General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

VVayVVard
GDF
comments

Comments by "VVayVVard" (@VVayVVard) on "The Conflict Based on a Lie" video.

The main cause of the conflict is Arabic empires replacing the indigenous Israelites starting in the 7th century, lasting throughout several caliphates and continuing as late as the Ottoman era (via prevention of land purchases by the descendants of exiled Israelites). If they had left the land well alone, none of this would've happened. But I guess religious empires do be like that.
11
@Im_Sanenough A majority of PaIestinians are taught from a young age that continuing the holy war is their purpose in life. That's why the conflict has been going on since 2005, despite major concessions by lsraeI (including the pullout from Gaza, and religious privileges given to those who practice lsIam). No matter how many concessions lsraeI makes, it's never enough. And it's impossible to make peace unless both sides want it.
7
@speedyprod8237 And the Ottoman empire restricted land purchases by Israelites. The point remains: had Arabic empires never expanded to the region, we wouldn't be seeing this conflict today, as Judaist Israelites would be the only major group living there.
7
@THE_MOONMAN Occupation and g-n-cide are what the Arabic side did to almost every indigenous group in the Middle East, including Hebrews. That's why so many minority languages and cultures have gone extinct in the region over the ages and been replaced with Arabic (and that one big religion that shall not be named) and why Arabic people, who are originally native to the Arabic peninsula, now inhabit a land area 500x wider than the entirety of Israel.
7
Lol, you're definitely not American. I've seen the same type of comment under various videos, so I'm guessing this is some kind of automated reply? During the war of independence, the Brits deliberately fought against Americans, just to keep the US under their control. During WW2, Japan attacked the US, in an attempt to better their own standing in the world. Lots of casualties ensued---yet nowadays, we're all allies. Thing is, Americans generally don't care about conflicts that happened 50+ years ago. Never mind a random ship getting sunk because it ventured too close to an active battlefield without notifying either of the combatants of its presence. That would be pretty irrelevant even if it had happened last year.
6
@CapitalistDeathCult The US sided with Egypt against Israel during the Suez Crisis. In other words, during the USS Liberty incident, the US was mostly on the side of Egypt (who was fighting against Israel) and not Israel. The alliance between the US and Israel only really materialized after 1967, particularly once Israel began sharing intelligence with the US.
3
 @vpghahat6328 Israel didn't become an ally of the US until after the Six-Day War.
3
@maquacr7014 Israel blockaded Gaza after it elected a genocidal group to govern it in 2005. Meanwhile the 1967 blockade was because... that's right, the blockading side wanted to genocide Israel. Like it or not, Israel has always been peaceful---it has only ever acted proactively toward telegraphed aggression. This was true both in 1967 and in 2005. If you can cite any time Israel has been aggressive toward a peaceful neighbor, I'm all ears. Meanwhile if you want examples of a peaceful Israel being met with aggression from its surroundings, I can easily give you examples from way back, starting in the 1920s, continuing in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s... etc etc, all the way to 2000s, 2010s and now, 2020s. Israel has always sought peace and prosperity, while the other side has always sought genocide and meaningless dominance. The situation has never really changed very much in this regard.
3
@heartsofiron4ever Although Palesine didn't exist as a state until after 1967.
2
@moksha4102 Israel was always a neglected colony under Arabic, Turk and Roman rule. It consisted of deserts and swamps in the 1920s. It was only after Israelites had returned and developed irrigation and agricultural technologies that they would be restored to arable farmland. Ironically, the resulting economic activity drove Arabic migration to Israel, from Egypt and Transjordan, and the descendants of those migrants are now considered 'native' Palesinians. Just goes to show how faulty the Arabic-side narrative is.
2
@Mirpurmad I see my reply got ■■■■■■'d. For some reason, this one is very hard to get through. Let's try rephrasing it a bit: The question is rhetoricaI. And even if it was made in good faith, the answer would be self-evident---i.e. HoIIywood doesn't touch it because it wouldn't seII. "A surveiIIance ship getting sunk because it ventured too close to an active battIefield" just isn't a compelling-enough topic for most audiences. It's nigh impossible to get people to care.
2
@worsty_worsty And of course, we also see this from how different-language minorities are treated today. Take, for instance, the Kurds, or speakers of Aramaic. Are they given a level of priority comparable to the native minorities of Europe, or are they instead subject to varying levels of persecution? Again, comparisons to Europe make the differences clear as day.
2
@worsty_worsty The Quran describes that those who follow Islam are given priority over anyone who does not. We also see that in actuality, languages did go extinct en masse during Arabic rule, unlike in Europe, where languages continued to flourish no matter which culture was dominant. It's not too difficult to put two and two together.
2
@NachttiSchlampE65 Israel also hit air force bases before Egypt had a chance to use its aerial power. As said, Israel only won due to ingenuity and determination (to hit first and to hit hard).
2
Good analogy. Except the guy who punched first was the smaller one, and was surrounded by 5 bigger guys who were just about to grab their knives from their belts, and the smaller guy only won due to ingenuity and martial arts prowess. Yeah. It doesn't seem like you really understand what caused the 1967 conflict very well.
2
@bejanbosc3695 Actually none of it has been debunked. I saw a video where they mentioned some omissions, but they failed to actually counter any of the more substantive points given.
1
Israel would remain a neglected colony to this day. The only reason it now has viable farmland and isn't filled with deserts, swamps and malaria is because Israelites came in and introduced modern technologies to the mix.
1
Meanwhile you're supporting a group that is not native to the land, that currently controls 22 countries covering an area 1000x the size of Israel and that historically caused any non-Arabic languages to go extinct wherever they settled, against one of the smallest countries in the world, who are only trying to protect their sole homeland in the world, after having been subjected to the most extreme forms of discrimination in modern history and realizing the need for their own country. Well, you do you.
1
@excluded944 It was their own choice, to elect and support those people who wanted nothing more than to continue to conflict. And that resulted in Oct 7, which in turn resulted in a natural response from Israel. Even in Judea/Samaria, that group has enjoyed high levels of support. There's no cure for idiocy.
1
@RKN998 If Native Americans had managed to establish sovereignty in a small plot of land, around 0.1% of the total U.S. land area (similar ratio as with Israel compared to the Arabic world) near the coastline, and had succeeded in maintaining their sovereignty for 80 years, as Israel has, and didn't prevent Americans from living in their country, as Israel doesn't prevent Arabs from living there, and had formed a fully democratic, productive society that contributed to science and was willing to engage in commerce, as Israel has... I honestly find it very hard to believe that most people would have any problem with the situation. Of course, they would need to maintain sovereignty long enough to show that they are not just a society of terror, but a society capable of contributing to humanity as a whole. As Israel has.
1
Not by definition. Also, they got billions of aid from the U.S., E.U., U.N., Japan etc... exactly so they'd build power stations and water infrastructure. They did none of that. Instead, they took apart the water pipes provided by the E.U. and used them to build rocket launchers.
1
1) There would be no Jews in a Palestinian state. Arabic people living in Palestine, when interviewed, have said that they would want all Jews removed upon 'liberation' of Palestine. 2) No one knows, but Palestinians are relatively extreme even within the Arabic world, which is why they have caused destabilization in countries they have been accepted to as refugees. The government would likely be relatively militant, and very likely allied with Iran (given how much it has supported them) and would likely clash with the Saudis and Egypt. 3) Zionists generally don't want Palestinians in their territory (though most make an exception for Arabic Israelis, the ones who currently comprise 20% of the population). 4) Because nobody in Europe wanted them. Even the U.S. and Canada refused to take high numbers of Jewish migrants. Anti-semitism was very common across the world at the time. And since many Israelites had a desire to move back to Israel, the British caved in to their demands and let them migrate there. Most Israelites are genetically separate from other European groups, though there's been significant mixing over the ages. This is evidenced by their previous use of Yiddish (which evolved from Hebrew/Aramaic, ultimately fusing from Germanic and Slavic languages) as well as genetic features, e.g. nasal shape / statistical differences in cognitive characteristics related to abstract problem solving (based on studies conducted in the years 1900-2000).
1
@brandonjade2146 Yeah, like during WW2 and the war of independence, where deliberate choices made by the British and the Japanese resulted in thousands of casualties. Maybe we should treat the Brits and the Japanese as our mortal enemies. If a surveillance ship ventures too close to an active battlefield, it can get shot down by the combatants, with nobody to blame but itself. Honestly I would hardly bat an eye if this happened today, never mind 50 years ago. And this is the sentiment of the majority of the US. The people who are trying to make a fuss about it are either 1) not Americans (not hard to guess which countries they're working for) or 2) don't actually care about the people who lost their lives and are instead anti-lsraeI due to some ulterior reason.
1
Never forget the war of independence, never forget Pearl Harbor, never forget 9/11... Sorry to break the news buddy but no real American actually cares about the USS Liberty. A surveillance ship getting shot down because it ventured too close to an actively battlefield just isn't enough to make anyone care. Heck, some people nowadays even sympathize with the orchestrators of 9/11, due to ideological reasons. This being despite the fact that 9/11 was an actual deliberate and pre-emptive strike on civiIians.
1
@brandonjade2146 The Lusitania was a civilian ship, not a surveillance ship. And Germany was fighting against Britain, an American ally, so it was already adversarial, unlike lsraeI. The difference is easy to explain via analogy: in one scenario you have a group of intelligence operatives getting shot during a mission in a random country in Africa due to getting mistaken for hostiles by a local military. In the other scenario you have a plane flying from Japan to the US getting deliberately taken down by a major adversary. The former is an unfortunate incident, but par for the course given the context. The latter is a major escalation.
1
@PleaseDontDeleteMyComments If you happen to see my comments on other comment sections, you'll quickly notice that I tend to be very devoted to dunking on low-IQ arguments in general. Intelligent people tend to become intelligent due to their dislike for unintelligence, and I'm no exception.
1
You're referring to the fraction of the world population with the lowest level of functionality, rationality, education and productivity. Meanwhile, Israel has some of the highest levels of innovation per capita, highest R&D expenditure as a %GDP out of any country, and has contributed more to science and technology than any of its neighbors. One of these groups is a treasure to humankind, the other group... not very useful so far.
1
The indigenous people of Israel (who lived in the land since at least 1050 BC, for more than a thousand years) were driven out by Arabic settlers who only left the Arabic Peninsula in the 7th century, 1700 years after the Kingdom of Israel. And we know the Arabic people were the 'bad guys' here because they literally expanded to cover an area 1000x the size of Israel, and minority languages went extinct wherever they settled. Compare to Europe to see what a relatively peaceful (still pretty war-torn) region in history would look like: 20+ languages all have their own countries, each relatively small compared to the Arabic world. But within the Arabic world, Kurdish people, Aramaic-speaking people, Hebrew-speaking people etc... were all suppressed. And literally Hamas posted a video of Oct 7. Almost none of the victims were soldiers. Meanwhile Israel only targets military structures and vehicles, which Hamas tries to disguise as ambulances and hospitals. This has been shown over and over.
1
@العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف Arabic-speaking people are not native to the land. Hebrew-speaking Judaists have inhabited the land since 1050 BC (based on old records/archeological findings); meanwhile Arabic-speakers only left the Arabic Peninsula in the 7th century. What's more, the Arabic-speakers ended up expanding to an area 1000x the size of Israel, with 50x the population, creating 22 massive countries, displacing minorities wherever they settled. Meanwhile, Israel is one of the smallest countries in the world, and the only country in the world for one of the most discriminated minorities. I agree, the two sides are not equally in the right here.
1
@العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف I'm part of indigenous people. And if you're talking about the U.S.... honestly, if the Native Americans had managed to establish sovereignty in a small plot of land, around 0.1% of the total U.S. land area (similar ratio as with Israel compared to the Arabic world) near the coastline, and had succeeded in maintaining their sovereignty for 80 years, and didn't prevent Americans from living there (similar to Israel with Israeli-Arabs) and had formed a fully democratic, productive society that contributed to science and was willing to engage in commerce... I honestly find it very hard to believe that most Western people would have any problem with that. Of course, they would need to maintain sovereignty long enough to show that they are not just a society of terror, but a society capable of contributing to humanity as a whole. As Israel has.
1
@العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف No. I'm also not going to try to take back 'land' that someone else has been developing for 80 years, especially if that someone has made that land much more productive than any of my ancestors ever could have. I'll invite you not to project too much. Clearly you didn't understand a word I said.
1
Yeah. They're so oppressed, just like the Brits were in South Africa when S.A. wanted its land back.
1
@Ahreman_egy The definition of an ethnic group is literally "a social group that shares a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like." Many South Americans speak creoles, which are similar to Yiddish in that they are a mixture of an ancestral language and a European one. Even then, the most indigenous people in South America are those who speak its native languages, by definition. Palestinian Arabic is less native to Israel than Hebrew and other Canaanite languages. It is more similar to other dialects of Arabic.
1
@Ahreman_egy Arabic is not a native language of Indonesia or Nigeria. Thereby neither is culturally descended from the caliphates. I can give my children whatever DNA I want with CRISPR/Cas9. Passing down language is more difficult. Language is thereby a better indicator of indigeneity. DNA tests are also subject to false negatives and positives. Both become more common when looking at samples from further in the past. If there was a group in Egypt that spoke a Latin-descended language, and another that spoke the language of the hieroglyphs, the latter would be more indigenous. This should not be a controversial statement.
1
@maquacr7014 Where in the Likud party charter does it mention 'wiping out' the other side?
1
@maquacr7014 1956 was when the Egyptian president tried to nationalize the Suez Canal company. Which, if allowed, would have granted him the power to tax the bulk of world trade of oil. Power plays of this level tend to function as casus belli.
1
@maquacr7014 Colonialist groups share one thing in common: they have all spread beyond their regions of origin. This is why the most historically colonialist groups in the world can be identified simply by looking at the top 7 'most spoken languages by land area'. Here's a question for you: what is the 3rd-most spoken language by land area? That language is spoken by one of the most colonialist groups in the history of the Earth. It replaced all minority languages and cultures in the region it expanded to. Meanwhile, a language that never spread beyond its region of origin cannot be colonialist, by definition. A language spoken only in the 148th-largest country in the world can therefore not be colonialist. A religion that is only practiced in the 148th-largest country in the world can also not be colonialist, again, by definition. Meanwhile, a language and religion that arose in a small-ish peninsula and then went on to cover an area 500x larger than the 148th-largest country in the world, and a population 100 times larger, that replaced all indigenous languages and religions, is at that point certified to be extremely colonialist. Unfortunately it appears that I cannot use specific words for this subject. I suppose it is unavoidable, given that it runs contrary to the 'message' pushed here.
1
@maquacr7014 Neither the US nor the USSR required much oil at that point (both used whatever they produced). Iraq 2003 shows that the US changed its mind as soon as it became a net oil importer. The fact that war happened as a result of nationalization proves that it was sufficient as a casus belli.
1
@maquacr7014 The UN is based on rule of majority. There are more Arabic countries than there are Hebrew countries, because the former is a colonialist group that replaced indigenous cultures throughout the MENA region. Hence why the UN has always been so heavily biased against Israel. Just check UN Watch----they've done a great job demonstrating how ridiculous the bias can get.
1
@maquacr7014 Casus belli literally means 'a cause for war'. Obviously, it applies to any nation with the capacity to launch military operations. Any threat to a nation can serve as a casus belli for any nation capable of using military means to counter such a threat. Your own reply is the one with the contradiction. Israel being skilled at warfare means that it is strong. It was only weak (relative to its neighbors) in terms of population, resources and weapons. In 1948, it didn't even have any proper allies (Britain's stance was friendly at times, hostile at others). In a match between a lean martial arts expert equipped with brass knuckles, versus 5 average-sized, somewhat clumsy dudes with knives, it shouldn't be surprising that the martial arts expert could potentially win the fight, if he was able to plan the encounter and grab the initiative. But few would argue that the martial arts expert would have the advantage in this situation. This is analogous to the situation for Israel between 1948 and 1967; it was heavily disadvantaged in almost every respect, but managed to emerge victorious largely due to ingenuity, effective use of resources and tactics, as well as (importantly) initiative in 1967.
1
@maquacr7014 Left-leaning countries have been vocal for Palestine ever since the 1950s, largely due to Cold War politics (following the USSR siding with the Arab League). The Gulf States' financial leverage also facilitated the recruitment of political allies. These types of dynamics have only recently begun to wane, following Israeli IT sector success, but this has in turn fueled adversarial sentiment among those who lean left in the US in particular, largely due to it fitting within its framework of victimhood politics, which also goes to show that the left and pro-Palestinian leaning continue to go hand in hand today. An example illustrating this concept is given by Argentina, whose leader today is pro-Israel even though the country has previously maintained a pro-Palestine stance (e.g. during the 1974 UN vote). This coincides with the rise of a right-leaning leader, following decades of rule by largely left-leaning administrations.
1
@maquacr7014 Arabic imperialism is empirical fact. A language does not replace other languages to become the 3rd-largest by land area in the world via peaceful means. There's a reason Europe still has hundreds of languages, while the Middle East virtually only has one, despite both having had vibrant human civilizations in the past. The same reason why minority languages have not been thriving in Russia, nor in the Anglophonic world: active suppression (you can read some history regarding this, it's pretty wild what people used to do even in the US and Canada; needless to say, egregious things happened in the Middle East as well, leading to indigenous minority languages becoming extinct and getting replaced by Arabic). Contradiction 1 is not a contradiction. How does the 1967 war prove anything regarding the power dynamics of the nationalization of the Suez Canal? It was only a decade later, far too early for major shifts in economic power to manifest. And the only reason nothing happened is because the US sided with Egypt, which simultaneously guaranteed that anyone who sided with the US would have nothing to fear regarding the status of the Suez. Contradiction 2 is not a contradiction. Did you somehow miss the point about the lean martial artist versus the clumsy group of muscular men with knives? Surely you realize that without planning and initiative, this situation would be pretty dire even for a combat expert. A casus belli is by definition something that can be considered an act of war; as said, Israel has always been peaceful in the absence of threatening behavior by its neighbors----meanwhile the vice versa has rarely been true.
1
@maquacr7014 Apparently what I'm about to say is extremely controversial, because I'm getting heavily censored, despite having tried rephrasing it almost ten times now.
1
@maquacr7014 A nation that is weak in terms of resources and land area can compensate for this weakness with a good plan and initiative. In fact, Israel being weak in terms of strategical depth (it being the 148th-smallest sovereign entity in the world, which renders it susceptible to actions aimed at vital functions) is exactly why it could never ignore any level of threat. This is also why it could never part with any land that was close to Tel Aviv---they are too easily applicable for launching actions against economically valuable targets in the heart of Israel. If Israel had 10x as much land as it currently holds, it would no doubt be far more relaxed about land use.
1
@maquacr7014 Nationalization of an important sea route can absolutely serve as a casus belli. Especially if the entity behind this move is seen as an adversary, which Egypt very much was for Israel at the time. Your extension of the martial arts analogy represents a dispute between the gym owner and the 5 men. It has nothing to do with the expert. Also, Britain never mentioned modern-day Israel, and it very much did support, say, Jordanese and Lebanese Arabic independence.
1
@maquacr7014 Currently, Arabic populations are settled in an area 500x the size of Israel, with more than 50x the population. Yet most have failed to create productive societies, and display lack of innovation and low levels of contribution to humanity. At some point, it becomes worth questioning whether there is any merit to further land allocation to a single group with these types of characteristics, especially since the alternative is to leave it under the management of a group with a better track record.
1
@maquacr7014 In a debate, overuse of argumenta ad hominem tends to convey a sense of immaturity. I used to do that as well when I was 13, which is why I'm led to believe that you might fall within a similar age bracket. If you want to be taken more seriously, you might want to grow out of it.
1
@maquacr7014 The Balfourd Declaration was a declaration in support of the creation of Israel. Britain never said anything about supporting Palestinian independence, which is what you're suggesting. It only supported Jordanese, Lebanese etc independence. In other words, it never broke its promise to the Arabic populace.
1
@maquacr7014 Iran and Central Asia were further away than the Levant. The Arabic Caliphates only had marginal control. That's why they retained their cultures and languages. Meanwhile, virtually all Semitic languages (the native languages of the Middle East) aside from Arabic became extinct.
1
@maquacr7014 Any personal attacks within a debate constitute argumenta ad hominem. This is because they imply lack of competence or good faith in part of the opposing debater, which is generally assumed to be aimed at eroding their credibility. It is entirely possible to mix valid counterarguments with argumenta ad hominem.
1
@maquacr7014 Let me quote my initial reply: "Israel has always been peaceful---it has only ever acted proactively toward telegraphed aggression." Note the second sentence there. The nationalization of the Suez was a move that telegraphed future aggression. Because sure enough, 10 years later, Egypt made another move towards Israel. Egypt thereby proved the validity of Israel's earlier response. There is no contradiction. If Egypt hadn't nationalized the Suez, Israel would have remained peaceful. As it always has, in the absence of telegraphed aggression.
1
@maquacr7014 Do you even know who made that promise, and how it was actually worded? Arabic states gained independence from Turkish influence. Again, Palestine was never mentioned.
1
@maquacr7014 That would be exclusive reliance on ad hominem. You're not exclusively relying on argumenta ad hominem, but you are relying on them in parallel with less fallacious counterarguments. People who are semi-confident (but not completely confident) in their argumentative skills very often mix fallacious arguments with less fallacious ones, as you are doing.
1
@maquacr7014 The fact that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan etc remain separate today indicates that there is not much desire for a unified kingdom in the first place.
1
@maquacr7014 Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq etc could unify tomorrow if they wanted to. Why are they not uniting, then? It's simple--it's because the people in said countries don't really care. Very few advocate for pan-Arabism. That's the real reason why they remain separate.
1
@maquacr7014 But the Arab Spring was fueled by dissatisfaction with leaders, not so much by a desire for unification. I'd argue that the desire (for most people) was more so for further decentralization, since smaller governments are always going to be easier for locals to influence than bigger governments.
1
@maquacr7014 But I haven't heard of many people advocating for unification. All I'm aware of is that people advocated for changes in leadership and policies. From I've seen, pan-Arabism seems to be a relatively minor movement.
1
@maquacr7014 Pan-Arabism is a drive for unification. Imperialism is a drive for conquest (e.g. for an Arabic state, it would be the conquest of non-Arabic states). They are polar opposites.
1
@maquacr7014 They did not try to enforce their language in Iran, because they couldn't. Iran was too powerful. Every other language in the Middle East went extinct, and this proves beyond a doubt that suppression of minorities did occur.
1
@maquacr7014 "Arab world remained under control of Turks for 6 centuries. The only time they tried to revolt enmasse was under European influence." ... and? What is your point? Which one of my arguments are you trying to disprove with this statement? I think you might be getting a little confused.
1
@Ahreman_egy Arabic empires in this context refer to the caliphates that expanded in the 7th century. Palestinians are culturally descended from this group as both their language and religion can be traced back to it, and thus they are culturally indigenous to the Arabic Peninsula, not to Israel. We know Judaists were present at the time based on the Qu'ran. We further know that Judaists are the indigenous inhabitants of Israel based on archeological findings of Hebrew-inscripted coins. Hebrew itself being a Canaanite language further corroborates this point.
1
@maquacr7014 The Ottomans arrived long after the age of the caliphates. I'm not saying the Arabic populations currently are a colonial power. I'm saying they're the remnants of a colonial population (like America) which is why the Middle East (outside Arabia) is currently populated by Arabic-speakers, instead of speakers of indigenous languages. Same reason why Siberia, America etc no longer have vibrant indigenous cultures.
1
@maquacr7014 Every semitic language in the Middle East aside from Arabic (including Hebrew). Search 'semitic languages' to see a map of where different languages were in use. They were sprinkled throughout the Middle East originally, before caliphate takeover.
1
@maquacr7014 Yes, it does. Genes do not determine who we are---our language and culture does. If your mother tongue is Arabic and you practice a religion that originated in the Arabic peninsula, yet are not a native of the peninsula itself but instead that of a territory that had formerly been colonized by its people, then you by definition are a remnant of a colonial power. If I genetically manipulated my children to bear genes resemblant of Japanese person, and then proceeded to imbue them with my own native language and the values of my country, the child would not be Japanese. They would be a member of the culture I belong in, and would inherit the culture I passed down to them. Genes, ultimately, determine nothing but our potential----language and culture are the root of our identity.
1
@maquacr7014 Yes, and this is why neither the Turks nor the Iranians ever tried to take PaIestine back, unlike nearby countries-----because they are not the remnants of the Arabic colonial empire and do not see themselves as such. Language is everything.
1
@maquacr7014 So if a native Norwegian couple were to genetically modify their children to have genomes resemblant of those of native Saudis, but brought them up as Norwegian citizens, speaking only Norwegian and being pure atheists or Christians, would those children still be Saudis in your eyes?
1
@maquacr7014 Here's an easier example: it's theoretically possible to rewrite the genomic information of adults as well, with Cas9 and lenti carriers. So, with enough will and resources, anyone could gain the genes of an indigenous Scandinavian, Nigerian, Siberian, and so forth. Some bodily functions would change, but macro level neural structure would remain largely unchanged. Which means that the thoughts of the individual wouldn't change substantially, either, and therefore, both subjectively and objectively, their identity would remain the same.
1
@maquacr7014 I can tell physiology and philosophy are not your strong suits, so I'm not surprised you're having a hard time processing the concept. For future reference, I'd recommend studying physiology before trying to debate genes and their implications. "Campbell Biology" is a good introduction, and Boron & Boulpaep is largely excellent for learning about human physiology in particular.
1
@maquacr7014 Iran never tried to incorporate the land, whereas this was the goal of the surrounding Arabic states (and the reason for the creation of "PaIestine" in 1967). Not to mention that actual Iranians are largely pro-lsraeI. Only the state and its allies (~10% of the populace) are anti-lsraeI. Meanwhile, Arabic countries are the opposite----the states are generally neutral about lsraeI (judging by their behavior) but the populations are vehemently anti-lsraeI. Here again, we see that a difference in language and culture correlates with differences in actual behavior, with lranians and Arabic popuIations behaving in the exact opposite ways.
1
@maquacr7014 You appear to be unfamiliar with the concept of a "thought experiment". You don't need to think about the why in this case---the thought experiment serves to demonstrate the simple reality that genes are largely irrelevant to our identity. If a Norwegian couple were to modify their child to express Saudi genes but proceeded to raise that child purely as a Norwegian, in language and culture, then not many would consider that child a Saudi, and most would view them as a (peculiar) Norwegian.
1
@maquacr7014 The conclusion stands: only Arabic states tried to incorporate the land, indicating a residual colonialist mindset toward lands inhabited by Arabic speakers. lran does not display this tendency, thereby corroborating the point that language and culture act as the most powerful determinants of collective behavior.
1
@maquacr7014 "Actual lranians" in this case serves as an antonym to "lran", the country. You also missed the word 'largely'. As said, lranians are largely (predominantly) pro-lsraeI, with allies of the regime (mostly encompassing the least secular ~10% of lranians) tend to be anti-lsraeI.
1
@maquacr7014 It is of course true that not many lived there until the land was restored by Israelites in the early 20th century. Arabic-speakers first moved there in the 7th century, during the expansion of the first Arabic caliphates, but most of the land remained an empty desert well until modern history.
1
@maquacr7014 Pro-lsraeI sentiment is widespread among the lranian populace. During the recent escalations, people in lran took photos of writing on walls in lran expressing as much. Protests in lran against the state further corroborate this point. Few condone the leadership, and by extension, its stance toward lsraeI, which is one of its cornerstone policies. I'm not surprised you're not aware of this. On average, lranians are considerably more modern in their ways of thinking than the people in your country are.
1
@maquacr7014 Inability to engage in thought experimentation indicates lack of functional CNS complexity. If you are affected by such then there is little I can do to help you.
1
@maquacr7014 lran was effectively under complete Internet blackout during the 2019 protests, with availability being down by 95%. Which aligns with our understanding: that more than 90% of lran is against the regime. This is not to downplay the support. 10% of lran is still around 10 million people, same as lsrael, enough to make up a medium-sized country. As a final exercise: why do you think protests might be more rare in an autocracy than in a democratic country? And what does this imply about the fact that lran still had to deny Internet access from >90% of its citizens during the 2019 protests? It shouldn't be too difficult to put two and two together here, once you spend a moment to think about it logically.
1
@maquacr7014 We know the caliphates spread to the region in the 7th century, and we know this is the reason why Palestinians today speak Arabic and practice lslam. Logic.
1
@maquacr7014 The regime wouldn't have had to cut out Internet access for 95% of the populace if it believed that only 5% was against it. We can use the extent of damage control they resorted to as a reasonable metric to gauge the level of dissent the regime itself expects to be present within the populace. And based on this metric, the lranian government itself appears to believe that up to around 95% of the populace is opposed to it at some level.
1
 @maquacr7014 Before the 7th century, people in the Levant natively spoke various Northwest-Semitic languages, including Canaanite languages (Hebrew being one example).
1
@maquacr7014 You only need a devoted 10% to maintain unpopular autocracy. Every autocracy that exists and has existed is testament to this---they all relied on some form of military or "secret police" based control. Very few autocracies during history had majority support; most people simply do not have enough energy to try to topple their leaders. Syria exemplifies why the populace has not revolted. The Syrian autocracy resorted to using chemical and kinetic means to control the populace, it was never toppled, and the attempt brought the country to ruins. The average lranian is not impulsive enough to be willing to risk bringing about a similar result upon their own homeland.
1
@maquacr7014 They were not the ones who drove the Canaanites out, but they were the primary reason why Canaanites (Hebrew-speaking people) could never return to the region after the 7th century, despite continuing pressure to do so (aliyahs).
1
@maquacr7014 Unfortunately the censorship apparatus doesn't seem to like the rest of my previous comment. Basically: the A people have their own home, the A peninsula, which is larger than the I country. In addition, the A people have spread to cover an area 1000x the size of the I land. Meanwhile the I people have been subjected to more () than any other group in recent history, indicating a pressing need for a land of their own. This is basically the reason why I don't see much merit on the A side --- they already have an area 1000x the size of the I land, despite not having been subjected to much () to begin with. Meanwhile the I people have been subjected to more () than almost any other people, and the I land is one of the smallest countries in the world. Evidently, the A side doesn't need the extra 0.1%, while the I side very much does.
1
@maquacr7014 The A people already cover an area 1000x in size, so I don't see why they would also need an additional 0.1% that happens to be the only land that the I people have any claim to. And it's the A side that's actively perpetuating the conflict; if it wasn't for Oct 7 and similar events in the past, the situation would've calmed down ages ago.
1
@maquacr7014 Are you not aware of the fact that Arabic caliphates expanded outside the peninsula in the 7th century? Nobody outside the peninsula spoke Arabic before then. On a more general level, all of the top languages by land area in the world (English, Russian, Arabic, French/Spanish/Portuguese, and Chinese) became such via expansionism, and Arabic is number 3 on the list. Given the above, if you still can't put two and two together, this isn't something I can help you with. You have to be able to exercise some logical thinking here. Egyptian culture is long gone. Egyptians are no longer the Egyptians of old. Doesn't matter what the people look like if they're more or less the same on the inside. As said, genes are generally irrelevant to human identity.
1
@maquacr7014 If Native Americans had managed to establish sovereignty in a small plot of land, around 0.1% of the total U.S. land area (similar ratio as with lsr compared to the Arabic world) near the coastline, and had succeeded in maintaining their sovereignty for 80 years, and didn't prevent Americans from living there and had formed a fully democratic, productive society that contributed to science and was willing to engage in commerce----I honestly find it very hard to believe that most Americans would have any problem with that.
1
@maquacr7014 Hebrew is a Canaanite language. Analogous to how French and Spanish are both Romanic (Latin-derived) languages. Adding an ad hominem to the end of every reply doesn't help your case. It makes it look as if you're trying to conceal your ignorance by shifting focus outward.
1
@maquacr7014 And the majority of older lranians now regret having pushed for the revolution, viewing it as a mistake. And this is understandably so: lran has all the conditions to be one of the more successful countries in the region, yet has failed to capitalize on its advantages purely due to poIitics. Had the Pahlavi government remained in place, lran's growth would have continued unabated, and it would now undoubtedly be a global powerhouse in every respect.
1
@maquacr7014 Culture might evolve, but if a language goes extinct, then its culture will go extinct with it. I need not remind you that Egyptians of today no longer practice the original religion of Egypt, either. Hebrews speak Hebrew, not Yiddish. And they practice the same religion as did the Hebrews of old.
1
@maquacr7014 Let's put it this way: if Egyptians were to restore the old Egyptian language and the old Egyptian religion and both were to become dominant in Egyptian society, then it would be easy to appreciate that Egypt is still inhabited by the cultural descendants of the original Egyptians. If everything has been replaced, then by definition nothing remains of the original Egypt. Aside from the pyramids, the Nile, and the surrounding desert.
1
 @boomboom2688 If I wanted to change minds, I'd probably be uploading my own videos instead of replying to comments. I just like to engage in debate whenever I need quick mental stimulation.
1
@Kashimo_Glazer123 This channel has blacklisted the words required to explain the topic. However I largely agree with B. Shapiro's arguments; you can reference his explanation of the conflict. Or find me on another comment section that has less censorship.
1
@donramon9723 The people in the region are genetically uniform. The differences are not functionally significant. Only culture and language remain as functional indicators of indigeneity. And as it happens, the Arabic side is culturally native to the Arabic peninsula only. On that note, with CRISPR/Cas9, it is now actually possible for anyone to artificially create a baby with any genetic features. A Caucasian couple could have a biological child that is genetically Sub-Saharan African. Would you consider that baby to be a Sub-Saharan African, though, just because they were modified to resemble one? Of course not. Which returns us back full circle: in this day and age, only culture and language can be considered to function as reliable indicators of indigeneity. Indeed, welcome to the 21st century.
1
@worsty_worsty Which point are you talking about?
1
@parkyercarcass Actually, the aggression was started by the Arabic side, due to frustration at high rates of migration by Israelites. This is what started the conflict.
1
@ImDead403 It was funded and created by Iran. Try again.
1
@worsty_worsty "Language extinction is common"... yes, in the presence of oppression. And looking at how minorities are treated in the Middle East, I'm sure we can both infer why this happened in the region. Europe still retains 100+ languages, including multiple separate language families (Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Uralic, Celtic). The Middle East similarly used to have several vibrant languages, all of which became extinct during Arabic rule. You don't seem familiar with European language families. Languages within the same family can be similar to one another but not to languages of other families. The differences between Spanish and Portuguese are minor, and can be likened to that between distant dialects of Arabic, while the difference between French and Spanish (both being Romanic languages) can be likened to that between Arabic and Hebrew or Aramaic (each of which being Semitic languages, the latter two being more and the former being less similar). And these are part of larger families (Afroasiatic and Indo-European), of which Europe also has multiple of (mainly the Uralic languages and Basque) which retain a great deal of existing speakers. So, as shown by Europe's example, languages and language families tend to survive very well in the absence of centralized oppression.
1
@kevinmandujano3444 You should probably learn to read before replying, as otherwise your lack of reading comprehension will be readily apparent to everyone, as happened here.
1
@kevinmandujano3444 If you don't get it, here's a hint: the only comment here with the word "civilization" is the one you just made. In other words, you're arguing against an imaginary strawman. I only mentioned groups---not civilizations.
1
@kevinmandujano3444 Roman rule may have been worse in some respects, but at least it didn't cause language mass extinction in Europe. Perhaps this is partly explained by it only having lasted for ~450 years, as opposed to the 800 years of the Arabic caliphates.
1
@penyarol83 Indo-European languages are estimated to have spread to Europe in around 5000 BC, and Latin existed at least in 7th century BC, so Germanic languages presumably diverged somewhere in that timeframe (although they could have existed as dialects already during the initial human migrations).
1
@Shammer1 Arabic was never the language of the region, it was only one of many others. Since its birth, Arabic as a language was confined to the Arabic peninsula, separated from the rest of the region by the Arabian desert, until the era of the caliphates. Latin was the lingua franca of Europe for a long time, yet it didn't cause other languages like Greek or English to disappear. The same applies to other major languages such as French, German and English. Europe still retains numerous extant language families. The Middle East is unique in how many languages have gone extinct in the region over time.
1
In the opposite sense, yes. That is, the reason people are so divided about it is because neither side has prevailed over the other. If one side were to disappear, the remaining side's narrative would generally be taken as the de facto truth, at least in official contexts. Though of course this would not necessarily be the case if the remaining side had adversaries who were incentivized to push for the demonization of the victor, as has happened with certain other historical conflicts.
1
@العقيدمعمرالقذافي-ح4ف Yeah, especially since the land was originally taken, by force, from Israelites, by Arabic expansionists. If it wasn't for old Arabic empires trying to get their hands on all the land on Earth, none of this would've happened.
1
@excluded944 Look up 'Kingdom of Israel'. Archeological findings indicate the presence of Hebrew-speaking Judaists in the region since 1050 BC. Then look up when Arabic-speakers left the Arabic peninsula---this was during the Rashidun Caliphate, after 632 CE, a good 1600 years after Hebrew-speakers had settled in the land. Under Arabic rule, the region was mostly neglected. And as it turns out, wherever Arabic-speakers settled, minority languages became extinct. Look up 'semitic languages'---most of them are no longer spoken by anyone. This accords with our understanding of contemporary Arabic culture, which tends to suppress minorities; not just Hebrew-speakers, but also Kurmanji-speakers and Aramaic-speakers. Meanwhile Europe has 30% less land area than the Arabic world, but has 100~200 languages, with 27 of them having their own sovereign states. This is the difference between an expansionist empire vs a community that accepts differences.
1
@lunablanca4784 Israel has yet to commit any war crimes. According to the Geneva Conventions, article 53, any operations that have military necessity are justified according to international law.
1
You = simple think
1
@The_Tiffster I would take you more seriously if your replies demonstrated a higher level of cognitive input than what I would expect from the average 6-year-old. For starters, try formulating an actual argument.
1
@Im_Sanenough It didn't, probably got ()'d by the filter due to a sensitive word or word combination. Rephrase and retry.
1
Literally the opposite of what actually has been going on. If you think about it logically, with how little strategic depth (land area) and how few people Israel has, it would make no sense for it to be aggressive beyond what is necessary. That realization will quickly point you toward the actual aggressors in this conflict.
1
@bejanbosc3695 It's a 20 minute clip about a 100-year situation, so omissions are to be expected. And they were pretty inconsequential; for instance he said the Israelis never took villages from 1920 until 1947, while the Arabic side did. This indicates that the conflict was not started by the Israeli side, which is his broader point (omitting what happened following the declaration of war by surrounding Arabic states). He also points out that Israel tried to get everyone to stay in its declaration of independence, but the other side (Egypt, Syria etc) ordered Arabic people to leave; what he omits here is that many of the ones who decided to leave ended up losing their homes. (I think he mentions some of these things in other clips.) But anyway, considering that his points are aimed at rebuking some of the main arguments on the other side (mainly, the idea that 1) Israel has less of a claim to the region that the Arabic side, and that 2) Israel was proactive from the beginning) I think he did a decent enough job.
1
@donramon9723 There has only been one sovereign country covering the modern state of Israel, which was the Kingdom of Israel. In all other ages it has never been a separate entity. And the only unique group of people that has inhabited the region, and nowhere else, was that of Hebrew-speaking Judaists. Palestinians are an artificial subset of the Arabic group, and never had a unique identity before the 1960s, when it was created for them out of political convenience. The original Philistines (the namesake of Palestine) had a different language and a different religion, and they didn't even live in most of modern-day Israel, instead mostly being confined to the southwestern portion of the region. Modern Palestinians are just Arabic people, with virtually nothing unique to separate them from other Arabic people living in nearby countries (aside from degree of radicalization). This is analogous to how Caucasians in the Eastern states of the US are similar to those in the Western states. Some cultural peculiarities aside, there is almost no distinction.
1
@donramon9723 Arabic as a language has not spread beyond the regions covered by the original caliphates. Which corroborates my point: the only reason it spread to the Levant is because of historical expansionism. It isn't native to the region. Hebrew, alongside other Canaanite languages, is. The same can be said of religion: Judaism is native to the region, while the alternative is native to the Arabic Peninsula only. Arabic numerals are used worldwide because there has never been a reason to replace them. I'm not sure what your point is here. Arabic culture used to make great contributions to the world until around 800 years ago, when it underwent a reverse-Renaissance, which resulted in religion being prioritized over critical thinking, that resulted in 800 years of stagnation. Very much in contrast with what happened in Europe during the Renaissance, when critical thinking and logic began to be prioritized above religion, which resulted in Europe (and its derivatives) eventually becoming the leading world power. This is in fact one of the reasons why I personally support Israel. It's less religious. Overreligiousness is exactly what caused Arabic states to stagnate for the last 800 years, and most of them still haven't realized as much. There's no point giving any more land to that type of system. They need to start prioritizing science and critical thinking again.
1
@donramon9723 For one, the Ashkenazim are just one group in Israel. There are also Sephardi and North African Judaists in Israel. Everyone inhabiting the Levant share genetic features, so much so that they can be considered cousins. As such, DNA is unreliable as a measure of indigeneity; culture and language are far more useful. And we know Judaism is the only extant religion native to the region, and that Hebrew is the only extant language native to it. So Hebrew-speakers and Judaists currently have by far the strongest claim to the region, at least until other Canaanite groups return from the beyond to make their own claims.
1
@donramon9723 You misunderstood my point. I'm saying that studies (e.g. "The origin of Palestinians and their genetic relatedness with other Mediterranean populations", 2001) have found that Palestinians and non-Ashkenazi Israelites are nearly indistinguishable genetically. As groups they are almost fully overlapping, presumably due to mixing. History aside, personally, I believe land should belong to whomever can utilize it most efficiently, to the benefit of our species (and thus, by extension, myself). In this sense, the Ashkenazim have by far the best track record in the region. There's really no point in giving land to non-secular populations, especially to groups that have already spread far and wide, and yet have demonstrated an inability to contribute to the development of modern-day science and technology. Only one country in the Middle East has contributed greatly to the development of modern-day science and technology, at a per capita level. As such, to me, it only makes sense to give my full support to the territorial claims of that country.
1
@donramon9723 Yes, Judaism may have some relation to Canaanite religions. Hebrew is the final surviving Canaanite language. None of this is surprising, though; Canaanites were the inhabitants of the region, and Hebrews were a subgroup. Arabic people were not a part of it, linguistically or culturally, because they inhabited the Arabic Peninsula at the time. This is exactly my point.
1
@donramon9723 Islamic nations did contribute to science and technology during their golden era (owing to Greek influence). However, this era ended 800 years ago, due to a reverse-Renaissance where religion began to be prioritized above science and critical thinking. Ever since then, the Islamic world has been stagnant. This is the exact opposite of what happened in Europe during the Renaissance, when critical thinking and logic began to be viewed as higher priorities compared to religion. This shift allowed science and technology to flourish, ultimately resulting in the birth of the modern world. These two examples go a long way in illustrating how overreligiousness is generally correlated with low productivity. We see the same phenomenon even now; Israel, the most secular country in the region, has higher levels of innovation per capita than any of its neighbors. And that's why I support it. Science has no borders, so whoever is a friend of science, is a friend of me.
1
@donramon9723 Israel has not been shooting rockets toward Gaza constantly for the last 10+ years. Yet Gaza has been shooting them towards Israel, and Israel has merely shot them down, at a high cost. There are piles of videos of meaningless violence by local non-Israelite individuals toward Israelites. Oct 7 contributed greatly to this pile---the perpetrators filmed themselves performing copious amounts of unnecessary violence towards defenseless individuals. I saw some of the clips, and it was quite hard to watch. Yes, one side is very violent. There are bad apples on both sides, but only one side has been overtly supportive of the unilateral (unprovoked) application of large-scale violence toward the other. I believe we both know which side that is.
1
@donramon9723 Violence against Israelites had already started in the 1920s. Every one of your examples was actually part of a string of violence initiated by the Palestinian side; 1947-48 being the initial civil war, 1956 being part of the operation in response to the nationalization of the Suez, 1967 being the year of the six-day war initiated by military buildup by pro-Palestinian states, 1982 was a response to one-sided violence by pro-Palestinians in Lebanon, 1990 was a riot that started from Palestinians throwing stones at Israelites, and 2002 & 2008-09 & 2012 & 2014 & 2018-19 & 2021 & 2023 were all reactions to violence and rocket shelling by the Palestinian side. The sole exception is 1994, which was an isolated incident (and on that note, incidents of violence against Israelites by Palestinians has occurred almost yearly for around a century now, so this is nothing new on either side).
1
@The_Tiffster It does tend to be difficult for children to educate adults.
1