BTW I just wanted to share some quotes and information with you since you seem to think Plan Dalet was expansionist and not precipitated. Not to mention those villages were either actively or imminently hostile.

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League. October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit

“The Arabs have taken into their own hands the final solution of the Jewish problem. The problem will be solved only in blood and fire. The Jews will soon be driven out.” Arab Higher Committee circular. 1947

“The surviving Jews would be helped to return to their native countries, but my estimation is that none will survive” Ahmed Shuqeiri (later PLO chief) quoted in Churchill and Churchill, p. 52

"There are over one million Jews in the Arab Lands. Their lives will be forfeit as well when we conquer the Jews.” Azzam Pasha, the Arab League General Secretary, May 1948.

You’re the one living in lala land where the British didn’t over promise after the collapse of an empire and you’ll only condemn one side of alleged genocide. It was just those filthy colonizers.

I don’t believe it, I know it. The sources are very clear. And I can find many more examples of Jews being treated like second class citizens by Arabs, not just Europeans. How preposterous for you to even refute. Ever heard of a dhimmi? You want to talk about apartheid then let’s talk about that instead of you making baseless claim after baseless claim.

What? Palestine has had Jews ever since the Arab conquest.

And? Babylonian, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine conquests? Crusades? Ottomans deporting them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa? We just went over this, keep up.

Uh… There had been numerous massacres before Arab involvement in the war. Remember Dier Yassin?

Remember the Hebron massacre in 1929 and 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine that I mentioned? Remember the Hebron massacre of 1834? 1921 Jaffa riots? Stop playing games.

In early April 1948, the Israelis launched Plan Dalet, a large-scale offensive to capture land and empty it of Palestinian Arabs.

“According to the Israeli Yehoshafat Harkabi, Plan Dalet called for the conquest of Arab towns and villages inside and along the borders of the area allocated to the proposed Jewish State in the UN Partition Plan.[4] In case of resistance, the population of conquered villages was to be expelled outside the borders of the Jewish state. If no resistance was met, the residents could stay put, under military rule.[qt 1][5][6][7]”

Nonviolent occupation under UN sanctions. Really spooky stuff.

Uh… What? Israel definitely didn’t return that land because they wanted to. Just look at the Golan Heights.

You’re going to have to provide sources for this. You’re genuinely coming across as extremely predisposed to pardon any attempt of complete, violent obliteration by Israel’s neighbors. It’s fascinating to watch though.

It’s a hard problem to solve. Every time Jews had established themselves in the area they got conquered or kicked out, who’s to say it wouldn’t have just happened again? And it doesn’t help that 5 Arab nations initiated a war of extermination before Zionists had the chance to expose these alleged intentions of ethnic-cleansing. In fact, Israel’s actions of returning land they had captured whenever Arabs went to war with them seemed to be in direct contradiction of the allegations.

When I examine the entire chain of events, I see two sides that had unrelenting ideologies. Not one.

Completely baseless. Take it up with the British Mandate authority and the League of Nations that wanted them to be able to stand on their own.

I’m not even sure what these have to do with modern Israel, which is ideologically a late 19th/early 20th endeavor.

You don’t think that the established Jewish territory prior to and during the 20th century has anything to do with modern Israel? You think that the revitalization of a Jewish homeland was unique to Zionist ideology when their occupation of both Galilee and Jerusalem was sanctioned by the Ottomans in 1534-1742?

You can’t have a Jewish majority state in Palestine without kicking Palestinians out of their home; it’s just not physically possible.

Of course you can, you just need more than one state. This had been the plan instituted by the British, but the British Mandatory authorities strayed from the plan as I already stated.

You mean in 1534 when they were permitted by Ottomans to establish a Jewish City-State?

Or maybe you mean in 1821 when the Jewish adviser and finance minister to the rulers of the Galilee, Haim Farkhi, was murdered and the Ottomans allowed their army to conquer Galilee?

Or maybe you mean in the late 19th century when they bought land from the Ottomans and peacefully settled?

Or maybe you mean in 1917 when the Ottomans deported them from Tel Aviv and Gaffa because the Ottomans were at war with the lands they immigrated from?

Or maybe you mean after 1917 when the obscure instructions of the British Mandate radicalized all of their Arab neighbors against them and galvanized the call to the violent eradication of Israel?

Or maybe you mean in 1921 and 1929 when Arab mobs violently attacked Jewish population centers?

Or maybe you mean in 1936-1939 when Arabs launched widespread attacks on both the British and the Jews?

Is it blatantly obvious how ridiculous your claim is yet, or do I need to keep going?

steal Palestine

Again, this is misinformation. It’s particularly concerning that you are accusing me of not being nuanced when your uncharitable interpretation of the conflict seems to suggest that Israel never had a right to be there in the first place.

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

“After an Arab uprising against the Ottoman Empire arose during the First World War in 1916, British forces drove Ottoman forces out of the Levant.[3] The United Kingdom had agreed in the McMahon–Hussein Correspondence that it would honour Arab independence in case of a revolt, but in the end, the United Kingdom and France divided what had been what had been Ottoman Syria under the Sykes–Picot Agreement—an act of betrayal in the eyes of the Arabs.”

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

“The intended boundaries of Palestine were not specified, and the British government later confirmed that the words “in Palestine” meant that the Jewish national home was not intended to cover all of Palestine. The second half of the declaration was added to satisfy opponents of the policy, who had claimed that it would otherwise prejudice the position of the local population of Palestine and encourage antisemitism worldwide by “stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands”.”

Your ire should be directed at the British protectorate for the ambiguity that enabled both sides to feel justified in their believed independence. This initial blunder seems to me to have fostered mutual extremism.

Your comment is not true whatsoever. Anyone that reads the history of the conflict will easily see that israel has been the key instigator of war every single time.

This is why I’m attempting to remain impartial and critical of both sides, to avoid spreading complete misinformation as you have done here.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/arab-israeli-war

“The United Nations resolution sparked conflict between Jewish and Arab groups within Palestine. Fighting began with attacks by irregular bands of Palestinian Arabs attached to local units of the Arab Liberation Army composed of volunteers from Palestine and neighboring Arab countries. These groups launched their attacks against Jewish cities, settlements, and armed forces.”

“After Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, the fighting intensified with other Arab forces joining the Palestinian Arabs in attacking territory in the former Palestinian mandate. On the eve of May 14, the Arabs launched an air attack on Tel Aviv, which the Israelis resisted. This action was followed by the invasion of the former Palestinian mandate by Arab armies from Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.”

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

“The history of calls for the destruction of Israel is rooted in the prelude to its establishment. Leaders such as Azzam Pasha of the Arab League threatened a “war of extermination” in the event that a Jewish state was established. Prior to the 1967 Six Day War, there was a nearly unanimous consensus among Arab nations aimed at the obliteration of Israel.[7] Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser reiterated calls for the annulment of Israel’s existence in the lead-up to the war. Contemporary discourse from political figures in Iran, including leaders like Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, continues to advocate for Israel’s destruction, accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric and Holocaust denial.[8] Islamist Palestinian organizations like Hamas[9] and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad[9] consistently promote the goal of Israel’s elimination, as evidenced by their charters, statements, and actions, such as the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.”

I have many, many more examples if you wish to continue spreading misinformation.

Removed by mod

I think you’re forgetting that the supernatural is but another theory, put forth by humans, to explain our existence. It doesn’t earn bonus points for being unobservable. I’ve seen 0 evidence supporting it, contrary to how many questions particle physics has solved.

I’ve simply stated that we can’t draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.

I’ve posited quite the opposite of this. If there are two opposing theories, with one substantiated and one not, then the substantiated one is more likely. For example: you wouldn’t say that a chicken’s offspring being implanted in an egg by cosmic rays is just as likely as the egg being fertilized before it was laid because the latter is substantiated while the former has yet to have any observable truth.

I’d say 99% is a completely fair probability as the ratio of something to nothing approaches infinity.

we don’t yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created

I just gave you some? I don’t know about you, but humans being able to replicate the exact particle that originated matter is a profound bit of evidence towards the universe not being a product of some higher power to me.

They aren’t immeasurable. The reason you think I’m making a different argument to your point is that you’re asking for every negative proof. This is never going to provide an answer, as it would be a competition to dispel the imagination.

Hypotheses and positive proofs are slowly answering the question of why we’re here. We know that evolution is likely, DNA is irrefutable evidence. We know that it’s likely our known universe began with a singularity because of the background microwave radiation accelerating away from a point of origin. We know the field and corresponding particle that gave matter its properties from the particle acceleration tests by CERN.

It becomes a much different question when one is not only seeking answers that fit their beliefs.

Considering that the overwhelming majority of religions out there are creationists, yes we are.

The mere fact that humans are 1% removed from apes serves to undermine creationism in general.

Eh, we can prove that human DNA is 99% primate and that there was no great flood. Seems unlikely to me.

I completely agree that’s what this basically boils down too. ST was an interesting concept I read about once and only briefly recalled twice since. Nothing more. This could be a valid criticism of individuals putting more stock into the idea but for anyone else it’s a reach.

The belief system built around God affects me every single day of my life. I have family that are hardcore Christians that pester me about it regularly. Approximately half of the political ideologies being pushed in my country center around Christian dogma.

Honorable mentions: Foreign and domestic terrorism threat and future wars being incited.

BTW I did indeed remember something I missed. He made his studio a hostile work environment by abusing his employees and generally being a trashy person. His co-host supported the claims made by other employees in an interview, here’s the TL;DR (of the interview) I got from a reddit comment:

TL;DR: Crowder is a narcissistic and hypocritical bully. Included things like: screaming at Landau that he ‘owns him’ and that Landau ‘has no friends’, after Landau protested when Crowder changed his mind last minute after agreeing that he could have his comedian friend on. Having a ‘shut up’ light for Landau in studio. Crowder bitched about the Daily Wire term sheet’s clause about not being paid for days he didn’t do work (…) but gave Landau a clause that he’d be sent home without pay if he was 5 minutes late. Demanding that Landau’s family move even though he knew one member relied on their current job’s health insurance for a serious issue, imposing on his tour dates, and cutting the few seconds of the show where he’d pitch Landau’s tour from the contract the moment Landau got ‘too successful’ (saying that Landau now earned more than him, which Landau insists can’t be true).

He’s openly homophobic/transphobic. He refuses to debate his peers but sees nothing wrong with making his positions look artificially superior by choosing unprepared college students as his opponents, making up statistics to support his claims knowing that said opponents won’t have the data to disprove it off the top of their head, and simply editing out the times that his opponent does manage to correctly oppose his argument (allegedly).

Recently even his political constituents hate him after he whined at Daily Wire for, what he calls, treating him unfairly with a $50 million dollar contract. And to completely top off the shit-sandwich, there’s video evidence of him abusing his wife and she claims that he made physical threats.

Even after all that I’m sure I’m missing something lol

I’d say so

• plucked from poverty and slavery, despite his mother remaining helpless, by a Jedi that was a part of an order that ultimately saw him as an unscrupulous means to an end of maintaining their power

• he felt as though he could make a bigger difference than he was allowed if stated order relinquished their attempt at controlling him

• this feeling was vindicated by his mother’s torture and subsequent death

• had his previously instilled beliefs challenged by two men he respected

• incredibly strong motivation to go against the Jedi’s wishes to save the one person he valued more than life itself

JFC that joke went over my head like a B-2. Whoops 🤦

Edit: I deserve that downvote for not getting the joke lol