Why one would not defend Israel ?

[Raze]

37 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Date    Event

Nov 29 1947    UN Partition Plan approved
Nov 30 1947    First Arab attacks on Jewish targets
Apr 9 1948    Deir Yassin massacre; mass flight of civilians
May 14 1948    Declaration of the State of Israel
May 15 1948    Invasion by Arab armies —official start of the war

 

So as I said, it already began before a war was declared.

BTW, it’s ironic you keep insisting the nakba was justified because of some attacks, while blaming Palestinians saying they wanted to expel Jews

By your own logic they would have been justified since there were countless Zionist attacks well before this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_British_Mandated_Palestine_(1937–1939)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

You support ethnic cleansing of Palestinains while accusing them of wanting to ethnically cleanse Jews as a reason to discount them. Disgusting bias.

Edited Wednesday at 07:37 PM by Raze

[Raze]

47 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

All those things seemed very bad and not honest to my eyes as an Israeli when I saw and heard about them. This is the intuitive feeling I remember. And yes, boycott is exactly what will make the second side to soften and agree, very smart. They have rejected couple of serious offers including actual Israeli withdrawals in the 90s and 00s.

That’s because you are embedded in the Israeli propaganda machine which paints all Palestinians as terrorists.

As an example, soldiers admitted they were ordered to break bones of peaceful protestors during the first intifada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Break-their-bones_policy

Video of idf shooting unarmed protestor

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/10/video-appears-show-cheers-israeli-sniper-shoots-palestinian

Yes, boycotts are the only non violent way proven to work to end apartheid like with South Africa.

Israels “offers” required letting them annex land that tears the state apart and control borders, airspace, etc.

Even a former Israeli foreign minister admitted he would have rejected it

https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/14/fmr_israeli_foreign_minister_if_i

Edited Wednesday at 07:39 PM by Raze

[Breakingthewall]

@Raze reading what happened, id  say that seems clear that Arabs always started the violence. I understand that if you watch videos where they forget mentioning the war of 1948 and just say that Jews expulsed 700.000 Arabs you can be confused, but read this, maybe makes your ideas bit clearer. Yes, was violence from Jew side, but always after an Arab attack. 

Perfect —here’s a concise chronological summary (1918–1948) of major terrorist or violent attacks committed by both Arab and Jewish factions in Mandatory Palestine

🇬🇧 Violence and Terrorism in Palestine (1918–1948)

🔹 1918–1920: Rising tension after Ottoman collapse

1919–1920:
Arab nationalist leaders begin organizing against Zionist immigration.
In April 1920, during the Nebi Musa riots in Jerusalem, Arab mobs—encouraged by nationalist speeches—attack Jewish residents:
5 Jews killed, over 200 injured.
→ First major anti-Jewish riot of the modern period.

🔹 1921: Jaffa riots

May 1921: Arab rioters attack Jewish neighborhoods in Jaffa after rumors of Zionist provocations.
47 Jews and 48 Arabs killed.
→ The British suppress the riots, but tensions deepen.

🔹 1929: Hebron and Safed massacres

Triggered by disputes over access to the Western Wall in Jerusalem.

Arab mobs attack Jewish communities in Hebron and Safed.
133 Jews killed, 110 Arabs killed (mainly by British police).
→ Entire ancient Jewish community of Hebron wiped out.

🔹 1936–1939: The Great Arab Revolt

A coordinated Arab uprising against British rule and Jewish immigration.

Arab rebels kill both Jews and Arabs who cooperate with the British.
~430 Jews, 200 Britons, and several thousand Arabs killed (many by other Arabs).

The British respond brutally:

Mass arrests and executions of Arab militants.

Destruction of villages.

Support for Jewish self-defense militias (the Haganah).

👉 First large-scale guerrilla war in Palestine.

🔹 1937–1939: Jewish militant response

Radical Jewish underground groups (the Irgun, later Lehi) begin terror reprisals against Arabs.

1937: Bombing of Arab markets in Haifa and Jerusalem.

1938: Bomb in Haifa market kills 78 Arabs.

1939: Irgun attacks British police posts.
→ Jewish terrorism begins as retaliation for Arab violence.

🔹 1940–1945: British targets

During WWII, the Irgun and Lehi (also called the “Stern Gang”) turn against the British, demanding open Jewish immigration.

1944: Lehi assassins kill Lord Moyne, British Minister of State, in Cairo.

1946: King David Hotel bombing (by Irgun):
91 killed (Britons, Jews, Arabs).
→ One of the deadliest pre-state attacks.

🔹 1947–1948: Civil war before independence

After the UN Partition Plan (Nov 29, 1947):

Arab attacks: Convoys, buses, and Jewish neighborhoods ambushed daily.

Jewish attacks: Irgun and Lehi bomb Arab markets and villages.

April 9, 1948: Deir Yassin massacre —about 100 Palestinian civilians killed by Irgun and Lehi.
→ Panic spreads, triggering the Palestinian exodus.

Arab ambushes: e.g., Hadassah medical convoy massacre (April 13, 1948) —78 Jewish doctors and nurses killed.

🔹 May 1948: End of the Mandate —War begins

May 14, 1948: Israel declares independence.

May 15, 1948: Arab armies invade from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon.
→ Civil war becomes a full regional war.

🔹 Summary of patterns

PeriodMain actorsCharacter of violence

1918–1936Mainly Arab against Jewish civiliansAnti-Zionist riots and religious uprisings

1937–1945Jewish Irgun/Lehi vs. Arabs & BritishBombings, assassinations, reprisals

1947–1948Both sidesFull-scale civil war, massacres on both sides

Analysis: Reactive vs. Strategic Violence

🔹 Arab side

Reactive beginnings (1918–1936):
Arab violence initially came as reaction to growing Jewish immigration and British support for Zionism.
Many Arabs feared losing their land and identity. The early riots (1920, 1921, 1929) were spontaneous and emotional—driven by rumors, religious incitement, and political frustration.
They lacked coordination or long-term strategy.

Strategic phase (1936–1939):
During the Great Arab Revolt, violence became organized and ideological—directed not just at Jews, but also at the British and moderate Arabs seen as collaborators.
Leaders like the Mufti of Jerusalem sought to expel both Jews and British, hoping for Arab independence.
However, the revolt’s brutality, including killings of Arabs, discredited the movement and led to internal collapse.

---

🔹 Jewish side

Reactive beginnings (until mid-1930s):
Jewish violence started as self-defense through groups like the Haganah, created after pogroms and massacres.
These forces were mainly defensive—protecting convoys, farms, and settlements.

Strategic escalation (late 1930s onward):
With the rise of militant factions (Irgun, Lehi), some Zionists adopted offensive terrorism as deliberate strategy:

To deter Arab attacks through reprisals.

To pressure the British into allowing immigration and independence.

To demonstrate Jewish strength before the creation of a state.
These groups viewed violence as a political instrument, not just reaction.

---

🔹 Final phase (1947–1948): full symmetry

After the UN Partition Plan, both sides acted simultaneously:

Arabs attacked Jewish civilians to block the partition.

Jewish militias carried out offensive operations to secure territory before the British withdrawal.
By early 1948, violence had become reciprocal and total—no longer reactive but existential.

Edited Wednesday at 07:46 PM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

35 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

reading what happened, id  say that seems clear that Arabs always started the violence

If someone comes to burgle my house multiple times, and each time I attack them - did I always start the violence? Yeah. But of course I did because I’m the one who somethings being taken from.

Showing up with the stated aim of creating a Jewish majority state in a place where 94% of the population is Arab is…kinda provocative no? Such a thing would have violence as a reaction baked into it. The Arabs may always attacked first but the conflict started with the introduction of the Zionist project with its stated aims fully facilitated by a colonial power. 

There’s a difference between a organic amount of immigration where those coming are settling in along side you vs in-organic mass migration with those coming in along with a colonial power with the aim of displacing you to create their own state ie settler colonialism.

“The Arabs always started the violence.” Sure - just like Native Americans “started the violence” by resisting their own genocide. Just like Algerians “started the violence” against the French who only wanted to peacefully colonize them for 130 years. Just like the slaves “started the violence” by running away from plantations.

AI

1. The first outbreaks (1919–1921)

After World War I, Britain took control of Palestine under the Mandate system.

The Balfour Declaration (1917) had promised a “national home for the Jewish people,” while also promising not to harm the rights of the existing inhabitants — but it never defined what that meant in practice.

Between 1919–1921, Jewish immigration rose sharply, financed and organized by Zionist agencies.  Land purchases followed, and some Arab tenant farmers were evicted when estates changed hands.

The local Arab population saw an obvious pattern: a European colonial power was backing a settler movement that spoke openly of creating a separate national homeland on their soil.

The first major riots came in Jerusalem (1920) and Jaffa (1921) — both sparked by rumors that new Jewish arrivals and Zionist parades signaled an imminent takeover.  Several dozen people were killed on each side.

2. Why this was political, not religious

Before this period, relations between Jews and Muslims in the region were generally stable and often friendly.  Long-settled Jewish communities in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed lived under Ottoman rule without systemic persecution.

The hostility that emerged after 1917 wasn’t religious in origin — it was about colonialism, sovereignty, and demography:

The new immigrants were mostly European and came with political aims (a national revival) rather than simply economic migration.

They were protected by the British army and administration.

They established separate institutions, farms, and labor unions that excluded Arabs.

So the Arab population didn’t suddenly “hate Jews”; they opposed a colonial project that threatened to displace them.

3. The parallel you drew to right-wing populism in Europe is insightful

Yes — in both cases, it’s about the perception of rapid, externally driven demographic change and the fear of losing cultural and economic control.

But there’s an important difference:

In Europe today, immigration happens within a sovereign political system.

In Palestine after 1917, the local majority had no sovereignty at all — decisions about their land and population were made by an imperial power that explicitly favored another group.

So their backlash wasn’t just “populism” — it was anti-colonial resistance.

4. In short

The early Arab violence of 1920–21 wasn’t born from ancient antisemitism.

It was born from a modern sense of betrayal — that their homeland was being re-engineered by outsiders, under the banner of another people’s national project.

They saw Zionism not as “Jewishness” but as European colonial expansion in a local disguise.

Edited Wednesday at 08:21 PM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

11 minutes ago, zazen said:

Showing up with the stated aim of creating a Jewish majority state in a place where 94% of the population is Arab is…kinda provocative no?

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

[Raze]

59 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Raze reading what happened, id  say that seems clear that Arabs always started the violence. I understand that if you watch videos where they forget mentioning the war of 1948 and just say that Jews expulsed 700.000 Arabs you can be confused, but read this, maybe makes your ideas bit clearer. Yes, was violence from Jew side, but always after an Arab attack. 

- No, I just repeatedly point out to you the expulsions began before the 1948 invasions, this is the sixth time I am saying this. 

Even during an invasion, that doesn’t justify war crimes. Just because you’re fighting a war doesn’t mean you are no allowed to do whatever you want to civilians. They didn’t need to go from village to village slaughtering civilians and driving out thousands by force from their homes because at the same time they were fighting Arab armies. (Again, they were already doing this before any Arab army invaded) 

- because you’re ignoring the context of the Arab riots, this was in response to active colonization of their land. The hebron massacre you keep pointing out for example happened after zionists were marching with weapons chanting the country  is there’s. The nebu masa riot escalated from a Jewish milita shooting at an Arab militia that was in a Jewish area searching for French soldiers.

- you can’t seem to process that entire populations are not collectively responsible for actions by some of them, and that doesn’t justify crimes committed years later. 

Imagine there is a race riot in New York between blacks and whites, let’s some it’s started by black rioters, so a year later whites form a armed militia who begins carrying out bombings, the blacks start forming their own militias and also attacking, then the whites start killing thousands of blacks and expel hundreds of thousands of blacks from the city.

The original race riot does not justify carrying out terrorist attacks against other people, the fight between militias does not justify mass ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people who are not involved just because they’re the same race.

You never apply this logic to the other side, do you think Hamas is justified in suicide bombings because Palestinians faced settler attacks for years? Do you think the Arab states that expelled their Jews were justified because they had fought a war? 

Edited Wednesday at 08:43 PM by Raze

[zazen]

22 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

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

But the Zionist project didn’t want to include them within their “colony” to enjoy that development and wealth.  It was to have a majority Jewish state which is why they needed to drive out as many Arabs as possible to make it viable.  It wasn’t only about geography but demography.

Are you starting to see the situation differently now with all the context? Raze has provided plenty of it as well.

I see you keep going further back in history now till 1920. I’d suggest to continue to before Zionism and ask AI about how Muslims / Jews lived in the region. Could scramble your view of the “evil Muslim”.

Edited Wednesday at 09:01 PM by zazen

[Inliytened1]

 

 

1 hour ago, Raze said:

So as I said, it already began before a war was declared.

BTW, it’s ironic you keep insisting the nakba was justified because of some attacks, while blaming Palestinians saying they wanted to expel Jews

By your own logic they would have been justified since there were countless Zionist attacks well before this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks#During_British_Mandated_Palestine_(1937–1939)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

You support ethnic cleansing of Palestinains while accusing them of wanting to ethnically cleanse Jews as a reason to discount them. Disgusting bias.

Bro he just laid out the chain of events. Basically the Arabs started all of the violence because of 10%.  So you can complain all you want but the facts are clear.

They didn't have to seek violent means. 

I'm really glad we went into the weeds on this because Israel gets such a bad rep on this forum for the war in 1948 but here you have it.  Started by Arabs.

Edited Wednesday at 09:04 PM by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

If someone comes to burgle my house multiple times, and each time I attack them - did I always start the violence? Yeah. But of course I did because I’m the one who somethings being taken from.
 

That's a distortion of what happened.  There was a two state solution proposed and it was refused by the Arabs because Israel got a slightly larger stake and then they attacked the Jews over it. I'm sorry but that's not the same thing.   Also 55% to 45% was probably optimal based on population.  If they didn't like the proposed solution was violence necessary? 

No.  So this is not a fair comparison about someone burglarizing your house .

[Raze]

25 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

 

Bro he just laid out the chain of events. Basically the Arabs started all of the violence because of 10%.  So you can complain all you want but the facts are clear.

They didn't have to seek violent means. 

I'm really glad we went into the weeds on this because Israel gets such a bad rep on this forum for the war in 1948 but here you have it.  Started by Arabs.

Random race riots are not the same as starting a war.

The Balfour Declaration was the real start, as declaring you’re taking a country is a declaration of war.

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Raze said:

Random race riots are not the same as starting a war.

The Balfour Declaration was the real start, as declaring you’re taking a country is a declaration of war.

One human life taken for a cause is a start..

The very next day, November 30, Arab militants attacked Jewish buses near Lod and Ramla—killing passengers.

[zazen]

5 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

Thank you for the video but that was not the latest words from Bibi it was probably early on or at the beginning of the war.  But yes you are right.  War is destruction and not the optimal path.  But to your point - the optimal path requires one word, which you stated.  TRUST.  It all comes down to this.  Everything comes down to this one word.  And right now I'll give you this. .it does seem like the US and Israel is bullying Hamas into a forced surrender to return the hostages.   But you see the problem is we are already at war.  The war was started on Oct 7th and now it has to end.  Who is at fault is irrelevant.  So you can say genocide was the end result of total destruction but that does sorta change the definition of the word.  Because genocide requires intent.  

But It's all a mess now because of what Hamas did.  How can trust really be built now?  

Agreed. Thing is it’s usually the one with the power who has the ability to make change - yet they aren’t incentivised to change the status quo because it serves them. Past occupations ended when the cost became too high to maintain. That cost has been absorbed and insulated due to the global hegemon the US shielding and supporting Israel. But now global opinion has shifted hard and the diplomatic, economic and human cost seems to be a burden that’s mounting.

Israel obviously has the added complexity of needing to share a small piece of land together (one state) or bordering eachother (two state) - with the same people they have a great deal of animosity between. The trust aspect is going to need to be compensated for by third parties, peacekeeping efforts, a mutual security architecture, integrating Palestine into the regional economy so they have something to lose etc. It has to be done in phases and also exclude Hamas from governance - which I remember they said they’d be willing to step down if it was for a Palestinian state.

The fault part is only relevant in the context of recognising who has the power to change the situation but isn’t. Israel can end the occupation, Palestinians can’t end their own occupation - as that’s what being occupied means. They can only try make the occupation costly (uprisings, violence) but that becomes suicidal due the asymmetry in power that will be visited upon them as we have just witnessed.

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.

Edited Wednesday at 10:08 PM by zazen

[zazen]

 

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's a distortion of what happened.  There was a two state solution proposed and it was refused by the Arabs because Israel got a slightly larger stake and then they attacked the Jews over it. I'm sorry but that's not the same thing.   Also 55% to 45% was probably optimal based on population.  If they didn't like the proposed solution was violence necessary? 

No.  So this is not a fair comparison about someone burglarizing your house .

The UN resolution in 1947 was imposed by a colonial era UN, not proposed by a more balanced UN in 1967 which had a Arab bloc representing the Palestinian cause - thus giving it more global legitimacy which is why it formed the basis for all future peace talks and solutions.

Also - the population was 33% Jewish and 10% of land was legally owned through preceeding Zionist land purchases : how does that line up with 55% being proportionate based on population or even land ownership? This is why it feels like day light robbery made legal through colonial power. Obviously violence isn’t good or condoned - but this understands where their coming from.

Person A deciding how much of person Bs house person C can have. Person B gonna be pissed.

I wrote in the other thread:

The reason it was seen as unjust (partition) 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.

Also the issue remains not just of how much but what kind of land.

From AI:

The Arab state had no secure or direct links between its three regions.

Its sections were separated by Jewish-controlled corridors, meaning movement between them required crossing another sovereign state.

It had no central port and limited arable land.

So while both maps looked patchy on paper, the difference is that Israel’s map was designed to work, while the Arab one wasn’t.

Israel’s side was given:

The fertile coast,

Ports and infrastructure,

Defensible borders,

And connected internal routes.

 

The Arab side was given:

Fragmented enclaves,

Sparse infrastructure,

Economic dependency,

And disconnected borders.

In essence, both were divided — but only one was viable as a state.

Edited Wednesday at 10:53 PM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

@zazen

1 hour ago, zazen said:

 

@Raze

The problem isn't the facts, but the cause. The Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and over all identity reasons. This is a religious war, understanding religion as political identity, the huge problem of islam. 

Saddam and Turkey massacred Kurds and no one says anything, but Saddam was constantly threatening Israel for identity, the same as the rest of the countries, and it's because of the political and supremacist nature of Islam.

Let's see, did all the Christian countries get hysterical because the Turks committed the Armenian genocide? Christianity, if such a thing exists, felt any kind of offense? Does it feel it now because of the massacres of Christians in Nigeria? No. On the other hand, Muslims have these complexes, since they believe that Islam should have global supremacy, and the existence of Israel kills their sense of identity, nothing more. Without that, this would be a minor problem , just a civil war that would finished 80 years ago with any kind of agreement, maybe not perfect for the weaker but same than hundreds of others wars

[Raze]

11 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@zazen

@Raze

The problem isn't the facts, but the cause. The Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and over all identity reasons. This is a religious war, understanding religion as political identity, the huge problem of islam. 

Saddam and Turkey massacred Kurds and no one says anything, but Saddam was constantly threatening Israel for identity, the same as the rest of the countries, and it's because of the political and supremacist nature of Islam.

Let's see, did all the Christian countries get hysterical because the Turks committed the Armenian genocide? Christianity, if such a thing exists, felt any kind of offense? Does it feel it now because of the massacres of Christians in Nigeria? No. On the other hand, Muslims have these complexes, since they believe that Islam should have global supremacy, and the existence of Israel kills their sense of identity, nothing more. Without that, this would be a minor problem , just a civil war that would finished 80 years ago with any kind of agreement, maybe not perfect for the weaker but same than hundreds of others wars

Prompt: How accurate is this statement, and how well informed is the person who made it?

Result: 

🔍 Core Claims and Their Accuracy

1. “The problem isn’t the facts, but the cause... this is a religious war... the huge problem of Islam.”

Assessment: Oversimplified and ideologically charged.

Reality: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has religious dimensions, but it is fundamentally a nationalist and territorial conflict rooted in 20th-century colonialism, displacement (e.g., the Nakba in 1948), and competing national movements. Reducing it to a “religious war” ignores decades of complex political, historical, and economic factors.

Islam’s role: Some Islamist groups (e.g., Hamas) do frame the conflict in religious terms. However, many secular Palestinian factions, such as the PLO and Fatah, have historically led the movement without using religious justifications.

2. “Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and identity reasons.”

Assessment: Partially true, but misleading.

Reality: Arab nations have supported Palestine for a mix of reasons: religious, political (anti-Zionism, anti-Western sentiment), and regional power dynamics. However, many Arab regimes (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Gulf states) have normalized relations with Israel and do not offer strong support to Palestinians today.

There’s also evidence of political abandonment of the Palestinian cause by some Arab states.

3. “Muslims have these complexes... believe Islam should have global supremacy.”

Assessment: Highly biased, stereotypical, and incorrect generalization.

Reality: This is a sweeping claim about 1.9+ billion people that leans toward Islamophobic rhetoric. While extremist groups may hold such views, the majority of Muslims globally do not adhere to any supremacist ideology. Many Islamic scholars and communities advocate for peaceful coexistence and pluralism.

4. Comparison to Christian response to Armenian genocide or Nigeria

Assessment: Flawed comparison and whataboutism.

The Armenian Genocide was recognized and protested by many Western countries, and today there is an ongoing global recognition campaign. The Christian world is not a unified political body—just as the Muslim world isn't.

The silence on Christian suffering (e.g., Nigeria) has more to do with media, geopolitics, and Western priorities, not necessarily religion or lack of identity politics.

5. “Without Islam, this would be just a civil war finished 80 years ago.”

Assessment: Counterfactual and speculative.

The idea that Islam is the main obstacle to peace assumes that there are no legitimate Palestinian grievances about land, displacement, human rights, or self-determination. That is historically inaccurate.

Many settler-colonial and nationalist conflicts lasted decades (or continue) regardless of religion (e.g., Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, etc.).

🎓 How Informed Is the Person?

Understanding of history: Weak or selectively informed. The speaker conflates different geopolitical conflicts and uses religious essentialism as a catch-all explanation.

Tone and framing: The language is ideological, emotionally charged, and lacks nuance.

Evidence of bias: The person expresses strong anti-Islam views, which undermines the credibility of their broader analysis.

🧠 Summary

CategoryAssessment

Historical accuracy❌ Oversimplified and often incorrect

Religious framing❌ Reductive and ideologically driven

Use of comparisons❌ Misleading and unfair

Tone❌ Biased, inflammatory, borderline Islamophobic

Informed level🔻 Appears selectively informed, more rhetorical than analytical

Edited Wednesday at 10:46 PM by Raze

[Inliytened1]

3 hours ago, Raze said:

Prompt: How accurate is this statement, and how well informed is the person who made it?

Result: 

🔍 Core Claims and Their Accuracy

1. “The problem isn’t the facts, but the cause... this is a religious war... the huge problem of Islam.”

Assessment: Oversimplified and ideologically charged.

Reality: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has religious dimensions, but it is fundamentally a nationalist and territorial conflict rooted in 20th-century colonialism, displacement (e.g., the Nakba in 1948), and competing national movements. Reducing it to a “religious war” ignores decades of complex political, historical, and economic factors.

Islam’s role: Some Islamist groups (e.g., Hamas) do frame the conflict in religious terms. However, many secular Palestinian factions, such as the PLO and Fatah, have historically led the movement without using religious justifications.

2. “Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and identity reasons.”

Assessment: Partially true, but misleading.

Reality: Arab nations have supported Palestine for a mix of reasons: religious, political (anti-Zionism, anti-Western sentiment), and regional power dynamics. However, many Arab regimes (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Gulf states) have normalized relations with Israel and do not offer strong support to Palestinians today.

There’s also evidence of political abandonment of the Palestinian cause by some Arab states.

3. “Muslims have these complexes... believe Islam should have global supremacy.”

Assessment: Highly biased, stereotypical, and incorrect generalization.

Reality: This is a sweeping claim about 1.9+ billion people that leans toward Islamophobic rhetoric. While extremist groups may hold such views, the majority of Muslims globally do not adhere to any supremacist ideology. Many Islamic scholars and communities advocate for peaceful coexistence and pluralism.

4. Comparison to Christian response to Armenian genocide or Nigeria

Assessment: Flawed comparison and whataboutism.

The Armenian Genocide was recognized and protested by many Western countries, and today there is an ongoing global recognition campaign. The Christian world is not a unified political body—just as the Muslim world isn't.

The silence on Christian suffering (e.g., Nigeria) has more to do with media, geopolitics, and Western priorities, not necessarily religion or lack of identity politics.

5. “Without Islam, this would be just a civil war finished 80 years ago.”

Assessment: Counterfactual and speculative.

The idea that Islam is the main obstacle to peace assumes that there are no legitimate Palestinian grievances about land, displacement, human rights, or self-determination. That is historically inaccurate.

Many settler-colonial and nationalist conflicts lasted decades (or continue) regardless of religion (e.g., Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, etc.).

🎓 How Informed Is the Person?

Understanding of history: Weak or selectively informed. The speaker conflates different geopolitical conflicts and uses religious essentialism as a catch-all explanation.

Tone and framing: The language is ideological, emotionally charged, and lacks nuance.

Evidence of bias: The person expresses strong anti-Islam views, which undermines the credibility of their broader analysis.

🧠 Summary

CategoryAssessment

Historical accuracy❌ Oversimplified and often incorrect

Religious framing❌ Reductive and ideologically driven

Use of comparisons❌ Misleading and unfair

Tone❌ Biased, inflammatory, borderline Islamophobic

Informed level🔻 Appears selectively informed, more rhetorical than analytical

Lol. So it's come to this....

[Carl-Richard]

6 hours ago, Raze said:

Prompt: How accurate is this statement, and how well informed is the person who made it?

Result: 

🔍 Core Claims and Their Accuracy

1. “The problem isn’t the facts, but the cause... this is a religious war... the huge problem of Islam.”

Assessment: Oversimplified and ideologically charged.

Reality: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has religious dimensions, but it is fundamentally a nationalist and territorial conflict rooted in 20th-century colonialism, displacement (e.g., the Nakba in 1948), and competing national movements. Reducing it to a “religious war” ignores decades of complex political, historical, and economic factors.

Islam’s role: Some Islamist groups (e.g., Hamas) do frame the conflict in religious terms. However, many secular Palestinian factions, such as the PLO and Fatah, have historically led the movement without using religious justifications.

2. “Palestinians are supported by surrounding countries for purely religious and identity reasons.”

Assessment: Partially true, but misleading.

Reality: Arab nations have supported Palestine for a mix of reasons: religious, political (anti-Zionism, anti-Western sentiment), and regional power dynamics. However, many Arab regimes (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, Gulf states) have normalized relations with Israel and do not offer strong support to Palestinians today.

There’s also evidence of political abandonment of the Palestinian cause by some Arab states.

3. “Muslims have these complexes... believe Islam should have global supremacy.”

Assessment: Highly biased, stereotypical, and incorrect generalization.

Reality: This is a sweeping claim about 1.9+ billion people that leans toward Islamophobic rhetoric. While extremist groups may hold such views, the majority of Muslims globally do not adhere to any supremacist ideology. Many Islamic scholars and communities advocate for peaceful coexistence and pluralism.

4. Comparison to Christian response to Armenian genocide or Nigeria

Assessment: Flawed comparison and whataboutism.

The Armenian Genocide was recognized and protested by many Western countries, and today there is an ongoing global recognition campaign. The Christian world is not a unified political body—just as the Muslim world isn't.

The silence on Christian suffering (e.g., Nigeria) has more to do with media, geopolitics, and Western priorities, not necessarily religion or lack of identity politics.

5. “Without Islam, this would be just a civil war finished 80 years ago.”

Assessment: Counterfactual and speculative.

The idea that Islam is the main obstacle to peace assumes that there are no legitimate Palestinian grievances about land, displacement, human rights, or self-determination. That is historically inaccurate.

Many settler-colonial and nationalist conflicts lasted decades (or continue) regardless of religion (e.g., Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Sri Lanka, etc.).

🎓 How Informed Is the Person?

Understanding of history: Weak or selectively informed. The speaker conflates different geopolitical conflicts and uses religious essentialism as a catch-all explanation.

Tone and framing: The language is ideological, emotionally charged, and lacks nuance.

Evidence of bias: The person expresses strong anti-Islam views, which undermines the credibility of their broader analysis.

🧠 Summary

CategoryAssessment

Historical accuracy❌ Oversimplified and often incorrect

Religious framing❌ Reductive and ideologically driven

Use of comparisons❌ Misleading and unfair

Tone❌ Biased, inflammatory, borderline Islamophobic

Informed level🔻 Appears selectively informed, more rhetorical than analytical

Please don't do this ridiculous stuff.

Edited Thursday at 05:46 AM by Carl-Richard

[Breakingthewall]

12 hours ago, zazen said:

But the Zionist project didn’t want to include them within their “colony” to enjoy that development and wealth

Not true. If the Arabs had accepted the UN-proposed partition into two states, this would not have entailed the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish zone or Jews from the Arab zone.

In fact, it stipulated that they would be citizens with full rights. If the Arabs had been smart instead of stupid, they would have seen the enormous opportunity this represented (in fact those who stayed in Israel are who have the best quality of life in all middle east) .But for them, it's all pride and shame; life has no meaning, so they chose endless war and misery. 

For me anyone who choose war instead development and wealth because his entity is retarded. If the other option is slavery it's understandable, if it's just by pride, absolutely retarded without solution. Be retarded has heavy consequences in you and your descendants. Life don't forgive, maybe you already know it. Then you could blame and cry as a narcissist, but it's not going to solve anything.

But this doesn't mean that the Arabs were specially stupid, it's the norm in humans. First hierarchy, second life. Anyway, now maybe it's time to rectify 

Edited Thursday at 08:55 AM by Breakingthewall

[zazen]

49 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Not true. If the Arabs had accepted the UN-proposed partition into two states, this would not have entailed the expulsion of Arabs from the Jewish zone or Jews from the Arab zone.

In fact, it stipulated that they would be citizens with full rights.

That's true - I'm not disputing that. The Arabs in the Israeli state would enjoy in the development (even if unequal) in fact my father in-law himself has and done very well with Jewish business partners so I have first hand proof of this. But the point being missed is that majority of the Palestinians on the land wouldn't be in that Israeli state to enjoy that development because the whole point was to have a Jewish majority state. 

Even if Palestinians had capitulated completely and said “rule us, just let us live with you so we can benefit from your development” the Zionist movement wouldn't accept it without undermining its core principle of maintaining Jewish majority and control. If Israel settled the entirety of the land the population breakdown would be almost at parity 50/50 Jewish/Palestinian - which under a single state with equal rights defeats the point of a Jewish majority state. Eventually that population of Palestinians would have a tug of war for political and economic power if there was major inequalities.

In 2018 Israel passed a law where ''Legislation stipulates only Jews have right of self-determination in the country''

'“We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides. An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come..”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law

Also - a demographic majority isn’t the only way to maintain dominance - it can also be done through structural, economic, and institutional mechanisms regardless of there being equal rights. One example is land ownership and zoning.

''Over 90% of land in Israel is owned or controlled by the state or quasi-state Zionist institutions (like the Jewish National Fund and Israel Land Authority). By law or policy, much of this land is leased to Jews only. Even if Palestinians had full citizenship, that control structure could keep most land effectively inaccessible to them.''

Edited Thursday at 09:12 AM by zazen

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, zazen said:

That's true - I'm not disputing that. The Arabs in the Israeli state would enjoy in the development (even if unequal) in fact my father in-law himself has and done very well with Jewish business partners so I have first hand proof of this. But the point being missed is that majority of the Palestinians on the land wouldn't be in that Israeli state to enjoy that development because the whole point was to have a Jewish majority state. 

Even if Palestinians had capitulated completely and said “rule us, just let us live with you so we can benefit from your development” the Zionist movement wouldn't accept it without undermining its core principle of maintaining Jewish majority and control. If Israel settled the entirety of the land the population breakdown would be almost at parity 50/50 Jewish/Palestinian - which under a single state with equal rights defeats the point of a Jewish majority state. Eventually that population of Palestinians would have a tug of war for political and economic power if there was major inequalities.

In 2018 Israel passed a law where ''Legislation stipulates only Jews have right of self-determination in the country''

'“We will keep ensuring civil rights in Israel’s democracy but the majority also has rights and the majority decides. An absolute majority wants to ensure our state’s Jewish character for generations to come..”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/israel-adopts-controversial-jewish-nation-state-law

Also - a demographic majority isn’t the only way to maintain dominance - it can also be done through structural, economic, and institutional mechanisms regardless of there being equal rights. One example is land ownership and zoning.

''Over 90% of land in Israel is owned or controlled by the state or quasi-state Zionist institutions (like the Jewish National Fund and Israel Land Authority). By law or policy, much of this land is leased to Jews only. Even if Palestinians had full citizenship, that control structure could keep most land effectively inaccessible to them.''

During the 500 years under the Ottoman Empire, Muslims held power, and Christians and Jews coexisted peacefully, subject to a special tax. After Jewish immigration, this changed, and Arabs could have coexisted without this tax (and govern the other half of the country), with an unlimited horizon of possibilities, only without full voting rights. This is essential, since if they had the right to vote and there were more of them, they would vote for a Muslim president, and Israel would cease to exist. They would have the right to parliamentary representation, but not to lead the country.

Except for this, they would have the right to own companies, direct hospitals, produce films, and create commercial and technological empires. Instead, they prefer to blow up their children to go to paradise.

Well, fine. In my opinion, they're retarded. That's my opinion; I hope you respect it. I respect yours, which is that being under Jewish rule is horrible and frightening. It's comparable to being sold into slavery in a Senegalese market 2 centuries ago, and it deserves resistance until the extermination of your race.

 

Edited Thursday at 01:21 PM by Breakingthewall