Nice attempt to reframe what happened. First you repeatedly flooded the zone with historical misrepresentations. I would need to either spend the rest of my day answering your increasingly snarky and bad faith comments, or, as I did, let AI show you at least the ways that you are wrong. But that didn’t even register to you, at no point did you actually engage with the even basic arguments I made, you just kept flooding the zone with more and more bullshit. There is one troll in this discussion and it is not me.

Ah and there it is. You’ve been itching all along to call me that. Reported.

I repeatedly responded to your snark with good faith argumentation and nuanced political distinctions. You responded with mockery, moving goalpoasts (somehow you started talking about the Arab conquests), personal insults, spurious accusations of antisemitism and zero engagement with the actual content of my writing. You repeatedly dismissed nuance, equated critique with bigotry, and refused to acknowledge basic historical distinctions. It is clear you aren’t arguing in good faith, and all you’re trying to do is validate your preconceived idea that anyone criticizing Israel has to “deep down” be an antisemite. AI slop is all the answer you deserve. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Lol, you really would love to put me in that pigeonhole, wouldn’t you?

There are multiple historical and category errors in your paragraph, but I honestly don’t have time to unpack them. Here’s some AI slop:

This paragraph is riddled with historical inaccuracies and category errors. It’s rhetorically forceful, but its logic collapses under scrutiny. Let’s take it apart piece by piece:

1. Historical Error: Claiming Muslims “established a colony” in Palestine

Why it’s wrong: The use of the term “colony” to describe early Muslim rule in Palestine projects a modern, colonial framework onto a 7th-century geopolitical reality. Islam spread to Palestine in the 630s under the Rashidun Caliphate, not as a settler-colonial project like European colonization of the Americas or Africa, but through imperial conquest typical of the era (just like the Byzantines or Sassanids). The inhabitants—mostly Christian and Jewish—remained, and conversions were gradual and often voluntary over centuries.

Key distinction: Colonization (especially settler colonialism) is a modern concept involving displacement and replacement of populations, not just conquest or rule. There is no evidence that early Muslim rulers displaced the existing population or claimed to have “discovered” the land.

2. Category Error: Equating Ancient Conquest with Modern Settler Colonialism

Why it’s wrong: This is like comparing Alexander the Great’s campaigns to British imperialism in India. Conquest in the pre-modern world (Roman, Islamic, Ottoman) didn’t operate by the ideological or demographic logic of settler colonialism. The modern Zionist project, by contrast, involves organized immigration, settlement building, and a nation-state formation model derived from 19th–20th century European nationalism and colonialism.

Bottom line: Not all conquest is settler colonialism. Equating all land acquisition through violence across time ignores the historical development of concepts like state sovereignty, nationalism, and colonization.

3. Historical Error: “Muslims…are the ones to establish the precedent of conquering lands”

Why it’s wrong: Laughably ahistorical. The idea that Muslims invented conquest is absurd. The Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, and countless others practiced conquest millennia before Islam existed. Empires rose and fell through conquest for thousands of years—it’s as old as human civilization.

This is like saying Apple invented the phone.

4. Category Error: Treating “Muslims” and “Jews” as Coherent, Timeless Political Actors

Why it’s wrong: This is an essentialist flattening of history. “Muslims” aren’t a monolith across time any more than “Jews” are. Conflating religious identity with political actors across centuries obscures the real historical agents: empires, states, and specific movements. The Rashidun Caliphate is not equivalent to Hamas or Palestinian nationalism. Likewise, biblical Israelites are not interchangeable with the Zionist movement.

Religious identity ≠ political continuity.

5. Philosophical/Political Error: “There is no such thing as a legitimate claim to land ownership”

Why it’s wrong: This is an extreme Hobbesian or anarchist position—but the author then inconsistently tries to morally evaluate conquest, saying it’s hypocritical to oppose it only in one case. If all claims are illegitimate because they’re rooted in violence, then none can be morally judged on differential grounds.

You can’t reject the legitimacy of all land claims and then accuse someone of selective outrage about land ownership. That’s self-defeating.

6. False Dilemma and Accusation of Antisemitism

Why it’s wrong: The final rhetorical move—accusing critics of Israel of antisemitism if they don’t also criticize 7th-century Islamic conquests—is both a category error and a false equivalence. It implies that modern political critique must be retroactively applied to ancient empires or it’s invalid. That’s not how political ethics work.

You can criticize modern settler colonialism without needing to condemn the Rashidun Caliphate. Just like you can oppose Putin’s invasion of Ukraine without dragging in the Mongol Empire.

The Bigger Picture:

This paragraph doesn’t just stumble over history. It weaponizes bad history and flawed logic to shut down critique. It uses false equivalences and essentialism to conflate ancient empires with modern states and religious groups with political projects. This isn’t just poor reasoning—it’s ideologically loaded misdirection.

In short:

• It’s historically ignorant.
• Philosophically confused.
• Politically manipulative.

And ultimately, it tries to smear legitimate political critique under the guise of fighting antisemitism—ironically cheapening real struggles against actual antisemitism in the process.

I am referring to crimes and exterminationist rhetoric.

In this discussion we have not at all touched on the topic of colonialism and indigeneity as a basis of legitimacy. I reject outright the notion that Palestinians “occupy” Palestine. It is factual matter that Israel is an occupying power in the lands it conquered after the 1967 Six Day war (West Bank, Gaza, Golan).

Historically, Arab Muslims, Arab Jews, Arab Christians and others have for very long lived in the area outlined by Israel and Palestine, but all that in reality matters very little. Given the current multi-generational mess of the last 80 years, all people have equal claim to the land. Through the building of the settlements, Israel has created facts on the ground that make the Two State Solution impossible, so the only realistic scenarios out of the present are either some kind of ethnic cleansing, which is of course completely unacceptable, or a bi-/pluri- national post-apartheid democratic successor state with equal rights for all confessions and ethnic groups, that is decidedly an Israeli homeland and at the same time a Palestinian homeland. The same principle of joint sovereignty as applies to places like Belgium, Bosnia, Cyprus, Quebec, etc.

I condemn both. Which is why I stand by the ICC decision to issue arrest warrants for both Hamas and Israeli government leaders.

I also refuse to accord to Hamas the title of “Palestine”. The political entity recognized as Palestine by 147 countries has as its president Mahmoud Abbas.. So when you talk about “the fact that Palestine has repeatedly called for the extermination of all Jews” you are delegitimizing the legitimate government of Palestinians in favour of a terror group, to justify repression of Palestinians in whole, as a nation. Which is of course, unacceptable.

You are showing how Hamas are antisemitic. You are then elevating Hamas to all of Palestine. That’s neither net logic or human decency, that’s bait-and-switch.

But you know, we can play this game. Are you are ready to accept statements of Israeli top officials (from the freaking President, to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, to MKs and further down) as Israeli policy to exterminate Palestinians? Or is nuance only allowed for Israel and never allowed for Palestinians? Or is it that if we allow equal amounts of nuance to both sides, then that is antisemitism?

Not helping whom? Explain.

Because from where I’m sitting, German policy is very obviously uneven. It actively arms one side while suppressing support for the other side (to the point where it is reasonable to see it as systematic) and puts a priori roadblocks to investigating genocide allegations against it.

In light of these facts, the positive things you listed ring extremely performative. “Criticize” construction of settlements, without doing anything about it. “Calling for more help”, without doing anything about it. Wants to recognize Palestine after some imaginary future negotiation, which the Israeli side has made functionally impossible, and has used as a pretext to deploy salami tactics, and all the while Germany doing nothing about it.

From where I’m sitting, I see Germany bending over backwards for Israel, and being only performatively acceptable for Palestine. And when other victims of past German crimes, like Namibia, are calling them out, I see absolutely no reason to cut Germany any kind of slack. I see German Rememberance culture being weaponized through the legislation and institutionalization of the shameful definition of the IHRA to attack pro-Palestinian voices and entrench Jewish supremacy in Israel-Palestine. I see German politics weaponize criticism of Israel as a way to externalize onto migrants its own antisemitism, as if antisemitism is a foreign pathogen imported by migrants. At the same time Germany has never elevated to the level of Staatsraison the protection of Romani people, also victims of the same Holocaust. Never made it its Staatsraison to protect Namibians, victims of the first German genocide. Why would I see any this as evidence of something other than racism?

Germany has implicated itself in Israeli apartheid and genocide. It arms a state that actively skirts ICJ orders in an ongoing Genocide trial. And it really didn’t have to. Germany could have said “we want justice done and will wait to see what the court finds out”. Germany could instead stand by the Israeli people with humanitarian aid, with open borders for those who choose to flee war, with sending doctors, social workers, civil defence supplies, while distancing itself from the war machine and the Israeli state crimes. There is a moral road that Germany could have taken, while still respecting its historical debts. But it did not. So I see ZERO reason to “help” Germany. I see every reason to castigate and to shame German hypocrisy.

To be absolutely clear: this attitude comes from a feeling of betrayal. I actually admire Germany and used to hold its Rememberance culture as a model for the world. I am infuriated at seeing these betrayals. If you read acidity here, yea, this is what a hurt friend sounds like.

Got it. You actually don’t have any better arguments to support your bigoted writings.

can we please post some more credible articles here?

Anyone stopping you?

No. Arabic is a semitic language, in the sense that German is an indoeuropean language, but in modern times, that’s the extent of the similarity between the words and it that has nothing further to do with antisemitism as a word of its own. “Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).”

See also the Wikipedia article on Semitic people:

Semitic people or Semites is a term for an ethnic, cultural or racial group associated with people of the Middle East, including Arabs, Jews, Akkadians, and Phoenicians. The terminology is now largely unused outside the grouping “Semitic languages” in linguistics. […] In archaeology, the term is sometimes used informally as “a kind of shorthand” for ancient Semitic-speaking peoples. The use of the term as a racial category is considered obsolete.

Shameful, utterly shameful, especially in light of Israeli non compliance to the ICJ provisional orders with respect to the genocide case: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/26/israel-not-complying-world-court-order-genocide-case

Germany is putting itself in a position to be in breach of the genocide convention.

That’s a very important aspect that needs to be thoroughly investigated.

The same of course should apply to US products involving prison labour.

After two years of Genocide, I have stopped giving a flying fuck for Germany’s Staatsräson. They’re taking their own internal contradictions out on a people that had nothing to do with the Holocaust. They are externalizing their own guilt on to someone else’s sovereignty and national liberation. Go cry in a corner if you will but don’t stand in the way of Palestinians asserting their inalienable rights and definitely don’t arm the perpetrators of genocide against them.

If you want to atone to Israelis, open your borders to any of them that want out of the war, send them humanitarian aid, send them social workers and nurses and doctors. You can be there for Israeli people without aiding and abetting Israeli crimes.

In an instance of anti-Palestinian racism, Germany Denies Palestine’s Right To Exist.

It isn’t relevant. I’m just making fun of your president.

Every time the US president says “CHAYYYNNA”, I consider that anti-Chinese propaganda.

I didn’t bring up anything, the comment you responded to did. My comment was my first intervention in this thread and I was responding to you specifically. You said that things like that get brought up all the time. I am asking you for the receipts. When was the Haitian coup d’état brought up before today?

All the fucking time? Really? When was the last time the Coup d’état against Aristide was discussed around here?

C’est l’histoire d’un homme qui tombe d’un immeuble de 50 étages. A chaque étage il se répète : « Jusqu’ici tout va bien. » « Jusqu’ici tout va bien.» « Jusqu’ici tout va bien. »… mais l’important c’est pas la chute : c’est l’atterrissage.