|
|
|
|
|
by edanm
777 days ago
|
|
Edit: I removed language that, on reflection (after it being pointed out by my co-partner in this discussion), I shouldn't have used. > There were mitigating factors, to be sure. But it sounds like, to a first-order approximation, we agree: the land was taken by force. While it might be a "true fact", it's gaslighting to suggest that despite Jews agreeing to a non-violent plan, despite Israel being attacked with the probable intent of wiping it out completely, despite all that, it's ok to characterize the land capture to help protect itself in this defensive war as "land taken by force". That's just not how most people would use that phrase. > So if you like we can keep our powder dry in regard to those, and concentrate on hopes for some form of de-escalation and a cessation of massive bloodletting in the current moment. This I can agree with wholeheartedly. I have no idea what is best for the future (I don't see any peace being achieved with Hamas in place, frankly) but the current situation is awful and has to change. |
|
That's not my vibe, man. And I think I'd prefer not to pursue this line of discussion any further.