Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Twentyfirst]

13 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Because I cannot critique the entire planet in a post.

I think my views on the current system of governance and over-capitalism / demonisation of socialism have been posted enough.

I think if you stopped being so paranoid and creating enemies. The china/russia threat would just go away on its own. You are part of creating all of this

Europeans always say "we just want to be left alone but they won't let us!"...meanwhile Europeans colonize and antagonize the entire world 

[Twentyfirst]

8 hours ago, zazen said:

 

You want to be left alone? Cool. Close the bases, stop the interventions and overthrowing of governments, stop bombing countries back to the stone age claiming they are regressive whilst the bombs you send are progressive - a mentality that itself is of the a stone age. A mentality that can't handle the reality of multi-polarity because it wants to be the only pole other nations bow to and dance around like undignified strippers. Stop extracting wealth through structural adjustment programmes via the IMF, stop vetoing UN resolutions that would end your domination and stop weaponizing the dollar via sanctions that cover third of the world and perpetuate financial hardship for nations trying to develop.

 

 

Exactly haha. Even the creation of USA/Australia are the perfect examples of how Europeans have to meddle into everything. I mean for a group of people to steal/genocide not one but two entire literal continents is something so unique to them. Nobody else has stolen/genocide even one continent. We aren't talking countries here but continents. The natives of both of those continents are still treated like subhuman trash to this day 

Then everything that came after is what you just wrote about. All while pretending to care about gays and women. Gays who they treated like trash just 20 years ago. Women who are made fun of for being "prudes" which means they aren't allowed to retain their dignity or respect. Look at women's clothing they only have clothing available for hooker streetwear. No modest clothing as that is "not the right thing to do as a woman". So they treat everyone like trash but pretend to be the moral authority of the entire planet. Just a war like animal people with no signs of transformation or evolution

Even with definitive proof they just retreat to their propaganda, lies, deflections, and projection just to double down on their sickness. They are only ever defending their own misery, slavery, and aggression and withholding from themselves true progress and humanity 

Edited October 4 by Twentyfirst

[Nivsch]

[BlueOak]

 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

False. Muslims and Jews lived quite peacefully for centuries - fear and bloodshed only came along with settler colonially installed Zionism that's still persisting today. Hamas is a recent blip in the history of their relationship.

@zazen

False
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_military_history

But then every nation, culture or people has this history, despite what most of you here want to admit.

Moreover. Your framing fails to take into account that Israel as it exists now is not a blip. Its 80 years old.
It's this kind of dismissive behaviour that contributes to why no equilibrium is ever reached, and we are forever at war.

 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

America and the Western led order has been the system within which that fear has been inspired. Guess who wants to be left alone?

EUROPE

Doesn't suit your framing, does it? That's why you always dismiss it or say oh its not important but at the same time we'll villify the people there. Like Israel. They are not the good guys to you. Your side. Apparently, because we don't have a military and are not shooting at everyone to you Zazen we don't count. You argue against your own points.

So we get a military, we start throwing our weight around, do we get to be left alone then? No, we'll be the bad guys again, not on your side Zazen. Because, unless you are allied with BRICS or just taking whatever is being thrown at us, we're the bad guy. Israel fights back, and what it does it get, vilified as being the bad guys.

Utterly gaslit from start to finish by both of you and half the people here.

I make an obvious post designed to get twenty-four into:

You can see this in the US but not in Russia, Iran, China and BRICS, and you walk hook line and sinker into it.
This boggled my mind with the number of debates we've had about America being as bad as everyone else.

Self reflect that America is not infact Europe, for just a few minutes.

Then the rest of it. You just like to couch it in some fight for liberation. I swear I might as well be listening to an American 30 years ago. 
 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The fairest and most practical cutoff is probably the creation of the new world order which is when power structures reset in a shifting of the guard. For our time that would be  post WW2 and post Cold War: After 1945 a US led global system replaced European colonialism. And after 1991, that US system became unipolar and unchallenged. From that point onward, Western hegemony isn’t reactive - it’s structurally dominant. So reactions to it (Russia, Iran, China) are better understood as responses to that order, not random aggressions. Of course not everything is a reaction to the that order and things still happen independent of it.

Because it suits your framing the best.
Despite the fact China keeps quoting things from thousands of years ago, and Russia from the previous millennium.  And this particular war does exactly the same. 

People just pick a point in time and say ah.... we'll go with that. You are again arguing against your own chain points. Get out of linear thinking for a heartbeat and move into a global recognised consciousness that this is human behavior, and until you can universally and without bias can see that everyone is engaging in it, because they are the world, then you'll always be cherry-picking which parts you like or dislike through a narrow lens.

 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

Sounds kinda Iranic, Sinic and Russophobic to me.

Oh i'm sorry: I now like the county threatening to nuke me and trying to push for WW3, the people backing it are swell guys. 

The fact I want isolation over the continual authoritarian overtaking of our countries has nothing to do with the internal culture of those countries. Frankly, this was a low part of your post and beneath you. I used to want to live in China, not that it matters now.

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

You want to be left alone? Cool. Close the bases, stop the interventions and overthrowing of governments, stop bombing countries back to the stone age claiming they are regressive whilst the bombs you send are progressive - a mentality that itself is of the a stone age. A mentality that can't handle the reality of multi-polarity because it wants to be the only pole other nations bow to and dance around like undignified strippers. Stop extracting wealth through structural adjustment programmes via the IMF, stop vetoing UN resolutions that would end your domination and stop weaponizing the dollar via sanctions that cover third of the world and perpetuate financial hardship for nations trying to develop.

Then we can talk about being left alone. Till then - you can't have empire and isolation because that's not how a globalized imperial hegemon operates.

 

EUROPE DOES NOT EQUAL THE USA. Nor does Israel.

Honestly, at this point I feel like giving up explaining myself. Because even the basics are being gaslit. The problems won't be solved through dialogue, nobody will listen or take our positions seriously anyway. Force is the only way it'll be settled.

 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The "maniacs" aren't at the door- they're in the house that used to be theirs before Israel kicked the door in and claimed God owed them the land. Now Israel's mad they won't leave or live in a subjugated peace? And the West's mad at their moral high ground being crumbled by social media that shreds the lies and narrative faster than they can paper over it with more spin.

Or maybe because we are being bombed and European or Israeli civilians deliberately targeted while you whitewash over it all on your own moral highground, and the authoritarian powers just remove countries and cultures they don't like, all in the name of liberation,

Utterly nonsensical.
 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

So it's human nature to act in accordance to survival but when others do it its what? Authoritarian, regressive, backwards, false, non-understandable or relatable? If survival is beyond morality - then stop moralizing or being in denial of the survival of others. If that law is universal then it applies to them too.

FINALLY. YES.

Why did I moralise. Look at the original post I responded to. It was a morality argument. I can go up spiral dynamics, down or stay with morality. Survival is as base at it comes (which wasn't morality by the way, that is the point) Most of your post is moralizing if you hadn't realised on the re-read. With a few linear systemic points made.
 

 

On 04/10/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The question is whose survival is actually at stake? Is Western survival at stake from Chinese bases around it? Or Russian? Is Israels at stake by the countries around who it is in de-facto peace agreements with? This sea of hate narrative of Israel existing in a cesspit of 100's of millions of barbarians at the gates is an outdated myth. An actual threat assessment would conclude that their only real threat isn't annihilation by a power strong enough to annihilate them - but through exhaustion from proxies and non-state actors who spring up (and will continue to) because of the un-resolved issue of the Palestinian cause they want to turn a blind eye to or keep stalling for their own fetish of settling the land how they wish. 

Western imperialism and dominance has taught nations to shake in fear and suspicion of breathing too heavy. They then get gaslit as manics who we should panic about because they seem to be a bit shakey and ''unstable'' when they try stand up to us. All of a sudden the Western conscious seems to be aware of their own empire because of a loud mouth Orange man ripping the mask off - but most of the Global South was aware of that empire breathing down its neck for decades, including anyone in the West who actually opened their eyes in between changing of the guards from Bush to Obama to Biden - just bipartisan delusion masking unilateral abuses by the empire state. Simply put - special interests are sold to the demos (the people in ''democracy'') as their own national interest.

Those special interests that fake being for your and mine national interest are the cause of the issue including issues plaguing our very own countries. Leo nails what Iran nails, what I nailed with what I just wrote above:

 

Yes western society is at stake. Its shifting authoritarian due to Chinese and Russian meddling. Which will cause nationalism and further war.

Moreover Russia is threatening to kill us all and waging wars of terror.

But again the whole point of this was Europe and Israel.

Sadly you are unable to assign the agency necessary to discuss the countries in question, or in this case an entire continent. Which again boggles my mind but hey ho, we are where we are

Edited October 5 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

18 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

I think if you stopped being so paranoid and creating enemies. The china/russia threat would just go away on its own. You are part of creating all of this

Europeans always say "we just want to be left alone but they won't let us!"...meanwhile Europeans colonize and antagonize the entire world 

Europeans barely do anything, they have hardly any military and are largely cowardly, weak and feminine.  - You've told me as much several times.
But i've seen it on first hand display with the Russian planes and drones flying over their countries, afraid to defend themselves.

If I keep stabbing you in the foot and you want to guard your foot, its not paranoid its a natural survival reaction.
 

Edited October 5 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

Going to end with this.

Nobody living in Israel was around for its founding. They didn't create the conditions of their birth. The hatred they were born into surrounding them and threatening them every day. Yes they don't help themselves by escalating and their methods are barbaric, they remind me of Russia, but they have to defend themselves, or they'll be dead. Much like the Russians feel they need to do. 

But in BOTH cases, they create far more enemies than they ever really had.

Edited October 6 by BlueOak

[enchanted]

Queers for Palestine is like illegal aliens for MAGA

[zazen]

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

False
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_military_history

But then every nation, culture or people has this history, despite what most of you here want to admit.

Moreover. Your framing fails to take into account that Israel as it exists now is not a blip. Its 80 years old.
It's this kind of dismissive behaviour that contributes to why no equilibrium is ever reached, and we are forever at war.

Your links not false but also not relevant to what I said - I said Muslims and Jews have lived quite peacefully (relatively) for centuries and that Hamas is a blip and aberration in that relationship - not that Israel is a blip.

Who knows - perhaps Jews wouldn't even be in Jerusalem today had Saladin not recaptured it from the Crusaders who barred Jews from there. Saladin invited Jewish families from across the region to settle there again. Identity based hostility and violence to the degree we're seeing today can be traced mainly to Zionism in modern history.

He forbade looting and revenge against Christians when they retook the holy land - ransomed rather than slaughtered captives, personally paid for the freedom of the poor and protected Christian holy sites unlike the adversary. Richard the Lionheart admired him to the extent they exchanged gifts and Richard even sent his physician to treat him when he fell ill. Just goes to show that though there are cycles and principles of power that are timeless - not all power is exercised the same way. Ignore the 9/11 conspiratorial take in the following:

 

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

On 10/4/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

America and the Western led order has been the system within which that fear has been inspired. Guess who wants to be left alone?

EUROPE

Doesn't suit your framing, does it? That's why you always dismiss it or say oh its not important but at the same time we'll villify the people there. Like Israel. They are not the good guys to you. Your side. Apparently, because we don't have a military and are not shooting at everyone to you Zazen we don't count. You argue against your own points.

So we get a military, we start throwing our weight around, do we get to be left alone then? No, we'll be the bad guys again, not on your side Zazen. Because, unless you are allied with BRICS or just taking whatever is being thrown at us, we're the bad guy. Israel fights back, and what it does it get, vilified as being the bad guys.

Utterly gaslit from start to finish by both of you and half the people here.

I make an obvious post designed to get twenty-four into:

You can see this in the US but not in Russia, Iran, China and BRICS, and you walk hook line and sinker into it.
This boggled my mind with the number of debates we've had about America being as bad as everyone else.

Self reflect that America is not infact Europe, for just a few minutes.

Then the rest of it. You just like to couch it in some fight for liberation. I swear I might as well be listening to an American 30 years ago. 
 

That's why I said America AND the Western led order. They are distinct from the US which is the clear unipolar hegemon but they exist as preferential partners and allies within that order - that are also taken advantage of when it suits the hegemon, as we are seeing today. If they truly want to be left out of great power competition then they need to build their own defense capabilities to gain strategic autonomy and sovereignty - and act accordingly.

Wanting to be left alone also requires actually leaving others alone. Israel uses the US to dominate the region through. Europe outsourced its security to the US who does more of the dirty work of upholding the current order they benefit from. You can't be part of an expansionist military alliance, participate in its structure and antics (NATO-Libya, Afghanistan Yugoslavia and other covert ops), benefit from it's global dominance and financial supremacy through dollar liquidity, swap lines and tagging along in sanction programmes to naughty countries - then claim victim hood when targets of that system resist that very order containing it - a order in which you are a junior partner to the final boss (US) in that system.

The security, prosperity (social welfare) and diplomatic power both Europe and Israel have enjoyed have heavily depended on being central players in that order. Also - they very much do everything they can to not have daddy US leave them - que the picture of them sitting around Trump like school kids not wanting to be left alone. They begrudgingly want the superpower capabilities of the US on their side to continue to benefit from that arrangement even if it cuts into their sovereignty some what. It’s like living in the empires mansion that imperialism built but distancing yourself as a morally clean bystander because you don’t hold the whip.  That’s why the order is referred to as Western despite being US led - because it is and it’s institutions were built by the West post WW2. That order is now breaking down, along with Euro leaders breaking down in tears for losing their benefits and place in it.

They got comfortable and indulged progressive fantasies of green energy and mass migration assimilation because someone else lifted the hard weight of survival. Europe’s moralism is a luxury afforded by American militarism. Their only soft and grandstand about their “values”because they outsourced the need to be hard and survive just like anyone else.

If you acknowledge that order - then it logically follows that the actors we are talking about are acting within that current order - and where they are within that order and how they are treated within that order (contained vs pampered) will determine how they act or react. I did also say that states can act independent of that order and not everything can be blamed on it. Not every protest is going to be a regime change operation despite the clear track record and evidence of the US perfecting that art (US-UK couping Iran in 1953 for example).

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

On 10/4/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The "maniacs" aren't at the door- they're in the house that used to be theirs before Israel kicked the door in and claimed God owed them the land. Now Israel's mad they won't leave or live in a subjugated peace? And the West's mad at their moral high ground being crumbled by social media that shreds the lies and narrative faster than they can paper over it with more spin.

Or maybe because we are being bombed and European or Israeli civilians deliberately targeted while you whitewash over it all on your own moral highground, and the authoritarian powers just remove countries and cultures they don't like, all in the name of liberation,

I did say Western violence gets framed as policy, everyone else's as pathology - acknowledging that others can be or are violent. I'm not denying others aggression or threats of it - I'm saying there's asymmetry in how that aggression is talked about or understood based on who does it and why. And the causal chain gets erased to frame the latest act of aggression as if it comes out of a vacuum - that the one doing it is simply aggressive by nature, culture, psychology - to the point of not wanting to live on the same planet as them lol. Speaking of that causal chain - that is where things get messy because as we said - you can frame something differently depending on where you decide the starting point is. That's probably the most important point which I'll cover below along with the other parts that are related ie historic rhetoric, proper survival assessment, systemic analysis vs psychoanalysis.  

22 hours ago, BlueOak said:

 

On 10/4/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The fairest and most practical cutoff is probably the creation of the new world order which is when power structures reset in a shifting of the guard. For our time that would be  post WW2 and post Cold War: After 1945 a US led global system replaced European colonialism. And after 1991, that US system became unipolar and unchallenged. From that point onward, Western hegemony isn’t reactive - it’s structurally dominant. So reactions to it (Russia, Iran, China) are better understood as responses to that order, not random aggressions. Of course not everything is a reaction to the that order and things still happen independent of it.

Because it suits your framing the best.
Despite the fact China keeps quoting things from thousands of years ago, and Russia from the previous millennium.  And this particular war does exactly the same. 

People just pick a point in time and say ah.... we'll go with that. You are again arguing against your own chain points. Get out of linear thinking for a heartbeat and move into a global recognised consciousness that this is human behavior, and until you can universally and without bias can see that everyone is engaging in it, because they are the world, then you'll always be cherry-picking which parts you like or dislike through a narrow lens.

 

On 10/4/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

So it's human nature to act in accordance to survival but when others do it its what? Authoritarian, regressive, backwards, false, non-understandable or relatable? If survival is beyond morality - then stop moralizing or being in denial of the survival of others. If that law is universal then it applies to them too.

FINALLY. YES.

Why did I moralise. Look at the original post I responded to. It was a morality argument. I can go up spiral dynamics, down or stay with morality. Survival is as base at it comes (which wasn't morality by the way, that is the point) Most of your post is moralizing if you hadn't realised on the re-read. With a few linear systemic points made.

On 10/4/2025 at 0:44 PM, zazen said:

The question is whose survival is actually at stake? Is Western survival at stake from Chinese bases around it? Or Russian? Is Israels at stake by the countries around who it is in de-facto peace agreements with? This sea of hate narrative of Israel existing in a cesspit of 100's of millions of barbarians at the gates is an outdated myth. An actual threat assessment would conclude that their only real threat isn't annihilation by a power strong enough to annihilate them - but through exhaustion from proxies and non-state actors who spring up (and will continue to) because of the un-resolved issue of the Palestinian cause they want to turn a blind eye to or keep stalling for their own fetish of settling the land how they wish. 

Yes western society is at stake. Its shifting authoritarian due to Chinese and Russian meddling. Which will cause nationalism and further war.

Moreover Russia is threatening to kill us all and waging wars of terror.

But again the whole point of this was Europe and Israel.

Sadly you are unable to assign the agency necessary to discuss the countries in question, or in this case an entire continent. Which again boggles my mind but hey ho, we are where we are

Ancient claims and assessing threats

Israel also makes ancient claims. States invoke older history for legitimacy - it's not about whether ancient claims are allowed rhetorically but about whether they justify current actions. Israel makes ancient claims within and protected by Western hegemony to dispossess people right now. That's materially different from China or Russia invoking history while challenging that same hegemony and responding defensively to threats from that hegemon.

Russia also uses historical claims (Ukraine isn't real, historical Russian lands) to justify what is also a response to strategic encirclement. The historical rhetoric obscures the defensive logic, but the defensive logic still exists within which to understand its actions. If we strip away Putin's speeches about Ukrainian history and look at the strategic picture - Russia is reacting to an alliance expanding toward its borders to a country that is being used as a launchpad through which to weaken it on its flank. This has been laid out in think tank papers only a arrogant hegemon would have the audacity to make public.

Russia's defensiveness is real due to a accurate assessment of the threat - even if their response and rhetoric are wrong to the point they blur the lines of their defensive logic and make us question their motives (imperial vs defensive). Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in. Israel claims existential threat - but from who? Egypt, Jordan, UAE are normalized. Syria is destroyed. Iran is far away and only retaliated after Israel directly struck it. Their threat is exhaustion from proxies (that Iran backs yes) and non-state actors who emerge because of the unresolved Palestinian issue. That's not an existential threat to the state - that's blowback from perpetual occupation which is the root cause of the issue. The "sea of hatred" narrative is increasingly detached from a actual state level threat.

On time frame and systemic analysis

I said everyone's actions have deeper roots to the point we get into the chicken or the egg argument - ultimately blaming God who started it all. So then what time do we pick to analyse events? if we go too far back it becomes too detached from the current reality to be pragmatic in understanding and resolving it, if we just go with the latest actions our analysis is surface level and symptoms based rather than root based. That's why we look at things systemically - and therefore look at the current system within which events take place. 

Every major actor is responding to the rules, pressures, and limitations within that system and order. The structure of that system defines where actors sit in the hierarchy of that ''rules based order'' and that positioning shapes their psychology, strategy and actions. A country not deemed a threat or that is allied with the hegemon in that system will behave and be responded to differently to a country deemed as a threat and challenge. This doesn't erase agency of countries but it explains how their agency is being exercised. I'm not denying the psychology, human nature or agency of those actors but grounding it in a structure they exist in and respond to.

You say everyone engages in human behaviour, implying that humans behave as they always do ''because they are the world''. Your correct in that there are constants of human nature, and observable patterns and cycles of power - we're in one right now (thucydides trap). You’re describing continuity of nature and instinct but there is also a evolution of context within which that nature exists and manifests - in this case the system in which that nature exists. Human nature existing in the world of digital and junk food abundance we have today will manifest differently to cave man times of scarcity.

A lion in a savannah acts differently than one in a cage. Same animal, different environment - and the behavior we observe is shaped just as much by the cage, not just the claws. The rules of power in the 1800s when Russia fought for land and resources aren't the same as in the 21st century where we have nuclear deterrence, economic interdependence, and a digital globalised world world with technology. That’s why 1945 and 1991 are the practical cutoff points - not to cherry pick, but because those were the moments when the entire global structure was redefined to create the current order - from which we can make sense of geopolitics today.

Structures change, and when they do - the logic of behavior changes with them. We’re now witnessing the breakdown of the unipolar order that’s defined global behavior since 1991, and the emergence of a multipolar one - if we survive the transition. Once that shift completes, a new set of rules, norms, and incentives will shape how nations act - and any future analysts will have to take into account that new order in which to make sense of the geopolitics of that time. The Thucydides trap exists because we’re still stuck between these two orders that are now in a tug of war.

On moralizing

My critique can be moral but not moralistic - I said in my full comment that ''Israeli's aren't the problem, the way they are acting upon their survival is''. I don't view them as inherently less than or as a caricature of evil - I can understand yet not condone the actions they felt they needed to take due to survival pressures after the Holocaust. But seeing their actions against Hamas isn't defense and I do morally stand against that. No one says they don't have a right to self defense, its that they can't use that as a excuse to dominate and collectively punish Palestinians at large.

If you get robbed or beat up at home or place of work - defense means securing your home or place of work with security, cameras, and some muscle and skill to handle any future nonsense coming to your door again. Sure, it's just to also pursue those criminals out in town. But you don't burn or demolish the town in the process. Israel has periodically or totally cut food, aid, water and electricity before. They've destroyed something like 70% of the buildings and displaced 90% of the people which have no where left to go and winter fast approaching. They even block any aid coming from sea via flotillas. This is not defense and has little to no defensive logic to it.

My analysis is mostly structural and systemic. That structure isn't neutral. Some actors built it, maintain it, and benefit from it more than others. Actors are reacting to survival pressures they have within that structure - that you acknowledge come primarily before morality. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy within that structure by the ones who lead it claiming their own survival needs are primary whilst others are secondary or non-existent. Security architectures are supposed to address multiple actors survival needs, but non-Western aligned nations survival needs take a back seat in the current system. As just one example - India scolded to stop buying cheap Russian oil that is helping 100s of millions claw their way out from poverty that is no easy task.

Edited October 6 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, zazen said:

Israel's defensiveness is meanwhile is theater for covering for domination of the land they want to settle in. Israel claims existential threat - but from who? 

Having near you a city of two million people with a huge population growth ruled by fanatic terrorists who teach children from the age of three that the highest value in life is to kill Jews and be martyrs ,financed with billions by countries that have your elimination in their program, is a threat. If it isn't for you, perhaps you should reconsider how impartial your analysis is. Seems that you only see what you want to see.

I guess that in your opinion Israel should let gaza grows in population and hate indefinitely, but seems that some people thought that this was a bad idea for their survival . Maybe the Palestinian now have understood that the path of martyrdom is nonsense, and start the path of coexistence 

Edited October 6 by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Having near you a city of two million people with a huge population growth ruled by fanatic terrorists who teach children from the age of three that the highest value in life is to kill Jews and be martyrs ,financed with billions by countries that have your elimination in their program, is a threat. If it isn't for you, perhaps you should reconsider how impartial your analysis is. Seems that you only see what you want to see.

I guess that in your opinion Israel should let gaza grows in population and hate indefinitely, but seems that some people thought that this was a bad idea for their survival . Maybe the Palestinian now have understood that the path of martyrdom is nonsense, and start the path of coexistence 

Damn my grammar sucks there. I corrected it '' Israel's defensiveness meanwhile is theater and cover for domination of the land they want to settle in.''

Your not understanding the root cause of the issue. People don't just get a fetish for matrydom from no where and become that radical - which I agree is an issue - we just disagree how it needs to be tackled. If Palestinians ever reach a statehood that would bring them dignity, security, economic prosperity and rights - their logic to go to war would drop faster than a old mans balls.

Statehood creates stakeholderhip because they now have something to lose in a war of annihilation - which is a independent state they've struggled for decades for. Right now they have nothing to lose. Radical conditions radicalizes them - so reduce the radical conditions to de-radicalise them. Extremism thrives in humiliation, hopelessness, and blockade.

On 05/10/2025 at 2:47 PM, BlueOak said:

Yes western society is at stake. Its shifting authoritarian due to Chinese and Russian meddling. Which will cause nationalism and further war.

Its not because of China and Russia though. It's because of structural changes of the world order and the Wests position in it + our own system's internal contradictions reaching crisis point. Its a response to a changing order from a uni-polar one where the West reigns supreme to a multi-polar one they no longer do. Those internal contradictions coming to a head are: decades of neoliberalism hollowing out the middle class, financialization concentrating wealth upward, de-industrialization destroying the working class, surveillance capitalism eroding privacy, corporate capture of democratic institutions, rising inequality, immigration and cultural change + economic anxiety = reactionary politics.

China, Russia or Iran didn't do any of that to us - our own elites and special interest class did - who sold their actions as being for the national interest when it was anything but. China and Russia opportunistically exploit those vulnerabilities but didn't create them. Multi-polarity isn't emerging because the West chose it but because they couldn't prevent it. So the order is changing and the Wests privileged position in it is ending - the economic pie is shrinking including our ability to capture new pies being grown elsewhere (China+developing world). Western societies are responding in various ways to compensate for that loss - right wing nationalism and authoritarian leaning is one of them. Whats BRICS are doing is reshuffling their positions in that order by challenging it or building alternatives as a hedge to gain leverage. Just see how they talk defiantly at the UN compared to 20 years ago. They reveal that Western primacy isn't natural or inevitable but that it was structural and temporary.

Because you like to think Europe as a innocent bystander in this system rather than a preferential partner that disproportionately benefits from it - I'll bring up a clear example to the contrary using Chat GPT:

''France has maintained a direct neocolonial system in Francophone Africa for decades through:

The CFA Franc system:

-14 African countries forced to deposit 50% (formerly 65%) of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury

-France controls their monetary policy

-France profits from interest on those reserves

-African countries need French approval to access their own money above certain thresholds

This system extracts wealth from some of the poorest countries on Earth directly into French coffers.This isn't ancient history. This is current European imperial extraction. And now? These countries are kicking France out: Mali expelled French forces (2022) Burkina Faso expelled French forces (2023) Niger expelled French forces (2023). Multiple countries demanding a end to CFA Franc.''

You don't need to be the main boss (US) in the system, you can be on the inside circle that benefits from it more than others within that same system who get exploited. This status quo was simply assumed to exist indefinitely - until now. France maintained its own mini-empire within that broader Western built order. Britain did the same through Commonwealth structures.  Westerners have enjoyed privilege within the structure, that privilege is now being challenged. And that's called a threat to survival when its a threat to dominance. These survival pressures which aren't existential but are pressures against an assumed dominance which the loss of is now distorting our politics. 

I'd say the best way to be left alone is leave others alone - but the hard truths is it that Europe can't afford to isolate itself due to the lack of resources on its own continent. It actually needs to interact with other but on a more equitable basis. This is a large reason for it needing to colonially expand in the past into regions which actually had resources it could bolster its empire from. China is also vulnerable in the same way but even worse - not only does it lack cheap energy but food security - but they plugged those vulnerabilities by building win-win partnerships and trade with countries to supply what it needed. You have called that imperialism in the past.

23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Going to end with this.

Nobody living in Israel was around for its founding. They didn't create the conditions of their birth. The hatred they were born into surrounding them and threatening them every day. Yes they don't help themselves by escalating and their methods are barbaric, they remind me of Russia, but they have to defend themselves, or they'll be dead. Much like the Russians feel they need to do. 

Buth in BOTH cases, they create far more enemies than they ever really had.

Palestinians weren't there either - they were instead born into stateless occupation. Neither current Israelis or Palestinians chose their birth conditions. But Israelis have state power and agency to change the situation that Palestinians don't. That asymmetry means the responsibility for breaking the cycle falls more heavily on those with power.

The "threats" Israel faces are largely produced by the ongoing occupation. Ending occupation would do more for Israeli security than any military operation - but that would require giving up territorial control and settlement expansion. Palestinians face actual erasure as a people in their homeland - through gradual displacement, settlement expansion, denial of statehood, no path to sovereignty. If we're talking about "survival" - Palestinian national survival is far more threatened than Israeli state survival.

Russia was never truly brought in as a friend - only a tolerated supplier. So Russia hasn't really created any new enemies, only revealed those who always viewed it as a civilizational ''other'' to be contained despite benefiting from its resources. Most of the world is still trading with Russia and not toeing the line of isolating them.

Israel however has created new enemies. Not among the states that neighbor it, but in global consensus and sentiment - including the shift in opinion of citizens in its very own allied nations. Despite Israels behaviour - state level threats are gone and still haven't emerged from its ''hostile neighbourhood''. This proves my point that they don't have a state level threat that is existential. It's Middle Eastern neighbors worked hard at diplomacy and de-escalation instead of waging war on Israel for its crimes.  Israels continued actions only radicalized non-state actors who don't have the means to inflict existential level threats to it's existence.

As far as Iran is concerned the Ayatollah here clarifies their rhetoric. It's not about random hatred towards Westerners per se but their governments foreign policy and actions. This clip is 6 years old yet how relevant when he says not to trust the West in negotiation - remember when just this year in negotiation with the US/Israel they got attacked. 

https://www.timesofisrael.com/how-an-israeli-american-deception-campaign-lulled-iran-into-a-false-sense-of-security/

''Israel clearly hoped the Iranians would believe there was no way it would attack before the Sunday talks. On all fronts, Israel sought to put forth an air of business as usual. Trump contributed to the effort. “He played the game together with Israel,” said the Israeli official. “It was a whole coordination.”

And again with ''negotiation'' talks in Qatar where the negotiators got struck. How can you negotiate a peace if you kill the negotiators?

Edited October 6 by zazen

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Maybe the Palestinian now have understood that the path of martyrdom is nonsense, and start the path of coexistence

What do you think they should do? How should they start the path of coexistence and how does coexistence look to you - a one state solution with equal rights, a two state solution or an apartheid state? You said on the other thread that you think imperial Japan should have been nuked 3 times - so I’m curious to know your opinion?

The international community has told the Palestinians they have a right to a state. That right is blocked. They fight those who block it.

If you win the lottery to a million dollars it is your legitimate right to have that million dollars - you are entitled to it. If it is withheld from you and you start pursuing a legal fight for it - will people call you mad for doing so? And the Palestinian case is something far more serious.

Winning a million dollars and being denied it is a financial theft. Being promised a homeland and being denied it is an existential theft of dignity, freedom, and nationhood.

You may say they need to prove they’re worthy of  that right but that’s not how inalienable rights work. Perhaps you should prove yourself sane enough to vote in democracy with some of the views you have.

Edited October 6 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Your not understanding the root cause of the issue. People don't just get a fetish for matrydom from no where and become that radical - which I agree is an issue - we just disagree how it needs to be tackled. If Palestinians ever reach a statehood that would bring them dignity, security, economic prosperity and rights - their logic to go to war would drop faster than a old mans balls.

They were given Gaza, evicting thousands of Jewish settlers, and they elected Hamas, which is an oppressive regime that needs an enemy to sustain itself, just like Iran.

Perhaps you think that if Israel disappears, Iran would become a democracy? The Islamists need someone to blame to impose their tyranny. If Israel leaves, they would blame Saudi Arabia or Switzerland.

[Breakingthewall]

20 minutes ago, zazen said:

What do you think they should do? How should they start the path of coexistence and how does coexistence look to you - a one state solution with equal rights, a two state solution or an apartheid state? You said on the other thread that you think imperial Japan should have been nuked 3 times - so I’m curious to know your opinion?

Perhaps four nukes would have been better, given what they did in Korea, China, and the Philippines.

What the Palestinians should do is take advantage of the fact that they have a functioning state nearby where they can integrate and prosper.

Become farmers with the latest advances in hydroponics, doctors, biologists, engineers, writers, influencers, and actors. Poets and musicians, not martyrs.

They should say: How lucky to be associated with Israel and not Syria or Irak ! Let's learn cutting-edge technology. Let's teach children that self-immolation isn't fun; a postgraduate degree in mathematics is better.

But of course, that needs some work. Immolation seems easier, and you go to paradise, that's much better than creating life and culture.

Edited October 6 by Breakingthewall

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

Perhaps four nukes would have been better, given what they did in Korea, China, and the Philippines.

What the Palestinians should do is take advantage of the fact that they have a functioning state nearby where they can integrate and prosper.

Become farmers with the latest advances in hydroponics, doctors, biologists, engineers, writers, influencers, and actors. Poets and musicians, not martyrs.

They should say: How lucky to be associated with Israel and not Syria or Irak ! Let's learn cutting-edge technology. Let's teach children that self-immolation isn't fun; a postgraduate degree in mathematics is better.

But of course, that needs some work. Immolation seems easier, and you go to paradise, that's much better than creating life and culture.

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.

Edited October 6 by Raze

[Nivsch]

5 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

What the Palestinians should do is take advantage of the fact that they have a functioning state nearby where they can integrate and prosper.

About 26% of the Palestinians are well integrated in Israeli society in many high status professions such as medicine (+10-20% above their % in the population which is quite impressive), academia (-4%, almost normal), though underrepresented in law (-9%), academic lecturers, security (-20%), high-tech (-17%) and senior public positions (-17%). Still can reach senior positions but in smaller numbers.

Edited October 6 by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

56 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

About 26% of the Palestinians are well integrated in Israeli society in many high status professions such as medicine (+10-20% above their % in the population which is quite impressive), academia (-4%, almost normal), though underrepresented in law (-9%), academic lecturers, security (-20%), high-tech (-17%) and senior public positions (-17%). Still can reach senior positions but in smaller numbers.

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.

Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen. If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive, demonstrated their strength as a society, and moved forward. What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.

If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer. The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.

@Raze

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, but the important thing in life is freedom, the opportunities to develop as a human being, economic status translated into education, health, and work, security, and respect for human rights, not the nonsense of mosques and synagogues. Your Palestinians are a brunch of psychotics who educate 3-year-olds about self-immolation because the Al-Aqsa esplanade. People absolutely full of shit. Let's see if this event could get some common sense into them. 

[Raze]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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.

Palestinians living in Gaza or the West Bank have far superior living conditions than those in Syria, Iraq, Egypt or Yemen. If they wanted to, when Gaza was handed over to them, they could have done something constructive, demonstrated their strength as a society, and moved forward. What they did was launch rockets and blame Israel for everything, as always.

If Israel didn't exist, Palestine would be a Syrian-style dictatorship, but much poorer. The only problem Palestine has with Israel is one of identity. It's an imaginary, religious problem, not a real, practical problem of oppression.

@Raze

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, but the important thing in life is freedom, the opportunities to develop as a human being, economic status translated into education, health, and work, security, and respect for human rights, not the nonsense of mosques and synagogues. Your Palestinians are a brunch of psychotics who educate 3-year-olds about self-immolation because the Al-Aqsa esplanade. People absolutely full of shit. Let's see if this event could get some common sense into them. 

 

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.

Edited October 6 by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Raze said:

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.

Sure, Look, I suppose you know perfectly well that Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948, and also that it began terrorism in 1918. The problem at that time was identity-based. Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians; look at what the Ukrainians have done for their nationalism. But there comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century and leave the other centuries behind.

This Palestinian has a good direction. The only possible 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

[Raze]

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

 

Your AI can say whatever it want, 

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. 

[Raze]

1 minute ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, Look, I suppose you know perfectly well that Palestine declared war on Israel in 1948, and also that it began terrorism in 1918. The problem at that time was identity-based. Nationalism isn't an idiocy exclusive to Palestinians; look at what the Ukrainians have done for their nationalism. But there comes a time when we have to overcome this and be human. Enter the 21st century and leave the other centuries behind.

This Palestinian has a good direction. The only possible 

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLHXhVuBhn3/?igsh=MXFwMDhtYTZzZ3dpNw==

🧾 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.