Breakingthewall

Please, don't humiliate yourself anymore. If I lived in Barcelona on the verge of starvation and without shoes, and the Catalonian came to administer my lands, previously administered by some Muslim with an IQ of 50, and those Catalonian brought wealth, prosperity, technology and evolution, and they promise me that I can keep the property of my land, I would tell them that if they needed a blowjob, let me know. I understand your logic. You Muslims are victims, and it's right that you commit massacres and declare war after war because your pride, and when you loose all those wars stay crying a century and commiting terrorist attacks. Well, with people like that, there's only one language: the one being spoken now. Even donkeys understand that.

@zazen @zazen I think you misunderstood. They would retain 100% of the territory, meaning no Palestinian would have been expelled from their lands. Furthermore, they would have gained a state administering 45% of Palestine, something they've never done throughout history, since they were always colonized. They would have simply shared administration of the country with the Jews, which would have provided enormous advantages. It seems difficult for you to understand the situation. They started with violence over a matter of religious identity, and they remain the same, like in the Middle Ages. They are incapable of evolving. And all the mentally retarded people in the West say "Free Palestine," without knowing that Palestinians are not free; they are slaves to their Muslim identity, just like 16 billion other, let's say not specially smart people.

@zazen do you agree with this? 🔹 What If the Arabs Had Accepted the 1947 Partition Plan? This is the key question — the moment when history could have turned in a completely different direction. If the Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding Arab states had accepted the UN Partition Plan in 1947, there would have been no war, and the entire story of the Middle East in the 20th century would have been fundamentally different. Here’s what would likely have happened, based on historical evidence and realistic projections: 1. They would have kept their land The UN Partition Plan (Resolution 181, 1947) gave 45% of the territory to an Arab state and 55% to a Jewish state. Arab-owned lands within the Jewish zone would have been protected or compensated under international supervision, not confiscated. Laws like Israel’s later Absentees’ Property Law would never have existed, because no mass flight or expulsion would have taken place. 2. They would have had their own state since 1948 The Arab state of Palestine would have been born at the same time as Israel. It would have included Gaza, Hebron, Nablus, East Jerusalem, and much of central Galilee. It would have received immediate international recognition and economic aid for development. The refugee crisis that has defined Palestinian identity for generations would never have existed. 3. Arabs living inside the Jewish state They would have remained as a protected minority, just as Jews would have lived in the Arab state. Israel, seeking international legitimacy, would have been highly motivated to protect Arab citizens’ rights. There would have been no legal or practical reason to seize their property or displace them. 4. The Arab countries would have avoided decades of war The wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973 would never have happened. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan could have focused on domestic development instead of losing repeated wars. Arab nationalism might have evolved into a modern, secular, developmental movement, rather than one defined by revenge and religion. 5. In summary If the Arabs had accepted partition: Palestine would today be an independent state, created alongside Israel. There would be no refugee camps, no occupation, no destroyed Gaza. And Israel itself would likely be less militarized and more open. In short, violence was not inevitable — it was a political choice, based on the belief (very common at the time) that the new Jewish state could be destroyed in a matter of weeks.

During the 500 years under the Ottoman Empire, Muslims held power, and Christians and Jews coexisted peacefully, subject to a special tax. After Jewish immigration, this changed, and Arabs could have coexisted without this tax (and govern the other half of the country), with an unlimited horizon of possibilities, only without full voting rights. This is essential, since if they had the right to vote and there were more of them, they would vote for a Muslim president, and Israel would cease to exist. They would have the right to parliamentary representation, but not to lead the country. Except for this, they would have the right to own companies, direct hospitals, produce films, and create commercial and technological empires. Instead, they prefer to blow up their children to go to paradise. Well, fine. In my opinion, they're retarded. That's my opinion; I hope you respect it. I respect yours, which is that being under Jewish rule is horrible and frightening. It's comparable to being sold into slavery in a Senegalese market 2 centuries ago, and it deserves resistance until the extermination of your race.

Not true. If the Arabs had accepted the UN-proposed partition into two states, this would not have entailed the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish zone or Jews from the Arab zone. In fact, it stipulated that they would be citizens with full rights. If the Arabs had been smart instead of stupid, they would have seen the enormous opportunity this represented (in fact those who stayed in Israel are who have the best quality of life in all middle east) .But for them, it's all pride and shame; life has no meaning, so they chose endless war and misery. For me anyone who choose war instead development and wealth because his entity is retarded. If the other option is slavery it's understandable, if it's just by pride, absolutely retarded without solution. Be retarded has heavy consequences in you and your descendants. Life don't forgive, maybe you already know it. Then you could blame and cry as a narcissist, but it's not going to solve anything. But this doesn't mean that the Arabs were specially stupid, it's the norm in humans. First hierarchy, second life. Anyway, now maybe it's time to rectify

@zazen @Raze The problem isn't the facts, but the cause. The Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and over all identity reasons. This is a religious war, understanding religion as political identity, the huge problem of islam. Saddam and Turkey massacred Kurds and no one says anything, but Saddam was constantly threatening Israel for identity, the same as the rest of the countries, and it's because of the political and supremacist nature of Islam. Let's see, did all the Christian countries get hysterical because the Turks committed the Armenian genocide? Christianity, if such a thing exists, felt any kind of offense? Does it feel it now because of the massacres of Christians in Nigeria? No. On the other hand, Muslims have these complexes, since they believe that Islam should have global supremacy, and the existence of Israel kills their sense of identity, nothing more. Without that, this would be a minor problem , just a civil war that would finished 80 years ago with any kind of agreement, maybe not perfect for the weaker but same than hundreds of others wars

If I were living in the absolute misery and colonized from 2000 years ago I would see it as an opportunity of developing and wealth. Unless I thought that I would go to hell due profanations and that, of course

@Raze reading what happened, id say that seems clear that Arabs always started the violence. I understand that if you watch videos where they forget mentioning the war of 1948 and just say that Jews expulsed 700.000 Arabs you can be confused, but read this, maybe makes your ideas bit clearer. Yes, was violence from Jew side, but always after an Arab attack. Perfect —here’s a concise chronological summary (1918–1948) of major terrorist or violent attacks committed by both Arab and Jewish factions in Mandatory Palestine 🇬🇧 Violence and Terrorism in Palestine (1918–1948) 🔹 1918–1920: Rising tension after Ottoman collapse 1919–1920: Arab nationalist leaders begin organizing against Zionist immigration. In April 1920, during the Nebi Musa riots in Jerusalem, Arab mobs—encouraged by nationalist speeches—attack Jewish residents: 5 Jews killed, over 200 injured. → First major anti-Jewish riot of the modern period. 🔹 1921: Jaffa riots May 1921: Arab rioters attack Jewish neighborhoods in Jaffa after rumors of Zionist provocations. 47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed. → The British suppress the riots, but tensions deepen. 🔹 1929: Hebron and Safed massacres Triggered by disputes over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem. Arab mobs attack Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed. 133 Jews killed, 110 Arabs killed (mainly by British police). → Entire ancient Jewish community of Hebron wiped out. 🔹 1936–1939: The Great Arab Revolt A coordinated Arab uprising against British rule and Jewish immigration. Arab rebels kill both Jews and Arabs who cooperate with the British. ~430 Jews, 200 Britons, and several thousand Arabs killed (many by other Arabs). The British respond brutally: Mass arrests and executions of Arab militants. Destruction of villages. Support for Jewish self-defense militias (the Haganah). 👉 First large-scale guerrilla war in Palestine. 🔹 1937–1939: Jewish militant response Radical Jewish underground groups (the Irgun, later Lehi) begin terror reprisals against Arabs. 1937: Bombing of Arab markets in Haifa and Jerusalem. 1938: Bomb in Haifa market kills 78 Arabs. 1939: Irgun attacks British police posts. → Jewish terrorism begins as retaliation for Arab violence. 🔹 1940–1945: British targets During WWII, the Irgun and Lehi (also called the “Stern Gang”) turn against the British, demanding open Jewish immigration. 1944: Lehi assassins kill Lord Moyne, British Minister of State, in Cairo. 1946: King David Hotel bombing (by Irgun): 91 killed (Britons, Jews, Arabs). → One of the deadliest pre-state attacks. 🔹 1947–1948: Civil war before independence After the UN Partition Plan (Nov 29, 1947): Arab attacks: Convoys, buses, and Jewish neighborhoods ambushed daily. Jewish attacks: Irgun and Lehi bomb Arab markets and villages. April 9, 1948: Deir Yassin massacre —about 100 Palestinian civilians killed by Irgun and Lehi. → Panic spreads, triggering the Palestinian exodus. Arab ambushes: e.g., Hadassah medical convoy massacre (April 13, 1948) —78 Jewish doctors and nurses killed. 🔹 May 1948: End of the Mandate —War begins May 14, 1948: Israel declares independence. May 15, 1948: Arab armies invade from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon. → Civil war becomes a full regional war. 🔹 Summary of patterns PeriodMain actorsCharacter of violence 1918–1936Mainly Arab against Jewish civiliansAnti-Zionist riots and religious uprisings 1937–1945Jewish Irgun/Lehi vs. Arabs & BritishBombings, assassinations, reprisals 1947–1948Both sidesFull-scale civil war, massacres on both sides Analysis: Reactive vs. Strategic Violence 🔹 Arab side Reactive beginnings (1918–1936): Arab violence initially came as reaction to growing Jewish immigration and British support for Zionism. Many Arabs feared losing their land and identity. The early riots (1920, 1921, 1929) were spontaneous and emotional—driven by rumors, religious incitement, and political frustration. They lacked coordination or long-term strategy. Strategic phase (1936–1939): During the Great Arab Revolt, violence became organized and ideological—directed not just at Jews, but also at the British and moderate Arabs seen as collaborators. Leaders like the Mufti of Jerusalem sought to expel both Jews and British, hoping for Arab independence. However, the revolt’s brutality, including killings of Arabs, discredited the movement and led to internal collapse. --- 🔹 Jewish side Reactive beginnings (until mid-1930s): Jewish violence started as self-defense through groups like the Haganah, created after pogroms and massacres. These forces were mainly defensive—protecting convoys, farms, and settlements. Strategic escalation (late 1930s onward): With the rise of militant factions (Irgun, Lehi), some Zionists adopted offensive terrorism as deliberate strategy: To deter Arab attacks through reprisals. To pressure the British into allowing immigration and independence. To demonstrate Jewish strength before the creation of a state. These groups viewed violence as a political instrument, not just reaction. --- 🔹 Final phase (1947–1948): full symmetry After the UN Partition Plan, both sides acted simultaneously: Arabs attacked Jewish civilians to block the partition. Jewish militias carried out offensive operations to secure territory before the British withdrawal. By early 1948, violence had become reciprocal and total—no longer reactive but existential.

The Nakba occurred after the start of the war between Palestinians and Jews, which was later joined by a coalition of Arab countries, initiated by Palestine after rejecting the plan to partition into two states. Read the chain of events and stop insulting, shows that you don't believe in your arguments 🔹 1. The political spark: UN Partition Plan (November 29, 1947) The United Nations approved Resolution 181, the Partition Plan for Palestine, which proposed: Two states —one Jewish (55 %) and one Arab (45 %). Jerusalem under international administration. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan (with some reservations). The Arab and Palestinian leaders rejected it completely, calling it an injustice and colonial theft. 👉 From that moment, coexistence collapsed. --- 🔹 2. Immediate outbreak: intercommunal violence (December 1947) The very next day, November 30, Arab militants attacked Jewish buses near Lod and Ramla—killing passengers. Jewish militias (Haganah, Irgun) retaliated with raids on Arab villages and convoys. Throughout December 1947 – January 1948: Markets, houses, synagogues, and mosques were burned. Ambushes and assassinations occurred daily. The British, still in charge of the Mandate, did little to intervene. 👉 This phase is often called the Palestinian civil war—a war between communities inside the Mandate. --- 🔹 3. Escalation: April 1948 In March–April, Jewish forces launched Operation Nachshon to break the Arab siege of Jerusalem. During this campaign, the Deir Yassin massacre (April 9, 1948) left about 100 Palestinian civilians dead. Panic spread; tens of thousands fled their villages. At the same time, the Haganah shifted from defense to offense, capturing major Arab towns (Haifa, Tiberias, Safed). 👉 By April, the local conflict had turned into full-scale war, though still without foreign armies. --- 🔹 4. The formal start: Arab invasion (May 15, 1948) On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion declared the State of Israel. At midnight, Britain withdrew from Palestine. On May 15, five Arab states—Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Transjordan (Jordan)— invaded the new state from all directions. 👉 That date marks the official beginning of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, known in Israel as the War of Independence and among Palestinians as al-Nakba (“the Catastrophe”). --- 🔹 5. Summary timeline Date Event Nov 29 1947 UN Partition Plan approved Nov 30 1947 First Arab attacks on Jewish targets Apr 9 1948 Deir Yassin massacre; mass flight of civilians May 14 1948 Declaration of the State of Israel May 15 1948 Invasion by Arab armies —official start of the war

I Stop the video when they said that in 1948 the Israelis began massacres and the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinians, without mentioning the war declared against them. I don't understand why he shows those propaganda videos for the mentally retarded. We're supposed to know how history happene, but anyway, it seems he consumes that stuff

The expansion in the West Bank without compensation is a shame and a crime. I agree. But the only way to create a Palestinian state is non violent fight . Palestinian violence is exactly what the extremist Jews want. If Palestinian are stupid, they will loose everything.

@Raze The West Bank has formally renounced armed struggle, but not de facto. If the Palestinians truly renounced killing in Israel, Netanyahu wouldn't win the elections, but rather the moderates who would not allow further settlement expansion.

@zazen what would happen according you is Palestine totally stops the fight?

They aren't resentful of what was done to them, but of being Jews in Palestine. The Tutsis are less resentful of the Hutus than the Palestinians with the Jews, and this was a real genocide. They are coexisting and improving Ruanda now. Crimea was populated by Tatars for centuries; Stalin deported them, then they returned, and now they're there as a minority, and they're not immolating themselves every two days. The Sahrawis feel oppressed by Morocco, and they're not stabbing Moroccans as their primary goal in life The Chechens were crushed by Putin, and they haven't spent 100 years educating their 3-year-olds to commit suicide. In fact they are Putin's friends now. This is a purely religious conflict, and if you don't see it, you're blind, with all your tons of information. Why turkey or Iran and so concerned by Israel? Why they are not concerned about the tartars in Crimea, or Chechenia, or about the Sahara?

The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn't exist . Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn't mind that too much either. All their protests were against the Jews. Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew Before the ottoman were submitted to the Mamluks, before that the European Crusaders, before that the Islamic caliphates, before that the Byzantines, before that Rome, before Greeks and Persia. Seems that they should be used to the situation

Yes, free in the paradise.

@Raze what can I do if Chatgpt say this to me? Seems clear The Outbreak of Violence (December 1947 – May 1948) Immediately after the UN vote, Palestinian Arab militias began attacks against isolated Jewish communities, roads, markets, and mixed neighborhoods. Jewish forces (Haganah, Irgun, and Lehi) responded militarily. It was an intercommunal civil war, as the British withdrew. 👉 During those months, the Arab-Palestinian exodus began: Many fled the battlefront, others were expelled from strategic areas (such as Lydda or Ramle), and some Arab leaders called on the civilian population to temporarily evacuate to facilitate the entry of Arab armies. Therefore, the Nakba began before the war between the states. --- 🔹 3. The War between the States (May 1948–1949) On May 14, 1948, Israel was proclaimed. The following day, five Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq) invaded the new state. During that war, the exodus expanded: a total of about 700,000 Palestinians left or were expelled. A question: why Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq invaded the new state? Would them invade also a Muslim new state, a Kurd one for example? Maybe the cause was religious?

You know that this was after a was declared by the Arabs, right? When you declare a war and you loose , then you shouldn't complain of the military conquest, that was precisely your goal

Seems that your AI forgot that the nakba was a consequence of the war declared to the Jews to expulse them. You can use the word colonialism if you want. We can also say we want to colonize Mars even though no one is there, but when we talk about colonialism, we're usually referring to the colonialism of great powers to dominate another country, not the colonialism of people who arrive to settle in a land.

🔹 1. What the Oslo Accords established Signed between Yitzhak Rabin (Israel) and Yasser Arafat (PLO) under U.S. mediation (Bill Clinton), the Oslo Accords (1993–1995) aimed to create a gradual path toward peace and a Palestinian state. They had three main pillars: Mutual recognition: The PLO recognized Israel’s right to exist. Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Progressive Palestinian autonomy: Israel would gradually withdraw from parts of Gaza and the West Bank. The territories would be divided into three zones: Area A: full Palestinian civil and security control. Area B: Palestinian civil control, joint Israeli security control. Area C: full Israeli control. Final-status negotiations within five years (by 1999): To decide issues such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security. 🔹 2. Why Israel did not fully comply Ongoing terrorism (1994–2001): After Oslo, suicide bombings by Hamas and Islamic Jihad increased sharply. More Israelis were killed in terror attacks in the five years after Oslo than in the five years before. This made much of Israeli society lose trust in the Palestinian leadership’s intentions. Domestic political change: In 1995, Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist. In 1996, Netanyahu (Likud) came to power, opposed to Oslo’s approach. From then on, right-wing governments slowed or froze further withdrawals. Unresolved issues: Israel demanded full security guarantees before further concessions. The PLO failed to dismantle its armed factions. Key topics like Jerusalem and settlements were postponed indefinitely. 🔹 3. Why the Palestinians also failed to comply The PLO never formally recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Terrorist groups continued to operate —often tolerated or supported by the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority did not build democratic institutions; corruption and internal power struggles weakened it. 🔹 4. The outcome Between 1993 and 2000, there were economic improvements and some cooperation, but no political progress. In 2000, Arafat rejected the Camp David offer, which included a Palestinian state on about 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. Soon after, the Second Intifada broke out (2000–2005), killing more than 4,000 people. 🔹 5. Summary ActorWhat they failed to doReason IsraelComplete withdrawals, freeze settlementsTerrorism, political shifts, loss of trust Palestinian Authority (PLO)Stop terrorism, accept final peaceInternal divisions, Islamist pressure ResultCollapse of trust and of the peace process 💬 Conclusion: Israel partially complied (withdrawals from Gaza and Jericho, creation of the Palestinian Authority) but halted the process after waves of terrorism and political change. The PLO did not stop violence or build credible governance. Both sides broke the mutual trust that Oslo required —and the peace process collapsed.

@Raze 🔹 What is colonialism? Colonialism means that a foreign power (for example, Britain, France, or Spain) conquers, exploits, and governs another territory, usually for economic or strategic benefit to the colonizing country. Clear examples: The British Empire in India. The French Empire in Algeria. The Spanish Empire in the Americas. Common features: A metropolis (a center of power outside the territory). Economic exploitation of local resources. Political subordination of the local population. 🔹 The case of the Jews in Palestine The Jews who immigrated to Palestine between the late 19th century and 1948 did not represent any foreign empire. They were not conquering on behalf of a colonial power. They had no metropolis supporting or profiting from them. They came as a dispersed people (the Jewish diaspora) seeking to rebuild a national home after centuries of persecution. Moreover: They legally purchased large tracts of land from Arab and Ottoman landowners. They were farmers, artisans, and intellectuals who founded agricultural communities (kibbutzim), not extractive colonies. There was no external Jewish empire benefiting economically. 🔹 Why the term “colonialism” is used today The phrase “settler colonialism” is used today mainly as a political slogan, not as a historical description. Activists, especially from postcolonial or anti-imperialist movements, use it to equate the creation of Israel with European colonialism in Africa or the Americas. But the analogy breaks down because: There was no metropolis, no imperial conquest, and the Jewish people are native to that land, with an unbroken presence in Jerusalem, Safed, and Hebron for over 3,000 years. 🔹 Summary CriterionClassical colonialismJewish return to Israel Foreign metropolisYesNo Economic exploitationYesNo Displacement of native populationOftenPartly, only after modern wars Historical link to the landNoYes, millennia-old MotivationImperial expansionNational self-determination 💬 Conclusion: The process of populating Israel with Jews is not colonialism in any historical or political sense. It was a national movement of return, not an imperial conquest —a movement rooted in historical, cultural, and spiritual ties to the land.

So the Palestinians could legitimately fight for the return of the exiles or for a state, but their fight is for Israel's disappearance. It has always been this way since 1948. The moment they accept Israel's existence, and so do other Muslim countries, the door to negotiation will be open. For example the president of Indonesia

Chatgpt: 2. The violence began for political and religious reasons The conflict arose when Arab nationalist and Islamist leaders incited the population against the Jewish immigrants. They argued that the Jews wanted to "seize the land" and "desecrate Muslim holy sites." Tensions grew due to rumors, religious discourse, and fear of losing political power. The first attacks (Nebi Musa, 1920, Jaffa, 1921, Hebron, 1929) were massacres of defenseless Jews, not responses to any expulsions. --- 🔹 3. The Arab expulsions came later (1947–1949) During the Israeli War of Independence (1947–1949): Many Arabs fled out of fear or on the orders of their own leaders, and others were expelled by the Israeli army in combat zones after almost 30 years of previous violence against Jewish communities. Maybe because this attitude everything is difficult https://www.instagram.com/reel/DO95BHgAP1D/?igsh=MzdobjZ1Y2FiZzA5 Well, difficult....if I were israelí, for me would be clear what to do. Do my thing and forget the unbrained sheeps

People always say this about colonialism, when it's obvious that's not the case. 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. What happened in Israel was that there was massive immigration to a stateless land by a population originally from that land. It's a fact; you may like it or not, but you have to accept it because It's absolutely stupid to dedicate your life and the lives of your children to fighting against that fact. It shows that your life is so empty and stupid that you can't think of anything better. If you were a slave in Egypt, forced to drag stones with whips to build pyramids, or an African in Louisiana, it's understandable. But if you're a Palestinian who's horrified because there are desecrations on the Al-Aqsa esplanade and you offer your child as a martyr, you're simply mentally retarded. It's very difficult to communicate with mentally retarded people. You have to use a language they understand, a loud one.

This was my question: What was the first act of violence between Palestinians and Jews in Israel? This guy explain it better. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPYeh56Dem8/?igsh=MXUxN3VqNDN5c2x3cQ==