TLDR of this entire conversation:

You started by proposing to "just give palestinians free housing somewhere with agi money." It was instantly identified as a proposal for ethnic cleansing, a crime against humanity under international law.

You tried to justify this by claiming:
>"Forced relocation is not ethnic cleansing." (It is, by legal definition).
>"Moral responsibility is a meme." (It is the basis of law and ethics).
>"Anything is justified if its existential." (The logic used to justify every genocide in history).
>International Law is "collective gaslighting." (A convenient dismissal of principles that condemn your proposal).

When these justifications failed, you retreated into tactics:
>Obfuscation: Using academic jargon ("gestalt," "stochastic models," "metaethical indeterminism") to make a barbaric idea sound sophisticated.
>Dishonest Reframing: Pretending your proposal was a mere "hypothetical," a "voluntary incentive," or "humanitarian aid."
>Victimhood: Painting accountability as "harassment."

The core truth has remained unchanged throughout your walls of text:
>An "incentive" to leave home while under bombardment is not a choice; it is coercion.
>Your "solution" does not help the victim; it rewards the aggressor by fulfilling their ultimate goal of population removal.
>No amount of AGI, money, or philosophical gymnastics can launder the crime of ethnic cleansing.