Youtube comments of Younes Mdarhri Alaoui (@younesmdarhrialaoui643).
-
11
-
10
-
8
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I love the analysis, but I don't think the first solution (5:52) will do any good. We shouldn't look at this as a competition of boys vs girls in the sense that if boys are lacking we should give them an advantage over the girls, which is basically the same as saying we're not going to give the same opportunities to the girls because the boys are falling behind. You'd trade one sexism for the other. All children should be given the same opportunities to succeed regardless of their sex, otherwise we will fall in the endless cycle of inequality of sexes thus harming an individual's potential in becoming a positive contributor to society. We shouldn't even look at this under the gender spectrum.
We should rather spend all of our time at tailoring the school system to each individual's behaviour and desires regardless of their sex. For example, boys are knowledgeably more mischievous than girls, but because some girls might also be as or more mischievous than the average boy, we shouldn't set rules that will favour misbehaving boys over misbehaving girls, because whether if it's a boy or a girl is irrelevant, what's relevant though is that she or he is misbehaving.
And to be clear, I'm not saying we should not consider gender at all when taking a decision when it's relevant to do so, I am saying that setting gender as the basis of our decisions is one of the dumbest things human beings have done repeatedly throughout history and now is time to stop.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
To premise this, I would like to note that I condemn (condemning is not enough of a word to express my feelings) without any condition the Hamas and their terrorist attacks that took place on the 7th of this month. I also condemn any of their future, present and past terrorist actions and killing of innocents. I 100% acknowledge the antisemitic, terrorist and barbaric nature of the Hamas and its allies. I condemn them unequivocally and pray for their dismantlement.
I also vehemently condemn (again, condemning is not enough of a word to express myself) the consistent, regular and constant brutalization and killing of the Palestinians by the IDF and the corrupt, hateful, racist and bloodthirsty Israeli Government along with those who enable them.
My heart burns at the face of injustice.
Point by point:
2:20 I can speak for Morocco as it is my country and I know it best. While some antisemitism existed - as in any country that the Jewish people established themselves in, or as in any country in which a minority establishes itself in - the exile of the Jewish Moroccans mainly happened by their own desires and those of Israel and the Zionists. The Mossad was known in the region for actively recruiting Jews of all kinds in order to populate the state of Israel and to build a Jewish majority population in Israel. The King Hassan II was mostly against the displacement of the Jewish population for many reasons, amongst them, the fact that they represented an added value for the Moroccan economy. Therefore we cannot speak of ethnic cleansing as in order to be true, Morocco would have to have consciously kicked Jews out of the country, and this is absolutely not what happened. I would also like to add that having known Jewish people living in Morocco myself, we have always lived peacefully together. The Mellah in Casablanca for example, were reputed to host a great population of Moroccan Jews and an even greater population of Arab/Barbar Moroccan that both lived very peacefully. Every single Jew or Arab that I asked or heard of and that also lived in the Mellah had only great thing to say about the other side. Most of them were living in front of each other in very narrow street, they often offered food and drink, invited each other when one group was on a holiday. Again, antisemitic acts existed but were marginal, most of them were from political parties (not representative of the population), and in no way shape or form am I implying that everything was dandy and sweet.
4:30 Yes, the State of Palestine didn't exist as such (such as the state of Israel), but the Palestinians (Philistines) always existed in the region as well as the Jews. For example in the Ottoman Empire and before the Zionist movement took place, the Palestine region was mainly Muslim (~80%) with a minority of Christians (>10%) and Jews (<10%). The name "Palestinians" was used to the designate the people of the region, and dates as far back as during the Roman Empire. The name "Philistines", which is the historic name given to Palestinians - and also the name that is used in Arabic to designate Palestinians (الفلسطينيين - alfilistiniyin) - can be traced back to well before the Romans. So saying that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people is completely and absolutely false.
But let's even pretend (only for the sake of the argument and not of factual history) that the Palestinians never existed until the early 20th century. If this constitutes an argument for the delegitimization of the Palestinians, then what about the Israelis? By this logic they should be considered even less legitimate than the Palestinians since the Jews came in mass years after the Arabs were already in the region. The British Empire had to displace Arab families and communities to make way for the Jewish people.
Also, if you are going to take the Bible as a reference, (which I partially oppose) it should be noted (and it was denied in your video) that on numerous occasions and in many verses the Bible talks about the Philistines.
Lastly on this point, I would like to mention that this debate in my point of view is irrelevant to the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians of TODAY, and should not constitute a basis for arguments claiming the legitimacy of an Israeli State or a Palestinian State. The only fact that these people exist TODAY - regardless if they did 3000 years ago - is enough to justify a free, autonomous, independent and self-determined Israeli or Palestinian state.
6:46 It's true that Jerusalem was never mentioned by name in the Quran, but it is absolutely false that it was never mentioned at all. On multiple occasions, the Quran mentions Jerusalem indirectly, for example:
1. “O my people [talking to the Hebrews], enter the Holy Land [Jerusalem] which God has assigned for you, and do not turn back, lest you return as losers.” - Chapter 5, verse 21
2. "Glory to Him who journeyed His servant by night, from the Sacred Mosque, to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We have blessed, in order to show him of Our wonders. He is the Listener, the Beholder." - Chapter 17, verse 1.
It is accepted by all scholars that the Sacred Mosque mentioned here refers to Al-Aqsa Mosque (old) in Jerusalem.
Furthermore and as I mentioned before, religious arguments, or what "God" has anointed a people to own or not to own does not hold any value in a serious and unbiased court of justice. Otherwise, anyone should be able to claim anything. It is undeniable that Jerusalem has always been more important to Judaism than Islam, BUT it does not constitute any type of argument, as you could also argue, following the same logic, that Nepal should give the city of Lumbini to China as it is the place of birth of Lord Buddha and that China has the largest Buddhist Population in the world. That's just nonsense and does ABSOLUTELY not constitute a single ounce of reason.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
11:16 Of course they won't use the word Palestinians to define themselves as they had specifically came to Palestine to build the promised land - as you tacitly mentioned. Their aim was never to become Palestinians, or to live under a Palestinian State, but to build their own at the expense of the indigenous people. By indigenous, I mean the people that already were there and had already established themselves. There were numerous accounts of Palestinians being displaced of their home to make way for the Zionist Jews who came from all over the world. It's also important to mention that the Zionist movement wasn't born a couple of years before the conflict took place, but it is way older than that and dates back to way before the 20th century. Also, There ALWAYS has been a desire amongst the Three Religions to take Jerusalem. In Judaism it took the form of Zionism. In Christianity, it took the form - for example - in the 16th century of a an attempt from the Church to take the Kingdom of Israel that was in Palestine (the region was already called that way) from the hands of the Ottoman Empire. In Islam it also took the form of military conquest. The problem has never been that the Jews had the goal to live in Israel or that they wanted their own state, the problem is how they accomplished that goal and at what cost. For now, the cost is occupation, colonialism, consistent and regular brutalization of Palestinians, killings of innocents from both sides, and more than a century long of an extremely bloody conflict.
11:30 no, it was not but now Israel is a colonialist state regardless.
12:12 Why do you have to set this kind of conditions for the challenge? The conditions do not make any ounce of sense since Israel did not exist before 1947... So obviously, if by stealing you mean a state taking a land and calling it its own, then the Israeli didn't do so before 1947 since they created the state 1948. The only thing that would make sense is if you asked us to show you Arab villages that were wiped out of Arabs after the creation of the state...
13:11 Yes, you are right. Both sides always had blood on their hands. Picking a side in this conflict (except if you are Palestinian or Israeli) is a losing game. In the 20's and in the 30's, as you already know, thousands upon thousands of Jews came to Palestine to accomplish the Zionist agenda. I call it Palestine here because it was under a British mandate which was called "The League of Nations Mandate for Palestine" (source: wikipedia), and I can't find one historian that does not acknowledge that it actually was Palestine although controlled by the British. The promise was made to the Arab that Palestine will have its own independent state. They were violent clashed between the Jews and the Arabs who perceived them as invaders. The British, seeing the extend of the conflict tried to limit the immigration of Jews, the Jews were angry because of that. AND the support of the British Empire for a Jewish homeland on Palestine angered the Arabs. This the conflict's TL;DR: revitalization of Zionist movement by Theodore -> Massive immigration of Jews in the purpose of creating Israel on Palestine -> The British are incapable of maintaining peace between the two populations -> Their policy only creates tensions as each side feel being wronged by the authorities -> The British leave the mess behind them to not take any responsibilities -> The UN resolution is unacceptable for Arabs mainly because it gave a bigger land to the Jews whilst they were only 600k at the time vs 1.3M for the Palestinians, but also because the Jewish land was better and also because the decision was taken without the Palestinians at the "round table" -> Proclamation of the Israeli State -> The Arabs are enraged, they decide to go to war. You ignored all of this steps and just said the the Arabs decided to kill all Israelis. It was a bit more complicated and even the TL;DR doesn't tell half the story.
Also, and lastly on this point, violence never justifies violence, if so, then you very well could justify the Hamas attacks of last week. I definitely don't want to do that and neither do you...
14:16 It's funny how you say it but not entirely true. I'll give you that the British were mostly working for themselves and didn't really care about either the Jews or the Arabs. Some stupid conspiracy theorists would want people to believe that Jews were favoured, but this is not true. It is also extremely hard that any side were favoured over the other, it really depends on what aspect of the matter you're talking about.
17:20 Very fair take. They tried to take back the land and committing many war crimes in the process (war crimes were committed from both sides by the way), they lost the war, they paid the price.
1
-
17:36 This is also very true. We do not hear in the Arab medias (amongst others) the plight and the misery that Christians have endured and it is great shame. Not a lot a people feel empathetic to the Christian people and this is absolutely sad. Any innocent person that was persecuted should be regarded as such, regardless of their ethnicity, background or religion. Suffering is suffering, a human life is a human life. On that note, I feel lie it should also be mentioned that the Western medias, mainly in the USA and Canada, are HEAVELY biased towards Israel when it comes to the conflict. The USA have on NUMEROUS occasions demanded to their mainstream media to hide and omit many extremely bloody events perpetuated by the IDF against Palestinians. Every single time, it's the same story, we only hear about the conflict in the West when the Hamas is attacking and extremely rarely when Israel is attacking.
18:20 We are talking about Israel and Palestine, not Israel and all the Arabs. This doesn't make any sense. Comparing what the Palestinians got against what the Israeli got could be seen as unfair. Let's not disagree on that as I find it to be one of the simplest issue of the whole conflict. I'm not saying that it was done because the international community favoured the Jews and that Jews "control the world" like a conspiracy theorist, I'm saying that it is true that the land separation was mostly unfair to the Palestinians. On top of that the Palestinians did not participated in the partition plan and boycotted it. While the boycott was influenced by the Arab League and partially motivated by their aversion for the USA and their antisemitism, the gist of it was fair and yet they were ignored. The Jews also occupied a smaller portion of the land than they ended up getting. We cannot say the same for Palestinians. Lastly on this point, as you mentioned in the video, Jews were a third of the size of the Palestinians population. As for the quality of the land, I can't find any information on that except for the fact that the Jews got the desert of Negev. Beersheba is still one of the biggest city in Israel and it is a very nice city, so I don't think Israelis are really complaining too much.
18:48 There is no doubt that the Jews are a wonderful people who distinguished themselves many times over in history by their courage and resilience. What they did with the land is remarkable. But not to mitigate anything that the Jews have accomplished, but without the help the US this progress would have been practically impossible.
20:20 Not only is this take very dangerous, but it is also heavily biased and flat out incorrect. This is a low point in the video...
I also have to mention that as an Arab and a Muslim that lived in Morocco from age 0 to 18, I have to admit that it is quite hard for me to be totally unbiased. I try very hard to learn from all sides and to accept all stories and all misery equally. It is hard to do so, but I am extremely interested in this conflict and want to know the truth. I found that the only way of really knowing the truth is by not taking sides, never being pro this or pro that, and to at least try to stay unbiased no matter what my heart tells me to do.
20:47 They did withdraw but a part from the education system and they politics, Israel controls practically everything. Also, while it's true that countries help Palestinians, there is in no way shape or form a comparison that could be drawn between the help that Israel gets and the help that Palestine gets. Israel is EXTREMELY favoured on that regard. You are also doing an amalgam with Palestine and the Hamas. Yes, Hamas' charter is extremely violent and was even more until they had to revise it, but this is not the same case for the rest of Palestine. Furthermore, you made it seem like the money was allocated to the Hamas only (at least this is how I looked at it) since you said "and what they do with this money?" and then talked about how the HAMAS funds terrorism with the money they are given. Also, the Hamas does not receive money from the US nor does it receive money from humanitarian organization (as far as I know). Most of its money is funded by Qatar, they also have help from Iran and their earnings from taxes on businesses (according to the US) is about $300M (it could be wrong but usually the US have good info).
As for the rest of the video, honestly it's really difficult to talk like this and quite frankly I have no interest to get involved in this debate. We derailed too much from the actual conflict and you made very approximative, borderline racist statements. It's okay, I won't take them into account, and will give you the benefit of the doubt and not label you as a racist, but I am not really interested in talking about this type of stuff unless I really get pushed to do so. But then again, I really came here to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not about all of... this.
P.S.1: I honestly found your title and thumbnail quite unsettling and disrespectful. I understand that you may have done this for views which is fair, but it does not really reflect the content of the video, at least if we exclude the end, because if we do then it reflects it quite well. I also don't know how you act in other videos and if you're a fair person in general as this is the first of your videos I'm watching. But as I said earlier, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
P.S.2: I will do my best to answer anyone who wants to respond to this thread, but no matter what the argument maybe, good or bad, fair or not fair, true or unfounded, I will never, in any way shape or form, answer anyone who is disrespectful, mean, insulting, or who shows too much bias towards one side or the other. I wont even bother. This holds true even if it was not directly aimed at me. I don't oppose discussion, but these are my rules and I stand by them.
P.S.3: I had to separate my response into multiple parts because Youtube didn't allow me to post it as it was way too long (sorry)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1