summary of the highly-incoherent proto-distortions i was exposed during the study

>i do not want to reduce suffering
false. my first-most and explicitly lowest uncertainty statement is «suffering must be reduced to a minimum»

>relocation is strictly the usage of force
false by consensus definition, which includes self-motivated decisions and incentive-based support structures

>palestinians civilians are mishandled by israel
false. they may include terrorist groups strongly supported by the iranian regime. if israel weren’t attentive to its geopolitical safety, the consequences of short-range partisan tactics can be fatal. it is not possible to determine in advance valence-optimal outcomes nor respective self-defense strategies with respect to inherently incomplete information models, therefor no aggression can be categorically judged wrong in a strict sense. thus the beings are dismissively and hazardously denying the safety of israel.

>ethics of incentive-based outcomes translate into their coercive equivalence
false. if palestinians decide moving is the best solution for them, they might be right. incentive-based relocation is not ethnic cleansing.

>providing free housing induces violence
false. ukrainian refugees of war were given accommodating places to live on. some palestinians may deserve or want similar treatments.

>forced relocation is ethnic cleansing
false in a post-agi context, even if with the use of force, due to availability of material safety and precise harm-minimizing models. standard definitions may not accommodate large-scale societal changes that neither my interlocutors understand.