Raze

How censored is the internet? Aren’t vpns illegal?

The reply you’ve quoted is not just weak — it’s a masterclass in historical cherry-picking, cultural essentialism, and intellectual evasion. It doesn't meaningfully engage with the arguments it purports to respond to. Instead of grappling with the central claims — namely, that Palestinian resistance has deep secular, anti-colonial, and humanitarian roots, and that Israeli violence is not absolved by pointing at other global atrocities — the reply pivots to a sentimentalized, selective account of Bosnian restraint, as if that somehow disproves anything previously said. It doesn’t. It’s a deflection, not a rebuttal — the rhetorical equivalent of mumbling "but they’re different" after being thoroughly out-argued. First, the claim that the Bosnians didn't turn to extremism because their "Islam was European" is a colonial fantasy dressed up as sociological analysis. It's Orientalism 101 — the idea that there’s a “good,” modern, European Islam (docile, secularized, traumatized into silence) versus a “bad,” Arab Islam (tribal, dogmatic, irrational). This isn’t analysis — it’s a lazy civilizational narrative that recycles old tropes about “open” vs. “closed” cultures with zero empirical rigor. It conveniently ignores the fact that foreign jihadists did enter Bosnia during the war, that radicalization did occur in small pockets, and that what largely prevented widespread extremism wasn’t cultural psychology but international intervention, peacekeeping forces, and the eventual promise of EU integration — none of which have ever been seriously extended to the Palestinians. Second, the idea that Bosnians turned their trauma “toward the future” while Palestinians are “defined by pain” is an obscene trivialization of one of the most systematically brutalized populations on Earth. Palestinians are not the authors of their own statelessness, their checkpoints, their sieges, or the apartheid wall slicing through their land. They did not "choose" to crystallize around pain — they have been denied every serious opportunity to pursue a future by an occupation that destroys schools, jails children, murders journalists, and bombs refugee camps. Comparing that to a post-war Bosnia — which, while still fragile, had a peace accord, international legitimacy, and reconstruction funds — is both dishonest and cruel. The person’s understanding of the subject? Shallow, rigid, and fundamentally unserious. They are not trying to understand the dynamics of either Bosnia or Palestine — they’re weaponizing one against the other to make a moral argument they don’t have the tools to defend on its own terms. They treat Islam not as a faith but as a psychological condition, reducing entire populations to deterministic models of behavior based on how "open" or "closed" their religion supposedly is — as though Islam in Gaza and Islam in Sarajevo are monolithic, one-dimensional, and culturally immobile. And let’s be clear: their claim that the abuses by Israel are “much less than Bosnia or China” is not only factually disputable — it’s morally bankrupt. The magnitude of suffering is not a scoreboard for atrocity justification. Saying “Israel’s crimes aren’t as bad” is not a defense; it’s an admission of guilt cloaked in a false hierarchy of horror. It's the moral logic of a bureaucrat at a war crimes tribunal trying to shave years off a sentence by pointing to someone else who murdered more people. It’s cowardice, not argument. In the end, this person doesn't engage in political reasoning — they peddle civilizational storytelling. They reduce complex, multi-generational conflicts to personality disorders and cultural defects. They think referencing Bosnia as an "open" Islamic culture is enough to silence the realities of settler colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. They can’t argue with facts, so they moralize with false binaries. They can’t see the Palestinians as full human beings, so they pathologize them as prisoners of their own religion. It’s not just intellectually weak — it’s ethically repugnant. This isn’t the mind of a critical thinker. It’s the voice of someone terrified of moral ambiguity, desperately clinging to simplistic narratives to avoid confronting the ugly truths of occupation and oppression. In short: this person isn't debating — they're rationalizing, and doing it very badly.

Let’s be clear: no, the final reply does not meaningfully dispute the arguments presented to them. It doesn’t address the secular foundations of much of Palestinian resistance, ignores the well-documented evidence of Israeli-initiated escalations, and pretends the global pro-Palestinian movement is entirely religiously motivated, rather than rooted in anti-colonial, humanitarian, and legal critiques of occupation and apartheid. The person doesn't even attempt to refute any of the cited examples (e.g., Edward Said, the First Intifada, disproportionate use of force by Israel). Instead, they retreat into a cartoonish narrative about Muslim psychology and monolithic religious obsession — a narrative so lazy and outdated it wouldn’t even pass muster in a freshman-level political science course. What does this tell us about their intellectual capacity? Not much that’s flattering. This is not someone engaged in good-faith reasoning. This is someone out of their depth, grasping at civilizational tropes because they lack the tools — historical, ethical, or analytical — to reckon with the criticisms they've received. It’s the classic defense mechanism of the ideologue who has been thoroughly debunked: retreat into metaphysical pseudo-anthropology and talk about how “those people” are just wired differently. It’s the hallmark of someone who cannot bear to concede even a sliver of moral ground, because their worldview depends on painting the other side as fanatical, irrational, and subhuman. Their claim that "no one in Islam really cares about the Uyghurs or Bosnians" is not only factually false — it's intellectually bankrupt. It erases the very real protests, campaigns, and solidarity efforts that have emerged across the Muslim world and beyond. What they call a "serious but temporary" crisis in Bosnia involved rape camps, genocide, and the largest mass killings in Europe since WWII — if that’s “temporary,” then words have no meaning. But even more grotesque is the implication that only Islamic religious outrage explains global concern for Palestine — as though non-Muslims haven’t been on the front lines of solidarity movements, as though Jewish voices haven’t stood against occupation, and as though the issue is fundamentally theological instead of being about land theft, military occupation, apartheid laws, and decades of statelessness. Their hypocrisy is grotesque: they defend Israel’s ongoing atrocities — including the mass killing of civilians, the deliberate starvation of Gaza, and the leveling of entire neighborhoods — by flinging around other war crimes as rhetorical smokescreens, as if the existence of global injustice somehow absolves one’s own side of committing it. This isn’t moral reasoning; it’s the logic of a war criminal in denial — the ethical equivalent of saying, “Others rape and pillage too, so why can’t we?” By invoking Sudan, the Uyghurs, and the Kurds not to demand justice for them, but to justify Palestinian suffering, they reveal a conscience not guided by empathy or principle but by tribal loyalty and moral rot. What it says about their morality is damning: they are not interested in human rights, only in the weaponization of other people’s pain to defend the indefensible. This is not just intellectual cowardice — it is a profound moral failure, the kind that festers in the minds of those who would rather rationalize state terror than confront their own complicity. In short: this is not a serious thinker. This is someone addicted to simplistic civilizational narratives, allergic to nuance, and profoundly unserious in the face of real human suffering. They can’t argue, so they essentialize. They can’t listen, so they project. And they can’t accept complexity, so they reduce the world to comforting binaries: West vs. Islam, reason vs. faith, civilization vs. barbarism. This isn’t clarity — it’s intellectual cowardice dressed up as cultural insight.

1. “Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute” — reframed as “a perception” The author tries to soften the grotesqueness of this line by claiming it's just a "perception" held by some in the Muslim world, as if they’re simply reporting a social phenomenon rather than endorsing it. But this doesn’t neutralize the original intent — it reaffirms it by implying that Israel’s military victories inherently carry symbolic religious weight. This is nonsense. Not only are many of Israel’s opponents secular — the PLO, for example, was a secular nationalist movement, not an Islamic one — but treating every Palestinian act of resistance as religiously motivated Islamism erases decades of material struggle over land, sovereignty, and human rights. Consider the First Intifada (1987–1993), a largely grassroots, secular uprising against occupation, involving civil disobedience, boycotts, and mass protests — not driven by Islamism, but by national liberation. Or take the statements from figures like Edward Said, a Christian Palestinian intellectual, whose opposition to Zionism had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with justice. The notion that the Palestinian struggle is a religious war is a deliberately reductionist fantasy — one that serves Israeli nationalist mythology and allows its defenders to wave away legitimate grievances as theological extremism. 2. “Iran, Yemen, Hezbollah, and Hamas... destabilize the region” This is standard fare in Israeli talking points: create an axis of evil-style bloc and use it to justify every act of aggression as preemptive or defensive. But this framing falls apart under scrutiny. The claim that Israel is simply reacting to regional threats ignores that Israel has consistently initiated conflicts, often for domestic political gain or as part of a long-standing doctrine of deterrence by overwhelming force. Look at Operation Cast Lead (2008–2009), where Israel killed over 1,400 Palestinians, including hundreds of civilians, in what even U.N. reports described as disproportionate use of force. Or the 2021 bombing of Gaza, during which Israel flattened residential towers, including the building housing AP and Al Jazeera, using the vague pretext of "Hamas activity." In both cases, it was Israel — not its “Iranian proxies” — that escalated. Or take Lebanon 2006, where Israel's disproportionate response to the kidnapping of two soldiers involved killing over 1,000 Lebanese civilians, destroying critical infrastructure, and leaving behind cluster munitions that still maim civilians today. This isn’t defense. This is a regional hegemon asserting itself through overwhelming violence and then crying wolf when those it brutalizes dare to resist. 3. “Jews are surrounded by hate everywhere” This is perhaps the most morally manipulative claim in the entire reply. The author presents Israeli policies as a rational response to a world that is inherently antisemitic and wants Jews gone — which is not only unprovable as a universal claim, but historically and politically misleading. It is an inversion of reality: Israel, a nuclear-armed state backed by the world’s most powerful military (the U.S.), continues to act as though it’s a 1942 ghetto fighting for survival. Yet in the Middle East, Jews have historically not always been persecuted. In fact, Jews lived for centuries in Muslim-majority countries — often with more tolerance than they experienced in Christian Europe. Mizrahi Jews came from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, and Iran. Their expulsion and displacement coincided not with ancient antisemitism, but with the rise of Zionism and the founding of Israel, which ignited new tensions. Even today, countries like Iran still host Jewish communities (albeit under pressure), and Turkey maintains a longstanding Jewish minority. And if Israel is “surrounded by hate,” what explains its normalization deals with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and even the ongoing détente with Saudi Arabia? This siege mentality is less a reflection of reality than a narrative used to justify perpetual militarism and exceptionalism — a mythology of victimhood to mask the reality of power. 4. “Maybe the Iranian regime will fall” — thinly veiled wishful thinking The idea that Israeli aggression could catalyze regime change in Iran is not only baseless, it is historically disproven. In fact, every Israeli or Western act of aggression against Iran — from Stuxnet to the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists to Trump’s killing of Qassem Soleimani — has strengthened the Iranian regime by reinforcing its legitimacy as the last line of defense against imperialism. The 2009 Green Movement, which posed the last serious threat to the Iranian regime, collapsed partly because the state was able to paint the opposition as being aligned with the West. Similarly, Iranian hardliners used the Trump-era maximum pressure campaign to consolidate control. Israeli belligerence does not destabilize Iran’s regime — it reinforces its ideological framework. The author of the reply misses this entirely because they are invested in the fantasy that military pressure alone can redraw the political map of the region. 5. “If Israelis were Muslims, no one would care about Palestinians” This is not an argument — it's a moral tantrum. The claim that the world only cares about Palestine because Israel is Jewish is both factually inaccurate and ethically obscene. The Palestinian cause has been supported globally not because Israel is Jewish, but because the evidence of systematic injustice is overwhelming. Moreover, the claim collapses under historical scrutiny. The Bosnian genocide — Muslims killed by Christian Serbs — prompted NATO intervention. The Uyghur crisis in China has drawn global outrage. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar has triggered massive protests and U.N. condemnations. These are Muslims suffering under non-Muslim regimes, and the world does care — just not always enough to act. By contrast, Palestinians have lived under military occupation for over 50 years, been denied citizenship, had their homes bulldozed, their lands confiscated, and their families displaced, often with full impunity. That global attention is finally shifting to this reality is not bias — it’s belated accountability. Conclusion: Their worldview is not only intellectually weak — it's morally impoverished. It’s the view of someone who cannot tolerate moral scrutiny, so they retreat into abstraction, myth, and deflection. No amount of rhetorical varnish can cover that up.

First, let’s look at the core evasion: “When did I say that?” — referring to the line about weaponizing Jewish trauma to erase Palestinian resistance. This is the rhetorical equivalent of pretending you didn’t say something just because you didn’t use the exact words. But the logic of their prior statements is clear: by denying Jewish humiliation under the Holocaust (a demonstrably false historical claim), they attempt to draw a contrast with Palestinians, painting them as irrational, over-emotional, and inferior for resisting. That’s not just historical revisionism — it’s using one group’s trauma to delegitimize another’s struggle. They can try to dodge the implications, but the subtext is screaming. Then comes the laughably crude declaration: “Israel's humiliation of Islam has once again been absolute.” Setting aside the grotesque phrasing, what does this even mean? Humiliation of Islam? The original critique explicitly debunked the claim that Palestinian resistance is rooted in wounded Islamic pride, not material injustice — and instead of addressing that, the speaker doubles down on a civilizational fantasy of Israel “humiliating” Islam. This isn’t political analysis — it’s Clash of Civilizations cosplay with a messianic sheen. The comment about being “surrounded by hate everywhere” is the classic rhetorical crutch of Israeli victimhood nationalism. It’s the eternal siege mentality: every criticism is antisemitism, every act of resistance is terrorism, and every surrounding country is existentially committed to Jewish destruction. This allows the speaker to avoid reckoning with power: with the actual reality of who holds the guns, who drops the bombs, who enforces the checkpoints, and who has nuclear weapons. This isn't nuance — it's narcissism disguised as realism. Then, of course, we get the tedious whataboutism: “If Israel were Muslim, no one would care about the Palestinians.”This is a recycled and lazy talking point. Yes, there are atrocities in Muslim-majority countries — and many people docare. But the fact that injustice exists elsewhere does not negate the injustice of settler-colonialism and apartheid in Palestine. This is not an argument — it’s a moral shrug. It’s the ethical equivalent of saying, “Other people get away with murder, so why can’t we?” Finally, the snide ending — “your need to be with the good guys against the bad American devil…” — is the cherry on top of this rhetorical landfill. It’s a transparent attempt to project ideological tribalism onto the opponent, when in fact, the original critique was grounded in historical fact, human rights principles, and actual argumentation. This kind of dismissal is the last refuge of someone who’s been intellectually outmatched: insult the motives, don’t touch the ideas. It’s cowardice dressed up as cynicism. Final diagnosis: This person has poor grasp of history, no interest in honest debate, and an allergic reaction to complexity. Their worldview is built on cartoonish binaries, laced with cultural chauvinism and propped up by juvenile taunts. They can’t defend their position, so they hide behind rhetorical smog and pretend it’s clarity. It isn’t. It’s lazy, dishonest, and intellectually bankrupt.

On Jewish Humiliation and the Holocaust Saying “I don't think the Jews felt humiliated by the Germans, it was more a matter of absolute horror” shows a shallow grasp of the Holocaust’s full brutality. The Nazi regime didn’t just kill — it dehumanized, humiliated, and erased dignity through forced ghettoization, tattoos, shaved heads, medical experiments, and mass degradation. To deny that humiliation was central is not just historical amnesia — it’s moral illiteracy. Why make this distinction? Because the speaker wants to delegitimize Palestinian resistance: “Jews suffered quietly; Palestinians lash out.” It’s a dishonest comparison. Jews had no state, no army, no allies. Palestinians face a nuclear-backed occupier enforcing military rule and apartheid. The circumstances differ, but the instinct — resisting humiliation and erasure — is deeply human. Ironically, the speaker proves the point: humiliation matters. “They can stand in the land and be friends with the Jews.” This is the benevolent occupier myth: Palestinians can live in peace if they smile and forget the ethnic cleansing, settlement expansion, checkpoints, home demolitions, blockades, and the nation-state law that denies them self-determination. It's like saying enslaved people could’ve just “been friends” with their masters — if they gave up their land, language, and dignity. Palestinians don’t oppose coexistence; they reject subjugation. Israel’s decades-long refusal to allow a viable two-state solution and its militarized control over millions make real “friendship” impossible. “I’d like they can evolve and be open-minded.” This might be the most condescending line of all. It reduces a colonized people with deep cultural and intellectual traditions to backward primitives awaiting "civilized" enlightenment. It’s white man's burden — in Hebrew. Calling for Palestinian “evolution” while backing a state that, as of October 14, 2025, is bombing refugee camps and besieging hospitals, is hypocrisy in full bloom. Palestinians don’t need to evolve to demand freedom — and there’s nothing “open-minded” about applauding apartheid and occupation. If resisting that makes them backward, what does it make the ones justifying it? On the Turkish Deflection “Sure, the Turkish are very worried about the injustice to the Palestines, they can't sleep because that” isn’t a rebuttal — it’s a sneer wrapped in cowardice. The original point wasn’t about Turkey’s sincerity, but that Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel is rooted in history and injustice, not wounded religious pride. This response dodges that entirely. It’s like being told the house is on fire and responding, “Well, the neighbor didn’t call 911.” It’s irrelevant, petty, and reveals you’ve got nothing left but sarcasm. And ironically, it concedes the argument: if your only move is mocking another country’s inconsistencies while ignoring your own, you’ve run out of facts. This isn’t debate — it’s deflection. Final Verdict The speaker shows a shallow, self-serving, and ahistorical grasp of both Jewish and Palestinian realities. They weaponize Jewish trauma to erase Palestinian resistance, whitewash Israel’s policies, and package bigotry as reason. Faced with evidence, they sneer, dodge, and collapse into deflection. They accuse others of lacking adjectives, but can’t produce a single original thought of their own. Here’s one for them: pathetic.

1. “Muslims hate Israel only because Israel humiliated Islam again and again.” This is a historically illiterate claim. Muslim and Arab opposition to Israel has been driven by colonial displacement, occupation, and systemic injustice, not religious humiliation. Secular Arab nationalist movements — including Fatahand the Ba’ath Party — led resistance with secular, socialist ideologies, not Islam. The early PLO even distanced itself from religious rhetoric. And if this were about Islam alone, how do Christian Palestinians fit in? Figures like Hanan Ashrawi have been vocal in opposing Israeli policy. Are they reacting to "Islamic humiliation" too? The argument implodes under its own absurdity. 2. “Palestinians move for pride more than for benefits; that’s why they cheer 7 October.” This is a dehumanizing generalization that conflates millions of Palestinians with Hamas. Many opposed the October 7 attacks, and Palestinian civil society and diaspora groups condemned violence against civilians. Moreover, Palestinians have repeatedly pursued nonviolent and diplomatic paths — from the 1988 PLO recognition of Israel to the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the BDS movement. To ignore all that and claim Palestinians act purely out of "pride" is both dishonest and insulting. And cheering violence isn’t exclusive to Palestinians. Far-right Israelis have been filmed chanting “Death to Arabs” and celebrating Gaza bombings. Is that “Israeli culture”? Of course not — so why apply that logic selectively? 3. “Islam deserved to be humiliated... rigidity, abuse, consanguinity, narrow-minded.” This is not analysis — it's bigotry. It echoes colonial-era racism used to justify domination. Islam, like any religion, is diverse and internally complex. Thinkers like Ibn Sina, Al-Ghazali, and Ibn Khaldun shaped philosophy, ethics, and sociology. Modern reformists continue to engage with democracy and human rights within Islamic frameworks. And consanguinity isn’t unique to Muslims. It’s common in many societies, including Christian and Jewish communities. Weaponizing it here is just pseudoscientific racism meant to justify discrimination. 4. “Israel put Islam in the right place: down.” This isn’t an argument — it’s a confession. A gloating celebration of subjugation that mirrors fascist rhetoric, not liberal democracy. If someone said the West “put Judaism in its place” in the 20th century, we’d call it what it is: incitement and moral depravity. The same standard applies here. Ironically, this mentality fuels the very extremism it claims to oppose. It’s not about peace or security — it’s about dehumanization as policy. 5. The Historical Reality and the Hypocrisy Let’s talk real history. Israel didn’t “humiliate Islam” in 1967 — it occupied territory. And when Egypt dealt Israel a bloody nose in 1973, Israel suddenly found returning the Sinai negotiable. Not out of dominance, but necessity. So much for humiliating Islam — that war forced Israel to reassess Arab military strength. That’s realpolitik, not religious superiority. And if the author hates Islamist extremism so much, maybe they should ask why Israel helped fund Hamas in the 1980s to weaken the secular PLO. You don’t get to bankroll Frankenstein and then act shocked when the monster wrecks the village. That’s not strategy — that’s shortsightedness on fire. 6. Conclusion: What This Reveals About the Speaker The final insult — “you’re a sad, self-righteous narrow-minded incapable of independent thought” — is pure projection. The speaker refuses to engage facts, ignores history, and collapses complex political realities into a lazy narrative of religious inferiority. It’s emotionally-driven tribalism disguised as analysis. This isn’t someone defending a country — it’s someone venting their insecurities through bigotry. The conversation didn’t fail because of ideological differences — it failed because they had nothing to offer but bile.

Because he’s so dense I’ve had to repeat the same points to him multiple time and he still ignores them. It’s not worth typing out actual arguments when he can’t even comprehend them. So simply asking an AI to review his arguments is a faster way to quickly fact check. I’ve debunked you with words for many pages, but you can’t even properly read or comprehend points. AI is sufficient to tear apart your arguments. To be clear, these aren’t biased prompts, I literally just put in your posts and the replies and ask it how accurate your post is and what it says about you that you wrote it, and tell it to use caustic language. If your post passed basic fact checking and reasoning it’d go over just fine. Innately you know this since you can’t even dispute the points raised, you just complain I used AI at all (you used it before to try and counter me), funny enough the AI itself spots this and points it out that you just ignore every point that refuted your argument. The idea that Palestinians are driven by “honor” and “humiliation” rather than land, sovereignty, and freedom is a colonial trope. It dehumanizes them and rationalizes their subjugation by portraying them as incapable of political thought. This framing ignores decades of displacement, illegal settlements, the blockade of Gaza, systemic discrimination, mass incarceration, and military violence — none of which stem from Palestinian culture, but from Israeli policy. Framing Palestinian violence as irrational while calling Israeli force “security logic” is moral hypocrisy. This is how oppression launders itself — by branding resistance as pathology and occupation as necessity. If we applied the same standard to Israel’s own history — from Irgun and the Haganah to modern bombings of civilian areas — we’d see that the line between self-defense and extremism is not exclusive to Arabs. The facts tell a different story. In 1988, the PLO accepted a two-state solution based on 1967 borders. In 2002, the Arab Peace Initiative offered normalization in exchange for withdrawal from occupied territories — Israel never formally accepted it. In 2006, Hamas offered a long-term truce and signaled openness to a two-state deal, but was met with blockade and political isolation. Nonviolent efforts like the BDS movement are dismissed as antisemitic, proving that even peaceful resistance is punished. In 2012, Mahmoud Abbas publicly gave up the right to return to his birthplace, saying, “It’s my right to see it, but not to live there.” The response? Continued settlement expansion. Israeli officials themselves have acknowledged the legitimacy of Palestinian grievances. Former PM Ehud Barak once said, “If I were a Palestinian of the right age, I would join one of the terror organizations.” Ex-Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon admitted, “Palestinians are fighting because they want a state of their own.” Ariel Sharon, in 2003, called the occupation “a terrible thing” for both sides. Tamir Pardo, former Mossad chief, labeled Israeli rule in the West Bank as “apartheid.” These are not marginal voices — they expose the lie that Palestinians are too primitive for peace. Their demands are not cultural tantrums, but political claims: for dignity, sovereignty, and equality. What’s dishonest about the “honor culture” framing is that it erases these political efforts and insists that Palestinian suffering is self-inflicted. It’s easier to paint them as irrational than to confront the real consequences of occupation. The speaker’s stance reveals not deep understanding, but shallow moral binaries where power justifies itself and suffering only matters when experienced by the side they favor. If, after “studying the issue extensively,” their conclusion is that Palestinians are simply too backward to be peace partners, it reflects not insight but a lazy, self-serving worldview. This isn’t critical thinking; it’s the recycling of colonial logic dressed up as objectivity. Rather than challenging power or examining their own biases, they cling to comforting narratives that absolve their side of accountability. Their “learning” is ideological armor — an echo chamber where complexity is avoided for moral convenience. It’s not just a failure of empathy — it’s a failure of intellect.

Don’t let him mislead you. There is no coherent opposition in Israel. Netanyahu’s party still gets the most votes and the only relevant competitor is Bennett who is identical to him. They oppose Netanyahu for domestic reasons, none care at all about what Palestinians go through and publicly denounced recognition of a Palestinian state by Europe. Younger people in Israel are also much more to the right and more likely to support Netanyahu than older people in Israel, liberal Zionism is dying and being replaced by messianic Zionism.

https://www.tiktok.com/@israelismfilm/video/7260550584544136491

Have the US say no aid and sanctions until they either remove the settlements and agree to the Arab peace initiative or accept occupied Palestinians as equal citizens

False comparison. Europe and America weren’t settling the land as their own and maintaining subjugation status for the Iraqis and Afghanis. We don’t have videos of American farmers going on a rampage attacking random Iraqis like this: That’s also not getting into the portion of those killed who were civilians was much less during America’s Middle East campaigns.

It isn’t, that’s casualties which include injuries

Let’s be clear: they did not dispute the arguments. They sidestepped them entirely. The original rebuttal made several clear and well-documented points: peaceful Palestinian resistance has been met with violence; the conflict is fundamentally about land, dispossession, and sovereignty; and dismissing it as an emotional identity crisis is a convenient way to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths. The reply addresses none of this. Instead, it retreats into a crude caricature of Palestinians as irrational, honor-obsessed savages who “commit massacres” and are offered “opportunities” by their enlightened occupiers. This isn’t argumentation—it’s racist venting dressed up as geopolitical insight. The invocation of October 7th as some kind of irrefutable moral trump card is also disingenuous. Yes, atrocities were committed—and they should be condemned unequivocally—but to weaponize one horrific event to erase decades of structural violence, dispossession, occupation, and apartheid is a classic tactic of intellectual cowards. It’s like discussing the history of American slavery and being interrupted with “But what about crime in Chicago?” It’s not only irrelevant to the historical context—it’s a deliberate distraction used to delegitimize a people’s struggle. What’s even more telling is the grotesque misuse of Golda Meir’s infamous quote, which was itself a thinly veiled piece of colonial propaganda. To recycle that line in 2025, with full awareness of its implications, shows a staggering lack of empathy and an almost sociopathic commitment to ideological supremacy. The speaker isn’t interested in peace, justice, or coexistence—they’re interested in moral domination. They see Palestinians not as human beings with aspirations and rights, but as broken primitives who must either submit to their oppressors or be extinguished. That’s not political analysis—it’s a eugenic fantasy. As for their critical thinking skills, they are nonexistent. The responder exhibits zero intellectual discipline, no curiosity, no nuance, and no capacity to question inherited narratives. They regurgitate propaganda and couch it in the language of progress and rationality, unaware that they are projecting a medieval mindset onto others while pretending to speak from some enlightened vantage point. The reference to “mental retardation” and AI responses only underscores their emotional immaturity and inability to engage in civil, reasoned dialogue. That’s not critical thinking—it’s playground-level name-calling masquerading as moral clarity.

It’s rich—actually laughably hypocritical—that you can’t acknowledge Palestinian grievances while eagerly parroting Israel’s complaints about “terrorism.” You champion Israel’s right to security and call for “evolution,” but turn a blind eye to the daily reality Palestinians face: land theft, home demolitions, military occupation, and a systematic effort to erase their existence. How convenient to demand Palestinians give up “violent means” when every peaceful protest, every nonviolent resistance movement—from the First Intifada’s mass civil disobedience to the weekly demonstrations in places like Bil’in—has been met with brutal repression, arrests, and often lethal force. So pardon Palestinians if their options appear limited when peaceful resistance is crushed before it even begins. And let’s dismantle this tired myth that this conflict is “purely emotional” and about “identity and religion” rather than land and human rights. This framing is a gross oversimplification designed to dismiss legitimate claims. The dispute is fundamentally about dispossession, sovereignty, and justice. Palestinians are not fighting an abstract religious war—they are fighting for their homes, their lands stolen in wars and settlements, and their right to exist without occupation. You can’t reduce decades of forced displacement, military checkpoints, and restricted movement to a mere “identity” quarrel while ignoring international law and human rights violations. The insistence that “there is nothing to gain by violent means” is as naive as it is cruel. When every attempt at dialogue or peaceful protest is met with violence, when international institutions largely fail to hold the powerful accountable, what choice remains? Telling Palestinians to simply “evolve” or give up resistance is an echo of colonial arrogance, expecting the oppressed to quietly accept injustice because the “stronger” party demands it. And that condescending jab about “honor” and cultural practices is not only offensive—it’s a distraction from the real issue. Slapping on stereotypes about Arabs or Muslims doesn’t explain the complex political realities. It’s a deflection to avoid engaging with uncomfortable facts: that Israel’s policies have created a system of control and exclusion that breeds frustration and resistance. So if you want to talk honestly, stop framing this as some primitive tribal feud or religious squabble, and start grappling with the real questions of land rights, sovereignty, and human dignity. Until then, your “reply” is just another thin veneer for willful ignorance, hypocrisy, and intellectual laziness. In short, this person’s conclusions reflect an intellectually lazy, morally immature, and ideologically rigid mindset—one that prioritizes tribal loyalty and cognitive comfort over truth, complexity, and compassion. It’s a mindset that, frankly, is not far removed from the kind of black-and-white thinking you might see in teenagers wrestling with identity and authority but lacking the tools or willingness to engage deeply and empathetically with the world. If this is their “best” understanding after study, it’s a stark warning about the limits of their critical thinking and ethical development.

The reply you quoted is not only intellectually bankrupt—it is a dumpster fire of arrogance, bigotry, and rhetorical evasion. It doesn’t address the arguments presented; it runs from them, tail tucked, while hurling lazy insults and racist generalizations in its wake. The original response laid out a detailed, historically grounded critique, complete with evidence, citations, and political context. In contrast, this person—clearly overwhelmed and out of their depth—opts for the intellectual equivalent of flipping the table and screaming “evolve!” as if that’s a rebuttal rather than a tantrum. Instead of engaging the factual claims—like documented aid blockades, starvation-level malnutrition confirmed by the UN and NGOs, or the historical context of Zionist colonialism—their response degenerates into moral nihilism and cheap taunts. “You can cry for another 80 years if you want” is not an argument; it’s the smug smirk of someone who knows they have no answer. That line alone reeks of the entitlement of someone whose worldview has never been seriously challenged—and whose empathy has likely never been exercised. It's a proclamation of moral cowardice wrapped in thin-skinned bravado. Worse still, the reply devolves into pure bigotry: “Seems that Muslims have a barrier... extremely stupid to an incredible level.” This is not only grotesque racism—it’s also laughably ironic coming from someone who just demonstrated an inability to comprehend the most basic points of the argument. When your response to complex geopolitical history and humanitarian law violations is to vomit out lazy ethnocentrism and project your intellectual insecurities onto 1.8 billion people, you’re not debating—you’re confessing your limitations in real time. This isn't moral or intellectual engagement—it's petulant tribalism masking an empty brain. Blaming the Qur’an for Palestinian resistance is not just ignorant—it’s a lazy, racist cop-out that screams intellectual bankruptcy. Resistance to occupation, dispossession, and ethnic cleansing isn’t born from religious texts; it’s born from decades of brutal military control, stolen land, razed homes, murdered families, and the international community’s deafening silence. Even more damning to this idiotic claim is the fact that Palestinian resistance has never been solely Islamic—Christian Palestinians have been a vital part of the struggle since the beginning, and secular, Marxist, and nationalist factions like the PFLP and DFLP have played major roles in resisting Zionist colonization. Figures like George Habash, a Christian, co-founded militant movements not out of religious zealotry, but out of anti-colonial conviction and a demand for justice. The idea that this is just Muslims “refusing to evolve” is the kind of cartoonish garbage you’d expect from a Reddit troll who thinks reading one MEMRI clip qualifies as geopolitical analysis. The fact that they still cling to this broken narrative after historical, political, and humanitarian evidence has been spoon-fed to them says everything: their critical thinking skills aren’t just lacking—they’re actively allergic to nuance. It’s not that they’re uninformed; it’s that they’ve chosen willful ignorance, because facing the truth would dismantle the fragile ego they’ve mistaken for insight. Logically, the reply fails at every level. It dodges evidence, substitutes ad hominem for analysis, and shows zero grasp of cause and effect. There is no engagement with primary sources, no understanding of international law, no curiosity about context—only a retreat into smug superiority and pseudo-Darwinian “might makes right” rhetoric. That’s not just flawed reasoning; it’s the argument of someone who has stopped thinking entirely and now relies on inherited propaganda and cultural chauvinism to feel secure. So what does this tell us about their ability to research and understand this topic? Quite plainly: they have none. They are a loud voice in a quiet room, hoping volume will mask the lack of substance. Their arrogance is a shield for ignorance, and their mockery a placeholder where critical thinking should be. They are not a good faith actor—they are a walking strawman, the kind of person who poisons every conversation they enter with condescension, projection, and shallow thinking. If someone is serious about understanding Israel-Palestine—or any issue involving human rights, history, and moral accountability—this person’s perspective should be discarded with the same urgency you'd give a moldy piece of meat. It’s not just unhelpful; it’s corrosive. This is not the voice of a morally or intellectually developed person. It’s the voice of someone desperately clinging to a worldview that can’t survive the light of scrutiny. If anything, this reply is a warning sign: if you want truth, avoid this person’s ideas like the plague.

The skeptic’s final reply is a smug display of shallow thinking masquerading as insight. It dodges evidence, distorts facts, and clings to a narrative with condescension instead of substance. Presented with photos, data from NGOs, and medical studies documenting mass malnutrition and famine, they retreat into mockery and cherry-picked videos. It’s not a rebuttal—it’s a performance of denial. Claiming Israel “sends food every day” ignores overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Israel has bombed aid convoys, imposed tight border controls, and most notably, completely blocked humanitarian aid to Gaza for three months starting in March 2025. That blockade—widely condemned by the UN, WHO, and dozens of NGOs—accelerated famine conditions. During this time, aid trucks were halted, hospitals ran out of food, and people survived on weeds and animal feed. Pretending this was humanitarian support is dishonest in the extreme. The idea that “everyone would have died if there was starvation” reveals a cartoonish view of famine. Starvation is not binary. Widespread wasting, organ failure, and malnutrition-related deaths—especially among children—were all documented. You don’t need corpses in the streets for a famine to be real. Referencing “thousands of videos” of healthy-looking people is an absurd fallacy. It’s anecdotal fluff used to deny systemic suffering. Just because you can find a smiling child on camera doesn’t mean tens of thousands aren’t malnourished. This is propaganda logic: cherry-pick what looks good, ignore what’s ugly. The sarcastic “quantum physics for your mind” line is the weakest part—pure projection. When someone leads with mockery instead of evidence, it means they have none. A sign of insecurity in their own arguments, it’s an attempt to save face, not to engage truthfully. In the end, their argument isn’t built on facts—it’s built on evasion. They ignore aid blockades, dismiss hard data, and substitute arrogance for analysis. Their understanding is shallow, their reasoning lazy, and their integrity absent. This isn’t skepticism—it’s willful ignorance in a cheap disguise. This reply is a mess—emotionally manipulative, historically shallow, and logically broken. Instead of responding to clear arguments about Zionist dispossession, systemic inequality, and apartheid conditions, it dodges everything with a childish moral binary: “The Jews didn’t want to be killed.” That’s not an argument—it’s propaganda disguised as moral outrage. First, Zionist displacement and violence didn’t begin with the Nakba in 1948. From the early 1900s, Zionist settlers—backed by colonial powers—pursued land purchases that pushed Arab tenant farmers off their land. The Jewish National Fund and others enforced “Hebrew labor only,” replacing Arab workers with Jews. This wasn’t coexistence—it was calculated exclusion. Violence escalated throughout the 1920s and ’30s. The 1929 Hebron massacre is often cited, but Zionist militias like the Haganah and Irgun had already been involved in armed confrontations. During the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt, Palestinians rose up against growing British-Zionist domination. Zionist forces, with British support, crushed the revolt and carried out mass reprisals. By the late 1930s, Zionist leaders were openly discussing transfer of Arabs. Ben-Gurion said in 1937: “We must expel Arabs and take their place.” These weren’t fringe ideas—they were central to state-building plans. In the 1940s, Irgun and Lehi were bombing Arab civilians and British targets. The King David Hotel bombing (1946) killed 91 people. These were not defensive actions—they were premeditated terror campaigns. So when this person says coexistence broke down because “Arabs started killing Jews,” they’re flipping history on its head. Zionist violence was already organized, ideological, and strategic. The Nakba didn’t come out of nowhere—it was the culmination of decades of planning, settler expansion, and ethnic cleansing. Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, and entire villages erased. Ben-Gurion, one of the main founders of the State of Israel and its first Prime Minister, made several statements acknowledging Arab opposition as understandable. In 1936, during the Arab Revolt, he said: “We must not stand in the dock in the eyes of world public opinion or of our own conscience. We must not be aggressors. But they see us as aggressors. They see us as robbers who have come to dispossess them of their land, and it is impossible to explain to them the justice of our cause.” Weizmann, a key Zionist leader and Israel’s first President, acknowledged Arab fears. In 1919, he wrote to a British official: “The Arabs are afraid, and not without reason, that we shall soon be in a majority and that they will be pushed into the desert.” The claim that “many Arabs coexist in Israel” ignores the apartheid-like conditions inside Israel. Arab citizens face dozens of discriminatory laws, unequal funding, and legal segregation. The Jewish Nation-State Law codifies Jewish supremacy. Arabic was downgraded, and Palestinian citizens are routinely surveilled and vilified. This isn’t equality—it’s tolerated subordination. Even worse is the sneering line: “At your level of understanding…” That’s not intellect—it’s a shield for someone who can't defend their views with facts. It’s ironic, since this reply shows no grasp of history or nuance—just defensive posturing and tribal reflex. In short, this reply avoids the argument, distorts history, and defends inequality by flipping cause and effect. It reveals poor reasoning, ideological blindness, and zero intellectual honesty. It’s not critical thinking—it’s cowardice masquerading as certainty.

The claim that Israel was founded on “coexistence” and that “many Arabs are coexisting in Israel” is a selective truth wrapped in historical simplification. It overlooks the broader context of dispossession, military control, and systemic inequality that has shaped Israeli-Palestinian relations since before 1948. Was the “Jewish idea” really coexistence? Zionism included various strands—some did envision peaceful coexistence—but dominant leadership, especially after the 1920s, understood that building a Jewish state in a land already inhabited would require displacement. In 1937, David Ben-Gurion said: “We must expel Arabs and take their place.” This isn’t coexistence. Between 1947–1949, over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in what’s known as the Nakba. Massacres like Deir Yassin occurred, entire villages were destroyed, and the refugee crisis was deliberately left unresolved. While Israel frames this as a byproduct of war, the scale and planning point to intentional dispossession—not coexistence. What about Arabs inside Israel? Roughly 20% of Israeli citizens are Arab. Many live and work alongside Jewish Israelis, but this does not mean they enjoy equality. They live under legal and informal discrimination: Dozens of laws differentiate between Jews and non-Jews (land, immigration, housing). Arab towns receive far less funding and infrastructure. Arabic was downgraded from official language status in 2018. The Jewish Nation-State Law declares that only Jews have national self-determination. Palestinian citizens face routine surveillance, suspicion, and racist rhetoric from officials. Their presence is tolerated, but on unequal terms. This is not meaningful coexistence—it’s structural subordination. What’s left out? The claim ignores millions of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, who are stateless, under military rule, and subject to a separate legal system. They cannot vote in the Israeli government that controls key aspects of their lives. Settlement expansion, military raids, and movement restrictions undermine any notion of peaceful coexistence. It also erases the Palestinian diaspora—millions denied the right to return to their homes, while any Jew worldwide can immigrate under the Law of Return. Conclusion The argument is built on cherry-picked facts and historical whitewashing. While some coexistence exists within Israel’s borders, it is deeply unequal. The broader Zionist project involved displacement, domination, and exclusion—not peaceful partnership. Claiming Zionism was simply about coexistence is like saying America was founded purely on liberty—true only if you ignore slavery, genocide, and settler colonialism. It’s not a serious historical argument; it’s a comforting myth.

The reply (“always the same boy … what about those cheering?”) is a weak counter. It shifts the goalposts, downplays evidence, and demands a level of visual proof that’s unrealistic in a war zone. It’s rhetorical evasion, not critical thinking. How well does it counter the evidence? It doesn’t. Providing eight photos of emaciated individuals warrants engagement—claims of fakery, misattribution, etc.—not a blanket dismissal. Saying “same boy” ignores the variety and sidesteps analysis. It’s whataboutism, not argument. Showing a video of people cheering a ceasefire doesn’t disprove starvation. People can celebrate relief and still be suffering. One clip of healthy-looking individuals doesn’t negate systemic malnutrition. Demanding a “crowd of skeletal bodies” overlooks the reality: Gaza has extreme access issues—war, blockade, destroyed infrastructure. Lack of the perfect image isn’t evidence nothing’s happening. This response appeals to gut-level doubt, not logic. It asks you to prove a negative—classic denialist rhetoric. Is there other evidence of starvation in Gaza? Yes—extensive and credible: A Lancet-led study (Jan 2024–Aug 2025) measured over 220,000 children; ~55,000 are acutely malnourished, ~12,800 severely. 100+ NGOs (e.g. Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children) report “mass starvation,” with their staff “wasting away.” The IPC system says famine thresholds have been crossed in many areas. WHO and others report dozens of malnutrition-related deaths—often in children arriving too late for treatment. The Palestinian Health Ministry confirmed 29 starvation deaths as of May 2025. In March 2024, a boy with cerebral palsy died from hunger in Gaza. Yes, there’s debate about individual images. One child had a muscular disorder, which some argued skewed perception. However, fact-checkers (e.g. DW, Snopes) verified many images as genuine, showing real food distribution scenes and widespread suffering. So the evidence is far more than a handful of photos—it includes medical data, NGO reports, and institutional famine warnings. What does this reply say about the skeptic’s reasoning? It’s shallow skepticism, not real inquiry. Instead of weighing the evidence, they demand perfect proof—something rarely available in war zones. They rely on deflection: dismissing photos, offering unrelated videos, and shifting the focus instead of arguing substantively. They’re not curious about the facts—they’re committed to denying them. An honest thinker would ask for sources or context, not dodge the conversation entirely. Finally, they misunderstand how evidence works in humanitarian crises. Most suffering is invisible—happening in homes, hospitals, or places cameras can’t reach. They treat absence of perfect imagery as proof of absence, which is both naive and intellectually dishonest.