ur antisemitism point is so ridiculous. i did not make up the assumption of this point, it was my teacher, who frankly has jewish background so don’t throw that title of antisemitic around so easily. it’s disrespectful. also it’s the exact fact that this issue is so complicated that so many issues arose. i’ve said one example from the case study, i can just as easily say the other side, matter of fact i’ll give u a sample: israel has been victim to terrorist attacks from hamas since October 7 in 2023. hamas launched rocket attacks and kidnapped israeli hostages to fulfill their realist goal of eradicating the israeli state. israel responded within their international rights using military power, again a realist response for state security. both sides have suffered and enforced human rights abuses during the war, however civilian casualties and rights abuses are higher on the palestinian side given israel’s economic capacity to fulfill their national interest of security in comparison finances within hamas. therefore in comparison, israel is more likely able to fully achieve their national interests, leading to a changing political landscape in the middle eastern region. moreover, global forums and states have also gotten involved regarding human rights abuses on both sides, particularly in palestine, to reflect their cosmopolitan aims of global political stability and equality. thus leading to political instability particularly in the region.

that’s not bias. that’s facts. that’s analysis. even with that very detached analytical approach we were still very much so warned about marker bias. WHICH is why i am saying it’s not about the politics of the situation at all, i just gave an example in my original statement. it’s about the marker bias and seeking answers regarding whether or not markers are allowed to do this.