Palestinians. Despite many among them feeling entitled to all the land, I’m sure they’d at least welcome autonomy, statehood and safety. Its better than the alternative status quo they’v had to deal with. Security is a valid concern, the primary one in fact. If we forget about the factions in Israel who desire to dominate and expand territory, the ones who want to just live in peace with what they have are concerned with the possibility of ending occupation threatening their security. Heres a quote from Thomas Jefferson in regards to abolition: “We have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go” That quote captures the tension: the fear of both continuing the institution of slavery and the fear of what might happen if it were abruptly abolished. Just as slavery was morally wrong despite concerns about security and stability, so too is occupation today. How to end Hamas:

Crazy.

Nice tik tok breakdown. Here are three videos that compliment your post very well focusing on how imperialism works today: Gotta be careful when critiquing the West as it can offend many Westerners self perception. Critiquing the West challenges the very myth upon which many Westerners have built their identity. The Spiral dynamics framework can even subtly reinforce this notion of being 'higher than' the global south. When you highlight ways in which the West aren't that far removed from attitudes and actions reminiscent of lower stages they reflexively recoil. Its important to not become self loathing which extreme stage green is inclined towards.

@royce In relation to that: https://x.com/maxblumenthal/status/1845241058936094812?s=46&t=DuLUbFRQFGpB8oo7PwRglQ Not sure why my Twitter links never embed anymore.

Sad to see most are against it. It’s almost as if the solution has to be imposed by international players as a last resort. But like Leo said, that means the US going against Israel’s military which will never happen. That’s what bugs me with this whole situation - I almost feel more disappointed in the US than Israel. Whilst Israel is pulling the trigger, US is loading the gun. And that’s all fine if the gun is used for actual defence but when it so clearly isn’t and hasn’t been for a long enough time, they still do. Israels like a drunk friend who got into a fight and wants revenge on the guy that K.O’d him at the bar. He goes on a rampage shooting up the whole bar and the more sober friend being America who is distant enough to clearly see the situation just keeps giving him the bullets. Then again, the US elite have a vested interest in this flaring up also without suffering the loss of life Israelis themselves may have to. It’s mutually beneficial for the few, but mutually destructive for the many. @royce That Gaza doc is shocking. It’s one thing watching atrocities drip fed over the course of a year, but seeing them all compiled like that is something else. How anyone can be on the fence after a year is mind boggling.

That's why Tim Pool and Ben Shapiro are more enlightened then both of us haha.

When you say scarf do you mean head scarf or shawl / loose cloth for the body? Women have worn scarves even predating Islam and across different cultures and continents. The main motivation is for modesty. Modesty isn't oppression, in fact its a shield against potential oppression and harassment done at the hands of men who let nature get the better of them. It's to avoid objectification and the wrong kind of attention. A distinction can be made between sexy and beautiful. Being sexy invites lust - the wrong kind of predatory attention, whilst beauty doesn't. Though, extreme absolutist interpretation of religion or traditions go so far as to even hide beauty which is taking things to the extreme. The perception of modesty as oppressive is when that modesty is enforced rather than chosen voluntarily. We can easily understand why modesty is important around the body, which is the most visibly provocative form, but the reasoning for covering the hair in particular isn't so obvious. It used to be a status symbol to be veiled or cover the hair because the hair was seen as a symbol of beauty, fertility and health. To cover it was to take pride in the fact that it holds a special place in their life, it was like the virtue signalling of the day. There is also a spiritual/esoteric reasoning. I read in some of Osho's work once regarding this also - that the covering the of the head is a way to conserve energy leaking out from it, and to accumulate energy at the crown chakra to help one ascend in their journey. It's interesting that this occurs across cultures and continents - somehow, they seem to come upon the same practices despite not being able to communicate or interact back in the day. So there may be something there also. Regarding Islam and women:

According to Sachs Russia has pursued peace and cooperation with the West despite the West continuously crossing its lines. The act of invading Ukraine was the moral quagmire I had mentioned on the other thread - that I sympathised more with Russia than with Israel though they both visibly have transgressed. But then when looked at with context, it seems Russia goes to war more out of necessity (due to provocation from the West as you've rightly pointed out) whilst the West goes to war just looking for the next one to perpetuate their hegemony and war economy. ''Provocations work in the shadows, manipulating circumstances without crossing overt lines. They give those that do the provoking plausible deniability while creating conditions that almost guarantee an eventual reaction from the cornered party that they can then paint as the villain.'' I won't derail the thread further with the topic.

This is a under appreciated factor in what influences the psychology behind US foreign policy and by extension what influences Israel. The geopolitical insulation of the US gives it the unique position to be violent and commit violence across the world - and suffer little consequence for it, at least in the short-medium term. This attitude and sense of superiority rubs off on and only amplifies any existing sense of trauma induced entitlement Israel has, which becomes a moral hazard to them. The combination of impunity, arrogance and being hypersensitive (due to historic trauma) to threats that are amplified is what we're seeing. Neocons don't appreciate the gravity of violence, which means they can't appreciate the value of peace. Watch the following from 3:50sec - Wesley Clark talking about the neocons desire to destabilise and dominate the Middle East. The Clean Break report, a policy document prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle and Benjamin Netanyahu is quite a eye opener to everything we have seen transpire and are seeing today. Richard Perle served in the Bush administration and is now notoriously known to have architected the Iraq war. This is why Israel and the US work in unison, using each other for plausible deniability and to achieve their outcomes of domination. The same attitude but in different latitudes that drives this whole shit show is that of domination.

@hundreth The video above covers exactly what you outline. Sadly, I also see that as the most possible outcome. Just imagine, the anger of the people Israel will have to preside over in this occupation of Gaza - the parents and relatives of over 15'000 killed children. We are banking on the Palestinians transcending their loss and suffering to make peace with the same Israelis who killed their loved ones and will still be occupying them except more closely. The instinct of revenge is so relatable to the human experience that the revenge arc makes many movies famous - Kill Bill, John Whick, Revenant, Gladiator. As if the Palestinians aren't going to resist their new reality, as if some of them aren't going to exact revenge. It seems Israel and its backers can't stop because stopping would mean reckoning with what they've done, rather than obfuscate their crimes which the world has clearly witnessed by continuously opening new fronts of war and being provocative. Israel and the US are almost in a death spiral they can't get out of, a blood soaked ponzi scheme.

I like the trigonometry podcast. He's already false when he says the core premise of the argument that 'History didn't begin on October 7th' is that the state of Israel is illegitimate and shouldn't exist which is a view you can find amongst the more extreme crowds usually younger, un wise and un serious. But serious people question how Israel exists, not its existence. He also seems to understand Russias invasion of Ukraine as illegal and morally wrong, but can't acknowledge Palestinian occupation as illegal and morally wrong. To him international law is a buffet to pick and choose from. Here's a good video where you can hear all his viewpoints whilst being rebutted: Also:

I get you. Its just that its easier and more efficient to say'' the West'' or ''Israel'' or ''China'' when referring to the actions of the government rather than always having to write Western Elites or the deep state. When people critique countries, cultures or civilizations theirs usually a shared assumption that they're referring to the actions of the state or ruling classes within them. I personally have family in both Israel and US, so I don't mean to generalize that all Westerners and Israeli's are complicit in the crimes or flaws I point out. I think a question can be asked though, at what point is the society to blame and not just the state or elites? That gets complex. I also think a distinction can be made where you can call a state a terrorist state but not the society that state governs over. Check this new clip going around of Smotrich claiming Israel can encompass Jordan and Syria (correct the translation if wrong?). This is currently who's in government. This plan and what we have seen the past decades up to now aligns with ''A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report)'' which is a policy document prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu. Richard Perle was ''A key advisor to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the Bush administration, Perle was an architect of the Iraq War.'' (Source: Wiki). Here's some information on it: ''The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction". ''Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right—as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.'' ''It is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.'' ''Ian Buruma wrote in August 2003 in The New York Times that: Douglas Feith and Richard Perle advised Netanyahu, who was prime minister in 1996, to make "a clean break" from the Oslo accords with the Palestinians. They also argued that Israeli security would be served best by regime change in surrounding countries. Despite the current mess in Iraq, this is still a commonplace in Washington. In Paul Wolfowitz's words, "The road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad." It has indeed become an article of faith (literally in some cases) in Washington that American and Israeli interests are identical, but this was not always so, and "Jewish interests" are not the main reason for it now. What we see, then, is not a Jewish conspiracy, but a peculiar alliance of evangelical Christians, foreign-policy hard-liners, lobbyists for the Israeli government and neoconservatives, a number of whom happen to be Jewish. But the Jews among them—Perle, Wolfowitz, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, et al.—are more likely to speak about freedom and democracy than about Halakha (Jewish law). What unites this alliance of convenience is a shared vision of American destiny and the conviction that American force and a tough Israeli line on the Arabs are the best ways to make the United States strong, Israel safe and the world a better place..''

When there is moral bankruptcy, there is a place for moral anger to be used in the form of charged language that helps draw attention to injustices caused by that moral bankruptcy. Speaking with some emotion rather than as a robot also keeps readers engaged long enough to get to the point of why that injustice is wrong. We can talk about tier 1 and 2 or on the countless tears and misery caused by those injustices and how to make them stop. I was responding with the same energy to Gennadiy1981 who was saying Americans should be ashamed of living on stolen land from Native Indians. I want to highlight that if he can see that as a shameful act done in the past, why can't he also see how its shameful for Israeli's to be doing similar acts (not the exact same) in the present. So Americans should be ashamed for acts they didn't commit, that are behind them in the past and that a lot of their society have acknowledged as wrong, but Israeli's shouldn't be ashamed of actions their society is currently committing in the present moment that they can actually help stop? One thing many Americans are increasingly ashamed of and enraged by is not so much that their country was found on ethnic cleansing but that their country is fully facilitating and backing one right now. Stage green and leftists misplace their compassion and become too self loathing about past wrong doings but at least they resist present wrong doings. As highlighted in your post, the past should be learned from. As for why I focus on the US and by extension Israel - I'm focusing on the worlds largest military power, responsible for the most extensive and destructive network of wars, interventions and occupations in modern times. To make matters worse, its own population is subject to such sophisticated propaganda which is only starting to get shredded today thanks to social media. The cognitive dissonance imposed upon the American people is akin to mental abuse - to virtue signal to the world about values that it itself doesn't even embody. The hypocrisy and lack of integrity is not only sickening, it isn't even pragmatically in the US's favor as the worlds power dynamics shift towards multi polarity and regional rising players are beginning to challenge its hegemony. Israel is a much smaller player but serves as a linchpin for US interests in the Middle east - one of the most critical strategically placed, resource rich, demographically rich regions in the world which is a geographic bridge between East and West. This region was destabilized in the name of defense, at devastating human cost. But it wasn't defense, it was domination dressed up as defense. It was bombed into the stone age, the irony being that the ones doing it seem to be acting with a stone age mentality of barbarism, just with shinier gadgets which they think make them 'civilized'. They think giving minority rights domestically and proudly waving the colorful LGBT flag, entitles them to dominate majority of the world who they expect will submit to their domination with a pasty white flag. Israel and the US are each others insurance, they help each other in their plausible deniability for their actions. The US says their helping their ally in the region whilst dominating that region, and Israel name drops the US as its back up so no one messes with them. Netenyahu boasted in his UN speech that the 'long arm of Israel can reach anywhere' but it isn't Israels long arm, its Americas. Ignoring the US while talking about global injustice is ignoring the elephant in the room.

The Houthis didn’t just appear to spread chaos, they’re the result of chaos heavily caused at the hands of the US. Same with Hamas and Hezbollah but at the hands of Israel causing that chaos. Dictatorships versus the West? The US wants to dictate to the world how it should live and breath, Israel wants to dictate to Palestinians and the region it’s in - who’s the dictator? They want the world and entire regions to be okay with the IDF and American cowboy boot on their necks, and when they get bit on the ankle they cry self defense.

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. Or if it has, it has only evolved along the horizontal plane of the material world and not the moral plane of the vertical. Its lopsided development, that they flaunt as progress and superiority. America started with genocide, and its chapter as a global hegemon ends with being complicit in a plausible genocide. Above is a triple threat axis of finger wagging lecturing. I’m interested to hear what people think. Respectfully.