Raze

Apparently you don’t agree since you refuse to assign blame to Israel and rationalize everything they do. Palestinains have attempted every non violent method from peaceful protests, boycotts, diplomacy, etc. it is crushed every time by israel. The peaceful protestors are beaten or shot. The boycotts are criminalized, the diplomacy is blocked. Yet you continue to insist this is all just a response to violence and when the violence stops it’s over.

If the video was for the mentally retarded, it may actually have worked on you. Because I already posted multiple times your claim about the Nakba is factually incorrect, but you are too obtuse to absorb this information despite failing to address the points made every time.

Wrong, settlement expansion has increased under every prime minister. Expanding settlements actually harms security

Hamas just agreed to disarm even if the occupation doesn’t end (which they already offered).

Prompt: how accurate is this analysis? Result: 🔹 CLAIM: “The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn’t exist.” Inaccurate. The Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine from 1516 to 1917, but organized resistance did exist, especially in the late Ottoman period. For example, in the early 20th century, there were Arab nationalist movements and Palestinian opposition to Zionist immigration, particularly after the Young Turk revolution and Balfour Declaration (1917). It is misleading to suggest there was no resistance; rural revolts, opposition to conscription, and nationalist organizing occurred, though they weren’t always centralized. 🔹 CLAIM: “Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn’t mind that too much either.” Very inaccurate and dismissive. Palestinians resisted British rule extensively during the British Mandate (1917–1948). The 1920 Nebi Musa riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, 1929 Hebron massacre, and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt were major uprisings against British policies and Jewish immigration. The 1936–1939 revolt was one of the largest anti-colonial uprisings in the British Empire during the interwar period. 🔹 CLAIM: “All their protests were against the Jews.” False and reductive. Palestinian resistance was directed at both British colonial policies and Zionist settlement—both were seen as threatening indigenous sovereignty. Resistance movements were based on a mix of anti-colonial, nationalist, and religious motivations, not simply antisemitism. Many Palestinians saw British policy as enabling Zionist colonization, and that was a core reason for resistance. 🔹 CLAIM: “Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew.” Highly offensive, racist, and historically unfounded. This implies Palestinians (or Arabs more broadly) are submissive by nature, except when resisting Jews — a racialized and dehumanizing generalization. History shows Palestinians (and Arabs) resisted many powers: Byzantines, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, and later Israel. The suggestion that their resistance is unique or irrational when aimed at Jews is a politically motivated distortion. 🔹 CLAIM: “Before the Ottomans… Mamluks… Crusaders… Caliphates… Byzantines… Rome… Greeks… Persia. Seems they should be used to the situation.” Misleading and fatalistic. Yes, the region has been ruled by many empires — as has most of the world, including Europe and Asia. That does not justify ongoing occupation or conflict. Historical conquest doesn't negate modern rights to self-determination. This logic could be (wrongly) used to justify any imperial or colonial situation. 🔍 Summary of Issues ❌ Historically Flawed: Overlooks documented uprisings and nationalist movements. Misrepresents the complexity of resistance against both colonialism and settler projects. ❌ Ethically Problematic: Relies on essentialist thinking (Palestinians as inherently submissive). Frames opposition to Zionism as irrational or uniquely hostile to Jews, rather than anti-colonial. ❌ Politically Weaponized: The argument isn't about history — it’s used to delegitimize Palestinian resistance, suggesting they have no right to object to occupation or displacement. Prompt: if someone makes this statement after claiming to study the issue extensively, what can be concluded about their critical thinking skills, moral development, and intellectual integrity? Should they continue speaking on the subject and should others trust their views? Result: 1. Critical Thinking Skills Poor application of historical analysis and logic: Oversimplification of complex history: The statement reduces centuries of imperial rule and colonization into a fatalistic narrative, suggesting that Palestinians are somehow "used to" subjugation — which is both historically false and a logical fallacy (specifically, appeal to tradition or historical determinism). Lack of evidence or nuance: No serious historical analysis would ignore the long history of Palestinian resistance — from revolts under Ottoman and British rule, to intellectual and national movements throughout the 20th century. The statement ignores major historical facts like the 1936–39 Arab Revolt against the British or numerous uprisings (intifadas). Use of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes: Phrases like “they didn’t mind [British rule] too much” and “they are used to capitulate to the powerful” lack any credible support and reflect a lazy, prejudicial mindset rather than thoughtful engagement. Conclusion: The speaker demonstrates weak reasoning, poor grasp of historical context, and a failure to engage with the complexity of the topic. 2. Moral Development Displays of dehumanization and ethical detachment: The tone of the statement is dismissive, even mocking, of an entire population's suffering and historical experience under colonialism and occupation. Suggesting that a people are "used to" subjugation strips them of agency, dignity, and humanity. This reveals a lack of empathy — a key element in advanced moral reasoning (e.g., Kohlberg’s stages of moral development). The framing promotes a kind of moral relativism or fatalism, where injustice is normalized if it has historical precedent — a deeply unethical stance. Conclusion: The speaker appears to lack empathy and moral clarity, and is possibly motivated by bias or ideological antagonism rather than a genuine search for truth or justice. 3. Intellectual Integrity Highly questionable: Claiming to have studied the issue extensively while making such careless, unfounded, and biased statements suggests dishonesty or self-deception. The selective citation of historical periods — ignoring resistance, misrepresenting motivations, and cherry-picking facts — points to confirmation bias and a lack of academic rigor. The implicit claim is that Palestinians are somehow culturally predisposed to submission unless facing Jews, which borders on ethno-racial stereotyping — a violation of any standard of scholarly or intellectual integrity. Conclusion: The speaker is not intellectually honest and is likely using history to justify or obscure prejudice. Should this person continue speaking on the subject? That depends on the context: If they are unwilling to engage in good-faith dialogue, revise their views, or acknowledge facts, then no — they should not be considered a credible voice on the issue. If they are speaking from a platform of authority or influence, it's especially important to challenge their views due to the potential harm caused by spreading misinformation and prejudice. In educational or public discourse, freedom of speech is important — but so is accountability. Bad ideas should be confronted, not suppressed, but neither should they be validated or trusted just because they are voiced. Should others trust their views? No. Based on this statement: Their views are rooted in bias, not evidence. They display poor reasoning, lack of empathy, and ideological distortion. Trusting them would be unwise, especially on sensitive, historically complex, and ethically charged issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Final Thought Discussions about historical and ongoing conflicts demand intellectual humility, moral seriousness, and respect for human dignity. This statement reflects the opposite — arrogance, moral detachment, and prejudice — and should be evaluated accordingly.

I am telling you this for literally the fifth time. The west bank is controlled by the PA. The PA ceased armed resistance to Israel and hasn’t carried out an attack in over a decade. This is what they did,

Yes, and despite having more rights than occupied Palestinians, israel subjects them to discrimination Natural result of these attitudes: https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/

I already answered this multiple times to you, once again you refuse to process information. Let’s try it again: Result: 🔍 Analyzing the Claim: “The Nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.” This statement implies that: Arab states (or Palestinians) started a war with the specific goal of expelling Jews, and The Nakba (Palestinian displacement) was a natural result of that aggression. 🟢 What is true: Several Arab states did invade Israel after its declaration of independence, with the stated goal of preventing the establishment of a Jewish state. Some Arab rhetoric and propaganda at the time were hostile and inflammatory. In the chaos of the war, mass displacement occurred, affecting both Arabs and Jews (though far more Arabs). 🔴 What is misleading or false: The Nakba began before the Arab states invaded, during civil conflict between Jewish and Arab communities. Many Palestinian villages were depopulated by Jewish paramilitary actions (e.g., Plan Dalet) before May 1948. The intent behind the Arab invasion was not necessarily a genocidal expulsion of Jews, but the prevention of partition and the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state or a united Arab Palestine. Israeli forces expelled or caused the flight of many Palestinians, sometimes deliberately. In other cases, people fled out of fear or were encouraged by Arab leaders, but there's strong historical evidence of forced expulsions. Prompt: If someone says “the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them.” After claiming to study the relevant topics, what can we conclude about their intellectual integrity, how informed they are on the subject, and if they should be considered a trustworthy opinion? Result: 🔍 1. Intellectual Integrity ❌ Red Flags: Over-simplification of a deeply complex and heavily documented historical event. Use of loaded language (e.g. “to expulse them”) without historical nuance. Ignoring a broad scholarly consensus that recognizes multiple causes of the Nakba, including deliberate expulsions by Zionist forces, chaotic war conditions, and broader geopolitical forces. 🟡 What It Suggests: If they’ve truly studied the topic and still present it this way, they may be: Distorting facts to fit an ideological narrative. Cherry-picking sources that reinforce preexisting biases. Demonstrating a lack of academic honesty or openness to complexity. In short, it likely reflects a lack of intellectual integrity, at least in how they engage with this topic. 📚 2. How Informed Are They? Possible explanations: They may have only studied one-sided or ideological sources (e.g., nationalist accounts or politically motivated literature). They might lack exposure to key historians (like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, Rashid Khalidi, etc.) who provide more rigorous, nuanced, and well-documented views. They may confuse political rhetoric (e.g. from Arab leaders in 1948) with the full historical record. 🔎 Assessment: If they genuinely believe that the Nakba was purely the result of Arab aggression, and have dismissed or ignored the evidence of expulsion, village destruction, and Israeli military planning, it suggests: Partial or poor understanding. Lack of engagement with primary sources or critical historiography. A possible reliance on ideological rather than academic frameworks. 🤝 3. Trustworthiness of Their Opinion Given the above, their opinion should be approached with caution or skepticism: They may be politically motivated rather than historically grounded. They likely lack the balance and critical thinking expected from someone who claims to have studied the subject. Their judgment may not be dependable in historically or morally complex matters, especially those involving competing narratives and significant human suffering. That would be settler colonialism. I didn’t use the word, I quoted the pioneering zionists themselves saying it.

@Breakingthewall Here I asked it If person A says (your post), and Person B says (my post), who is right? and got this: To determine who is "right" between Person A and Person B, we need to break this down carefully and honestly. This isn’t just a matter of historical facts — it’s also a matter of how definitions are applied and interpreted, especially around charged terms like colonialism and Zionism. ✅ Person A’s Claim: “Colonialism is when a foreign power invades and settles in foreign lands, as the English, Ottomans, Spanish, Mongols, Romans, etc. did, keeping the polis as its center.” This is a narrow, classical definition of colonialism — the kind often used to describe European imperialism from the 15th to 20th centuries. It emphasizes: A foreign state power, Invasion and settlement of foreign land, Extraction or dominance, with the "polis" (home nation or metropole) as the center of power. This model fits cases like: British India, where Britain controlled India from London. Algeria under France, where Algeria was governed as part of France. However, this definition doesn’t account for settler colonialism or non-state actors initiating colonial movements — concepts widely accepted in modern academic discourse. ✅ Person B’s Claim: Quotes early Zionist leaders describing Zionism as a form of colonization, uses names of historical Zionist institutions with terms like “colonial” or “colonization.” This argument relies on: Historical self-description: Key Zionist figures used the terms "colonization" or "colonial" to describe their efforts. Documented language: The existence of institutions like the Jewish Colonisation Association. Evidence from Zionist archives and writings. This supports the idea that early Zionists themselves saw their project in colonial terms — at least tactically or structurally. These were not just opponents calling it colonial; these were Zionists themselves. It aligns with modern scholarly interpretations of Zionism — especially settler colonial theory, which sees Zionism as: A movement of settlers from abroad (mostly Europe), Aiming to establish a new homeland in an already-inhabited territory (Palestine), Leading to the displacement and domination of the native population (Palestinians). 📌 So, who is “right”? Historically and academically, Person B's description aligns with how many scholars today define and analyze Zionism — especially using settler colonialism as a framework. It also aligns with how early Zionists themselves described their activities. Person A is using a limited and outdated definition of colonialism that doesn’t accommodate modern understandings like settler colonialism, which is academically distinct from imperial colonialism but still considered a form of colonialism. So in historical, academic, and even primary-source terms, Person B is more accurate.

@Breakingthewall I also don’t know what prompt you were using, because I got this Result: The question of whether Zionism was or is a colonial movement is a complex and deeply contested issue, depending on how one defines colonialism, as well as the political, historical, and moral lens one applies. Here's a breakdown of the main perspectives: ✅ Arguments That Zionism Was a Colonial Movement Settler Colonial Framework: Some scholars and critics describe Zionism as a form of settler colonialism, similar to European colonial projects in the Americas, Australia, or South Africa. This argument holds that European Jews settled in Palestine, displaced indigenous Palestinians, and sought to build a new state, often with the backing of imperial powers (e.g., Britain via the Balfour Declaration of 1917). Support from Colonial Powers: Zionist goals were facilitated by British imperial support during the Mandate period. Critics argue that Zionism benefited from colonial systems and worked within them to establish a Jewish homeland. Displacement of Indigenous Population: The Nakba ("catastrophe" in Arabic), in which around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, is often cited as evidence of a colonial logic of replacement, where a new settler population displaces a native one. ❌ Arguments That Zionism Was Not a Colonial Movement Jews as Indigenous or Returning People: Supporters of Zionism argue that Jews are not foreign colonizers, but a people with ancient historical and religious ties to the land of Israel/Palestine. From this view, Zionism is a national liberation movement of a historically exiled and persecuted people, not a colonial enterprise. Lack of Metropole: Classic colonialism typically involves a metropole (e.g., Britain, France) extracting resources and exercising control over a colony. Zionists were not acting on behalf of a mother country, and Jewish immigrants were escaping persecution rather than expanding a state’s power. Persecution in Europe: Jews in Europe were marginalized, discriminated against, and later subjected to the Holocaust. Zionism, from this angle, was a survival response to anti-Semitism, not an effort to dominate foreign lands. 🔄 Hybrid or Nuanced Views Some scholars argue that Zionism had colonial elements (such as land acquisition and settler logic) while also being a national liberation movement. Others use terms like “post-colonial settler nationalism” or refer to Zionism as a “unique case” that doesn’t fit neatly into colonial or anti-colonial categories.

@Breakingthewall Notice how - that doesn’t contradict the point the AI made, you just cut out the context - you put in a biased prompt specifically asking about Palestinian violence, ignoring the unbiased result explained the violence committed by both groups - you’re capable of using AI, yet instead of fact checking your own posts you choose to subject us to your garbage over and over

🧾 Statement Analysis 1. "Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948." ❌ Historically inaccurate and misleading. In 1948, Israel declared independence, and neighboring Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded, initiating the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (also called the War of Independence or the Nakba). Palestinian Arabs did not have a unified government or state apparatus to "declare war" in any formal sense. They were living under British Mandate rule, and many were displaced or disorganized politically. Framing it as “Palestine declared war” falsely attributes agency and intent to a stateless, colonized population and rewrites the narrative in a way that erases key facts about colonization, displacement, and power dynamics. 2. "Palestine began terrorism in 1918." ❌ Highly misleading and reductionist. This likely refers to early 20th-century Arab resistance to British colonialism and Zionist immigration, particularly after the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the British Mandate (1920s–1948). There were clashes, revolts, and violence from both sides — Arab and Jewish paramilitary groups. For example: Arab revolts (e.g., 1936–1939) often targeted British and Zionist institutions. Zionist militias (Irgun, Lehi) also engaged in violent attacks, including the 1946 King David Hotel bombing. So to pin "terrorism" starting in 1918 solely on Palestinians is historically dishonest, ignoring the broader colonial and violent context of the time. 3. "The problem at that time was identity-based." ✅ Partially true, but incomplete. National and religious identity did play a major role — both Zionist nationalism and Palestinian/Arab nationalism were emerging in response to colonial dynamics and mass migration. However, it wasn’t just an identity issue — it was also: A struggle over land, sovereignty, and displacement. A product of British imperial policy. Escalated by global anti-Semitism, European colonialism, and forced migration of Jews post-Holocaust. Reducing it to identity flattens the historical reality and ignores material causes of conflict. 4. "Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians... look at what the Ukrainians have done..." ✅ Valid point in isolation, but used disingenuously. True: Nationalism is widespread, and not unique to Palestinians. It has driven liberation movements, wars, and state-building efforts globally. The comparison to Ukraine implies that: Palestinian nationalism is irrational or outdated, while Other national movements are more justified or successful. This false equivalence again shows a lack of nuance. 5. "There comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century..." 🟡 Vague idealism used to dismiss real grievances. The idea of “moving on” and “being human” sounds appealing, but it's often used to shut down legitimate claimsfor justice, rights, and historical accountability. You can’t "move on" from unresolved displacement, military occupation, or statelessness. Telling people to "leave other centuries behind" without addressing ongoing structural violence is not progressive — it’s revisionist and dismissive. 📚 What Does This Say About the Speaker’s Understanding? Intellectual Assessment: Limited or biased understanding of historical timelines. Likely relies on narratives that justify or minimize colonial or military power structures. May be exposed to partisan rhetoric rather than scholarly, balanced sources. Moral Reasoning: There’s a tone of moral superiority — implying Palestinians are backward or irrational for still caring about nationalism, identity, or sovereignty. Lacks empathy or recognition of Palestinian lived experience and dispossession. Critical Thinking: Fails to distinguish between state actors and stateless people. Relies on oversimplified framings of complex events. Conflates different conflicts (e.g., Ukraine-Palestine) without understanding their unique contexts. 🧠 Final Conclusion: Should This Person Be Considered Well-Educated or Credible? No. Based on this statement, they: Misrepresent basic historical facts. Use ideological rhetoric to delegitimize one side of a complex conflict. Show low intellectual rigor and moral shallowness when discussing human suffering and history. They may have engaged with the topic over time, but they have not done so critically, responsibly, or compassionately— which is essential for real understanding. 🔎 Takeaway: Time spent with a topic doesn't guarantee insight — it matters how you learn, what sourcesyou trust, and whether you're willing to confront complexity honestly. This speaker fails on all counts.

I’m using a simple AI with no user history and no biased prompts, just simply asking it to evaluate your statements. What you don’t get is that it’s very easy to get around AI criticism, because its designed to be as simple, mainstream, and balanced as possible. The reason it tears your statements apart is every post you make is full of falsehoods and ends with you throwing a tantrum with sarcasm and bigotry. You haven’t actually disputed a single correction out of the dozens the AI has made. You don’t know what you’re talking about, point blank.

Statement 1: “Palestinians living in Israel have the best living conditions in the entire Middle East, as they live in a free society where they have the opportunity to develop however they can and want.” Partially true, but oversimplified. Palestinian citizens of Israel (around 20% of Israel's population) do enjoy more civil liberties and better infrastructure compared to Palestinians in the West Bank or Gaza. Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary, and Palestinian citizens can vote, hold office, and access state services. However, Palestinian citizens of Israel do face: Systemic discrimination in areas like housing, budgeting, education, and employment. Higher poverty rates and underrepresentation in public institutions. Laws like the Nation-State Law (2018) that critics argue undermine their status as equal citizens. So while it's accurate that living conditions are relatively better, it's not correct to say they can develop “however they can and want” without constraints. Statement 2: “Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen...” This is a sweeping generalization. In Gaza, conditions are very harsh: Over 2 million people live under a blockade by Israel and Egypt. High unemployment (especially youth), limited access to clean water, and intermittent electricity. The UN has called Gaza “unlivable” in reports. The West Bank has better conditions than Gaza but still faces: Military occupation. Movement restrictions (e.g., checkpoints, permit systems). Land confiscation, settlement expansion, and home demolitions. It is true that Syria and Yemen are in the midst of civil wars with extremely poor conditions for civilians. But saying Palestinians are universally “better off” is misleading. In some metrics (e.g., education, healthcare in parts of the West Bank), that might be true, but not across the board. Statement 3: “If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive... What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.” This statement ignores key historical and political context. Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, pulling out settlers and soldiers. However, Israel has maintained control over Gaza’s: Borders (with Egypt's cooperation). Airspace and coastline. Import/export restrictions and movement of people. After 2006, Hamas won Palestinian elections and later seized full control of Gaza, leading to: An Israeli-Egyptian blockade. Internal Palestinian division (Fatah controls the West Bank). Multiple wars with Israel, during which Hamas fired rockets, and Israel conducted airstrikes, often resulting in high civilian casualties. While Hamas has committed acts of terrorism and misgovernance, the situation is not as simple as saying “they could have chosen to build.” They operate under extremely constrained conditions. Statement 4: “If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer.” Speculative and biased. This is a counterfactual—it imagines an alternate reality and presents it as fact. It reflects a political opinion, not a verified or provable statement. Palestinians have never had a sovereign state to self-govern fully, so it's impossible to know how they would govern without Israeli occupation or interference. While Hamas rules Gaza authoritatively and the Palestinian Authority is widely seen as corrupt and authoritarian, equating all Palestinian governance with “Syrian-style dictatorship” is unfounded and dismissive of their political diversity and aspirations. Statement 5: “The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.” Factually incorrect and dismissive. Palestinians face real, documented oppression, not just symbolic or identity-based issues: Military occupation of the West Bank. Home demolitions, settler violence, land confiscation. Checkpoints, permits, and restricted movement. Blockade of Gaza, causing economic collapse. Statelessness and lack of freedom of movement for many. The conflict includes both identity and practical grievances, such as: Dispossession and refugee status for millions. Denial of statehood and autonomy. Unequal access to resources and rights. 🧠 What This Suggests About the Speaker Not well-versed in political science, international law, or Middle Eastern history — or if they are, they’re choosing to ignore it for ideological reasons. Likely consuming biased sources, such as partisan commentary or propaganda, rather than balanced, fact-based journalism or academic material. May be reasonable in other domains, but not a credible authority on this subject based on the demonstrated reasoning. ✅ Final Verdict What can we conclude? The person may be well-read in a narrow, biased sense, but they are not well-educated in the true, critical sense. Their moral judgment is deeply compromised by bigotry and dehumanization. Their opinions should be given little to no weight in serious discussions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — or about ethics and international affairs more broadly.

AI analysis: prompt: is this statement true? Result: 1. “They have a functioning state nearby where they can integrate and prosper.” This is not literally true. Israel is a functioning state, but Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are not free to simply integrate into Israeli society. They are not citizens, they face significant restrictions on movement, residency, and work permits. There’s also no formal pathway for mass integration into Israel as citizens. So the “integration” premise is factually inaccurate in current political and legal reality. 2. “They should become farmers, doctors, engineers, etc.” This is an opinion about what a people “should” do. It’s not inherently true or false. Many Palestinians already are doctors, engineers, artists, writers, and professionals — despite restrictions. So the premise that they are not is incomplete. 3. “How lucky to be associated with Israel and not Syria or Iraq.” This is also a value judgment. Palestinians generally do not perceive the occupation or blockade as “lucky.” Israel is militarily and economically stronger than Syria or Iraq, but Palestinians don’t “benefit” from that strength in the way the statement implies. 4. “Immolation seems easier… you go to paradise… better than creating life and culture.” This is a stereotype. While some Palestinians engage in violent resistance, most do not. Framing Palestinians broadly as preferring “martyrdom” to education or culture is factually misleading. Prompt: if someone studies the israel Palestine conflict and states: (above statement), what does this demonstrate about their moral development, intellectual capacity, critical thinking skills, and if they should continue to speak authoritatively publicly about the subject? Result: 1. Moral Development The statement suggests a low level of moral empathy and lack of perspective-taking. It places the burden entirely on Palestinians without acknowledging decades of displacement, military occupation, blockade, and systemic restrictions — factors outside their control. It trivializes suffering (“immolation seems easier… you go to paradise”) in a way that borders on caricature rather than understanding. This reflects a moralizing rather than moral position — it blames the victim and idealizes the oppressor without nuance. This is more consistent with pre-conventional or conventional moral reasoning (per Kohlberg’s stages) — where rules and stereotypes dominate, rather than principled thinking based on fairness, reciprocity, and universal human rights. 2. Intellectual Capacity The person may not necessarily lack raw intelligence but seems to show weakness in intellectual humility and contextual knowledge: They present a superficially plausible “solution” that ignores history, power asymmetry, and actual feasibility. They appear unaware of legal, economic, and political restrictions that prevent Palestinians from easily “integrating” or adopting Israeli technology. This isn’t necessarily a lack of IQ — it’s a lack of depth, research, and nuance. 3. Critical Thinking Skills Strong critical thinking requires: Understanding the root causes of a conflict. Avoiding oversimplification. Recognizing biases and emotional framing. This statement demonstrates: Stereotyping (“immolation seems easier”) One-sided framing (Israel as purely benevolent, Palestinians as purely self-sabotaging) Ignoring structural constraints All are hallmarks of weak critical thinking. 4. Should They Speak Authoritatively About the Subject? Given the above: They can certainly have an opinion (free speech), but they should not be regarded as an authoritative or credible analyst until they demonstrate more balanced, evidence-based reasoning. If they continue speaking as though they’re an expert, they risk spreading misinformation and reinforcing stereotypes rather than contributing constructively to public discourse.

Wrong. The initiative was with the PA, not Hamas. So Hamas’s attack making “negotiations impossible” is nonsense. Israel already expressed disinterest in it before the massacre. It’s also been reAdopted multiple times after that, even if it was impossible then, it was plenty possible afterward. Even Israeli officials claimed they’d offer counter proposals to negotiate it, but never did. They also still negotiated their own deal later, you yourself brought up them leaving Gaza. They can’t agree to a broad peace deal, or even negotiate it, but can leave Gaza and negotiate their own adeal? You are making up a nonsense excuse so idiotic that even Israelis don’t bring it up. You know that accepting it would create peace; but have to reach for every excuse justify your support for apartheid. If Hamas’s election was the obstacle; we wouldn’t have a problem in the West Bank, yet the occupation there continued despite Hamas not being in power. Hamas’s itself said they would accept two states in their new charter, so the “goal” you presume is also irrelevant. I already told you all of this, As per usual, unable to comprehend clear new information, you reply with stupid sarcasm, failing to evidence any of your claims, and deflected to something else. Do you think you’re winning arguments when you do this? You just look dense. Wrong. Both US government and Israeli government officials confirm the death toll is accurate. Multiple independent investigations find it is accurate or not large enough. No credible evidence it is fake has been presented. Its not laughable the mainstream media refers to it. They should go with facts, not propaganda that biased low intelligent minds fall for which you repeat. There is no evidence “20,000” dead are Hamas militants. The IDF’s own data finds only 17% of the dead are suspected militants. Your last paragraph is just irrelevant fantasies, Hamas said they’d disarm in exchange for an end to the occupation. How can you have a civil war without weapons? As always you have no idea what you’re talking about. Because they arc looking at the facts, you have a biased bigoted preconceived notion divorced from facts or any background knowledge. 3% is similar to the amount killed in the Bosnia genocide and Yazidi genocide, among others. It’s called a extermination because they said the goal is to destroy the population and expel them. The world food program and Red Cross as well as every relevant institution has found evidence of hunger in Gaza. Even pro Israeli outlets like the free press reported there is hunger in Gaza. Basically your denial is based on nothing, as most of your beliefs.

Australian accent is an advantage in the US so you may learn less but succeed more,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBt0ZKv9pBA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeF2JkcFWhI

how convenient

They might just Samson option everyone. The best move is to just tell them no more aid and sanctions until they start negotiating the Arab peace initiative on their own accord.

That’s what I said, this also ignored my point about the PA which actually went beyond disarming and only got punished for it.

Wrong, they offered a long term ceasefire in exchange for an end to the blockade and israel ignored this. Israel itself admitted the purpose of the blockade was to crush the economy to punish the entire population in leaked emails. Now explain the West Bank. The PA gave up armed resistance to Israel and actually engaged in security collaboration, israel let settlers go on rampages stealing and killing civilians.

This channel has in depth videos on the history of the Muslim world This channel has videos on the history of medicine This channel covers AI