Playlist For Understanding Israel Deception

[Lyubov]

Israel: A country founded on the belief that European refugees who suffered genocide and ethnic cleansing during WWII now have the right to build a state and commit genocide and ethnic cleansing because their magic book says they can. You have to throw out all rational and reasonable interpretations of history to wrap your mind around the ethos and reasoning behind the existence of the state of Israel. Keep in mind I'm not even saying Israel shouldn't exist. But the narrative behind the existence of this state needs to be actively corrected for it's complete and total lies and bullshit it's founded upon. Countries like the USA are actively going through this transition now and are aligning more with truth. Israel needs to do the same.  

[Nivsch]

@Lyubov Part of understanding truth is to get into the psychology of Jews in Europe 1945. Emotions are as important as rational or physcial components.

Edited October 24 by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

 

[zazen]

@Gennadiy1981

11 hours ago, zazen said:

It’s absolutely fine for Jews to want to seek refuge after being persecuted for centuries around the world. Palestine/Israel seems to be the most obvious and natural location due to their religious and ancestral connection. For secularists who don’t understand or care for religion, ancestry or belonging - this doesn’t mean not respecting others who do.

Obviously, the problem comes when this becomes a right given to them by one group of people (Brits) at the expense of another group (Palestinians already living there). Aspirations that don’t involve injustice to another group are fine, even beautiful - but thinking in terms of your rights at the expense of another's is where trouble begins.

Rights imply something enforceable, a demand, something concrete you are entitled to. But those rights stop the moment they transgress over another’s.

11 hours ago, zazen said:

You can’t convince a person who believes in a literalist interpretation of religion (whether Islam, Judaism or Christianity) on rights. Because to them God tells them what’s right and wrong.

You’ll have to loosen the grip of literalism and orient them around the essential truths their religion contains, but that no religion including theirs has a monopolistic claim to.

Literalist religionists need to be brought to the realisation that any extras around those truths are just cultural confetti that is contextual to their people’s history, time and place - but that those universal truths are beyond history, time and place.

[Majed]

So hamas killed 1200 israelis, israel killed 40 000 palestinians. Like to be rational israel doesn’t care about human lives, it cares about israeli lives. At this point it’s a racial thing. Israel is racist just like hamas. Those that say hamas isn’t racist so why the hell do you kill 1200 israeli civilians then ?

is my understanding accurate or is there something i am missing ?

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, Majed said:

So hamas killed 1200 israelis, israel killed 40 000 palestinians. Like to be rational israel doesn’t care about human lives, it cares about israeli lives. At this point it’s a racial thing. Israel is racist just like hamas. Those that say hamas isn’t racist so why the hell do you kill 1200 israeli civilians then ?

is my understanding accurate or is there something i am missing ?

USA and Europe has killed 100,000s of innocent civilians. Then maybe the conclusion, if we keep this line of thinking, is that everyone is inherently racist?

Edited October 24 by Nivsch

[Majed]

@Nivsch when did usa and europe kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians ? 

[Nivsch]

 

1 hour ago, Majed said:

@Nivsch when did usa and europe kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians ? 

Vietnam (US almost alone) + Iraq (both) + Afganistan (both)

Edited October 24 by Nivsch

[Heaven]

2 hours ago, Majed said:

So hamas killed 1200 israelis, israel killed 40 000 palestinians. Like to be rational israel doesn’t care about human lives, it cares about israeli lives. At this point it’s a racial thing. Israel is racist just like hamas. Those that say hamas isn’t racist so why the hell do you kill 1200 israeli civilians then ?

is my understanding accurate or is there something i am missing ?

One of top roles of a country is the safety of its citizens. As long as Hamas is in charge of Gaza. IDF will continue its mission in Gaza and more Gazanians will be killed.

[Nemra]

 

[Nivsch]

16 hours ago, zazen said:

Literalist religionists need to be brought to the realisation that any extras around those truths are just cultural confetti that is contextual to their people’s history, time and place - but that those universal truths are beyond history, time and place

Personally I am not that attached to my religion, but religion expresses deep things just sometimes in shallow or unhealthy ways. When it is your private religion (even watching sport can be one) you will immediatrly understand the depth behind your actions, but when it comes to other ones you will automatically see them more negatively.

When the west (Or Israel) behaves childishly it seen as purely negative thing, but when Palestinians do this, they automatically seen as doing this in the name of something deep and authentic. Can you see how this view is not rational but designed by personal emotional life experiences of the observer? Just to note this is not aimed to you personally but to the general common view here. The pro Israeli side has its own filters too.

Edited October 24 by Nivsch

[Raze]

2 hours ago, Nivsch said:

USA and Europe has killed 100,000s of innocent civilians. Then maybe the conclusion, if we keep this line of thinking, is that everyone is inherently racist?

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan had far larger populations.

There weren’t us government officials saying all Vietnamese are guilty and need to be expelled etc.

[hundreth]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:59 PM, Leo Gura said:

Because they knew it was poltically unrealistic to keep settlements in Gaza and instead their focus was to double down on colonizing the West Bank.

Also, you should ask yourself why Israelis murdered their own Prime Minister for making that agreement. That tells you everything in a nutshell.

Book called On Palestine by Chomsky and Pappe.

Ok, and what about the peace talks from the 90s and early 2000s? They had to drag Arafat to the negotiating table. They worked through all the parameters, and Arafat rejected the deal.

https://www.npr.org/2023/10/19/1207243717/23-years-ago-israelis-and-palestinians-were-talking-about-a-two-state-solution

Quote

ROSS: Well, to be honest, we were even - I came, later on, to appreciate we were even closer than I thought. When President Clinton presented the Clinton Parameters to the two sides at the White House on December 22, 2000, and after five days, the Barak government came back - said they approved the parameters. They had some reservations, but the reservations were within the parameters. So on January 2, we had Arafat come to the White House, and he didn't say yes. He basically was willing to discuss all the areas where the Israelis were making concessions. He wasn't willing to discuss any of the areas where the Palestinians were supposed to make concessions. So it seemed like he had just said no.

But what I subsequently learned - about 18 months ago, I had a dinner with a former Palestinian negotiator who'd been part of the delegation. He said the whole Palestinian delegation had decided among themselves they should accept it. They went back to Arafat, and Arafat said no. I subsequently heard from another Palestinian on that delegation who said Arafat thought he could still do a better deal under Bush because he thought maybe Bush will be even more forthcoming.

And the struggle is what defined Arafat. He was prepared to do limited deals because they didn't require him to do something definitive. Arafat was someone who never closed doors, never closed options. The idea of ending the conflict was a step that was too far for him. In retrospect, I think we should have gone for a less ambitious approach and created the circumstances so his successor could have done something that he wasn't up to doing.

I think this framing that Israel is all about an all encompassing goal of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion to be warped.

I think for many outsiders, it's hard to understand primary vs. secondary motives of Israel.

The primary motive of Israel: To secure a Jewish state that prioritizes the safety of Jews around the world.

The secondary motive of Israel: To remove the Palestinians in service of the primary motive. But this motive is the slave of the master, which is securing a state for survival means.

Why does this matter? Because those Nazi framings are misleading. From the Israeli perspective, the Palestinians aren't specifically some kind of scourge on the world that needs a final solution. They're just in the way. You can see the writings and musings from the early Zionists who you love to quote who were wrestling with this problem. They were self aware that the Palestinians had a reason to fight back, but they did it anyways.

This also means that if the tides turn and circumstances create an environment where Israel can achieve it's primary motive, they would not harm Palestinians out of spite and would in fact accept a deal. This of course depends on good leadership. The current Israeli leadership has led the nation farther and farther away from what could be peace. 

[MrTruf]

16 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

Hey @MrTruf  well you engage with me so that’s good. By the way I am very honest man and whatever I say, speak and do is all and the same. And yep I am doing psychedelics and deep inner work at the same time so if you have any questions about it or need guidance feel free to ask me any questions.

This is the only time I will address you.

I did not and will not engage you, that's why you weren't tagged. I was sharing my impressions with other forum members.
 

16 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

what right do I have to Israel. It is because of Torah, because of Bible and because God said so.

You are not worth a second of anyones time. You are only allowed to write this shit here as an example for others how incredibly blind one can get with his twisted ideology.  Every message you send only pushes people further away from the argument you're trying to make. Keep posting!

 

16 hours ago, Gennadiy1981 said:

I am doing psychedelics and deep inner work

It's not working.

Edited October 24 by MrTruf

[Nivsch]

56 minutes ago, hundreth said:

Ok, and what about the peace talks from the 90s and early 2000s?

And 2008 with Olmert and 2013-4 with Livney that I know wanted that badly.

[Raze]

5 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

And 2008 with Olmert and 2013-4 with Livney that I know wanted that badly.

And the Arab peace initiative which even Iran accepted but Israel rejected and continues to reject 

[Nivsch]

9 minutes ago, Raze said:

And the Arab peace initiative which even Iran accepted but Israel rejected and continues to reject 

From when?

[Lyubov]

8 hours ago, Nivsch said:

@Lyubov Part of understanding truth is to get into the psychology of Jews in Europe 1945. Emotions are as important as rational or physcial components.

I agree with you, and it’s why I am not someone who is entirely un empathetic to how Israel came to be. I realize we were attacked then and a lot of us only saw what is now Israel as a way to survive. So I’m not saying death and destruction to Israel. But I am saying the country needs to come to terms with the lies and ridiculous story it has told to justify ethnically cleanings another group of people and actively dismantle settlements and come to a new agreement to return land which makes a two state solution possible. 

[Nivsch]

26 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

ridiculous story it has told to justify ethnically cleanings another group of people and actively dismantle settlements and come to a new agreement to return land which makes a two state solution possible. 

I agree the settlements expansion needs to stop, and that a two state solution is the best solution.

[Nemra]

3 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

I agree the settlements expansion needs to stop, and that a two state solution is the best solution.

But how would the two-state solution become reality if settlers are still doing their job?