Israel and Palestine Conflict Heats Up

[Elegiac]

Misworded.

You can just say "lied", sweaty.

[cubby]

You either accept the UN as an organization, or you do not. Choose one.

Are you doing something about Israel or are you not? Yes/No

I wouldn't bother with him much, I've just stopped responding to his bait-responses. The other people responding today are offering good points. I'm not sure I would agree that calling Endus a liar is a good path towards a meaningful conversation. I disagree with him on a number of positions, but he's always argued from a place of good faith.

I agree with your point about the 1967 war - Israel struck first, but they were right to do so, and 1973 proved that.

[Elegiac]

Ah, here is the creepy "sweaty" again. So you are not against UN decision to create it, then?

Pretty sure I said the creation of Israel was a mistake the first time, sweaty.

No, I asked you a direct question, if you, Elegiac, are doing anything to punish Israel for their... crimes... whatever those might be? Yes/no

Did you miss the part about where I've stated my opinion regarding sanctioning and isolation of Israel or is reading comprehension genuinely that difficult for you?

[cubby]

Pretty sure I said the creation of Israel was a mistake the first time, sweaty.

Can you please stop with the "sweaty" - that's not conducive to a constructive discussion, in which the rest of are doing.

[Elegiac]

Can you please stop with the "sweaty" - that's not conducive to a constructive discussion, in which the rest of are doing.

Can you please stop shilling for a fascist ethnostate when you've already admitted your perception of historical events is incorrect but that has done fuck all to curate your opinion for some reason? That's far less conducive to constructive discussion than slang.

[cubby]

Did you ignore the first paragraph and skip to the license plates?

No, but the analogy I was using wasn't really addressed. I was trying to pull you back into that portion of it.

[Easo]

Pretty sure I said the creation of Israel was a mistake the first time, sweaty.



Did you miss the part about where I've stated my opinion regarding sanctioning and isolation of Israel or is reading comprehension genuinely that difficult for you?

Well, that "mistake" is here to stay. Some Arab countries understood that and got better. Maybe you should understand it too.
I asked what YOU are doing about it. Not some international organization (which de facto has not really impacted anything). It is quite clear world is not going to block one of it's tech centers.

[Elegiac]

Well, that "mistake" is here to stay.

Congratulations on replying to a point that nobody made.

Some Arab countries understood that and got better. Maybe you should understand it too.

Sorry, do you seriously think people are complaining about Israel because they're just "inherently opposed to its existence" and not as a function of it being a fascist ethnostate engaged in colonialism? Lol.

I asked what YOU are doing about it.

Which continues to be a stupid and fallacious argument, same as the first time. E.g. "If climate change is such a problem then what are YOU doing about it" - it's not actually a refutation of the point, it's just a childish response attempting to shut down discussion because you can't argue the content.

[Endus]

I agree with your point about the 1967 war - Israel struck first, but they were right to do so, and 1973 proved that.

To be clear; I did not say that Israel's choice to attack first in '67 was without tactical merit.

Just that they clearly and unequivocally did attack first, and gained ground in doing so. It was not an assault initiated against Israel, not were belligerent actions leading up entirely by Arab countries.

[Themius]

No, but the analogy I was using wasn't really addressed. I was trying to pull you back into that portion of it.

It was addressed in the "Germany was actively trying to take over the world and Israel is doing the same just in their region" you clearly missed it.

[Elegiac]

Some Arab countries understood that and got better.

Also, the way you don't realise that this is a tacit admission Israel's actions are unjustified.

The fact that "some Arab countries are over Israel's existence" demonstrates that the existential threat to Israel y'all keep insisting is just as real now as it was in the 1960s is no longer there. The idea that Israel is at imminent risk of being wiped off the map unless they engage in ethnic cleansing is an anachronism.

[cubby]

To be clear; I did not say that Israel's choice to attack first in '67 was without tactical merit.

Just that they clearly and unequivocally did attack first, and gained ground in doing so. It was not an assault initiated against Israel, not were belligerent actions leading up entirely by Arab countries.

They were with both tactical and strategic merit - as 1973 clearly showed.

Of course they gained ground, the winners of wars typically do. Let's be clear, there was absolutely and assault being planned against Israel, the only reason it didn't happen is because Israel figured it out and decided to avoid being slaughtered. And they were right to do so, again, as 1973 demonstrated.

[Easo]

Also, the way you don't realise that this is a tacit admission Israel's actions are unjustified.

The fact that "some Arab countries are over Israel's existence" demonstrates that the existential threat to Israel y'all keep insisting is just as real now as it was in the 1960s is no longer there. The idea that Israel is at imminent risk of being wiped off the map unless they engage in ethnic cleansing is an anachronism.

You see... I don't know who is "ya all", but I don't remember anyone here talking about current Arab states being a existential threat to Israel. That threat was over by the ~1980. It does not change the fact that terror attacks are a threat regardless. Bigger, smaller, but a threat.

[cubby]

It was addressed in the "Germany was actively trying to take over the world and Israel is doing the same just in their region" you clearly missed it.

Ok, my apologies - I should have phrased it better. But you see my point, right? The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. weren't "invaders" when they came into Germany in WWII, right? This isn't a gotcha moment here, I just want to clarify that point.

Btw, to be clear, I get that the Palestinians have good points for their positions as well.

[Cringefest]

They were with both tactical and strategic merit - as 1973 clearly showed.

Of course they gained ground, the winners of wars typically do. Let's be clear, there was absolutely and assault being planned against Israel, the only reason it didn't happen is because Israel figured it out and decided to avoid being slaughtered. And they were right to do so, again, as 1973 demonstrated.

Well... You can't really say that. That's the issue with pre-emptive strikes. Would haves aren't really a good standing point.
What we have is how things happened. Israel attacked first, and gained land doing that.

[Easo]

Well... You can't really say that. That's the issue with pre-emptive strikes. Would haves aren't really a good standing point.
What we have is how things happened. Israel attacked first, and gained land doing that.

The problem of technicalities/laws, ideal world and "how it should be" meeting the cold hard reality. They specifically chose not to do it in the next war so that the "international community" would not accuse them. Israel paid for that decision with blood.

[JohnBrown1917]

The problem of technicalities/laws, ideal world and "how it should be" meeting the cold hard reality. They specifically chose not to do it in the next war so that the "international community" would not accuse them. Israel paid for that decision with blood.

And still managed to kill far more innocent civilians than Hamas did[ontop of destroying medical centers and press offices), pretty impressive.

[Easo]

And still managed to kill far more innocent civilians than Hamas did[ontop of destroying medical centers and press offices), pretty impressive.

We are talking about Six Day and Yom Kippur wars. Please, check the context.

[Cringefest]

The problem of technicalities/laws, ideal world and "how it should be" meeting the cold hard reality. They specifically chose not to do it in the next war so that the "international community" would not accuse them. Israel paid for that decision with blood.

Yeah. Still not a case for pre-emptive strikes.

[Easo]

Yeah. Still not a case for pre-emptive strikes.

With survival of the country at stake it very much was. Israel was condemned (and it is still used for propaganda today), but kept existing.