Israel / Palestine News Thread

[Breakingthewall]

@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?

Edited October 8, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[BlueOak]

15 hours ago, Twentyfirst said:

They could leave and return to Europe. It's not just war against poor innocent people versus them dying. They can leave

If I was born in a place and they told me "your parents stole this land, now you have to shoot this kid in the face and you may die yourself" then I would just leave altogether. I'm not a monster or a dumbass

People don't often break the core patterns of their life. Because they are them.

At the moment, you and I have the luxury of looking into something from the outside. Looking at the pieces of it, which are flawed, and saying hey, that's dumb. What you are calling dumb is what that person is at their core, beliefs, values and society itself is entirely structured around it, from religion and community to governance. 

What someone is rarely changes drastically in life. It often evolves for better or worse, but the underlying pattern is usually reinforced by a hundred other patterns running in their psyche, all of which bring the situation in question around again at some point in a cycle. Especially when their peer group is reinforcing this further.

*Though I would like to say leaving is an underrated and often vilified answer to a lot of issues. It doesn't fix you, as who you are follows you anywhere, but it does provide another perspective to see the obvious irrational choices you are making.

Edited October 8, 2025 by BlueOak

[Twentyfirst]

54 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

People don't often break the core patterns of their life. Because they are them.

At the moment, you and I have the luxury of looking into something from the outside. Looking at the pieces of it, which are flawed, and saying hey, that's dumb. What you are calling dumb is what that person is at their core, beliefs, values and society itself is entirely structured around it, from religion and community to governance. 

What someone is rarely changes drastically in life. It often evolves for better or worse, but the underlying pattern is usually reinforced by a hundred other patterns running in their psyche, all of which bring the situation in question around again at some point in a cycle. Especially when their peer group is reinforcing this further.

*Though I would like to say leaving is an underrated and often vilified answer to a lot of issues. It doesn't fix you, as who you are follows you anywhere, but it does provide another perspective to see the obvious irrational choices you are making.

Well some people do leave and speak against the whole charade. Regardless this is the problem with Zionism is it destroy everything Jewish (and Arab) at the guise of protecting Jews

[zazen]

3 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@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?

As it says in the beginning of your paragraph - the violence mainly broke out after the UN vote. No one obviously condones all the violence that follows - but the question has to be asked why? And then another question is why is one UN vote acknowledged as unjust while another isn't? For example - those for the Palestinian cause and most of the world have consensus around the 1967 UN resolution rather than the 1947 one 20 years earlier, but why?

The reason is that the 1947 resolution partitioned Palestine without the consent of its inhabitants. Arabs and Palestinians rejected it outright as a foreign imposed plan that violated self-determination. It was passed by a colonial era UN where most of the Global South had no vote. It created Israel through external legitimacy, not negotiated legitimacy and it basically carried a stain of a colonial imposition.

The reason it was seen as unjust was because it handed a recently arrived minority (who were only 10% of the population just 20 odd years ago but made up 30% of the population after large influxes), who owned less than 10% of the land - and were then given 55% of of it while denying the local Arab majority any fair distribution or say about it. The local Arab majority naturally saw this as colonial displacement in progress rather just coexistence.

Imagine a partition plan that would give a minority who were 10% but grew to 30% not from organic growth - but politically facilitated by a colonial power (Britain) and then after Zionist land purchases they still only legally owned 10% of it - but were then given  55 % of the territory, granting them control of far more land than they possessed or even populated - including areas where Arabs were 70–90 % of residents, including most of the fertile coast and ports.

The 1967 resolution on the other hand is accepted as the basis for peace by consensus. Because 20 years later the UN also changed to reflect more of the world after decolonization and new members getting absorbed into it. 1947 UN was a institute that belonged to the age of empire, 1967 UN was more balanced and reflective for a new age of diplomacy. But even then and still till today - it is structurally biased and is trying to be reformed. ''The UN Security Council is built on the power structure of 1945, not the reality of the 21st century. It enshrines who won World War II, not who represents humanity today.''

For example - the the 5 permanent members are the US, UK, France, Russia and China. They can veto decisions made by all the rest. No representation of the Global South or even the Middle East or Muslim world which makes up a quarter of the population. The rotating 10 seats of the non-permanent members is just a charade if their votes can be vetoed by the permanent 5 anyway. But even among that 10 there's no dedicated category for the Middle East: 

Chat GPT

''Non-Permanent Members (10 seats, elected for 2-year terms):

They rotate among regional blocs:

3 for Africa

2 for Asia-Pacific

2 for Latin America & the Caribbean

2 for Western Europe & Others

1 for Eastern Europe''

@BlueOak This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists.

Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD,  UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol

You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns.

I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc.

Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ).  And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

Edited October 8, 2025 by zazen

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

This is what I mean when I talk about structural analysis affecting the decisions of actors in the system. Your correct that nature is timeless and a constant - but how that nature is nurtured through systems, incentives and culture can impact outcomes. Your arguing inside the system (treating each actor’s choices as a moral inevitability because ''human nature''). I'm arguing about the system in which that nature exists (showing how structural incentives shape behavior and how nature can manifest differently depending on those incentives). Psychoanalysis is real - but it needs to be grounded in structural analysis also - in a context that is ever changing within which that ''psyche' and ''nature'' exists.

Otherwise we just become too fatalistic. If nature is nature then why bother with diplomacy and civilization building at all? Every country has a military - yet the whole world isn't at war as long as survival pressures are managed and governed properly. The Cold War didn’t explode into total hot war precisely because militarization was balanced with frameworks like MAD,  UN and backchannel diplomacy. China has one of the largest militaries in the world yet hasn't warred like the US, a military by itself doesn’t cause war - mismanagement of power relations does. It's utopian to think the world will de-militarize - even cavemen and tribes wouldn't agree to all drop their bows arrows and stones lol

Smaller nations don't war as much, because large nations and militaries keep them in check. Force checks force. In our current dynamic, smaller nations also don't go to war if a large nation is going to give their opponents weapons.

• As Russian power slips you see war breaking out in Central Asia. Azerbaijan vs Armenia
• As America pulls back from NATO and BRICS rises you see it in Southeast Asia. Cambodia vs Thailand.
• As China grew strong enough we saw it in Tibet and East Turkestan. China's done plenty of war over its history in recent memory, its strong enough it just rolls through without much resistance.
• Russia thought they were strong enough, So did Israel. So did India to pressure Pakistan over Kashmir. 

Its not fatalistic to show you what happens the world over and to really get you to understand at their base level humans are the same the world over. As soon as you can accept that we can dismantle bias and actually rationally look at systemic problems, but without that understanding, you are unduly biased in your assessment.

*The Cold war didn't move into a full war as nukes were more feared and the military strength of both sides was more balanced. Plus WW2 was still in those generations minds. I always feared what would happen when the last of the veterans died off, their respected voices no longer speaking out by experience against war. Then this was reinforced when fascism became a more accepted ideology, and racism more accepted, without socialist controls stopping, balancing or framing it differnetly.

1 hour ago, zazen said:

You asked what Europe and Israel should do but only gave three inevitable options (surrender, subjugation, or militarism always leads to war) missing the most obvious option which is diplomacy to settle the root cause of tensions and creating a sound security architecture. Russia has been calling the West to do this but it hasn't been taken seriously just as I outlined - others survival and security concerns aren't taken as legitimate due to the status quo of the system serving one side to the point they are too arrogant to think they need to sit at the table. Again - structural incentives of the current order has provided a level of impunity and thus arrogance to the top players in that system which makes them incapable of diplomacy or acknowledging anyone else's concerns as concerns.

Putin has refused all negotiation with Ukraine repeatedly. He won't even recognize Zelensky as legitimate to negotiate with. The only way Russia is stopped is on the battlefield, almost everyone has finally come around to that understanding, which Eastern Europe have known for centuries. Or more specifically, its economy wrecked enough that it cannot support these increasingly wasteful attacks.

Personally I advocate for the Russian country being broken up in into its native populations; they'd be far better off than draining all their food, oil, lifeforce and wealth into Moscow and St Petersburg anyway. I understand this is unlikely, and Russia will bankrupt itself long before that.

As for negotiations with fanatics like many of those in Hamas, that isn't easy either when many of them just want you dead, your culture and religion erased. After Israel's brutal campaign, I doubt its got much easier.
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

I also noted how China has plugged the gaps of its vulnerability (lack of resources and food security) through diplomacy and trade which is what Europe should also do to slowly increase its sovereignty. Benefits from the cheap energy of Russia and the consumer market of the US - whilst tactfully using that arrangement to economically bolster itself and invest in alternative energy and domestic defense / deterrent capabilities. For example - build more pipelines from North Africa to hedge against Russia, tap into the North Sea a lot more, invest in nuclear as France has done etc.

Nobody is trusting Russia with their energy anymore. I would laugh at this suggestion if it came from a politician. Maybe 10% from Russia is sensible but still a risk, the rest from multiple sources so we never again risk being held hostage by it or threatened over our energy and fuel. Putin is a declared war criminal and Russia a state that uses terror to achieve its aims, both over Europe and Ukraine, meaning it's a terrorist state.

TBH there isn't as much oil left in Russia as you think either, not at the currently tapped deposits. With the obvious exception of places like Siberia, which should be the richest province by far. And if I can see that on a map, you can be damned sure China can. Russia is a declining power, if China gets heavy influence on a province like Siberia, it doesn't need Russia anymore as anything more than a proxy or buffer.
 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Put aside green utopian environmentalism that may get in the way. For example in the UK - to increase housing / reduce housing cost there's so many environmental regulations and checks that also get in the way - spend millions on consultation and environmental safety checks to protects some species of bats - peculiar things like that get in the way as just one example ( I work in property so know this first hand ).  And then re-arrange relations with resource rich countries for raw materials that are very much needed - France's relations to African countries for example (dismantling the neo-colonial structure i outlined via the CFA Franc system) so that China or others can't swoop in on a more equitable basis looking like angels in comparison that get first dibs and preferential rates and access to resources we very much need to power the modern age (Cobalt for batteries, EV's etc) All this takes tact, strategy and intelligence - unfortunately the status quo has made us arrogant and soft to the point of assuming our position - but now with that changing maybe its the wake up call needed.

I do feel your pain, I assume everyone has these types of moments. But unlike the rest of the world. I won't support selling out subsequent generations so I can live a better quality of life. Even if I am the last man alive holding that position. I would rather over-regulate than anything. Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to be.

Population controls are necessary, as are AI workers if we mean to sustain the biosphere. Regulating housing development is useful in this regard, as without a home large enough, it discourages people from having kids. Call it a soft form of population control, and incidently this is why migration at 500,000 net in the UK is destructive longterm, beyond people's cultural or racial concerns or preferences (I have none).

Africa is definitely a possibility, certain parts of it anyway. South Africa for example early on aligned with BRICS, but in this two-pole world we have now, there are some more neutral powers like Nigeria and others we can work with, I agree there. Africa could well decide which of these two powers comes out on top, or mediate between them, as its rise will be quite drastic in the decades ahead. Or at least those parts of it BRICS isn't actively fighting NATO over internally.

Dismantling Western Influence would be a bad move, however, as we've seen it just invites Chinese and Russian influence in its place. Whether you or anyone think that is 'better' or 'worse' doesn't change that's what happens when we pull back.

We have become soft however. We can agree on that. You are missing one key problem in your analysis: that without NATO the EU is somewhat divided on the course of action. People labelling us all 'The West' often don't understand it or even see it.

Edited October 8, 2025 by BlueOak

[Leo Gura]

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

Edited October 8, 2025 by Leo Gura

[Daniel Balan]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

It is not stupid, it is the utmost deed of valour and will to be be free. They would rather die as a race than to bow down to the ones that stole their land. I deeply admire this quality. 

After all, why bow down in front of those who have built homes on the graves of our children? 

[Breakingthewall]

32 minutes ago, Daniel Balan said:

It is not stupid, it is the utmost deed of valour and will to be be free

Yes, free in the paradise. 

[Nivsch]

The Facebook feed is full of posts on oct7 due to the memorial day. I'll add to here one of them:

" On October 7, 2023, I understood for the first time what true shock is.
Not the kind that lasts a moment — but the kind that strikes the soul.
I felt the air of the world change. Suddenly, every story I had ever heard as a child about the surprise of the Yom Kippur War came alive. It was no longer a distant tale with dates and black-and-white photos, but a living, breathing, screaming reality.

In an instant, I understood what it means for a person to lose the sense of safety in their own home — when an iron shelter door or a guard at the kibbutz gate no longer promise anything. When words like pogrom, massacre, Black Sabbath, and Holocaust stop belonging to history lessons and become words in one’s personal diary.

That morning — which was still night in the United States, where I was staying — I grew up. I aged. Something cracked inside me. Something in the smile, the innocence, the faith that “it won’t happen again” — simply fell away. Suddenly, even the simplest routines — making coffee, turning on the radio, smiling at a child on the way to school, or writing a few lines in the next book — carried a different weight.

Two years have passed since. Time, they say, heals everything. But it’s not true. Time doesn’t heal — it only teaches us how to walk with our scars.

In these two years I’ve been asking myself what home really is. Is it the walls? The address? Or perhaps home is the people we choose to keep in our hearts. Maybe it’s the memory of a scent, a hug, a gaze that says, “I’m here.”
I’ve come to understand that home is both what we’ve lost and what we rebuild — brick by brick, hope by hope.

And perhaps that is the essence of life itself: to realize how fragile it all is. How temporary. How quickly everything can fall apart — and how amazing it is that a human being, time and again, chooses to gather the pieces, place them one upon another, and create a new shape out of them.

On October 7, I learned what pain is. But since then, slowly, I am also learning what rebirth means. It doesn’t happen in a single day, nor with a cry. It begins with a breath. A look. A decision to get up in the morning and say: I’m still here. And I still believe in good.

In memory of Dvir Karp
Yuval Abramovitz

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Zs4NiDm2j/

 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Nivsch

[Breakingthewall]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

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 

Edited October 8, 2025 by Breakingthewall

[Dan502]

@Daniel Balan 

Are we sure that “bowing down” versus “destructive behaviour that results in the killing of innocents” is the only distinction we can make here?

[Raze]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

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 

Prompt: how accurate is this analysis?

Result: 

🔹 CLAIM: “The Palestinians were subject to the Ottoman Empire from 1500 and organized resistance didn’t exist.”

Inaccurate.

The Ottoman Empire ruled Palestine from 1516 to 1917, but organized resistance did exist, especially in the late Ottoman period.

For example, in the early 20th century, there were Arab nationalist movements and Palestinian opposition to Zionist immigration, particularly after the Young Turk revolution and Balfour Declaration (1917).

It is misleading to suggest there was no resistance; rural revolts, opposition to conscription, and nationalist organizing occurred, though they weren’t always centralized.

🔹 CLAIM: “Afterwards, they were subject to the British, and it seems they didn’t mind that too much either.”

Very inaccurate and dismissive.

Palestinians resisted British rule extensively during the British Mandate (1917–1948).

The 1920 Nebi Musa riots, 1921 Jaffa riots, 1929 Hebron massacre, and the 1936–1939 Arab Revolt were major uprisings against British policies and Jewish immigration.

The 1936–1939 revolt was one of the largest anti-colonial uprisings in the British Empire during the interwar period.

🔹 CLAIM: “All their protests were against the Jews.”

False and reductive.

Palestinian resistance was directed at both British colonial policies and Zionist settlement—both were seen as threatening indigenous sovereignty.

Resistance movements were based on a mix of anti-colonial, nationalist, and religious motivations, not simply antisemitism.

Many Palestinians saw British policy as enabling Zionist colonization, and that was a core reason for resistance.

🔹 CLAIM: “Seems that they are used to capitulate to the powerful, if it is not Jew.”

Highly offensive, racist, and historically unfounded.

This implies Palestinians (or Arabs more broadly) are submissive by nature, except when resisting Jews — a racialized and dehumanizing generalization.

History shows Palestinians (and Arabs) resisted many powers: Byzantines, Crusaders, Mongols, Ottomans, British, French, and later Israel.

The suggestion that their resistance is unique or irrational when aimed at Jews is a politically motivated distortion.

🔹 CLAIM: “Before the Ottomans… Mamluks… Crusaders… Caliphates… Byzantines… Rome… Greeks… Persia. Seems they should be used to the situation.”

Misleading and fatalistic.

Yes, the region has been ruled by many empires — as has most of the world, including Europe and Asia.

That does not justify ongoing occupation or conflict. Historical conquest doesn't negate modern rights to self-determination.

This logic could be (wrongly) used to justify any imperial or colonial situation.

🔍 Summary of Issues

❌ Historically Flawed:

Overlooks documented uprisings and nationalist movements.

Misrepresents the complexity of resistance against both colonialism and settler projects.

❌ Ethically Problematic:

Relies on essentialist thinking (Palestinians as inherently submissive).

Frames opposition to Zionism as irrational or uniquely hostile to Jews, rather than anti-colonial.

❌ Politically Weaponized:

The argument isn't about history — it’s used to delegitimize Palestinian resistance, suggesting they have no right to object to occupation or displacement.

Prompt: if someone makes this statement after claiming to study the issue extensively, what can be concluded about their critical thinking skills, moral development, and intellectual integrity? Should they continue speaking on the subject and should others trust their views?

Result: 

1. Critical Thinking Skills

Poor application of historical analysis and logic:

Oversimplification of complex history: The statement reduces centuries of imperial rule and colonization into a fatalistic narrative, suggesting that Palestinians are somehow "used to" subjugation — which is both historically false and a logical fallacy (specifically, appeal to tradition or historical determinism).

Lack of evidence or nuance: No serious historical analysis would ignore the long history of Palestinian resistance — from revolts under Ottoman and British rule, to intellectual and national movements throughout the 20th century. The statement ignores major historical facts like the 1936–39 Arab Revolt against the British or numerous uprisings (intifadas).

Use of sweeping generalizations and stereotypes: Phrases like “they didn’t mind [British rule] too much” and “they are used to capitulate to the powerful” lack any credible support and reflect a lazy, prejudicial mindset rather than thoughtful engagement.

Conclusion: The speaker demonstrates weak reasoning, poor grasp of historical context, and a failure to engage with the complexity of the topic.

2. Moral Development

Displays of dehumanization and ethical detachment:

The tone of the statement is dismissive, even mocking, of an entire population's suffering and historical experience under colonialism and occupation.

Suggesting that a people are "used to" subjugation strips them of agency, dignity, and humanity. This reveals a lack of empathy — a key element in advanced moral reasoning (e.g., Kohlberg’s stages of moral development).

The framing promotes a kind of moral relativism or fatalism, where injustice is normalized if it has historical precedent — a deeply unethical stance.

Conclusion: The speaker appears to lack empathy and moral clarity, and is possibly motivated by bias or ideological antagonism rather than a genuine search for truth or justice.

3. Intellectual Integrity

Highly questionable:

Claiming to have studied the issue extensively while making such careless, unfounded, and biased statements suggests dishonesty or self-deception.

The selective citation of historical periods — ignoring resistance, misrepresenting motivations, and cherry-picking facts — points to confirmation bias and a lack of academic rigor.

The implicit claim is that Palestinians are somehow culturally predisposed to submission unless facing Jews, which borders on ethno-racial stereotyping — a violation of any standard of scholarly or intellectual integrity.

Conclusion: The speaker is not intellectually honest and is likely using history to justify or obscure prejudice.

Should this person continue speaking on the subject?

That depends on the context:

If they are unwilling to engage in good-faith dialogue, revise their views, or acknowledge facts, then no — they should not be considered a credible voice on the issue.

If they are speaking from a platform of authority or influence, it's especially important to challenge their views due to the potential harm caused by spreading misinformation and prejudice.

In educational or public discourse, freedom of speech is important — but so is accountability. Bad ideas should be confronted, not suppressed, but neither should they be validated or trusted just because they are voiced.

Should others trust their views?

No. Based on this statement:

Their views are rooted in bias, not evidence.

They display poor reasoning, lack of empathy, and ideological distortion.

Trusting them would be unwise, especially on sensitive, historically complex, and ethically charged issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Final Thought

Discussions about historical and ongoing conflicts demand intellectual humility, moral seriousness, and respect for human dignity. This statement reflects the opposite — arrogance, moral detachment, and prejudice — and should be evaluated accordingly.

[Raze]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

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

[Nivsch]

There is a deal!

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DPk53wliKVc/?igsh=bjU5OGJpaDFwdWI5

Edited October 9, 2025 by Nivsch

[Hatfort]

There's a deal agreement, indeed.

Main points are a ceasefire, the return of the remaining Israeli hostages, the IDF has to retreat to an agreed line in Gaza as the first step, Palestinian prisoner liberation as well, and humanitarian aid. Hamas thanks Trump and the US, and the other countries involved in the negotiations, Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey, and asks for their involvement in making sure Israel keeps its part of the deal even after receiving their hostages, which will be very soon.

I'm not sure the deal will last long, hostages or not, Israel seemed willing to continue. Maybe the IDF's lives being lost in Gaza wasn't that small, so they needed a ceasefire as well. Palestinians needed a ceasefire urgently, the genocide was unbearable. 

[zazen]

12 hours ago, zazen said:

Hope for the best - I think this current deal may actually get an exchange of hostages and a break in fighting but implementation of next steps will stall for various logistical issues and fighting may continue. Hamas for example won’t dis-arm without promises of a Palestinian state - but that hasn’t been explicitly laid out in this proposal as far as I know.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgqx7ygq41o - ''Notably, no details surround the disarmament of Hamas - a key point in Trump's plan. Hamas has previously refused to lay down its weapons, saying it would only do so when a Palestinian state had been established.''

Only phase 1 in a multi-phase process that could be de-railed or difficult to implement in later stages - it's still early but a welcome end to the killing. Historically every peace attempt between Israel and the Palestinians has been vulnerable to sabotage - all it took was a extremist spoiler on either side and a single attack would erase years of diplomacy as each side would then use that as a excuse to upend the entire process. But the past also isn't bound to repeat because context changes - the actors involved, the power dynamics between them and the leverage each has over the other.

Past deals collapsed and couldn't be pushed through because they depended on fragile trust between enemies. Today's deals might endure because they depend on shared profit among elites - their are larger stakeholders involved who have skin in the game and incentive to push till the end - perhaps even despite hiccups and roadblocks. The actors today include include Gulf wealth, global finance, and transnational capital - not just politicians or ideologues. Those actors have leverage and long term interest in regional stability they can profit from - they can underwrite and enforce deals through investment rather than just promises.

There's a reason Jared Kushner is at the fore front of all of this - he's deeply tied with Saudi capital which has leverage to shape outcomes. This is all part of a bigger picture of the world order shifting and new centers of power emerging that can challenge, hedge against, and co-opt the old uni-polar order in which the West reigned supreme in and could uni-laterally call the shots in. No longer - insha'Allah.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/witkoff-and-kushner-wont-leave-egypt-without-a-deal-us-official-vows/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/07/world/middleeast/trump-witkoff-kushner-israel-hamas-talks.html

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2025/10/07/the-double-life-of-jared-kushner-mixing-business-with-politics-as-emissary-for-his-father-in-law-donald-trump_6746194_19.html

 

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

@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.

 

[Twentyfirst]

On 10/8/2025 at 1:28 PM, Leo Gura said:

Jews will not leave Israel. That is a useless pipe dream. The only shot is to reach some kind of compromise, otherwise Palestine will just cease to exist like Native American tribes.

The powerful eat the weak. This is how nature works. So the weak must capitulate to the powerful, shameful though that is.

Hamas are so suicidal they will lead to the extermination not only of themselves but all of Palestine. That is the stupidity of Hamas.

The Jews don't have to leave for Israel to cease existing

One land, one state, democracy, one majority, one minority

Guess who is the minority?

The two state compromise is the real pipe dream

[zazen]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

@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.

 

In hindsight they would have kept way more of their land if they accepted partition - compared to any of the later proposals. After 1967 they've had to concede to only having 22% of their original homeland compared to 45% in the original partition. Even on that 22% settlements keep on increasing and yet - Palestinians are told their the ones who are being to greedy with what they want, such gaslighting.

But what needs to be understood is that at the time of partition it was essentially legalized theft and viewed as such - they were bound to resist and reject the imposed deal as mostly anyone would have. If someone had something precious to them stolen from them decades ago and they fought the thief - I can't really say ''you should have just given it away as maybe you would have had both eyes today instead of losing one in a fight''.

As your from Spain - just imagine the scenario like this:

Imagine Catalonians fled Catalonia 1000 years ago and were spread throughout Europe - only 10% of the population of Spain were Catalonian throughout the ages. They were then persecuted over the centuries in Europe and the superpower of the day (the US) decided enough is enough - lets facilitate Catalonians going back to Catalonia to establish a homeland for their security. Within 20-30 years a influx of Catalonians migrate to Spain increasing the percentage of the population from 10% to 30% and buying up land which amounted to owning 10% of the land of Spain in the end. Then, the USA tells Spain that their going to have to divide up Spain to make a state for the Catalonians.  The partition plan would be imposed on Spain (not proposed or even consulted on) .

It would give away 55% of Spain to the Catalonians, including some of the most fertile and industrialised land, the biggest ports and one of the nicest cities (Barcelona). You have no say in this and it is decided by daddy USA. What are you and your hombres doing about it?

Another scenario - image you have two houses and live next door to your parents. A far distant uncle gets into bad business with the wrong guys and loses everything. A mutual family member tells you you must move out of your house and back into your parents and give up your house to this uncle you and your parents have barely any connection to except this mutual family friend - will you happily give it up to help out? Why not - he's your family after all? My point is - no one just willingly gives up their home. It wouldn't matter whether this distant uncle is a different religion to you or a liberal or conservative etc your the same blood yet you'd naturally feel hesitant for being forced to give up your house.

I used the actual Israel / Palestine numbers for the Catalan example but to be accurate - today Catalonians are 16% of the Spanish population and owns only 6% of the land. They've been flirting with secession also. If the US or EU just forced Spain to give up 50% of Spain to this 16% Catalonian population who only own 6% of Spanish land legally -  do you think the Spanish would just sit there and accept it?

Speaking of US imposing certain situations on Spain: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/trump-floats-dropping-spain-nato-alliance-2025-10-09/

Trump thinks Spain should be thrown out of NATO because their not keeping up with spending commitments. Imagine US just unilaterally does that. What you gonna do about that papi? 

Edited October 9, 2025 by zazen

[Atb210201]

Now the question is:

Is Trump really sent by God?

Edited October 10, 2025 by Atb210201