«12. . .2,6472,6482,6492,6502,6512,6522,653»
Liberate Eclipsis?
... Shouldn't have this gone through three weeks ago?
There's... literally nothing left in the region... just make a replacement region at this point? '>_> I suppose you could liberate it if the name's that important but I'd assume the community would have already moved to another region at this point???
Ownzone, Atsvea, McClandia Doge 2, Zerphen, and 3 othersGarbelia, Greater Morvonia, and Great Wadiya
..::CARTOGRAPHY UPDATE::.. |
OLD WORLD
-Removed Talgarth
-Added 
Bacopa on japan
-Added 
Anxious and Kevin between Love and Nature and Nordustra
NEW WORLD
-Added 
Bisofeyr near Atsvea
-Added 
Ecotopia between York Zionia and Roless
Maps, FAQ and guidelines on how to join the map can be found here:
Forest Regional Map
.
Continental Map
Where most of Forest's known land area is located, as well as most of its nations and the Errinundera Natural Reserve. Sometimes called "Old World Forest".
.
Mapped Nations
.
Oceanic Map
The warmer part of forest, filled with monsoons, unusual fauna and unending oceans. Much of this division of Forest is still untamed wilderness, and is sometimes called "New World Forest".
(Click the map for full resolution)
.
Mapped Nations
Overseas territories: Atsvea | Belevia | Isbjorn Maerenne Bava Paerani (as Isbjorn) | Ordand | Roless | Sourovia | York Zionia
Full Map
The Ministry of Cartography has been working tirelessly exploring the unknown to bring you this map. It shows all the area the Ministry has currently recorded, but new discoveries are being made by our explorers all the time.
(Click the map for full resolution)
.
.
Other Maps
Continental Forest subregions
]
Maesvar:This swampy subregion is so ancient, some of it's trees are said to be older than humanity itself. It is home to the Errinundera regional reserve and bathed by the Devdan Ocean, both homages to Forest's founders.
Andorœchord:A northern and icy subregion, which is the most densely populated in forest both in terms of nations and in terms of mountains.
Abeshaast and Greater Belevia:Previously two separate subregions, now fused into one. The Belevic Ocean connects Continental and Oceanic Forest.
Hyarlaurilosse:The warmest subregion in Continental Forest, and the southernmost if islands aren't considered. This subregion is notable for it's charming abundance of goldflowers.
Mosak Pulgorinzei:Sometimes referred to as Middle Forest, this subregion contains the largest sea in Continental Forest: the Carnation Sea.
Tyanet:The only subregion in Oceanic Forest which doesn't contain any islands, and the only one connected by land to Continental Forest.
The Puloanyar:Home to several archipelagos and a diversity of societies and cultures, as well as a number of plants and animals completely extinct elsewhere.
West Pangamotu:The bigger continent in Oceanic Forest, largely covered by tropical rainforest. It is separated from East Pangamotu by the largest sea in the entire region, the Kakamotu sea.
East Pangamotu:A continent of varied climates, flora and fauna, going from moist jungles to cloud forests to arid deserts.
.
Frequently Asked Questions
How can I get on the map?
Well, it's not very complicated, the only requirement is your nation must have been in Forest for at least 12 days. If you fit the requirement, just telegram Roless! It does help a lot if you have a picture of your map, even if it's just a doodle on a napkin, but you don't need an image or even a defined shape (I can make one for you if you want). There is, however, an application that you should fill out in your telegram:
Location: In which part of which map. Ex: "north of X nation", "southeast of the Oceanic Map", etc. Currently, nations can only claim in areas covered by the continental and oceanic maps.
Size and Shape:This is where an image would come in handy, even if it's just a sketch. Note, however, that I might lightly alter the coastline of your nation to better fit the map's artstyle.
Cities and Notable Features:Particularly: Where is the capital? It's also relevant to inform things like where the mountains are, how many (if any) are there, what the bodies of water are, where are non-capital big cities located, etc...
Can I change my nation once it's on the map?
Yep! Let me know what changes you want, and they will be added in the next map update, unless they affect other nations too, in which case you should check with them first.
When Is the map updated?
The map should be updated around the first of every month, but keep in mind that if your map request is sent just before then, i may roll it over to the next map update.
Do nations get removed from the map?
If a nation has been cte'd for over 90 days, then it could be removed. I am quite lenient about this, but be aware that your nation might be removed if it is over 90 days cte'd.
.
Historical maps of Forest
MSI-era dispatch
Jutsa-era dispatch
Octopus Islands-era dispatch
2017-era dispatch, including links to maps that are older still:
.
Emergency .svg Download:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/2u083are6cwnmu6sh61sr/h?dl=0&rlkey=ioi575knzc0znywzlah1g1itg
Class struggle has been going on since the first human enslaved another of his kin, and shows no signs of ending soon. The labor movement is what guaranteed the workers many things we take for granted: an 8-hour work day, weekends, paid vacations, maternity leave, prohibition of child labor, reading the full list would exhaust anyone. All of this was achieved through blood. The ruling classes have no interest in relaxing exploitation, all they need is profit.
Thus, Russian workers revolted in 1917, violently breaking down the oppressive regime. Newly established government under Lenin has installed world's best labor protections, and Western bourgeoisie, terrified of sharing the fate of the Romanov family, granted their workers some concessions, among which were the aforementioned rights.
Today, those rights are being slowly but surely retracted: in the USA, 13 states are seeking to weaken child labor laws, and so-called "platform work", which lets the capitalists completely evade any responsibility, is on the rise globally. This is, again, a product of class struggle, and the oppressors are winning.
To change this, we must follow Lenin's call: Workers of the world, unite! Only in solidarity, can the working class put up a fight to protect all what lives were sacrificed for.
I don't say that at all. Like I said, Israel's response leaves a lot of room for criticism. Unfortunately it has left the high ground way back in the rear-view mirror - not to mention being incredibly stupid from a strategic and PR perspective. Personally I don't support any action that kills innocent civilians, whatever the provocation.
The fact remains, though, that it IS a retaliation rather than an unprovoked attack. Ukraine was just minding its own business when Russia blundered in to kill people and grab its land like we're all living in the 19th century. Israel, on the other hand, is reacting to "the worst single-day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust."
I acknowledge that Hamas is not the same as Palestine; on the other hand, over 70% of Palestinians support the October 7 attack, so it's not like there's no connection there. (Also, I double-checked, and it wasn't JUST Hamas involved in the attack, but also other "Palestinian militant groups.") So, is Israel wrong to attack Gaza in the way it has? Yes, totally. Don't kill innocent people! Is it as unquestionably, purely, wantonly evil as Russia was to invade Ukraine? No.
I guess it just bothers me that Russia making a greedy land grab is being equated to Israel reeling from a brutal attack.
In a way that is partially-similar to what you're saying here, it has bothered me that the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are being equated at all, as though "we" (i.e. the people in third countries, often very far away) really stand to gain anything by weighing one against the other and trying to decide which one is "better" or "worse" or "more justified" or whatever. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't talk or think about things, but it's an evaluation from a perspective which is somewhat forced and of rather limited application and value. And in another vein, we've all sort of chosen to zero in on both of these wars, but we mostly ignore other ones. Where's the attention for the civil wars in Sudan and Myanmar, for instance? How many Americans can even find those two countries on a map of country outlines? Where are those protests? Why is approximately 0% of our public consciousness directed towards the other conflicts around the world?
To me, it seems like we focus disproportionately on Ukraine and Gaza because the former is in "our part" of the world and wars in Europe were ruled out for much of the post-Soviet era, and because the latter involves a "clash of civilizations" and has an eye-catching Jewish vs. Muslim quality. But because those two have stolen and maintained the spotlight, we also have this (very human) tendency to try to come up with little rules and judgements about one vs. the other, and frequently in terms of things which are very much a matter of values and interpretation, rather than restricting ourselves to purely empirical things (e.g. the number of deaths or the square mileage of land under conflict, etc.). It's as though everything else were peaceful, and there are two discrete theatres of action in the world, and nothing else is there, and the two conflicts are somehow meant to evaluated against each other.
Rather, I think that each of these wars and the other conflicts around the world should be looked at in themselves and as sui generis. The circumstances of each one is unlike the others, and the players are different, and the land and people groups involved are different. The talking points are unto themselves, and the different positions don't track very well onto each other or lend themselves well to making value-judgement comparisons. Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have values on which we make judgements or anything like that; I'm just saying that the wars in Ukraine and Gaza are not a "pair" or "set" of things which naturally lend themselves to apples-to-apples comparisons.
(Nor do I mean to try to shut down the conversation on here! This was just an opportunity for me to say what's increasingly been on my mind in the last few months in the context of the current discussion, rather than randomly saying it out of the blue. Carry on, in good faith and in a spirit of discussion and reflection.)
Esterild, Einswenn, Jutsa, Mount Seymour, and 5 othersAtsvea, Uan aa Boa, Zerphen, Greater Morvonia, and Great Wadiya
Post by Volpes nation suppressed by a moderator.
I've thought about this. I think it is indeed partly because we're more familiar and involved with Europe, so we have a much better frame of reference and that makes it easier for us to form good judgements. Our entire cultural background is pretty steeped in Western civilization. Plus, at least in the U.S., I would say the vast majority of us have at least some European ancestry, so that's another psychological tie.
And, as you also mentioned, we're used to thinking of modern Europe as being stable and safe. To have that disrupted is highly noteworthy, particularly since the aggressor is a nuclear power.
To be totally honest I'm not as interested in the Gaza conflict. It reminds me a lot of Northern Ireland - one of those situations where there is a century of bad blood and it's just a lot of tedious retaliation with no end in sight. But it did bother me when a minority of people on the far left were celebrating October 7. Then, too, I think that WWII is such a big deal culturally, at least in the U.S., that Jewish people getting attacked has more immediate psychological impact than people dying in Myanmar or Sudan.
I think it's somewhat natural and understandable to take more of an interest in places that you're familiar with. Sure, you can read up on places like Sudan, but that doesn't give you a feel for the situation in the way that you'd have an automatically more nuanced understanding of a conflict that arose between, say, France and Germany. I think it would be great if we in the Western world had a lot more fiction (books and movies) centered in less familiar places like Africa. It might not have been the most masterful literature in the world, but reading some of the No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency series gave me a stronger sense of familiarity with Botswana, and helped me mentally differentiate it from all the other countries in that area of Africa.
I'm sure this all makes me sound obnoxiously...American. And that's probably exactly what I am. But at least I can find Sudan and Myanmar on a map!
ETA: I would also say that an inter-country war is of more international importance than a civil war.
Jutsa, Atsvea, Zerphen, and Greater Morvonia
I've already shared some of my thoughts and frustrations with regards to Israel's genocide and perceptions of the West's response. It's interesting to see the topic come back here, because it has been unavoidable almost everywhere. While the perspectives that are presented here are varying and certainly interesting, I often find that many geo/political topics tend to be approached from a Western perspective that bears little to nothing in common with the opinions expressed elsewhere.
While Hamas is universally denounced here as rapists/murderers and terrorists, in Arabic-speaking circles, there's generally unconditional support for every form of resistance by the Palestinian people. Those in the occupied territories, the Israeli settlers, are not innocent civilians. These are settler colonialists who have committed countless massacres since their genocidal state's inception. You don’t support the liberation of a people if you don’t support their only viable militia capable of fighting back. The people of Palestine who are dying for their right to self-determination, to liberate their country from the Zionist occupation which has lasted for more than 75 years, don’t care about this notion of a "moral high ground" that Western countries perceive themselves with. Israel's imperialism, which is backed by the United States and its allies, is the immediate contradiction that needs to be dismantled first and foremost as the first step towards national liberation and sovereignty. This is why leftist resistance organisations such as the Marxist-Leninist DFLP and the Maoist PFLP are fighting alongside Hamas. If the material conditions change, the situation which fosters popular support for Hamas would also change.
I actively oppose the existence of Israel and advocate for a a single democratic and secular Palestinian state. The path of armed struggle was not chosen by Palestinians, it was the path the Israeli oppressors imposed on them: to suffer or to fight. Gazans have tried protest and were slaughtered by the hundreds. It's such a privileged position to be able to sit and lecture Palestinians in the proper and measured way to resist against one of the strongest militaries in the world. The language with which Hamas and the Palestinian popular resistance are being described with today is alarmingly similar to the various accusations which the imperialist media threw at the Vietcong during their own struggle. So while we're here discussing the schematics of Israel's (non-existent) morals or whatever, they are hellbent on turning Gaza into a parking lot on-top of mass graves and using fictitious underground bunker graphics to "justify" bombing schools and hospitals.
Ultimately, the subversion of focusing everything on Hamas or other issues elsewhere - the constant backtracking in every discussion to hypothetical scenarios and various allegations - is purposely taking away from criticising Israel's genocide. I'm coming back to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's scorn: The white moderate will support the black man in his struggle, but he will never relinquish any of his privileges to actually fight with them. Today it's Gaza/Palestine, back then it was Vietnam; Nearly the exact same deceitful tactics of back then are being deployed today in public opinion. It's clear that once the status quo is disturbed so that it's uncomfortable for the so-called moderate, they find it easier to stand with the oppressor or be "apolitical", than to fight for (and at the bare minimum, support) a just cause without turning it into a lecture.
Israel has all the rights to exist and opposing its existence is extremist in my eyes (especially if being done armed). While several political and military takes of Israeli governments are really questionable and could be done much better, benefitting both Israel and Palestine, I am deeply convinced the Jews have their right to live their own historical homeland having noted what they’re as a nation had to pass through for quite many centuries.
With a grand support of major powers compounded with dedication those people built relatively developed, modern, and democratic country. It bothers me a lot when I see calls for the destruction of this state and/oe extermination of its people, rather than of changing it for the better. Neither side is really open for the two-state solution, let’s be real. It’s important to keep finding the common ground for Israel and Palestine with a lot of international support and guarantees to make it happen and conceptually prosper.
Esterild, Jutsa, Atsvea, Window Land, and 2 othersZerphen, and Greater Morvonia
Nowhere in what I wrote did I advocate for the extermination of Israelis, I only mentioned that Israeli settlers have engaged in violent acts and massacres against Palestinian civilians and therefore aren't to be treated as innocent civilians. Opposing the existence of a settler-colonial project is not "extremist" in the slightest, and if it matters to you, I have the same view with regards to Canada, Russia, and the United States, for their own genocides against the indigenous people of the lands. Moreover, the idea that a religious group of people have a specially ordained right to live on a land where there's already people living sounds a lot like Manifest Destiny. The same words were said for the white minority in Apartheid South Africa until, after sufficient international pressure and various forms of internal and external resistance, the system of oppression was replaced by the rule of majority. In Israel-Palestine case, that's a single democratic and secular state for both Palestinians and Israelis, where the former represents the majority. I would also contest the classification of Israel as "democratic" and the possibility of finding a common ground or concession with a colonial settler state.
Jutsa, Atsvea, Uan aa Boa, Zerphen, and 2 othersGreater Morvonia, and Great Wadiya
The October 7 attacks were committed against people inside Israel's borders, however. Or are you referring to all of Israel as settler colonialists who are not innocent civilians?
I have to admit I'm nowhere NEAR an expert on the history of this topic. However, from what I've read, it sounded to me like the Jewish settlers who originally came to Palestine purchased land to settle on. That sounds to me more like immigration than Zionist occupation.
Of course, then England decided Palestine would make a good Jewish homeland in spite of the fact that there were already people living there, and Arabs were violent towards Jews and Jews were violent towards Arabs, and some two-state solutions have been rejected, and there are illegal Israeli settlements in Gaza, and so on and on...
I think this is a bit unfair for a couple of reasons. First, the current conflict was triggered by a terrorist attack by Hamas, so it's not disingenuous to focus on them. Second, I have long believed that the ends do not justify the means, and I follow that principle rigorously even when it comes at my own cost. Everyone believes his own cause to be just. The way we fight for our causes is just as important as whether or not we achieve them, because our actions create the world we all have to live in.
I recognize the long history of oppression that Israel has subjected Palestinian people to, and in a way I can empathize with the idea of some militia group doing what they can to fight against that oppression, but I would question the idea that deposing the Israeli government in favor of a single state Palestinian government is truly the best solution for everyone. It seems that the militaries of both, the IDF and Hamas, are interested in the eradication of the other, but is either best for the people they represent, Israeli and Palestinian? In that sense I echo much of what Eins has said above. For Hamas or another group to take control and form a single Palestinian state is merely turning the oppressed into the oppressor. The cycle of conflict would only be perpetuated as now the Israeli people would be on the back-foot trying to take back what they lost. We could moralize about whether the Israeli or Palestinian people are innocent or not, but let us not forget that both are people all the same. The only good solution, I would think, is one where both Israelis and Palestinians can rest assured in peaceful coexistence.
Esterild, Einswenn, Jutsa, Atsvea, and 4 othersWindow Land, McClandia Doge 2, Garbelia, and Greater Morvonia
The attacks of October 7 were carried out in occupied Palestinian territories against Israeli settlers. Israel's present borders include various Palestinian lands which have been under occupation since 1947-48.
You come short of mentioning that Jewish immigrants, not the followers of the Zionist movements, owned less than six percent of all land in Palestine. Buying land doesn’t mean you get to make a new country. After the Nakba, more than 80% of the Palestinians were expelled and their properties were seized by the Israeli government. Prior to and through the foundation of the state of Israel, Zionist paramilitaries like Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi conducted depraved acts of terrorism against the Palestinian people as well as the British authorities, such as the bombing of the King David Hotel and Deir Yassin massacre.
The current conflict is an extension of, and the lengthy result of, the material conditions imposed by the occupier on the occupied in the past 75 years. It would be incredibly shallow to look at the past several months of depravity and decide that the trigger for it was October 7. During the same year, armed Israeli settler mobs in the occupied West Bank targeted Palestinian civilians and burned their properties; Israeli government officials were (and still are) calling for Palestine to be wiped off the map; the Israeli government approved the construction of 4,500 new illegal settlements in the West Bank and murdered numerous Palestinians who refused to give up their properties; Pogroms were being carried out against Palestinian villages; the IDF launched its largest raid in the West Bank in 20 years and raided a hospital in Jenin; and between August-September injured more than 100 Palestinian civilians during collective punishment raids. Israeli officials routinely refer to the practice of occasionally bombing the Gaza Strip, during which civilians and aid workers were also dying, as "mowing the lawn." It is, actually, disingenuous to focus on Hamas considering Israel's actions in the few preceding months alone.
Jutsa, SherpDaWerp, Atsvea, Uan aa Boa, and 2 othersZerphen, and Greater Morvonia
That wasn’t directed at you personally in the overall, even though I entirely disagree with what you post.
As far as I get you, you are from the Arab world and I’m pretty sure you can see where I come from with my stance about extremism. It’s an awfully common feel among Middle Eastern Arabs towards Israel: to wipe them out, to “push them to the sea”. I know these words are familiar to you even if you personally don’t necessarily share this ideology. And at the same time it’s entirely inappropriate for Israeli officials to call for the same towards Palestinians/arabs, as it’s been noted it only hurts than helps the situation. No governments should ever call for eradication of any ethnic group, no exception. That’s why I said Israeli government isn’t pure too. As a side note, I’ve been both to Israel and Palestine, that was quite an educative experience that helps to separate people and the governments.
But what I do believe in is that Israeli state is capable of going better and doing better. Israel, as one of the most advanced country in the Middle East, could and should be a beacon of change for the better, to make a positive precedent.
And as a p.s.: regardless of how you view the territories where the recent massacre occurred, I find it deeply shameful for anyone to promote any form of justification for hamas terrorists (mandatory disclaimer: the very ones who did the attack, not “the Palestinians” as it’s often equalised in media). It’s a terrorist attack on civilians, on unarmed civilians. It doesn’t matter if Netanyahu is right or wrong, those victims weren’t the ones to blame. At the end of the day, having zero armed resistance on that day could also allow the attackers to just scare the people away from the land they claim theirs all the way to inner Israel, to escort them out if you wish. There was no need in murder.
The words which you refer to make a distinction between the Zionists of Israel and the Jewish people. Even Hamas distinguishes between Jews or Judaism and modern Zionism. What the Arab world rejects is the existence of the Zionist entity, not the existence of Jews, and this has been made clear numerous times. I don't disagree with the idea that Zionism should not be given space.
During 76 years of existence, the genocidal state of Israel has continued to erode the occupied territories of Palestine with total and complete disregard for any and all international laws. To believe that, after all what it has done, Israel as a Zionist project can be a "beacon of change" and a "positive precedent" in the Middle East is as morally unacceptable as leaving apartheid South Africa up to its own devices would've been. As I highlighted in my original message, again, there is a subversion of focusing everything on Hamas instead of confronting what Israel is and has been doing for much longer than Hamas even existed. I would hope that you similarly condemn the massacres that have been carried out by the IDF as acts of terror, including the mass sexual violence perpetuated against Palestinians.
A colonizer has no right to self defence, as they are always the aggressor.
Moreover, I did not promote justification for Hamas' actions; I stated that their actions were as a result of Israel's oppression and the material conditions which are imposed upon the Palestinian people. These material conditions in of themselves have spurred Hamas' rise and could not have been done without Israel's actions and involvement. Israel has repeatedly and consistently shown that non-violence by Gazan and Palestinian protestors will be met with violence. Just like the whites in South Africa, the Israelis aren't going to wake up one morning and say that the occupation is too cruel and apartheid is illegal by themselves. Therefore, there is only the choice of being one democratic country with equal rights for all, that struggles for equal rights for all, supported in every way possible. Asking Israel, as the apartheid state and occupier with all of the power, to abandon Zionism and Apartheid for true and equal democracy with the Palestinian people should not be a tall order nor an outrageous request.
Jutsa, SherpDaWerp, Atsvea, Uan aa Boa, and 5 othersTerrabod, Zerphen, Greater Morvonia, Microtastic, and Karyo Gama
Palestine was actually planned to have much more territory within and next to Israel compared to what it has now. The reason it is quite small today is because after WWII the League of Nations wanted to give the Jews some land since ya know.. WWII. But obviously middle Eastern countries did not approve of Jewish people on their land and taking their land in Palestine in general, so when planning out space for Palestinians within Israel all the middle eastern countries left the League of Nations in protest which resulted in Palestine having even less land, kinda unfortunate. I would say this helped Hamas become more powerful and have more movement behind it compared to if Palestine had the amount of land the League of Nations already had planned out. What I mean is Hamas probably would have been formed anyway if Palestine had the amount of land they were supposed to have, but since they ended up with less land then planned it led to a quicker and more deadly development of Hamas.
(Not a super history nerd so I might've gotten something wrong but you can find this info pretty easily on the internet if you want to fact check it.)
This wasn't super related to the current discussion but it just popped back into my head with all this talk about Israel and Hamas and what not again.
Jutsa, Atsvea, Zerphen, Greater Morvonia, and 2 othersMicrotastic, and Anxious and Kevin
Good afternoon Forest. It is a lovely breezy day in the glade, though it looks like showers approach from the east. How are all of you?
Esterild, Jutsa, Ownzone, Atsvea, and 4 othersRuinenlust, Zerphen, Greater Morvonia, and Grenviron
Doing well. Showers can be nice and peaceful too, especially with a covered place outside to sit and watch.
Idk if you all know, but before they recently said something about the rank/trend system not working I was worried my decisions wouldn't count. They will count.
"Actual nation stats and underlying data is fine; the problem is only with our ability to rank nations on those stats." I hope.
Esterild, Jutsa, Atsvea, Ruinenlust, and 4 othersUan aa Boa, Zerphen, Greater Morvonia, and Microtastic
I think it's good! The North American Vexillological Association has a few guidelines for flag design (https://nava.org/good-flag-bad-flag), and the first one - which I've kept in mind ever since first reading it - is, "Keep It Simple. The flag should be so simple that a child can draw it from memory." I think your flag accomplishes that while still being distinctive.
I'm looking forward to seeing what changes you make and reading about how your nation's lore is reflected in the design! It's awesome when nations put some effort into their flag design. I'm really pleased with 
Mansfield Park's flag, but Esterild's honestly needs work.
The one real-life nation whose flag is (in my opinion) an exception to the "keep it simple" rule is Bhutan. A kid couldn't draw that, but it's a fabulous flag.
An excellent concept!!
Since you're asking for advice, here's my tuppence worth....
It thoroughly breaks the heraldic rules, so let's forget that. The overall idea really looks good and design-y. A small number of abstract elements and a limited palette is generally an excellent choice. Since you're not being heraldic, how about using full-on gradients rather than stripes?
I would also suggest some tweaks to the colours.
: Higher contrast. It's hard to see what's going on at small sizes (or over the proverbial smoke-filled battlefield)
: Add colour? Perhaps run a sky gradient (black-navy-azure-pale cyan-light grey-white)
: Match sides. Have the starting sequence at the right for stripes/gradient on the diagonal identical to that on the left of the flag.
To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, see https://i.imgur.com/NxFKSbN.jpeg
Esterild, Calenmor, Jutsa, Atsvea, and 5 othersMcClandia Doge 2, Zerphen, Middle Barael, Greater Morvonia, and Bisofeyr
I enjoy your flag, too!
To add to this. What does each thing represent? it's a great question to ask yourself when creating a flag.
Don't make it too busy. Overcrowding a flag makes it a eyesore in the end.
To make a good flag, Seals, Names, Words in general, overcomplicated decals is a no no in good flag making.
Simplicity is also a good thing to go by in flag creation.
But in the end, it's whatever makes you happy. It's your nation. Make it how you want it.
Hope this helps.
Since not everyone likes gradients, here's the original design with revised colours (1+ diagonal stripe).
https://i.imgur.com/mbliPwi.jpeg
Thank you everybody for your advice on my flag! I will definitely tweak some things with it, my main problem is probably that it is quite hard to recognize when at a smaller scale. The main gist of my nation is actually space themed so I went for more grayer colors but it just ended up looking foggy! Gonna need to fix that as well haha. Again, thanks for the advice 
Almonaster Nuevo, 
Gorthias, 
Esterild, 
Einswenn.
Well, I've finished up the last semester of my degree, and I've got all my marks back. I don't have a degree yet, but I meet all of the requirements, so I think I'm allowed to call myself a biologist now. Something something they asked if I had a degree in theoretical physics biology I told them I had a theoretical degree in biology.
For my last senior elective, I took a political science course on the interplay between religion and politics, and I got a B+, so I'm automatically an expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict (/s). In all seriousness, I've not read all 150+ new RMB messages, so sorry if I'm retreading old ground.
Fundamentally, this is a good summation of my opinions on Hamas. I'm obviously against the killing of innocent civilians, and when people in Hamas advocate for that, it is bad, but an axiomatic opposition to civilian deaths also leads me to being very anti-Israel. Hamas' October 7th attack was bad, but I think one can think that and simultaneously recognize it was probably inevitable. If we're name-dropping MLK, "Violence is the language of the unheard".
If Israel really wanted to de-escalate, and we're assuming Hamas is too far down the militant resistance pathway to negotiate with, Israel is in luck, as I'm sure the Palestinian National Authority would love to come to a peaceful resolution. Or rather, Israel would have been in luck if they hadn't done their best to undermine the Palestinian Authority, refusing to negotiate in good faith with them while encouraging Qatar's funding of Hamas. Maybe I'm being cynical, but to me, it seems like Israel wanted a militant Islamist faction in charge of Palestine rather than a peaceful one, because it lets them "fight the bad guys" by bombing anything and everything in Palestine, no doubt with the intention of occupying it and moving civilians in. The settler colonialism they were already doing was kinda slow, and they were getting some backlash from the U.N., and this speeds things up.
I'm personally not a fan of Hamas, as they've advocated for and done some pretty bad stuff, but realistically, I can't blame Palestinians who support Hamas, because there's not another option. If Israel wants Hamas gone, the easiest way to do so is to give Palestinians that option, and actually negotiate in good faith, as I'm sure the average Palestinian is more concerned with not getting shelled than they are with the eradication of Israel. But Israel seems to want to get rid of Hamas by getting rid of all Palestinians, and if that doesn't validate Hamas' positions, I don't know what does. Israel, as a nation-state, has a right to self-defense, but that's not what they're doing; they are, at best, engaging in ethnic cleansing, which I think they shouldn't have a right to do. The extent to which Hamas' actions are justified are the extent to which they fight against Israel's genocide of Palestinians.
This sentiment is where things get a bit more murky in my mind. On the face of it, there's nothing I disagree with here, so I'm not arguing against you as much as I'm using this comment as a jumping off point.
I think people tend to be too loose with their definition of "settlers" in this context. In my mind, a "settler" is someone actively engaging in a settler-colonialist project by moving to, and occupying, land previously held by others. Simply living on the land does not rise to that level; a child born to Israeli settlers and raised on Palestinian land is not a settler, as they didn't chose to be born where they were. If you use the label over generations, you can make an argument for literally anyone being a settler, as some time in the past, they almost certainly had an ancestor who displaced someone else to live where they live now. That's not to say non-settlers are blameless; most white South Africans were not settlers in the later years of apartheid, but many upheld apartheid nonetheless, and are morally culpable for the harm that said system brought about.
I'm also hesitant to say that Israeli settlers can't be civilians. They definitely aren't innocent civilians, but unless they are active members of the military, they are civilians, and it is unjustifiable to target them as combatants. October 7th saw the deaths of many civilians, and I doubt Hamas was trying to determine levels of moral culpability, so the Hamas combatants involved were absolutely wrong to kill them, absent resistance justifying self-defense. I'd actually argue that if Hamas just occupied territory and took hostages, they'd be right to do so, as that would be a proportionally fitting means of resistance against Israel. Not to say that the civilians taken hostage deserve it, but there has been a lot of undeserved actions taken against Palestinians, including members of Hamas, and Israel has provided no peaceful way of preventing future harm, let alone rectifying past harm. Israel created the conditions, and Israel is responsible for the outcomes.
Broadly, I think that Palestinians have a right to stability and ownership of land, but things get complicated when you get into specifics. They absolutely have the right to remove settlers and re-occupy their own homes, but if you're talking about a property that has passed through a couple generations since being taken, I'd argue that Palestinians should be given land and compensation, but not necessarily that specific piece of land. Ideally, any disputes should be resolved in the manner that produces the best outcomes, but good luck getting that passed as law, so I'd say that Palestine should be given enough land to equal Israel's population density, using the pre-active genocide number of Palestinian citizens adjusted for time. If non-settler Israeli citizens end up displaced as a result, that's unfair to them, and unfortunate, but it'd be far more unfair to deprive Palestinians of homes altogether, so it would be up to the government of Israel to compensate for that, as the entity ultimately responsible. Of course, this is impossible to do as of now, because Israel is not interested in "doing what's right", and they're the ones with the power to do so, so it's more productive to advocate for solutions that actually work.
I think I might be falling into this, so I'm going to stop writing stuff. I'll just finish by saying that I don't have an issue with a predominantly Israeli country in the Middle East named Israel, but if the current iteration of Israel is the form in which it takes, it should not exist.
«12. . .2,6472,6482,6492,6502,6512,6522,653»
Advertisement