Israel creates fake think tank in likely attempt to dupe AI chatbots

I'm not sure what meaning you can ascribe to this kind of statement, because whilst it is factually true in isolation, it also omits so much information it's almost meaningless.

There's plenty of evidence that the Israeli government is composed of people with a similar outlook, just with a power imbalance that affords them the opportunity to be more politically sophisticated.

History rhymes - I'm pretty sure that Jews in the Polish Ghetto had pretty negative views about the people detaining them there. Do you hold that against them?

> Do you attribute Palestinian support for extremism to a similar root cause?

Yes. But we typically don't call oppressed peoples "extremists". For example, I wouldn't call those who rebelled in the Warsaw Ghetto "extremists". I wouldn't call a 14 year old boy who has only known struggle his whole life under apartheid an "extremist". Apartheid also has had a lasting effect on oppressor / oppressed dynamics in South Africa in a sad and complicated way. There is a wrinkle that Muslim extremists fund Palestinian groups, but I view this as yin to the yang of Israeli settlement funding (also extremist). Two sides of the same apartheid coin.

> So you're just advocating just for more virtue signalling instead of actual concrete actions?

Calling everything one disagrees with "virtue signalling" is a tired trope. There is no solution that will occur in our lifetimes, because there is no benevolent and omnipotent authority that can snap their magic finger and cease the suffering that's occurring because of this apartheid ethnostate.

With my suggestion, I'm trying to prevent the next ethnostate disaster. Ideally, I would want our descendants to recoil in disgust when thinking of the concept of funding an ethnostate in the same way that we recoil in disgust at the concept of funding a sex trafficking ring. I will teach my children, and my children's children, that "A State for [] People" is disgusting, no matter what [] is - unless it is "A State for All People".

> I don't see how that would meaningfully change the situation on the ground as I don't see how denouncing the right for Israel to exist is going to do anything except push Israel towards a more extreme position.

It's not that Israel doesn't have a right to exist, you're putting words in my mouth. South Africa was once an apartheid state, and it continues to exist. Similarly, ethnostates need to find ways to transition away from being ethnostates. Being an ethnostate can only lead to crimes against humanity.

> Are you suggesting Israel also take a more heavy handed approach when it comes to eliminating the widespread practice of teaching of hate and antisemitism[0] to Palestinians?

If only I could trust the state of Israel to actually design a "heavy handed approach" that wasn't rape, pillage, murder, and terrorize. The Union could be trusted, but only barely. The Union famously allowed black women to testify against the Union soldiers who raped them. I could never imagine the state of Israel allowing a Palestinian to testify against an Israeli soldier who raped them. Not yet, at least.

It'd be pretty interesting to have AI "groundnews" a bunch of thinktank content and classify them on propaganda spectrums based on actual content %.

> Not at all obviously. Israel is committing a genocide. This is not really a matter of discussion... you think several parts of the UN, Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders, the international association of genocide scholars, the international federation for human rights, Human Rights Watch, the Hague Group, the governments of Ghana, Malaysia, Mexico, China, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Ireland, (and dozens of others), the African Union, the Jewish voice for peace, and dozens of small orgs just all... got it wrong?

I could list organizations with the opposite view as well, but I don't really consider arguments from authority to be all that strong.

> the international association of genocide scholars

They have certainly had some interesting members[0].

> China

Because they would be the ones to know?[1]

> all... got it wrong?

Obviously.

> Why should I believe a random HN comment warrior over literally hundreds of organizations and governments whose jobs include identifying genocide when it happens?

Facts actually do matter and when you look into the details it's clear that the claims of genocide are simply not backed up by the evidence.

> What makes your case so compelling it stands up against all that and what my own eyes see?

My case is simply that the evidence is insufficient to support the claim.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20250903112024/https://genocides...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Uyghurs_in_Chin...

Just stop. The moral altitude you claim is a dire fallacy. You don’t speak Russian, or else you would already know the answer.

And I’m pretty sure you know full well that any examples given to answer your question in earnest will simply be dismissed as “Russian propaganda” - just as the Russians dismiss Western claims as propaganda, or even ‘justifiable, given Western hostilities’ - but there is a long list of actions against Russia by western powers with the intention of destabilizing Russian society, which, if you make the effort to inform yourself by reaching outside your bubble, you can see for yourself.

Russians can make just as many claims as Westerners can, and the only difference is which side one is invested in: thats what you’ll believe.

No matter what.

But, just to give you some hints as to what ‘the other side’ consider a valid response to your query, I asked some actual Russians what they would respond, and here’s the list:

- Assassinations: Daria Dugina, Igor Kirilov, Mikail Shatsky, (and BTW, Russians can quite confidently claim that the Salisbury Novichok incident was a false flag intended to harm Russian standing in the world - “Russians aren’t the only ones who synthesized Novichok…”)

- Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: 100% anti-Russian propaganda,

- The blatant censorship of RT in Western markets (although the Russians still have access to BBC and CNN, which they also view as state-sponsored anti-Russian propaganda organs),

- Emphasis on high military casualties (sometimes highlighting disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities from poorer regions),

- Coverage of economic costs, elite corruption, and contrasts between official narratives and frontline realities,

- Support for (or amplification of) Russian opposition voices in exile and independent media,

- The "UMBRAGE" Component of Vault 7, described by Wikileaks as an offensive Western intelligence/propaganda operation against Russia,

These operations are reciprocal. Both sides do it to each other, and you are foolish to deny it.

Otherwise .. I hope you learn to speak Russian and will start paying better attention to ‘the other side’, because that’s the only way you’ll get an answer to your question, legitimately. And even then, I doubt you’ll “believe it”, since we in the West live in a very, very tightly controlled propaganda bubble, to the tune of billions of dollars a year, which absolutely prevents any such sympathies for Russia from being expressed.

Our bubble is just like the Russian bubble, only its not in Russian.