The term AI is very vague because intelligence is an inherently subjective concept. If we’re defining AI as something that has consciousness then it doesn’t exist, but if we’re defining it as a task that a computer can do on it’s own, then virtually everything that is automated is run by AI.

Even with generative AI models, they’ve been around for a while too. For example, lot of the news articles you read, especially about the weather or news aren’t written by actual people, they’re AI generated. Another example would be scientific simulations, they use AI to generate a bunch of possible scenarios based on given parameters. Yet another example would be the gaming industry, what do you think generates Minecraft worlds? The point here is that AI has been around for awhile and is already being used everywhere. What we’re seeing with chatGPT and these other new models is that these models are now being released for public access. It’s like democratization of AI, and a lot of good and bad things are bound to come of it. We’re at the infancy stage of this now, but just like with the world wide web before it, these technologies are going to fundamentally change how we do many things from now on.

We can’t fight technology, that’s a losing battle. These AIs are here and they’re here to stay. So strap on and enjoy the ride.

They’re not really comparable. Crypto and blockchain were good solutions looking for problems to solve. They’re innovative and cool? Sure, but they never had a widescale use. AI has been around for awhile, it just got recently rebranded as artificial intellectual, the same technologies were called algorithms a few years ago… And they basically run the internet and the global economy. Hospitals, schools, corporations, governments, the militaries, etc all use them. Maybe certain uses of AI are dumb, but trying to pretend that the thing as a whole doesn’t have, or rather already has, genuine uses is just dumb

In my opinion, MAGA officially crossed the line from being a fringe political movement and into a genuine cult after 2020. It was pretty bad starting all the way back during his first campaign in 2015 and it got gradually worse over the years. However, during 2020 MAGA turned into an actual national security threat, not once, but twice. First, during the anti-vaxx shit were they literally denying the existence of the virus, or even worse, they were actively mocking the people who died, and then again after they lost the election and attempted the coup.

Any sane conservative who didn’t nope out pretty early on in his term distanced themselves after Jan 6th. The only people who still supported Trump after what he did were the ones that worshipped him. Since Jan 6, 2021 Trump’s MAGA consist of people who will follow him no matter what, will listen to whatever he says no matter how false or dangerous, and will unironically want him as a dictator. I think the cult thing became most apparent when supporters were wearing diapers in a show of support for him… that’s so batshit crazy that it leaves me speechless.

Hillary is pretty divisive herself, and there was bound to be another Trump like candidate in the next election who would makes waves. Trump is a symptom, not the source

That’s actually a very interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing

I added the link, those quotes show why most historians consider the comparison of the Nakba and Jewish exodus from the Muslim world to be a false equivalence

No, you can’t make up claims like this. Your quotes do NOT show that most historians have this opinion. It only shows that those very specific individuals hold this opinion, that is all. In fact the very Wikipedia article that you linked provides examples of historians who disagree with this narrative. If you want to prove that most historians hold this opinion then you’re going to need evidence that actually supports that claim like a survey or a poll.

While there were certainly pogroms, the vast majority of Jewish immigrants were able to sell their possessions and willingly move.

Interesting you say that because the very article you linked disproves your claims:

Various estimates of the value of property abandoned by the Jewish exodus have been published, with wide variety in the quoted figures from a few billion dollars to hundreds of billions.[326]

The World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC) estimated in 2006, that Jewish property abandoned in Arab countries would be valued at more than $100 billion, later revising their estimate in 2007 to $300 billion. They also estimated Jewish-owned real-estate left behind in Arab lands at 100000 square kilometers (four times the size of the state of Israel).[7][327][328][329]

Clearly the situation is much more complex given how the situation differed from country to country, from culture to culture, and from community to community. The sheer scale of this exodus prevents it from being entirely uniform. However, despite that, it still does disprove the notion that the Jewish exodus went all fine and dandy like you’re making it out to be. Even the most conservative estimates range in the billions. That is an insane amount. Even if we become ultra skeptical about this particular estimate and cut the figures by a factor of 10 due to exaggeration from bias, that would still put the amount somewhere between $10 and $30 billion. The amount lost per person on average is somewhere between $10,000 and $30,000. Even if we cut this estimate by a factor of 100, that would still be a high amount. So while some Jews might’ve been lucky enough to sell their property and voluntarily move, that wasn’t the case for many.

This is in contrast to the Nakba, where all 800,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed by a deliberate ethnic cleansing campaign.

Yes, this was bad. I never argued against the Nakba. I’m not having a juvenile competition about which is worse. I’m just proving the point that the violence and ethnic cleansing isn’t one sided. It went both ways.

Whether you recognize it or not, when you bring up the exodus as a reaction to the Nakba with the conclusion that both sides are bad, the point of that argument is a justification for the Nakba.

No, that’s not a coherent line of thought. The point is to showcase that the one sided narrative that you’re pushing for is false. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to good vs bad. You’re trying to spin these historical events in way that disregards so much context that it renders your renditions of them to be historically inaccurate and misleading. You’re doing it now by trying to pretend that the Jewish exodus from the muslim world wasn’t bad at all. That’s simply not true.

When the UN proposed the partition plan in 1947, the Jews rejoiced while the Arabs protested and rioted. This turned in to the 1947-1948 civil war which lead both sides to lose about 1000 lives each. This escalated when the Arab Liberation Army infiltrated Palestinian population areas and started organizing attacks on Jews. This eventually culminated in the Arab Liberation Army blockading the 100,000 or so Jews in Jerusalem. The Jewish army tried to send supplies in but the Arab militants killed all who tried to get through. This event caused the US to withdraw it’s support from the partition plan, which embolden the Arab Liberation Army into thinking that it could end the partition plan all together. In the meantime, there were talks between the Arab countries on militarily intervening on behalf of Palestine. The Jews who were fighting were struggling, but their leadership ordered them to hold ground as much as possible until they could come up with a new strategy that defended the Jews in anticipation of the impending Arab invasion.

That strategy eventually came, and it was called plan Dalet. The plan was to basically secure the Jewish settlements, unify them into a single cohesive unit, remove the Palestinians in between, and declare the independence of a new Jewish state. This was the beginning of what the Palestinians called the Nakba. This plan lasted about a month or two, and on May 14th, 1948, a day before the British Mandate ended, the Jews declared independence. The US and USSR both recognized the new state, but the Arab countries refused and decided to form a coalition army and invade. The Arab world was already hostile to Jews due to the antisemitic hatred that descends from islam, the situation in the British Mandate, and their close relations to Nazi Germany (which were spurred by their mutual hatred of Jews). The Jews in the muslim world faced constant discrimination, violence, and harassment, but after the Arab countries invaded? The rhetoric and propaganda were dialed up to max. This was the beginning of the Jewish exodus from the muslim world.

Back to the invading Arab countries, while their numbers were great, they were pretty incompetent. Armies had poor communication among themselves, there was poor coordination among the different countries, and the leadership made poor decisions. This led the Arab forces to lose ground to the Israeli army. As Israel was making gains, it was basically continuing plan Delat on the new territory that it acquired. Which caused more displacement of Arabs. Meanwhile, the Arab countries increased their propaganda and nationalist rhetoric even more at home to compensate for their losses, which caused even more discrimination, harassment, and violence against Jews which forced more of them to flee. These events kept going until 1949, when Israel pretty much won and signed armistices with the invading countries. The end result? Over 6,000 dead Jews, over 10,000 dead Arabs, over 700,000 displaced Arabs, and around 1 million Jews were displaced. It should be noted that the violence, displacement, and aggression didn’t stop from either the Jews or the Arabs, and things kept going, at a slightly slower pace, until things boiled over again in 1967.

That’s so much history happening in such a short span of time that affected so many people. There was no moral side and there was no unjust cause. It’s a lot complicated than that. But that’s my point. You can’t brush off all this context. You can’t oversimplify this conflict to comic book superhero storylines. You can’t disregard historical information because you subscribed to an inaccurate narrative. Pointing out the complexity of the situation is not a justification of anything, it’s merely pointing out the complicated reality.

If you’re Iraqi, how do you not see that all the different Arab countries have their own interests? While there was some semblance of pan-Islamism and pan-arabism during the British Mandate, it ultimately was a failed project. Jordan, Egypt, and other countries were not operating on the ‘behalf of Palestine,’ and their actions are not the fault of Palestinians.

Back then, the idea of different Arab nations hasn’t really set in yet. There were different Arab states, but the Arab world viewed itself as one big nation and thought that eventual unification was inevitable. That’s why they went to such great lengths to try and help establish Palestine. Each state acted in it’s own interests, yes, but they were all pursuing the same goals. Not to mention that the Palestinian leadership called on them for help, so they didn’t go in uninvited. Of course, you can’t blame this on civilians, but these states did act on behalf of the Palestinian state that they wanted to take place. All of these ideas are less true today because so much time and history has passed that the different states were able to form their own national identities. Even though Arabs still view themselves as one people (this is slowly but surely decreasing in popularity), idea of unification is now seen as farfetched and even as undesirable.

I sometimes get frustrated with the people I argue with and these stuff slip out. However, what you’re saying is a true and your criticism is valid. I’ll definitely keep this in mind. I appreciate your comment.

You’re so disingenuous and brain dead that it’s literally not worth my time to engage you.

Those weren’t ignored, they were addressed with the last link.

You didn’t address anything. You posted 3 unsourced paragraphs from 3 random historians that contain cherrypicked statements that confirm your biases. This isn’t the smoking gun evidence you think it is. Their opinions have no bearing on the actual events that happened, assuming that these are their opinions or that their opinions are credible, both of which are big ifs. I actually linked over a dozen examples of actual events and their aftermath in over half a dozen countries, including the Palestinian territories. I actually provided context, you provided confirmation bias.

Palestinians are not responsible for the Jewish exodus. Your argument is trying justify the Israeli Apartheid and Genocide by conflating Palestinians with all Arabs/Muslims and conflating all Jewish people with Israel.

The Palestinians had their own ethnic cleansing of Jews, but that’s besides the point. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not contained to just Israel and Palestine. It is much bigger than that, and it has affected way more people. Disingenuous people like you try to box in the conflict to specific parameters to push propaganda fueled narratives, like you brought up about apartheid and genocide. The fact that this is how you’re choosing to frame things just shows that you don’t actually have an interest in the truth, but rather your interest lies in satisfying the narratives you’ve subscribed to. You can’t oversimplify the conflict. You can’t erase the coalition wars the Arabs waged against Israel or the million Jews that were exiled from the islamic world or the havoc that the Palestinian refugees caused in the Arab countries that invited them or so on. If this conflict was localized to just Israel and Palestine then it would be such a big global conflict. It would’ve been thought of in the same light as the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict or the Morocco-Sahrawi conflict… but it’s not… for a reason.

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Along with direct removal such as deportation or population transfer, it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and preventing its return, such as murder, rape, and property destruction.

I’m not sure what you were trying to achieve here, but I already know the definition of ethnic cleansing.

Forced expulsion of Palestinians has been central to Zionism since the 1880’s

Literally 21% of Israeli citizens are Arab, and another 6% is neither Jewish or Arab.

There are a lot of factors of the Jewish exodus from the Muslim world, but your conflating of the two as justification or minimization of the Nakba doesn’t work;

That’s not what I’m doing. You’re trying very hard to push this idea, but it’s not going to work. If you actually scroll up and read my original statement, I simply claimed that the violence and ethnic cleansing went both ways… which is undoubtably true.

unless you somehow think all Arabs or Muslims are the same.

No, but the conflict is broader than what you’re trying to make it out to be. Take Jordan for example. This country has taken part in multiple coalition wars against Israel on behalf of Palestine, spent decades supporting Palestine militarily/economically/politically, had governed the West Bank, ethnically cleansed Jews from it’s land, ethnically cleansed Jews from East Jerusalem, lost both to Israel, had taken in a lot of Palestinians, kicked out those Palestinians when they tried to overthrow the government (black September), expelled the PLO to Lebanon, took in Palestinians again afterwards, became the second Arab country to recognize Israel, and the list goes on and on. This is a history that runs deep with the conflict. It’s not just Jordan, but also Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and so on. You can’t pretend that this history doesn’t exist. No, not all Arabs or muslims are the same and not all Jews are the same, but this conflict is interwoven with these identities, at least to a degree.

But it’s pretty clear your racist towards Palestinians or Arabs or Muslims

I’m literally Arab, I’m Iraqi. But I’m sure you know more about Arab world than I do.

when your argument boils down to ‘they are violent primitives and deserve to die,’ just going straight to dehumanization and ignoring all material conditions of Apartheid

When did I do that exactly? I have at no point argued anything even remotely close to that. I merely challenged the brain dead and blatantly false narrative that you and your propaganda driven friends here are harping on, which is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one sided and always has been when that’s very clearly not true. I then proceeded to give examples that disprove this notion. It’s clear you don’t actually have a case to present. You try to sound smart, but once you scratch the surface the facade disappears and you reveal yourself to be a pretentious . If you’re going to lie and put words in my mouth then I have no interest in talking with you.

Not really; it’s just that I doubt the army will give up power peacefully. Hence civil war or violent revolution.

There’s also a good possibility that one of the high ranking military officers will use the opportunity that will arise from the chaos to orchestrate a coup and put themselves in power.

And in both cases it wouldn’t be strange if Israel decided to expand into Sinai during the chaos.

But think about it from an objective point of view. Israel has already taken control of the Sinai twice. Once from October 1956 to March 1957 and again from June 1967 to April 1982. The second time, it held the Sinai for 15 years. That’s not a small amount of time and Israel even had a few settlements set up. However, it gave all of them up and handed back the Sinai in 1975 as a part of the Egypt Israel peace treaty. This treaty has been active for 50 years, what would Israel gain from destroying it?

Unlike the previous times where Egypt was the aggressor, that excuse can’t be used by Israel if it occupied the Sinai again. The occupation would immediately be seen as unprovoked aggression. Why? Because Israel is the one that’s very clearly hostile and violating the treaty. Egypt has been keeping it’s part of the deal since 1975. It has allowed for Israeli ships to pass through the Suez, it has kept the Sinai largely demilitarized, and it has recognized Israel. If Israel invades, it would be a pariah like Russia when it invaded Ukraine. Unlike it’s war with Hamas or Hezbollah, the US won’t be backing Israel on this. Egypt is not a terrorist group and it’s not an aggressor, and Israel would have blatantly violated a US brokered treaty. Backing Israel would be a massive blow to the credibility of American diplomacy and no US president would risk American soft power for an ally that’s not willing to respect them or keep their words. They would have to back Egypt, or at the very least condemn Israel’s aggression. If the US abandons Israel, you can be sure the EU will follow.

But it actually gets worse for Israel, because all the other Arab countries that established relations with it will immediately sever relations again. Why wouldn’t they? Not only is Egypt a fellow Arab country, but it is the most populated Arab country and a key ally to all the other Arab countries. It’s in their interest to back up their fellow Arab country that’s in the right. After all, if Egypt, who has kept their part of the deal for 50 years, still ended up getting attacked, what’s there to stop the other Arab countries from being next? Clearly Israeli treaties are worthless since they won’t even bother to honor them and they’re hellbent on violent conquest.

You can also be certain that the moment Egypt declares war back on Israel, the Palestinian terrorist groups and the Iranian backed terrorist groups are going to go wild. They’ll attack Israel from every direction. Hell, I wouldn’t even be surprised if the bordering Arab countries joined the war alongside Egypt. I’m sure Syria would love to get Golan Heights back, Jordan and Lebanon would want Israel eliminated as a threat, and the other Arab countries would want a decisive victory to end this long conflict. In the off chance that Israel does win another war against an Arab coalition by itself, it would have gained the Sinai at the cost of all of it’s diplomacy and it would have to start again from scratch.

And what for exactly? A piece of largely inhospitable desert that bares no security threat from a country that’s both peaceful and cooperative with Israel. Israel has already given up the Sinai twice because it doesn’t hold enough strategic value. The things it gained from making peace with Egypt is far greater than anything the peninsula had to offer.

So let’s summarize Israel loses it’s valuable alliances with the US and the West, it loses all the recognition and diplomacy it worked for in the Arab world, it risks fighting another coalition war by itself, and it’ll become a pariah state all for an empty piece of desert that poses no threat, has little strategic value, and it has given up twice before. So I ask again, what would Israel gain from doing this?

I just don’t see it happening.

There is a lot of context that gets ignored during these events, and it’s not easy to summarize. I’ll include a few paragraphs but if you want more context I suggest you read the whole chapter.

It’s interesting you say this because, ironically, you conveniently leave out a lot of context and ignore many events. I’ll include a few paragraphs as well, but there’s just so many of these events that I’m afraid Lemmy’s character limit won’t allow to give you anywhere near a comprehensive list. This very, very brief list will have to do for now:

West Bank:

The Hebron massacre was the killing of sixty-seven or sixty-nine Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[1] The event also left scores seriously wounded or maimed. Jewish homes were pillaged and synagogues were ransacked. Some of the 435 Jews in Hebron who survived were hidden by local Arab families,[2] although the extent of this phenomenon is debated.[3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

Jordan:

According to an Israeli complaint, Jordan undertook systematic destruction of the Jewish Quarter including many synagogues.[34] Under Jordanian rule of East Jerusalem, all Israelis (irrespective of their religion) were forbidden from entering the Old City and other holy sites.[35] Between 40 000 and 50 000 tombstones from ancient Mount of Olives Jewish Cemetery were desecrated.[36] In the Old City of Jerusalem, the Jewish Quarter was destroyed after the end of fighting. The Tiferet Yisrael Synagogue was destroyed first, which was followed by the destruction of famous Hurva Synagogue built in 1701, first time destroyed by its Arab creditors in 1721 and rebuilt in 1864.[37][38][39]

Abdullah el Tell, a commander of the Arab Legion, remarked: For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter.

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

Bahrain:

Bahrain’s tiny Jewish community, mostly the Jewish descendants of immigrants who entered the country in the early 20th century from Iraq, numbered between 600 and 1500 in 1948. In the wake of 29 November 1947 U.N. Partition vote, demonstrations against the vote in the Arab world were called for 2–5 December. The first two days of demonstrations in Bahrain saw rock-throwing against Jews, but on 5 December, mobs in the capital of Manama looted Jewish homes and shops, destroyed the synagogue, beat any Jews they could find, and murdered one elderly woman.[218]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Bahrain

Syria:

After the vote in favour of the partition of Palestine, the government abetted and organised Aleppo’s Arab inhabitants to attack the city’s Jewish population.[3][4][5] The exact number of those killed remains unknown, but estimates are put at around 75, with several hundred wounded.[1][5][6] Ten synagogues, five schools, an orphanage and a youth club, along with several Jewish shops and 150 houses were set ablaze and destroyed.[7] Damaged property was estimated to be valued at US$2.5m.[8][9] During the pogrom the Aleppo Codex, an important medieval manuscript of the Torah, was lost and feared destroyed. The book reappeared (with 40% of pages missing) in Israel in 1958.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aleppo

The subsequent Syrian governments placed severe restrictions on the Jewish community, including barring emigration.[196] In 1948, the government banned the sale of Jewish property and in 1953 all Jewish bank accounts were frozen. The Syrian secret police closely monitored the Jewish community. Over the following years, many Jews managed to escape, and the work of supporters, particularly Judy Feld Carr,[197] in smuggling Jews out of Syria, and bringing their plight to the attention of the world, raised awareness of their situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Syria

Yemen:

The Aden riots of December 2–4, 1947 targeted the Jewish community in the British Colony of Aden. The riots broke out from a planned three-day Arab general strike in protest of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (II), which created a partition plan for Palestine.[1] The riots resulted in the deaths of 82 Jews,[1][2] 33 Arabs, 4 Muslim Indians, and one Somali,[1] as well as wide-scale devastation of the local Jewish community of Aden.[2][3] The Aden Protectorate Levies, a military force of local Arab-Muslim recruits dispatched by the British governor Reginald Champion to quell the riots, were responsible for much of the killing.[1][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Aden#Background

Egypt:

Until the late 1930s, the Jews, both indigenous and new immigrants, like other minorities tended to apply for foreign citizenship in order to benefit from a foreign protection.[170] The Egyptian government made it very difficult for non-Muslim foreigners to become naturalized. The poorer Jews, most of them indigenous and Oriental Jews, were left stateless, although they were legally eligible for Egyptian nationality.[171] The drive to Egyptianize public life and the economy harmed the minorities, but the Jews had more strikes against them than the others. In the agitation against the Jews of the late thirties and the forties, the Jew was seen as an enemy[168]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Egypt

The 1948 bombings in Cairo, which targeted Jewish areas, took place during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, between June and September, and killed 70 Jews and wounded nearly 200. Riots claimed many more lives.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Cairo_bombings

Five Egyptian Jews and one Muslim policeman were killed in Alexandria, hundreds were injured in both Alexandria and Cairo, and an Ashkenazi synagogue was burned down.[1] The Greek Orthodox patriarchate, Catholic churches and a Coptic school were also damaged in the riot.[1] The police reacted quickly but were unable to prevent much of the violence.[1] However further demonstrations planned for the following day were largely suppressed.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Egypt

Libya:

The 1945 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania was the most violent rioting against Jews in North Africa in modern times. From November 5 to November 7, 1945, more than 140 Jews were killed and many more injured in a pogrom in British-military-controlled Tripolitania. 38 Jews were killed in Tripoli from where the riots spread. 40 were killed in Amrus, 34 in Zanzur, 7 in Tajura, 13 in Zawia and 3 in Qusabat.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tripolitania

The 1948 Anti-Jewish riots in Tripolitania were riots between the antisemitic rioters and Jewish communities of Tripoli and its surroundings in June 1948, during the British Military Administration in Libya. The events resulted in 13–14 Jews and 4-30 Arabs dead and destruction of 280 Jewish homes. The events occurred during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_anti-Jewish_riots_in_Tripolitania

Tunisia:

On April 11, 2002, a natural gas truck fitted with explosives drove past security barriers at the ancient El Ghriba synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba.[1] The truck detonated at the front of the synagogue, killing 14 German tourists, three Tunisians, and two French nationals.[2] More than 30 others were wounded.[3][4][5]

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

Iraq:

Under Iraqi nationalists, Nazi propaganda began to infiltrate the country, as Nazi Germany was anxious to expand its influence in the Arab world. Dr. Fritz Grobba, who resided in Iraq since 1932, began to vigorously and systematically disseminate hateful propaganda against Jews. Among other things, Arabic translation of Mein Kampf was published and Radio Berlin had begun broadcasting in Arabic language. Anti-Jewish policies had been implemented since 1934, and the confidence of Jews was further shaken by the growing crisis in Palestine in 1936. Between 1936 and 1939 ten Jews were murdered and on eight occasions bombs were thrown on Jewish locations.[115]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_the_Muslim_world#Iraq

Farhud (also Farhood; Arabic: الفرهود) was the pogrom or the “violent dispossession” that was carried out against the Jewish population of Baghdad, Iraq, on 1–2 June 1941, immediately following the British victory in the Anglo-Iraqi War. The riots occurred in a power vacuum that followed the collapse of the pro-Nazi government of Rashid Ali while the city was in a state of instability.[2][3][4] The violence came immediately after the rapid defeat of Rashid Ali by British forces, whose earlier coup had generated a short period of national euphoria, and was fueled by allegations that Iraqi Jews had aided the British.[5] More than 180 Jews were killed[6] and 1,000 injured, although some non-Jewish rioters were also killed in the attempt to quell the violence.[7] Looting of Jewish property took place and 900 Jewish homes were destroyed.[1]

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

Baghdad Radio invited citizens to Liberation Square on January 27 to “come and enjoy the feast”,[3] being brought in on buses.[2] 500,000 people reportedly attended the hangings, and danced and celebrated before the corpses of the convicted spies.[1]

Nine of the fourteen hanged were from the Iraqi Jewish community, three from the Muslim community and two from Christian communities.[1] Three other members of the Iraqi Jewish community that were arrested at the same time were executed seven months later, on 26 August 1969.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Baghdad_hangings

The Jewish exodus from the Muslim world was also not the same

You’re absolutely right, it wasn’t the same. The Jewish exodus from the muslim world was way worse.

I am well aware that Egypt’s economy is in shambles because of Al Sisi’s vanity project in building the new capital city with money the country doesn’t have. I agree with you that some kind of revolution is bound to happen at this rate, and I actually think it’ll happen in the next few years because the situation is pretty grim. I’m not Egyptian, but I’ve talked to Egyptians who say their families in Egypt are struggling to the point where they find it difficult to buy rice and sugar. I don’t think a revolution is a few decades away with conditions like that. With that being said, is there any indication that the upcoming revolution will end in civil war? Egypt can’t be compared to the other countries in the region because it’s a unique country due to its geography and high population. Based on recent Egyptian history, which I think is the best comparisons we can make, the country has had a few dictators and revolutions but it hasn’t had any civil wars, at least not any that I could recall. Is there something on the ground that is not apparent in the media our Egyptian diaspora?

Government collapses tend to count as state collapses, but using your definition it’s pretty hard for Egypt to end up in that state. Unless an extremely powerful empire like the British or the Ottomans takes over. Egypt’s geography makes it very hard for the country to be divided and fall into civil war. Virtually all Egyptians live on the Nile or its delta, and those areas are completely packed with a fairly homogenous population. There’s isn’t a big demographic rift or a clear ideological divide. There’s the Coptic Christians who make up 10% of the population, but they aren’t large enough to do anything and there’s the islamic fundamentalists, who do cause trouble, but they either swing the whole country in that direction or don’t have enough influence to do anything.

And Israel and the EU help Azerbaijan to continue ethnic cleansing of Armenians, in particular Israel by sending drones in exchange for Azerbaijani oil

This is blatantly false. France and Greece, for example, explicitly supported Armenia and the rest of the EU and NATO was largely neutral except for Turkey because they were dealing with Covid lockdowns.

The Kurdish identity was deliberately squashed by the Western imperialists France and UK when they drew the borders after the fall of the Ottoman empire

This is true but the squashing of the Kurds didn’t start with the West nor did end there, they merely continued something that already existed. The Ottoman Empire and the Arab empires before it were all explicitly suppressed the Kurds.

Turkey went into Cyprus when a western aided fascist Greek military junta government tried to take over Cyprus and make it part of Greece with ethnic cleansing against the Turks in Cyprus. Calling it an illegal occupation is again a western imperialist narrative ignoring the complicity in attempted ethnic cleansing or worse genocide by the Greek fascist military junta government of the time. In fact Turkey stepping in was pivotal to the fascist military junta falling apart and Greece returning to Democracy.

Such embarrassing ignorance. This is from the very wiki article that you linked:

In 1983 the Turkish Cypriot assembly declared independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Immediately upon this declaration Britain convened a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the declaration as “legally invalid”. United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 (1983) considered the “attempt to create the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus”. It went on to state that it “considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal”.

The international community condemns Turkey’s illegal occupation of Cyprus. There is a reason why no country on earth except for the occupier, Turkey, recognizes this fake puppet state as a country. Even Turkey’s other puppet, Azerbaijan, which is the most loyal of Turkey’s allies doesn’t recognize it.

Not only is the international community unanimously against Turkey, but they also violated the Treaty of Guaranteed of 1960. This was a joint agreement between Turkey, Cyprus, Greece, and the UK regarding the protection and territorial integrity of Cyprus. Turkey was one four principal signatories and one of the three supposed protectorates of Cyprus, and they only signed the treaty a few years before their occupation.

This is taken directly from the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960:

**Article II. **

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution. Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as con cerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island. Article IV. In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of • re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.

You can read the full treaty right here: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/CY GR TR_600816_Treaty of Guarantee.pdf

As you can see Turkey is in clear violation of this treaty. It is refusing to cooperate with the other protectorates of this treaty and it is directly violating Cyprus’ sovereignty and territorial integrity.

But actually gets even worse because the Turkish speaking Cypriots want to reunite with their Greek neighbors and unify the island, and there are have been ongoing demonstrations by the native people there for DECADES against Turkish occupation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Turkish_Cypriot_protests (50,000 to 80,000 people turned out, that’s about 1/3 of the 170,000 native Turkish speaking Cypriots) https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/09/rising-anger-with-turkey-drives-calls-for-reunification-in-crisis-hit-northern-cyprus https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/15/erdogan-met-by-protests-from-turkish-cypriots-during-visit-northern-cyprus https://cyprus-mail.com/2024/04/26/hundreds-of-turkish-cypriots-protest-against-govt/ https://apnews.com/article/europe-middle-east-government-and-politics-united-nations-suburbs-235658ac64b564902747dc2225933899 https://apnews.com/ea58f13ac33a49479048df04357d78c7/Turkish-Cypriots-protest-Turkey’s-‘unwanted’-meddling

What does Turkey do in response to this very clear opposition from the native Turkish speaking Cypriots who want them to leave, respect the treaties they’ve signed, and want to unite with the rest of the island? That’s right Turkey sends in over 100,000 non native Turkish residents to occupy the island: https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=10153&lang=EN#:~:text=According to reliable estimates%2C their,way from those in Cyprus. http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/Embassies/Embassy_Vienna/vienna.nsf/page74_en/page74_en?OpenDocument

Which by the way is a clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention’s Article 49 which includes:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.33_GC-IV-EN.pdf

Calling Turkey’s illegal occupation of Northern Cyprus anything but that shows that you’re either a historically ignorant, a bootlicker, or an authoritarian extremist like a Marxist or Fascist. Though in your case, it’s probably all 3.

So already in your first three points you are showing either a lack of understanding, or deliberately downplaying the effects of western imperialist rule and its continuation into today.

I wonder how it feels to be confidentially incorrect. I can’t really tell if this a projection or just a lack of self awareness.

Armenians are allies of Palestine as they understand that they are victim of the same forces. In particular the Israel-Azerbaijan axis shows that it is not about religion, but about classic imperialist motives of ressources, power and money.

Actually this isn’t true. Israel and Armenia are pretty neutral towards each other. Armenia was the only country in West Asia, other than Israel, to not recognize Palestine as a country. Actually they only did so yesterday, and everybody sees this as a tit for tat for Israel signing that arms contract with Azerbaijan back in 2012 where they gave them drones and other military equipment (which the Azeri dictator Aliyev used against them in 2020) over the next few years in exchange for their oil (which makes up 40-60% of their oil imports) and having Azerbaijan and Turkey remain allies against Iran… but despite this there’s calls in Israel to recognize the Armenian genocide and talks in Armenia to buy Israeli weapons: https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-armenia-mulls-procuring-iai-missiles-report-1001482068 https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/why-israel-must-now-recognise-the-armenian-genocide-jvxgn8k7

Armenia used to be a strong Russian ally in hopes of having Russia protect it from Azerbaijan, and it’s big ally Turkey, a NATO member. However, when Azerbaijan attacked and Armenia invoked it’s defense clause, Russia refused to help. Not only that but it’s puppet Belarus, publicly came out in support Azerbaijan. Because of this Armenia has publicly announced it’s intent to withdraw from the CSTO and draw closer to the West, especially after France, Greece, and even the US (remember that Nancy Pelosi trip?) all showed support to Armenia over Azerbaijan. Which leaves Armenia in a very weird and complicated geopolitical situation. Trying to oversimplify their geopolitical situation is just stupid.

Seethe lol

I’m literally Arab (Iraqi), but okay

A lot of unnecessary fluff, but you do have a question hidden down there.

What fluff? I wrote 5 sentences lmao

Paraphrased: “After decades of colonization, why would Israel publicly state that they were ending all illegal ongoing colonization?”

Yeah, this isn’t going to fly by me. This is just the strawman fallacy. That is NOT what I asked. I asked a very simple and straight forward question:

If their ultimate goal is complete conquest, why would they have done such a move?

This is clearly in reference to their unilateral exit in 2005 from Gaza. If you want to have a discussion with me then at least have the decency to be honest. I won’t respond to an answer about a question I didn’t ask, but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt to answer the actual question I asked. If you can’t help but be disingenuous then I’m afraid this discussion will end with my comment here.

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/3/8/israeli-settlement-expansion-in-palestinian-areas-amounts-to-war-crime-un https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2024/3/19/how-israeli-settlers-are-expanding-illegal-outposts-amid-gaza-war

Al Jazeera is literally a state sponsored propaganda outlet that is owned by the authoritarian theocracy of Qatar. This outlet is a bad source in general, but it’s notorious for it’s misinformation and outright when it comes to this specific conflict. If this is where you get your information then I’m not surprised why your talking points are nothing than inaccurate propaganda.

This image is a prime example of what propaganda looks like. I know you don’t have any, but let’s use our critical thinking skills for a bit and analyze why this picture is complete trash:

1. The key insinuates that Jews are foreign to the area. This is also entirely false. Jews have always had very sizable presence in this region dating back thousands of years. They were there long before islam, long before Arab colonization, long before the Roman even came up with the term Palestine. This is because Jews are indigenous to the area, but the word choices for the key is trying to erase that.
2. The colors chosen are also propaganda. They chose green for Palestine, which is the national color, but instead of using blue for Israel, they chose white. Why is that? Well that’s easy, because this color scheme gives the impression that Palestine is “real” entity and it is being “erased”, when that’s not the case.
3. The first map is intentionally there to insinuate that Palestine existed prior to 1947. This is entirely false. Before the creation of the modern states, before that there was the British mandate, and before that it was the Ottoman Empire which had completely different division for this region. Palestine as sovereign entity has quite literally never existed at any point in history. The concept of a Palestinian nation is as artificial and new as the modern state of Israel.
4. Also the the first map is also dishonest in another way because it colors inhabited areas as green. The Negev desert for example is largely uninhabited but it is colored green to give the impression that Palestine is more than what it actually is. Most muslim Arabs back then lived in the same sliver of land as what it showed for the Jews, but if they just showed an honest map of the Arab and Jewish settlements then it would give a different story and this wouldn’t be such a good propaganda map, now would it?
5. The second map tries insinuate that the UN took away from Palestine in 1947, but that’s false because that was the very first time Palestine was even acknowledged as a sovereign entity.
6. The third map exists to try and give a sense of progression while also masking away massive amounts of context… like the wars of 1948 and 1967 when Palestine rejected any plans for peace and coexistence, and they along with their Arab allies formed coalition armies and invaded Israel from every angle with the explicit intention of destroying… but they ended up losing both wars in a pretty convincing fashion against Israel by itself. As a part of the peace agreements the Arabs agreed to cede land to Israel.
7. The first 3 maps go from 1947 to 1967, but then on the fourth map, it skips 38 years and stops at 2005… 19 years ago. Why would it skip all of this time? And why stop at this point in 2005? Well it’s simple, if they stopped any earlier then their propaganda map would be called out for not recognizing that Israel left Gaza as that’s a the biggest sign that Israel is trying to cooperate to find peace, but if they stopped the map more recently then their propaganda map would’ve been called out for not pointing out any of the atrocities that the Palestinians instigated and committed. This point in 2005 is just perfect for propaganda, it’s far back enough in time to feel disconnected from the modern Palestinian terrorist attacks and wars, but recent enough where it could be argued into the present.
8. Finally, the map has no source. It’s a perfect propaganda piece because it can’t be traced back to where it originated and therefore isn’t a source to verify the accuracy of the information.

Now what did we learn from all of this little exercise? A little of critical thinking can go a long way in recognizing and dispelling propaganda. Try it some time!

Name the claim and I’ll provide you with a source.

I’m pointing that Egypt has already collapsed since Israel captured the Sinai and returned it in exchange for recognition. You claimed that when this Egyptian government collapses, or rather if it does, then Israel will seize the opportunity to do so. But they’ve had this opportunity presented to them already. For example, in 2011… but they didn’t do anything, so why would they now?

The point is that even if they invade Lebanon again, it will be similar to the prior military operations they’ve had before. They’re not going to capture Lebanese territories like they did with Golan Heights. Otherwise they would’ve done it since they’ve had multiple opportunities to do so.