FREE PALESTINE

[haru]

To the crowds waving Palestinian flags, the chant reverberating across the globe expresses the desire for freedom from oppression across the historical land of Palestine. But for Israel and its backers, who label the phrase as pro-Hamas, it is a veiled call to violence that bears an anti-Semitic charge

[𝔈𝔩𝔊𝔯𝔦𝔫𝔤𝔬]

Both are third world countries with little to no modern structure and a lack of general knowledge.
Considering our current issues in the West and tied to Europe, I don't think I could care any less about a religious war by two extremely outdated cultures.
The only reason we play proxy is over Intel and resources.
The American government needs agencies in those areas for surveillance and they would benefit from being able to extract what ever is available in trade. That's it.
My take? LET THEM FIGURE IT TF OUT. We are wasting more resources in having a presences, than if we were just to focus on keeping their issues away from us.

[Zeno]

listener a écrit :

To the crowds waving Palestinian flags, the chant reverberating across the globe expresses the desire for freedom from oppression across the historical land of Palestine. But for Israel and its backers, who label the phrase as pro-Hamas, it is a veiled call to violence that bears an anti-Semitic charge

Palestine isn’t particularly a place I identify with nor support it’s mostly muslim values of.

Hence I will always route for Israel.

[Professor]

𝖠̶̶̅𝖨̶̶̅𝖬̶̶̅ a écrit :

Both are third world countries with little to no modern structure and a lack of general knowledge.
Considering our current issues in the West and tied to Europe, I don't think I could care any less about a religious war by two extremely outdated cultures.
The only reason we play proxy is over Intel and resources.
The American government needs agencies in those areas for surveillance and they would benefit from being able to extract what ever is available in trade. That's it.
My take? LET THEM FIGURE IT TF OUT. We are wasting more resources in having a presences, than if we were just to focus on keeping their issues away from us.

An interesting perspective & perhaps closer to any sort of truth, belief or simplified theory. Should we conclude that AGENCY on foreign soil is always going to attract oppositional, home grown attention, like RUSSIA having agency in Central, South America or EUROPE having agency in Asia, for example.

It must be said that the growth of adversarial rivalry based on foreign interest or agency, seems to be growing into something acceptable for offence & or defence. The problem of standing back "letting them figure it out" probably remains ignorant of our own historical involvement in the first place.

[Duck Twacy]

Professor a écrit :

Only to highlight that Arafat is the same or no different to HAMAS. Like saying "Republican leader Joe Biden" or "Democrat leader Donald Trump" or "American leader Trump Biden" lol.

The Roman Empire initiated antisemitism and anti-Jewish sentiment because they were the slave class within Rome. They tried to stomp out the idea of a Jewish homeland, and took Judea by force of arms, renaming Judea as Trans-Palestine.

Palestinian Arabs make the claim that Palestine was historically their homeland, and it never was. That's what they argue, and they think the name itself, Palestine, has Arabic origins and hence justification of their territorial claim.

I've stated this several times.

[Professor]

Duck Twacy a écrit :

Professor a écrit :

Only to highlight that Arafat is the same or no different to HAMAS. Like saying "Republican leader Joe Biden" or "Democrat leader Donald Trump" or "American leader Trump Biden" lol.

The Roman Empire initiated antisemitism and anti-Jewish sentiment because they were the slave class within Rome. They tried to stomp out the idea of a Jewish homeland, and took Judea by force of arms, renaming Judea as Trans-Palestine.

Palestinian Arabs make the claim that Palestine was historically their homeland, and it never was. That's what they argue, and they think the name itself, Palestine, has Arabic origins and hence justification of their territorial claim.

I've stated this several times.

You say pro-Palestinians wouldn't know how to digest certain things, but it seems the same is true for pro-Israelis, both seem to be ignorant of each others differences. Anyone can choose a version of history that suits them, but not everyone can accept there is more than version. Philosemitism, also called Judeophilia, is the feeling or expression of interest in respect for & appreciation of Jews on the part of non-Jews. The ownership of any one version should & rightfully so, accompany the concept of one entirety, relevant to more than just you or me.

Versions, interpretations, beliefs, ideas of any one given cause, history, truth or question, subjective or objective, can only be accepted as extremely diverse versions of anything, rightfully existing.

Semitisim, anti-sematism seemingly has multiple perspectives. It actually works all ways, for or against is the driving force, but yet there are many different versions of history. After all the Semitic , anti-Semitic languages have perfectly justifiable meanings for both Arabs & Hebrews. What is the difference, other than our grievances?

Honestly I don't think you are wrong, I am only intellectually challenged to persist & push the boundaries of empathy, in all respects, with wilfully difficult restraint to judge anything at all. I am only trying to understand ALL angles, all points of view that are willingly open to any other questionable perspective.

The flow of constructive criticism is essential & a positive thing if we are skill full enough, to not personally & individually accuse or judge each other of anything :)) It is hard to point the finger at anything or anyone else, when I know the finger can just as easily be pointed at me.

[Professor]

We are to blame, their is seemingly no excuse for denying the actions of our ancestors. Direct involvement or not is hardly the question, only that it is an extension of our past.

Deny our past & we deny our future. It is easy to sit on the bench & say that we have nothing to do with the worlds problems, but does that honestly sit comfortably with you? To separate ourselves from everything that has come before us, seems to me extremely naive.

I would even go as far to say that your history is also part of mine, your culture is also part of mine, your beliefs are also part of mine, your existence is also part of mine. How can we ignore our extremely diverse nature with our undeniably intertwined existence?

[Zeno]

Professor a écrit :

We are to blame, their is seemingly no excuse for denying the actions of our ancestors. Direct involvement or not is hardly the question, only that it is an extension of our past.

Deny our past & we deny our future. It is easy to sit on the bench & say that we have nothing to do with the worlds problems, but does that honestly sit comfortably with you? To separate ourselves from everything that has come before us seems to me, extremely naive

"we" , you are not speaking for me

[Professor]

Cyborg92 a écrit :

Professor a écrit :

We are to blame, their is seemingly no excuse for denying the actions of our ancestors. Direct involvement or not is hardly the question, only that it is an extension of our past.

Deny our past & we deny our future. It is easy to sit on the bench & say that we have nothing to do with the worlds problems, but does that honestly sit comfortably with you? To separate ourselves from everything that has come before us seems to me, extremely naive

"we" , you are not speaking for me

No, I am suggesting it is for many more than just you or me :)))

[Chesmu]

Professor a écrit :

We are to blame, their is seemingly no excuse for denying the actions of our ancestors. Direct involvement or not is hardly the question, only that it is an extension of our past.

Deny our past & we deny our future. It is easy to sit on the bench & say that we have nothing to do with the worlds problems, but does that honestly sit comfortably with you? To separate ourselves from everything that has come before us seems to me, extremely naive.

I would even go as far to say that your history is also part of mine, your culture is also part of mine, your beliefs are also part of mine, your existence is also part of mine. How can we ignore our extremely diverse nature with our undeniably intertwined existence?

The question is, what can we do? people gave governments power, so that they can divide that power among the people equally, but governments absorbed that power and took people hostage.

[Professor]

Chesmu a écrit :

Professor a écrit :

We are to blame, their is seemingly no excuse for denying the actions of our ancestors. Direct involvement or not is hardly the question, only that it is an extension of our past.

Deny our past & we deny our future. It is easy to sit on the bench & say that we have nothing to do with the worlds problems, but does that honestly sit comfortably with you? To separate ourselves from everything that has come before us seems to me, extremely naive.

I would even go as far to say that your history is also part of mine, your culture is also part of mine, your beliefs are also part of mine, your existence is also part of mine. How can we ignore our extremely diverse nature with our undeniably intertwined existence?

The question is, what can we do? people gave governments power, so that they can divide that power among the people equally, but governments absorbed that power and took people hostage.

Yes people & society created these systems, by agreeing to participate in voting, those legally described have an individual right to cast a single tick of approval for any type of leadership. But that is Democracy, what about other systems with no or restricted private voting?

They would still seem to be a part of any system we currently have or have previously had. For me personally I think that we the people, have the power over our governments, we vote for them so we can also vote against them. Perhaps voting itself is the problem :) a conundrum that has challenged humanity for centuries.

If we gave them power then it should be just as easy to take it back, but it would certainly come with great pain & sacrifice. I hate to use word but perhaps revolution is more relevant than evolution.

[Ulfrinn]

Professor a écrit :

Chesmu a écrit :

The question is, what can we do? people gave governments power, so that they can divide that power among the people equally, but governments absorbed that power and took people hostage.

Yes people & society created these systems, by agreeing to participate in voting, those legally described have an individual right to cast a single tick of approval for any type of leadership. But that is Democracy, what about other systems with no or restricted private voting?

They would still seem to be a part of any system we currently have or have previously had. For me personally I think that we the people, have the power over our governments, we vote for them so we can also vote against them. Perhaps voting itself is the problem :) a conundrum that has challenged humanity for centuries.

If we gave them power then it should be just as easy to take it back, but it would certainly come with great pain & sacrifice. I hate to use word but perhaps revolution is more relevant than evolution.

Maybe voting is just a show governments put on to placate the population. So long as you think you can change things by pushing a button, and blame everything on the people you assume pushed the other button, not only does it give you the illusion the majority support what ever corrupt ♥♥♥♥ government is doing, it keeps people divided and blaming each other whenever they do something completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up. There has never been a better system to keep people under control.

By contrast, you've seen what often happen to dictators and monarchies when enough citizens disapproved. They didn't spend their time blaming and fighting amongst each other. They worked together building gallows.

[Chesmu]

Professor a écrit :

Chesmu a écrit :

The question is, what can we do? people gave governments power, so that they can divide that power among the people equally, but governments absorbed that power and took people hostage.

Yes people & society created these systems, by agreeing to participate in voting, those legally described have an individual right to cast a single tick of approval for any type of leadership. But that is Democracy, what about other systems with no or restricted private voting?

They would still seem to be a part of any system we currently have or have previously had. For me personally I think that we the people, have the power over our governments, we vote for them so we can also vote against them. Perhaps voting itself is the problem :) a conundrum that has challenged humanity for centuries.

If we gave them power then it should be just as easy to take it back, but it would certainly come with great pain & sacrifice. I hate to use word but perhaps revolution is more relevant than evolution.

They were working hard for centuries, 90% of their efforts since dawn of society was to ensure their power stays for them and can't be taken away by people, and the remaining 10% was for people, but this effort was to make them survive and stay alive, as a government without slaves can't function.

The ONLY solution has 2 steps: 1: Wise people, (the whole planet) and 2, Those wise people acting.

However they took care of that solution too, by creating so many distraction in lives of people that they can't even bother thinking about what's going on, let alone decide and act on anything other than their survival in this fake struggle.

When finally free of distractions, they face the lies, TV, news, movies, which are pure or close to pure propaganda to make people less smart. They make people think politics is a sport, and the they make them worship celebrities, and spread the stupidity in a wind of plague called social media, like a virus.

So I'm not sure if there is any hope. :) Internal explosion of Earth seems like a good restart.

[Duck Twacy]

Professor a écrit :

You say pro-Palestinians wouldn't know how to digest certain things, but it seems the same is true for pro-Israelis, both seem to be ignorant of each others differences.

No, the Palestinian rhetoric is centered on their right to be there, and being denied land when the United Kingdom gave the territory they conquered to Jewish people as a home land.

The argument is that Palestinian Arabs were there before Jewish people and therefore it belongs to them. Nomadic Arabs were certainly in the area, but that doesn't justify anything. But Israel was willing to let them have their own nation, and Hamas, as usual, spoiled it.

The land belonged to the Ottoman Empire. Ages previous the Roman Empire conquered it when it was a Jewish homeland, Judea. And the Romans institutionalized anti-Jewish thought and rhetoric. The UK, after WW2 gave i to the Jews for a homeland. that's not any "version" of history.

[Chesmu]

Ulfrinn a écrit :

By contrast, you've seen what often happen to dictators and monarchies when enough citizens disapproved. They didn't spend their time blaming and fighting amongst each other. They worked together building gallows.

Haha,imagine if guys worth billions of dollars with military and bunker under their hands, were actually affected by people's push of buttons.

[Professor]

Ulfrinn a écrit :

Professor a écrit :

Yes people & society created these systems, by agreeing to participate in voting, those legally described have an individual right to cast a single tick of approval for any type of leadership. But that is Democracy, what about other systems with no or restricted private voting?

They would still seem to be a part of any system we currently have or have previously had. For me personally I think that we the people, have the power over our governments, we vote for them so we can also vote against them. Perhaps voting itself is the problem :) a conundrum that has challenged humanity for centuries.

If we gave them power then it should be just as easy to take it back, but it would certainly come with great pain & sacrifice. I hate to use word but perhaps revolution is more relevant than evolution.

Maybe voting is just a show governments put on to placate the population. So long as you think you can change things by pushing a button, and blame everything on the people you assume pushed the other button, not only does it give you the illusion the majority support what ever corrupt ♥♥♥♥ government is doing, it keeps people divided and blaming each other whenever they do something completely ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up. There has never been a better system to keep people under control.

By contrast, you've seen what often happen to dictators and monarchies when enough citizens disapproved. They didn't spend their time blaming and fighting amongst each other. They worked together building gallows.

nicely said as I can only totally agree with what you are saying. Do all governments, democratic or not conjure some sort of placation towards the majority of their people? Obviously, but I cant help thinking that it works both ways, or at least cause & effect, as it becomes a position to placate from both perspectives, people & government.

Sadly though, it is something identifiable as consequence, for the systems we currently have. Still though I am optimistic of humanities ability to eventually get it right, or at least on the path towards truly unbiased fairness, equality & a more meaningful balance for all.