Well let me start by saying that your take on the conflict is, again, very one sided. It’s history and how we got to this point is a lot more nuanced. That is a different discussion than the initial one but of course related.
My take on that, in brief, comes down to both Arab nationalists/islamists and zionists/jews seeing around 1920 that it would eventually come to an armed conflict between the two religious sides, and both moving their mindset to remove the other from the territory. And it did come to an armed conflict, which one side won and the other lost.
But even then, there is a lot of nuance as there was and is a spectrum between extremists and people who want to live in peace. Over time, violence from both sides has shifted that spectrum. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that it was not always like this, but up until the first intifada, someone from Gaza could just go visit their friends in the Kibbutz next door.
And you can say that the blame for all this falls squarely on the zionists for slowly moving towards their goal, but I would counter that it also falls on the islamists: instead of a two-state solution, they chose to fight and lost. (Whether they were right to do this is yet another discussion.) But after they lost the military conflict(s), they then chose to never give up and continue to, as you say, antagonize Israel until the end of time. The friendly peaceful rocket attacks from Hezbollah are part of this. And the prospect of this neverending violence has greatly shifted and hardened the mindset on the moderate Israelis as well, which spiralled into the current situation.
People like you who choose to go on these threads in an attempt to de-rail the whole conversations
That’s because you (and a lot of other lemmings) expect these ‘converstations’ to be warm and simplistic, circlejerking how Israel is bad. Am I ‘derailing’ the conversation by stating the OP’s collage is idiotic? Their take that a strike cannot be called pre-emptive because they don’t like the side that did it is just very, very idiotic. And when I call people out for this idiocy, the argument shifts towards an even more idiotic one : “Hezbollah never planned an attack, that’s an Israeli lie”. When I point out that stupidity by refering to the chief of Hezbollah proudly proclaiming they executed an attack after they had planned it for a month, the conversation is derailed back towards the argument “why would you defend Israel?”.
I don’t defend Israel, I’m defending the truth about the events from Sunday. I worry that people like yourself think it’s ok to lie about clear facts because they (probably) think it will make the world better.
Well let me start by saying that your take on the conflict is, again, very one sided. It’s history and how we got to this point is a lot more nuanced. That is a different discussion than the initial one but of course related.
My take on that, in brief, comes down to both Arab nationalists/islamists and zionists/jews seeing around 1920 that it would eventually come to an armed conflict between the two religious sides, and both moving their mindset to remove the other from the territory. And it did come to an armed conflict, which one side won and the other lost.
But even then, there is a lot of nuance as there was and is a spectrum between extremists and people who want to live in peace. Over time, violence from both sides has shifted that spectrum. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that it was not always like this, but up until the first intifada, someone from Gaza could just go visit their friends in the Kibbutz next door.
And you can say that the blame for all this falls squarely on the zionists for slowly moving towards their goal, but I would counter that it also falls on the islamists: instead of a two-state solution, they chose to fight and lost. (Whether they were right to do this is yet another discussion.) But after they lost the military conflict(s), they then chose to never give up and continue to, as you say, antagonize Israel until the end of time. The friendly peaceful rocket attacks from Hezbollah are part of this. And the prospect of this neverending violence has greatly shifted and hardened the mindset on the moderate Israelis as well, which spiralled into the current situation.
That’s because you (and a lot of other lemmings) expect these ‘converstations’ to be warm and simplistic, circlejerking how Israel is bad. Am I ‘derailing’ the conversation by stating the OP’s collage is idiotic? Their take that a strike cannot be called pre-emptive because they don’t like the side that did it is just very, very idiotic. And when I call people out for this idiocy, the argument shifts towards an even more idiotic one : “Hezbollah never planned an attack, that’s an Israeli lie”. When I point out that stupidity by refering to the chief of Hezbollah proudly proclaiming they executed an attack after they had planned it for a month, the conversation is derailed back towards the argument “why would you defend Israel?”.
I don’t defend Israel, I’m defending the truth about the events from Sunday. I worry that people like yourself think it’s ok to lie about clear facts because they (probably) think it will make the world better.